Associated Press Baghdad Bureau Chief Robert Reid and his chief military reporter Robert Burns published a dispatch from Iraq over the weekend that should have made banner headlines. “It's not the end of fighting,” they wrote. “It looks like the beginning of a perilous peace.” This is exactly right, but millions of Americans still have no idea. Coverage from Iraq has diminished as much as the casualty rates since General David Petraeus implemented an effective counterinsurgency strategy in early 2007. At least we’re finally seeing a media consensus emerge after a year and a half of looking at the data as though it were inkblots on a Rorschach. It’s nearly impossible to work in Iraq anymore and deny what has happened.
Even so, this is no time to get recklessly drunk on victory and declare “mission accomplished.” Nor is this the time to bolt for the exits from an unpopular war. The peace, as Burns and Reid say, is perilous and only just now beginning. The war is still not actually even over, though the fighting has been greatly reduced. Every single last inch of progress can be reversed. Keeping the relative peace will be just as difficult, though less dangerous, than making it in the first place. “[J]udging from the security gains that have been sustained over the first half of this year,” they wrote, “as the Pentagon withdrew five Army brigades sent as reinforcements in 2007 — the remaining troops could be used as peacekeepers more than combatants.”
That’s basically already happening. The transformation of American soldiers and Marines from counterinsurgent combatants to peacekeepers has taken place all over Iraq. In fact, the most radical of General Petraeus’s strategic overhaul was the positioning of troops as peacekeepers and the defenders of Iraqi civilians before the fighting even abated. That is what brought so many Iraqis over to the American side. Some places in Iraq were so horrifically violent that nothing resembling a normal life was even possible until someone stepped in to provide basic security. Al Qaeda in Iraq and Moqtada al Sadr’s Mahdi Army militia weren’t going to do it. They were the groups that threatened Iraqi security. And the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police were too under trained, under equipped, understaffed, and corrupt to do it themselves.
A good book on the essential role of providing basic security for the populace in order to win a counterinsurgency is Nagl and Schoomaker's "Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife" (2005). The British figured a lot of this out in Malaya a long time ago.
This is totally right.
In the early days of the Iraq war, one of the points of controversy was whether it was reasonable for American troops to serve as peacekeepers (or "policemen") rather than war-fighters. There was a good deal of bloviating about the differences in training between warriors and peacekeepers.
And, as it happens, the right answer here has turned out to be doing the necessary training so our soldiers could function primarily as peacekeepers, rather than spending all their time as warriors.
When you provide law and order, people carry on with their business, and then they have a stake in law and order, and will fight against whoever disrupts it. When you don't provide law and order, they will pick one side or the other and the fighting continues.
This appears to be one of many places where the professional military pretty much knew what was needed, and what would happen if it were not provided, while the civilian leadership based our country's actual strategy on fantasy. Only once the disaster became extreme did the leadership have the sense to let Gen. Petraeus do what needed to be done.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that the Left is utterly opposed to Petraeus' surge. We are utterly opposed to the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld disaster. Some (unwisely, I think) see the surge as a continuation of Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld policies, and oppose it for that reason. Others see it as the abandonment of the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld approach, in favor of a more sensible way to dig ourselves out of this mess.
By letting the US Military become peacekeepers, policemen (and policewomen), and get on the with the essential job of nation-building (all formerly hated concepts on the Right), we might salvage something here.
Beard;
Horse pucky.
The BCR disaster was a gutsy and ultimately successful "grasping of the nettle" which no Leftist had the slightest intention of touching. The Left's disingenuous carping and undermining of the effort has been plain for all to see throughout.
No appeal to "peacekeeper" memes will save that posture now. The peacekeeper mode that is now in place is an actual, robust, aggressive peace-making effort that is light-years separated from the anemic and reactive model the UN and other Leftist organizations typically bandage over messes they can't resolve.
The BCR disaster was a gutsy and ultimately successful "grasping of the nettle"
I'm glad we were ultimately successful. Mission accomplished.
In fact a few of us on the left supported the BCR disaster from the onset - hey, I always thought the left was AGAINST tyranny.
But it seemed to me, and I imagine I'm not the only one on the left who thought so, that the war and diplomacy has been nearly lost by mismanagement of BCR - the hubristic diplomacy, Guantanamo, failure of intel.
I'm not defended leftists here - but if the war is to be ultimately successful, still a huge if, it will be because it went on long enough for the grownups to take over.
Beard is a perfect example of the goalpost shifting that the Left is undergoing.
Policemen? The ROE's that our troops were following was to hunt down the enemy and kill him. Policemen, jeez give me a break......
What a hoot! Um, Beard, this is exactly what Bush was saying years ago re: 'stay the course.'
You gotta be kidding me. How is the Surge NOT a continuation of BCR? Bush's responsibility for the war is only when things aren't working out. Gotcha.
[Some Dude: Your choice of markup made Movable Type confused. I changed things a bit so all your text should be displayed.
Please don't set off quoted text with angle brackets. I suggest using the "blockquote" markup at the start of each quoted paragraph (see the hints posted just above the comment-entry fields), and for best formatting, separate quoted text from your own text with a blank line. --NM]
[Substantially-duplicate post. Deleted. --NM]
Bush himself, in announcing the surge. "It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq."
Bzzzt. Sorry, Some Dude, but thanks for playing.
[Multiple copies of identical post deleted. --NM]
You guys have done a fine job of illustrating exactly the kind of carping I was referring to. The point of MIchael Totten's post, and the quote from him that I headed my comment [#2] with, was that the surge has worked because Petraeus has changed the ROEs.
Brian H [#3]: pretty much all I can tell from your comment was that you liked the "BCR disaster" and that you don't like the Left. If you actually want to make an argument, you should probably provide some facts, preferably with URLs so we can check whether they are "true facts".
Some Dude [#6]: AJL has already disposed of your comment on the Surge just being a continuation of the classic BCR disaster. But on a separate issue, if you had been reading here for long enough, you would have seen that I give GWB full credit for his excellent and important speech on 9-20-01. (Go back and read it.) If he had been willing to stay that course, he might have had a serious crack at greatness. But instead he got seduced by Iraq.
Beard, my son deployed for the invasion and once again for the surge. I have both ROE cards that were issued to him, both identical. Tactics may have changed but the heavy lifters were busy cleaning out the rats nest.
Slingshot [#10]: Best wishes to your son for a safe and successful deployment.
I think we may be using the same terms ("ROE") in different senses. I certainly accept your word that these ROE cards are identical across the two deployments. Nonetheless, it has been widely reported, by the news, by the White House, by the military, and by Michael Totten in this very post, that the approach taken by our troops in Iraq has changed dramatically with the Surge.
What shall we make of this apparent contradiction?
I doubt that we have been lied to (about this, anyway). Rather, I suspect that the same term is being used in different senses. Perhaps someone else can clear this up.
Meanwhile, I stand by my claim that (at least in its current phase, and quite possibly before) the success of the Surge is due more to the fact that our troops are succeeding in creating a secure environment for the people of Iraq --- that is, they are acting as policemen --- than that they are acting as warriors, tracking down and killing bad guys.
I'm sure that both activities continue to go on, but the movement is from warriors to peacekeepers.
Beard and Andrew Lazarus:
The Left wanted the US military to leave immediately. Or in other words: to the Left, change of course meant leave.
Bush wanted to stay the course, i.e. to Bush, change of course meant not leave, but find a way to win.
"I'm sure that both activities continue to go on, but the movement is from warriors to peacekeepers."
Uh, yeah, because we are in the process of winning. If the Left had its way, the movement would have been from warriors to defeated warriors.
So if Bush and Cheney don't get credit for the Surge, enlighten me. Who will?
(this oughta be good.)
Beard - I believe you and Slingshot are talking at cross purposes. He is using ROE in its correct military interpretation as 'rules of engagement': When and how force - particularly lethal force - may be used.
You're referring - I believe - to the change in force deployment that coincided with the so-called 'surge': shifting from a pattern of patrols that return to fortified bases (wash, rinse, repeat) to instead deploying in smaller units into neighborhoods alongside the Iraqi Army, police and (as it developed) the Sahwa/'Sons of Iraq' local volunteers, and staying there. As I think you're saying, that shift was at least as important as providing more troops in improving the Iraq situation. Having more troops meant we could then stay on the ground until the Iraqi forces had taken hold, rather than continue playing 'whack-a-mole', where the AQI/insurgents returned as we moved on.
It's unfortunate in many ways that the media seized on 'surge' as the shorthand for the whole strategy shift. 'Surge' was certainly used as part of the description, but it's not some word that Petraeus or Bush or McCain made up, it's a term of art in areas like logistics and emergency planning (google 'surge capacity' for some good examples). Focusing on numbers alone missed much of the point, but it made for good sound bites, I guess.
I'm still not sure that 'peacekeepers' is quite the right word for what seems to be going on. More like a largish chunk of the force has moved into the type of advisor role that has been SOF stock-in-trade in the past. In this case a goulash of training, settling disputes, trying to reduce corruption and sectarianism, a little fighting, and whatever else walks in the door, judging from a sampling of milblogs and embeds. Probably something only the troops can do - they've earned the local's respect the very hard way.
Another good chunk of the force is now the backup for the Iraqis, if they get into something too big to handle. That includes big ticket / high complexity things like supporting fires, medical facilities, and much of the logistics. And I'm assuming that we've still got a very active intelligence and high value targets effort going.
So now we're getting down to two unavoidable questions:
- Can that effort create an Iraqi army that is professionalized, non-sectarian, and (let's be realistic) moderately free of corruption. We'll know we've won on this one (IMO) if we see a professionalized Iraqi NCO corps in a few years.
- (The real toughie) Do the Iraqis really want to be a nation together, or are tribal or sectarian influences too strong for national cohesion?
IF both of those can be answered yes, then you can see a scenario in which:
- There is a reasonably democratic, diverse and rights respecting Iraqi government.
- Which is guaranteed by a professionalized Iraqi army
- In turn guaranteed by a division or two of our forces sitting out in the desert somewhere, with a few still acting as advisors and support.
If the army thing works out, we'll have created an Iraqi force that can kick the butt of any of its neighbors (including the Saudis with their fancy toys). Which makes it good that we're still holding onto the functions like air power and logistics: Those are what you need to project force, onto either your neighboring tribe or country. Best to make sure the governance question has a good answer before turning over the keys to that car.
This is a fine example of a classic fallacy that often arises in political arguments, committed by people on both sides of course, but here I'm talking to you.
"The Left" is not a unified being, that "wants" or "means" anything. It is a name for a poorly-defined group of people with a wide range of beliefs and desires. There is a family resemblance among their beliefs and desires, but to say "The Left wanted ..." is just foolishness.
It's perfectly reasonable to say, "Many Leftists want ...", or "Many Leftists mean ...", and then argue against what those folks want or mean. But to treat "The Left" as having unified beliefs is a fallacy. In fact, look back in this thread to [phx #4], who describes himself as a Leftist and disagrees with me. No problem.
Just to put the shoe on the other foot, if I say "The Right" believes ..., and then insert some bit of idiocy from Ann Coulter, say, you would justifiably annoyed. She certainly doesn't speak for The Right as a whole, and criticisms that can be justifiably applied to her don't necessarily apply to others on The Right.
This is worth harping on because treating a large, complex group with diverse positions as a single individual is a cause for much evil.
Thanks to Tim Oren [#13] for a long and useful reply. Unfortunately, Real Life calls. I hope to return to respond.
Beard in #14:
In light of the fact that you are the one that introduced "the Left" into this thread in your comment #2, your lecturing screed in comment #14 about how un-nuanced (and potentially evil) it is for someone else to dare use the term makes you look like a buffoon.
Beard: The question still remains. Who gets credit for the Surge/change in ROE/improving conditions on the ground? Bush/Cheney or...?
Shad [#16]: Although you do have a bit of a gotcha on me here, I still think you're being silly. First, as you can see from the quote you selected, the point I am making there is that The Left should not be thought of as having a unified position on the Surge. Second, although it's conceivable that there are some Leftists who are not opposed to the "BCR disaster", that actually seems to be quite close to a universal belief among people who would identify themselves as Leftists. Third, there is a big difference between referring to one's own group and referring to people you are criticizing.
Some Dude [#17]: As to credit for the Surge, it seems to me the Petraeus should get the credit for the good idea. I haven't followed the history well enough to know what persuaded Bush, Cheney, et al to follow his advice. I would guess that they discovered that they were up to their necks, and sinking, and were looking for anything that might help. Given what happened to Shinseki at the beginning of the war, they certainly weren't inclined to favor things like the Surge from the beginning.
Hey, I just realized something. We must have won the war.
Well, Glen, in the target post for this thread, and in a much more cautious way, that is the point Michael Totten is making.