The Iraq Strategy: The Pigeon's Response

Carly writes:   "I hope you're going to address this topic yourself at some point. If/when you do, would you please include an evaluation of/response to this reply to your question by William Buckley.

First, from my perspective.

I posed the strategy question to my class, and almost to a student we came to a similar conclusion:  "A great idea!  But about 3 years too late."

On the plus side, I'm glad Pres. Bush recognized it's not just about seizing ground; it's also about holding ground.  Sure, we can kick ass and take names in a pithily-named search and destroy mission, but once you clear an area out you must also convince the enemy it's not a good idea to come back.  In simplest terms that means putting a soldier with a belt-fed weapon on every street corner, and also stuffing his pockets with MREs, candy, and dinars to hand out to locals.  Tell the enemy you're there to stay, and at the same time tell the locals you're there to help.  And it's a helluva lot easier to build public works when there's no one shooting. 

Of course, on casual observation 20,000 troops is not enough to secure Iraq.  But remember my post from a few weeks back:  we don't have to secure every street corner in every province--we need to focus on Anbar province and Baghdad proper.  I think we could do it, providing the moles we whack don't find refuge in other provinces once the additional troops set up permanent shop.

But here's the bad.  First, about my "3 years late" bit; Democracies and time don't work very well together, especially when the public perceives nebulous objectives and end games.  I know the dope with the Saddam Nooseain regime:  he used chemical weapons on another sovereign state (Iran) and his own people, and he invaded two sovereign states (Iran and Kuwait).  Intent and willingness, let alone he built his throne with the skulls of his own people--not the kind of fellow I want sitting on an oil reserve. 

But what did Bush hype?  Just the current presence of WMD, which we didn't find.  Based on my assessment, it doesn't matter--Saddam had already pulled the chemical trigger.  But to Joe America, Bush went looking for WMD and came up empty handed.  So what do you tell Joe America now?  We're there to stop terrorism?  Would there be terrorism in Iraq in the first place if we'd never went at all?

Next, let's look at national will.  I feel pretty safe in saying the average American had something to lose in World War II--Hitler was paving the road to Britain with leg bones, Japan was monopolizing Asian economic resources by force, and we were bombed.  In short, we no-kidding felt our survival was at stake and were willing die by the hundreds of thousands to defend ourselves.  And for those who didn't shed blood on the battlefield the home front was still a world of sacrifice.  I mean, can you imagine a post-9/11 war on terror with food rationing?  Scrap drives?  Rosie the Riveter?

I can't, either.  The average American does not have a stake in the war on terror.  As long as their broadband works, the Starbucks opens on time and gas doesn't reach $5 a gallon, who cares?  How do you explain 3,000+ dead, tens of thousands wounded, and billions spent to a public who doesn't understand an ambiguous war on terror?  As an outsider to all the political and pundit backbiting and mudslinging, I see political camera hogs jockeying for position but only a fraction of the nation actually bleeding for the cause.   So how do you motivate the will of a people who don't know what real sacrifice tastes like?

So you now have ill-defined objectives, no timetable, an impatient public angry at the war and because the Bush speech preempted their "Lost" rerun, and a public that knows 3,000 people died on American soil yet forgot once the next Paris-got-a-DWI story hit the wires.  Then you tell them the pre-OIF Iraqi government actually didn't have WMD and Saddam thought al-Qaida was a bunch of chumps.  Pres. Bush, my friends, has a will of steel for trying to convince an apathetic public that sending 20k more troops to Iraq is a good idea, regardless of the strategic soundness.  I'm sure he can pull it off in the near term, and those of us in uniform will do what we have to do.  But how long can you keep the troops there?  To wit, look at the Balkans:  there's been ongoing peacekeeping operations in the region for over 10 years, and that's without an insurgency or steady flow of flag-draped caskets.

Me, I'm glad Saddam's gone.  I understand why Bush Sr. left him in power 16 years ago, but now I wish we'd taken him out sooner rather than letting him fester in place and his country go to pot.  As it is, I know Bush Dubya will have a hard time of it--but we can't leave.  We walk out on Iraq and that'll not only send a powerful message to the Middle East street, it'll also drive Iraq into absolute ruin.  Joe America or Europe might not give a damn, but those of us who know what's at stake and can mentally handle strategic ambiguity do give a damn. 

But if I could give one person a fat lip, it'd be Paul Bremmer for his gutting of the Iraqi civil system.

Next, for those of you who want my take on Mr. Buckley's article I ask you read it first, otherwise my comments won't have context.  With that:

(1) Is it a strain to send more troops to Iraq?

A.  On the troops, yes.  On the public, they think it's a strain on them because the media says it is.  On the budget, it stings a little but we can't take it (bake sales work, too).  But imagine the strain if we fail in Iraq...

(2) Is our Iraqi enterprise worth a corporate commitment by the United States?

A.  Buckley focused on Bush's failure to explain why failure in Iraq would be a bad thing.  I think Bush failed to explain why we went in the first place, or at least hyped too small a segment.

(3) How does the Iraq question bear on the Iran question?

A.  Buckley's right on the nose with how Iran's got it's hand in the pot.  But he doesn't really explain why.  I know, I know... "because we're the Great Satan."  Heard it before, have the t-shirt.  But let's say you were the President of Iran, and your country happened to be all but surrounded by an enemy who just savaged your neighboring governments.  Wouldn't you be anxious?  Don't get me wrong: I certainly don't support Iran's basic "if it's not Persian or Shi'a, it's crap" tenet; but as we're acting on our own National Security, so is Iran looking out for their own.

(4) Then doesn't it follow that the U.S. role in Iraq is indeed critical?

A.  To excerpt Buckley:  "No, actually. The United States could help the Maliki government in Iraq fight the insurgents. But the evidence, in the last two years especially, is that the strength of the insurgents lies not in their military organization but in their techniques."

I sort of buy his answer, except I think the insurgency's better organized than he assesses.  More importantly, I don't think he's answering the question, or at least answering it as I interpret it.  My taken then?  Yes, our role is critical!  I don't want to pull the Iraqi government's weight forever, but if we unilaterally pulled out now?  One of two things will happen:  either the insurgents will say, "Well, looks like they're gone--let's go back home!" or the already bulging sectarian seams will rip apart and Iraq'll become one of those pesky failed states I always rant about.  Then, if we decide to go back in and patch things up the cost will be significantly greater.  That said, since hope and optimism have no place in sound geopolitical analysis I think the first scenario is unlikely.

(5) The sectarian character of the Iraqi population, which is the source of divisiveness extending beyond any dislike or resentment of the United States.

A.  I don't have an answer for this, as it goes back to my paragraph on national will above:  how long are we willing to leave Private Snuffy out on the street corner with a belt fed weapon to keep the Shi'a, Sunni and Kurd from slitting each other's throats? 

But we're really damned if we don't. 

"On the basis of this analysis I will vote for supplementary U.S. involvement in Iraq."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted at Outside the Beltway, Is It Just Me?, The Random Yak, The HILL Chronicles, stikNstein... has no mercy, basil's blog, Blue Star Chronicles, Stuck On Stupid, and Dumb Ox News

Comments

[carly]

I actually like the logic of what Krauthammer wrote in his WaPo column today.

What do you think?

Also, I'm shocked (though I guess I shouldn't be) that less than 2/3 of the American people (according to a survey) even HOPE or WANT the surge to be successful. WTF is that about? They don't WANT it to work? Oy....has politics really trumped everything else in so many people's minds? Or could there be some other reason Americans don't WANT us to have good/better results in Iraq?