Killing the Patient

I should mention with regard to ongoing discussion of the Center for American Progress' recent Iraq report that one of the report's main authors, Brian Katulis, had a brilliant (and shorter) piece out earlier this month specifically on the foolhardy nature of the training mission:

The United States has poured more than $20 billion into building an Iraqi national army and police force designed to defend a government that simply cannot forge the key political compromises necessary to unite their own country. The so-called “surge” of U.S. forces, alongside stepped up training of the Iraqi army and police, is supposed to create the political “space” necessary for the country’s squabbling political leaders to reach these compromises, yet that’s not happening.

Why? Most of Iraq’s violence is related to a vicious struggle for power that only has a political solution. Training and skills building are not the fundamental issue for Iraq’s security forces. In fact many of Iraqi security forces have more training than hundreds of U.S. soldiers being deployed as part of this surge. Their problems are motivation and allegiance.

Right. Politics is strictly primary in this kind of situation. If you have a political actor whose goals you support, and that actor has a bunch of people prepared to fight for those goals, then you might come in and offer weapons and training to help them achieve their goals. But the idea that US military personnel are hypnotists whose training methods are going to transform Iraqi fighters into the people it would be convenient to us for them to be is silly.

Comments

It's when we talk about the training of Iraqi troops and police to support the current Iraqi regime that we run into the most telling parallels between Iraq and Vietnam.

Posted by Steve | June 26, 2007 4:58 PM

But this training will make them deadlier when they join militias and massacre each other.

Posted by urkel | June 26, 2007 5:09 PM

In line with comments on an earlier post, don't our efforts amount to helping one side in a civil war, the only available path to victory?

Posted by y81 | June 26, 2007 7:55 PM

The problems of Vietnam were political too.

The South Vietnamese government had a legitimacy problem because we created and maintained it. It had zero real legitimacy within the country.

That political weakness doomed all our efforts at control, just as they are dooming all our efforts at control in Iraq.

We created the government, but it has zero real national legitimacy, so it must be propped up with force. It cannot exist outside the vast bubble of the Green Zone and ordinary Iraqis refer to their "elected leaders" as "the Puppets" (see Riverbend's blog for details).

There is no solution for this but total withdrawal and then bringing all regional powers in to help mediate the civil war and bring some measure of national reconciliation. At some point, compromise will seem better to the Iraqi people than killing each other and then they'll have peace.

But we won't control their country at that point.

It is our efforts at control that are destabilizing the situation and making everything worse. But, because loss of control is considered the worst possible scenario we search for solutions that maintain control.

And there are no solutions that maintain our control, nor is it possible to go back to the situation before we made everything worse, just as in Vietnam it was impossible to go back to the situation in 1960 when things were relatively under control in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.

Before in short, we came in and caused a total loss of control by insisting on total control and fighting an increasingly hopeless war to maintain that control long after any possible positive solution had disappeared.

Posted by Cugel | June 26, 2007 10:30 PM

This post and the excellent comments are at the heart of the matter. If it takes less than 11 weeks of boot camp to make a US marine, why does it take four years and counting to make an Iraqi policeman or soldier?

From the beginning of history, motivated soldiers fight viciously and unmotivated troops don't fight at all. Training makes viciousness more effective, but it won't overcome lack of motivation.

Posted by TOLFTRP | June 26, 2007 10:36 PM

If it takes less than 11 weeks of boot camp to make a US marine, why does it take four years and counting to make an Iraqi policeman or soldier?

It's the CEO mentality. The employees are screwing up and you need a corrective measure. Training is doing something, it's a prescription, and just like in the workplace even if the problem is really obviously not a lack of training (workplace safety jumps to mind).

You see the same sort of scenario with police departments. They get caught beating up an old man or something and the problem gets framed as a training issue. They didn't get their "don't beat up old people" training so after that they run all the cops through some classes, like the problem was that because they were minimally trained they dished out a beating. Me having no training would have obviously had him bite his dentures on the sidewalk and curbed him, and these new cops are never, ever, going to be brutal because they had some classes.

Posted by Ed Marshall | June 26, 2007 11:03 PM

Posted by Cugel | June 26, 2007 10:30 PM:"The South Vietnamese government had a legitimacy problem because we created and maintained it. It had zero real legitimacy within the country."

Well technically the French created and maintained it. The Americans took over from them. It is noticeable that the South Vietnamese Army had few problems defeating the Northern Army after the US withdrawal as long as American air support was there. This is not a sign of an Army with zero legitimacy. It did what the Iraqi Army will not. It had zero credibility in American Universities, but that is separate from what the ordinary Vietnamese thought.

Posted by Cugel | June 26, 2007 10:30 PM:"We created the government, but it has zero real national legitimacy, so it must be propped up with force."

That government was elected by the Iraqi people. You might have remembered the election. Nor did America get the government it wants. It does have little credibility, but it does not have zero.

Remember that the passive lukewarm support of many is easily offset by the intense hatred of a few. Do not confuse the two.

Posted by Cugel | June 26, 2007 10:30 PM:"There is no solution for this but total withdrawal and then bringing all regional powers in to help mediate the civil war and bring some measure of national reconciliation. At some point, compromise will seem better to the Iraqi people than killing each other and then they'll have peace."

I agree entirely with the last bit, but disagree entirely with the first bit. Iraqis probably are tired of the violence now. The minority of hard core radicals are not. They cannot defeat the US except at home. If public support holds up then they will, in the end, give up as well. There is no reason to think a regional conference will do anything as the competing interests of those nations are irreconcilable. Nor do they suffer the consequences and hence have no pressure to make peace. The only outcome of a US withdrawal will be massive Iranian support for their favored candidates followed by a massacre of anyone who resists. The alternative is to hold on and wait the insurgents out.

Posted by Cugel | June 26, 2007 10:30 PM:"It is our efforts at control that are destabilizing the situation and making everything worse."

There is no reason to think that the US is in any way whatsoever destabilizing. It does keep the neighbors from sending large numbers of soldiers in to butcher anyone they don't like which is prolonging the fighting. An Iranian occupation would end the insurgency very quickly. But would that be a good thing in the long run? The Iraqis don't care about the US any more. They are too busy doing what is important and killing each other. They know the US is going.

Posted by Cugel | June 26, 2007 10:30 PM:"And there are no solutions that maintain our control"

On the contrary, there are no solutions that will result in the US leaving except a collapse of support at home (which has, of course, already happened). Terrorists cannot defeat a real Army except politically.

As in Lebanon, in the end, everyone gets tired of the fighting and will accept a negotiated peace. Bombing Iran might help too.

Posted by TOLFTRP | June 26, 2007 10:36 PM:"If it takes less than 11 weeks of boot camp to make a US marine, why does it take four years and counting to make an Iraqi policeman or soldier?"

Americans will fight and die for the flag, Iraqis will not or will only do so for their tribe or Sect. At least without a vicious totalitarian state to murder their relatives if they desert or retreat a la Saddam.

Posted by HeiGou | June 27, 2007 5:27 AM

"It is noticeable that the South Vietnamese Army had few problems defeating the Northern Army after the US withdrawal as long as American air support was there. This is not a sign of an Army with zero legitimacy."

Yes it was. It was an army which could only prevail, to a very limited extent, when it had massive air support - from the outside.

When it had itself, its own air force and (despite the myth) substantial logistical support from the USA, it lost. Very quickly.

"That government was elected by the Iraqi people. You might have remembered the election. Nor did America get the government it wants. It does have little credibility, but it does not have zero."

And 'little credibility' is not enough, so it seems. We've got some Kurdish units who'll fight - for Kurdistan. We've got some Shiite units, who'll fight - for what their militia leaders tell them to. We've got beaucoup Shiite militia units, who'll fight - for power, loot, and to kill Sunni's (probably killing US troops on the side, but that's not to be acknowledged). We've got some Sunni units, who'll fight - but probably against the US, and definitely against the Shiites.

Posted by Barry | June 27, 2007 11:01 AM

Posted by Barry | June 27, 2007 11:01 AM:"Yes it was. It was an army which could only prevail, to a very limited extent, when it had massive air support - from the outside."

"To a limited extent"? It beat the crap out of the North Vietnamese Army when they invaded in 1972. They sent 1,000 tanks south of the border. This is heavy and serious fighting. Of the sort the Iraqi Army could not do. It proved that the south retained significant support and its Army remained credible. It did need massive air support but the North had massive Soviet and Chinese aid too. The south only fell, two years after US Air support was cut off, when Congress made it a one-sided fight with two Veto powers on one side and no one on the other.

Posted by Barry | June 27, 2007 11:01 AM:"When it had itself, its own air force and (despite the myth) substantial logistical support from the USA, it lost. Very quickly."

Without US Army support and in the face of a massive Soviet supplied conventional Army it did lose. But it did not collapse in 1972 or in 1973. With US air support it beat the North. That is still not nothing. It was not the useless Army of leftist mythology.

Posted by Barry | June 27, 2007 11:01 AM:"We've got some Sunni units, who'll fight - but probably against the US, and definitely against the Shiites."

Indeed. All propaganda to the contrary, Arab nationalism is a myth and not even Iraq has been able to transcend tribalism.

Posted by HeiGou | June 27, 2007 11:28 AM