Doing the Impossible

Brian Beutler:

For instance, right now we are trying to both extend the reach of the Maliki government as far as possible across the country and also to support Sunnis in their sectarian skirmishes against both Shiites and other Sunnis wherever an alliance is possible. Not surprisingly, these two objectives are almost definitionally at odds with each other. We're foolish to even try to promote both a factionalist and a federalist effort at the same time, but we're especially foolish when that means trying to bring a Shiite-dominated government into power over a land peppered with U.S.-supported Sunni tribal regions. My impression is that even as individual efforts these would both sink anyhow. But it's amazing that, with all of the resources the administration has handed over to the war effort, we're still approaching problems in such a way that even incremental plans are more likely to fail than they ought to be.

It's important to understand that this is the context in which the training fantasies of the "withdrawal lite" school of thought are unfolding. The training is a fallback position, a useful psychological crutch that people have also convinced themselves is a useful political crutch, but it has nothing to do with what's happening on the ground. If there are two sides fighting and you want one of them to win then, sure, you can train your side. But we're just training everyone who'll agree to be trained; equipping multiple sides in a civil conflict and creating a situation where the weapons and expertise we're providing is just as likely to be deployed against our interests as in favor of them two or four years down the road.

DOD photo by Petty Officer 2nd Class Summer M. Anderson, U.S. Navy.

Comments

Excellent point. Now fix the broken code.

Of course, for those of us who live outside of the political / policy world, trying to explain such issues to 'average Americans' is maddening. Voters don't even begin to understand the complexities of the situation in the Middle East. They just react to message, at least until the bad news just can't be covered over with bromides any more (see Iraq).

Posted by Don | July 7, 2007 11:16 AM

We got into this mess under false pretenses. It seems increasingly likely that we will require false pretenses to withdraw.

Posted by ProfD | July 7, 2007 12:14 PM

This is a great idea. We've created a situation that is going to lead to civil war whether we withdraw tomorrow or stick around for fifty years.

So let's arm and train all the factions to ensure the civil war will be fought as quickly and efficiently as possible. Let's especially focus only on offensive weapons and not on defensive techniques.

The faster it is all over, the less time Teheran will have to move in and try to take over themselves.

Training and arming all sides is the best possible policy.

Posted by Adu Boy | July 7, 2007 1:17 PM

Do you remember playing with silly putty as a child? You could roll it up in your hand and squeeze. The silly putty would not disappear. Instead, it would shoot out both sides of your hand.

President Bush’s surge in Iraq should be called the silly putty strategy. Squeeze the extremists in Baghdad and they are not defeated. Instead, the extremists redeploy and attack in another area of Iraq where U.S. forces are spread thin.

Five months into President Bush’s surge for Iraq, what has been accomplished? There has been a lack of political progress on national reconciliation upon which the surge was justified.

In Baghdad, the strategy of establishing small outposts throughout the city has put our troops at greater risk, resulting in an increased death toll. Seeking to safeguard Baghdad ’s population from sectarian conflict, a key objective of the surge, should not be confused with creating a stable and secure Iraq. In a country the size of California, Baghdad is Iraq’s largest city with 7 million residents. Yet, Iraq has 15 other major cities, hundreds of smaller cities and towns and thousands of villages with another 20 million people.

Outside of Baghdad, our forces are insufficient to address the influx of Sunni and Shia fighters that have left from Baghdad. Greg Jaffe of The Wall Street Journal reported on May 3rd: "As U.S. and Iraqi troops have surged into Baghdad to bring stability there, enemy fighters have moved into surrounding towns. U.S. commanders in these areas lack the manpower to defeat insurgents or protect the locals."

In Tarmiyah, a city of 30,000 profiled in the Wall Street Journal report, fewer than 50 U.S. troops are stationed to provide security. Simple foot patrols have become unthinkable. "If the American spend longer than 10 minutes in one place, a sniper will track them down and begin shooting. . . . Their goal is to keep the enemy off-balance, with periodic raids. It's the best they can hope for under the new U.S. ‘surge strategy,’ which some U.S. officers in Iraq say does little more than chase insurgents from one part of the country to another,” Jaffe commented.

On May 11th, Army Maj. Gen. Benjamin R. "Randy" Mixon, the commander of U.S. forces in northern Iraq, said in a Los Angeles Times report that he does not have enough troops to deal with the escalating violence in Iraq's Diyala province. "The level of violence began to increase before the surge," Mixon said. "It has increased, of course, during the surge . . . (because) we are sure that there are elements, both Sunni extremist and Shia extremist, that have moved out of Baghdad."

Following a suicide truck bombing in a Shiite farming town of just 26,000 people north of Baghdad which killed more than 100 people, Yahya Barzanji of the Associated Press wrote on July 7, 2007, that the attack was "a sign Sunni insurgents are pulling away from a U.S. offensive around the capital to attack where security is thinner." He added, "The marketplace devastation underlined a hard reality in Iraq: There are not enough forces to protect everywhere. U.S. troops, already increased by 28,000 this year, are focused on bringing calm to Baghdad, while the Iraqi military and police remain overstretched and undertrained."

Meanwhile in the United States, military families at home face greater strain because the Pentagon has extended tours of duty in Iraq to 15 months. Absent Congressional action, the escalation will continue well into 2008. Reducing troops levels at the end of the summer of 2007, which the Bush Administration suggested would occur when the surge was announced, has been abandoned. Even more troops are being sent to Iraq.

In polls, the vast majority of Iraqis, both Sunnis and Shiites, say they want American forces to leave. Let’s give the Iraqis what they want. Our troops have accomplished their mission – Saddam was removed from power, no weapons of mass destruction were found, and free and fair elections were conducted under a new Iraqi constitution.

Should we remain in a bloodbath to prevent a greater bloodbath if we leave? No.

Our troops are faced with an impossible task. They have become the targets of all sides in a civil war. It is a war of attrition. The battlefield is 360 degrees. There is no front or rear. As each day passes, more U.S. soldiers die from snipers’ bullets, roadside bombs and mortar attacks. Spouses become widows and children are left without a parent.

Almost 3,500 U.S. soldiers have been killed and 25,000 have been wounded, many suffering from traumatic brain injuries that have left them permanently disabled and in need of medical care for the remainder of their lives. The scars of this war of choice will last for generations. The longer we delay the inevitable, the deeper the wounds are inflicted.

The time is long past for the U.S. to leave Iraq. We need to leave - a total withdrawal - and launch a diplomatic offensive to try to bring stability to Iraq and the region. The candidate with a plan based on these goals, and the credibility, experience and expertise to succeed in the field of diplomacy, is Bill Richardson, whom I'm supporting for President. You can read more about his plan for Iraq at http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/issues/iraq

Posted by Stephen Cassidy | July 7, 2007 3:46 PM

Lord Chatham To Parliament 1777

"...What is your present situation there? We do not know the worst... We shall soon know, and in any event have reason to lament, what may have happened since. As to conquest, therefore, my Lords, I repeat, it is impossible. You may swell every expense and every effort still more extravagantly; pile and accumulate every assistance you can buy or borrow... If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country, I never would lay down my arms--never--never--never..."

Posted by JLong Tooth | July 7, 2007 4:13 PM

I like the approach of this post, especially the debunking of the training fantasy. I think that there's only (one and only) possibility of a not-horrible outcome is to have comprehensive regional negotiations with all Irag's neighbors. If a deal is struck they can apply pressure, control support and funds to influence the internal Iraqi factions to reach some kind of deal. Not a great chance this will work, but it is only chance of anything half-way decent happening there. If we get that far, then dump the US crony-capitalist parts of the oil law (which isn't going to pass without sneaky dishonest hijinks anyway), use medium and long term financial incentive to get international help both financial and peacekeeping wise for Iraq, and think about long term solutions to Iraqi government funding problems.

Then the US gets all the way out, except maybe as a token part of an international force. Blow up the stupid mega-air bases, so the big bad Chinese, or Russians can't use them. (or whatever new fell and existential-threat enemy the GOP thinks up to scare the populace during the next election cycle)

Blow hards on TV and warmongers will tell you a hundred reasons why this won't work. But the trick is that Cheney/Bush have been doing everything possible to make such an effort impossible. So that defeatist talk is junk.

The only other option is to just get all the way out and hope for the best.

Not sure what the blog owner's Recommended Master Plan is for Iraq, but I think he is correct on warning against split the difference moderates' withdraw light, or middling mucking through approach . That stuff is just a chicken-sh*t version of the failed 'stay the course' approach. The US policy is incoherent, is leading to no feasible strategic goal that makes sense (except to US oil companies once the dust settles). The approach is bad. Cheney/Bush cannot, have not, and will not be able to ever, tell you want victory means in Iraq other than 'oil law' and 'US bases' -but they can't even talk about those two things out in the open otherwise the US population would be so sickened by their disgusting vision that their would be popular political revolt.

Anyone who wants to garrisoin a significant number of troops on them airbases needs to explain why we need them. What are they for?

Should impeach and remove Cheney and Bush for this mess. Guess we have to cross our fingers and hope things do not blow up before 2009, and we don't get a chicken-sh*t version of "stay the course" with the Pres.

Posted by anon | July 7, 2007 6:06 PM