Ten Years

I want to just reiterate how crazy the idea that we're ten years from victory in Iraq by briefly recollecting America's attempted intervention in Lebanon's 1980s-vintage civil war. We went in, you'll recall, in 1982, about six years into the fighting, and really expanded our mandate in 1983. This led to the bombing of the Marine barracks later in '83, and US forces were withdrawn in early 1984.

Some people think the Reagan administration made the right call by withdrawing; others think it did the wrong thing. Nobody, however, regard the intervention as a great success. Nevertheless, the civil war ended just five years later with the 1989 Taif Agreement. To say that our current policy is working and needs just ten more years to stabilize Iraq is lunacy -- just leaving stands a perfectly good chance of working just as quickly at radically lower cost.

UPDATE: Yes, I know that the total duration of the Lebanese Civil War was longer than that. The point is to put the ten years time horizon into some perspective. Even an effort to stabilize a country that everyone agrees was a failure, like America's 1983 peacekeeping efforts in Lebanon, can come fewer than ten years away from the dawn of stability. By a similar token, the American Civil War ended fewer than ten years after James Buchanan's blunders. Ten years isn't just longer than America has political will to sustain, it's genuinely too long. Policies that work accomplish their goals faster than that, something that's supposed to unfold at the speed Petraeus is talking about isn't working at all.

Comments

This analysis seems a bit strange. Wiki has the Lebanese Civil War as running 15 years, and I think most people would say the relevant period was longer than that.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 26, 2007 1:28 PM

Well, and there were a few things you left out, Matt. Just before the beginning of the 'civil war' in Lebanon, there was a dominance in the government by the Christian party called the Phalangists. During their thirty years of being in power, Lebanon was considered to be a relative Garden of Eden, when compared to other places in the Middle East.

About 8 years after the 67 War, the PFLP, headed by Yasser Arafat (and later admitted by him), tried to assassinate the Christian President, but failed. Gunmen from the Phalangists retaliated against a bus full of Palestinian Arabs...and the fight was on.

See this site as a partial source for the start of the war:

http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/lima/lebanon1975.htm

In the next 15 Years there were a number of settlement, cease-fires, and actions that led to the predominance of Syria into Lebanon, who supported the Muslims fighting the Christians (and largely reduced the number of christians by using genocide, or, if that is too harsh a word, call it a form of Serbianization of Kosovo?). It wasn't until the Christians didn't have any power that it ended, with Syria in control of Lebanon, except for when Israel, tired of Islamic terrorists attacking Syria, put their army into Lebanon and ended up with a protracted period of peace.

You're oversimplifying things a bit here, Matthew, and your passion for your position shouldn't overrule your brain in making discussion points. Unless, of course, your idea is to provide so many holes in your thought process that it is easy for those who see it, to point them out. In that case, it was a brilliant mini-post.

Posted by thePilot | August 26, 2007 1:53 PM

I'm not sure that Petraeus' comment that we'll be in Iraq in some way from nine to ten years is equivalent to stating that we're ten years from victory.

Posted by ProfD | August 26, 2007 2:07 PM

I'd agree with other posters that we don't really know how long an Iraqi civil would last once U.S. troops left. But I think that's a secondary point.

The main point to make here is that it is ludicrous to think that the U.S. will have the political will to continue the occupation for another ten years. If most or all of the current troop contingent is still there in November 2008 then there will be a major bloodbath among the Republicans running at that time. And if the Democrats haven't got the troops out by 2010 they will catch it in the chin too. Politicians will get the message, or they won't be in office for long.

The "residual force" malarkey won't last, either. A smaller force confined to the shiny new bases won't be viable; it wouldn't be able to keep itself defended or resupplied. Once some U.S. forces start coming out, the rest will follow not long after.

Posted by jimBOB | August 26, 2007 3:43 PM

There's strength and weakness to the Lebanon parallel.

Strength is that Reagan did not try to sell Americans that the barraks bombing was proof that we were winning, that increasing violence in Lebanon was not a demonstration of the desperation of the various factions there. Reagan looked into the future and knew that Americans would not support a decades long military project to stabilize Lebanon, and GTFO.

Weakness is that Reagan hadn't invaded Lebanon with the goal of toppling its government, didn't disband Lebanon's army or purge Lebanon of its bureaucrats, and didn't then step back and wait to see how many flowers would grow...with the excuase "freedom's messy" to cover the anarchy that predictably breaks out in the absence of authority.

Nonetheless, had Reagan decided to double-down after the barracks bombing, our troops might still be sitting ducks in the militia-land of Lebanon, trying to keep the Palestinians and Hezbollah and the Druze and the Phalange apart, and being handy targets for anyone wishing to demonstrate their power to the civilian population.

That, after all, was the point of 9/11. Osama aimed to prove that he could attack the USA with impunity, and so rally support from Muslims throughout the region.

Posted by cpl | August 26, 2007 4:39 PM

Matt,

I thought Petraeus had actually studied these things fairly carefully in his career, and was generally regarded as something of an expert on modern insurgencies and counter-insurgencies. So don't you think, despite your two exciting examples of Lebanon and the (anachronistic) American Civil War, that when he says counter-insurgencies typically take about 9 to 10 years, he probably knows what he is talking about? Anyway, your description of his judgment as "lunacy" seems quite far over the top.

Posted by Dan Kervick | August 26, 2007 4:51 PM

the treasury is exhausted now. ten years at $9 billion a month? i don't think so.

notice, no need to compare iraq to any other conflict. we simply cannot afford to continue this madness; we can't afford what has already been committed. troops out now.

Posted by english teacher | August 26, 2007 4:51 PM

Four permanent--and possibly defensible--bases overlooking the primary source of oil in an era of increasing oil dependence and increasing competition for the oil that's left. Everything else is dross.

Posted by terry in az | August 26, 2007 4:57 PM

The problem is that Petraeus spoke of "winning" if we stay there 10 years. We won the war we fought in Iraq long ago. Right now we are just occupying Iraq trying to wait until the various factions decide to stop killing people and start working on a coalition government. But, they now have a coalition government, so even by that criteria we have already won the occupation.

Let's get real. "Winning" is code for Iraq allowing US oil companies to siphon off the profits from Iraq's oil. And, it means Iraq accepting a perpetual occupation and massive US military bases in Iraq. Guessing how long that would take is just a PR gimmick.

Petraeus was chosen by Bush. Lunacy is the most accurate word to use in this context.

Posted by Hoppy | August 26, 2007 5:02 PM

I would like to know how many people who comment here on this blog believe that there will be US forces in Iraq in 2017? I am not asking you about you preferences, only your predictions. And just to make the question clearer, I'm not just talking about a handful of soldiers detailed to protect an embassy or teach a few pilots how to fly helicopters, but something more substantial. So then let's pick a threshold number like 2500. The question then is which of the following is more probable:

There will at least 2500 US military personnel in Iraq in 2017;

or

There will be fewer than 2500 US military personnel in Iraq in 2017.

Posted by Dan Kervick | August 26, 2007 5:25 PM

Dan Kervick

I think we'll be below 2500 well before 2017. I'd be surprised if it doesn't happen before 2010. Keeping lots of forces in that snake pit would be a good way to destroy your administration, if you are an incoming president in 2009.

Posted by jimBOB | August 26, 2007 5:55 PM

"Ten years isn't just longer than America has political will to sustain, it's genuinely too long. Policies that work accomplish their goals faster than that, something that's supposed to unfold at the speed Petraeus is talking about isn't working at all."

Yup!

And we also have a reoccurring, slight problem in the failure to recognize that military goals are different than political goals. One seeking to achieve either would be wise to choose the appropriate means.

Posted by JustMe | August 26, 2007 6:16 PM

I can't imagine that there will be 2,500 US troops in Iraq in 2017. This war is deeply unpopular. Much more so that the morons in the MSM seem to understand. The American people have no desire to sustain ten more years of this crap even on a much smaller scale.

Posted by Klein's tiny left nut | August 26, 2007 6:37 PM

I think the focus here should be on the Bush administration, and whether it is competent enough to accomplish the said victory in Vietnam in another ten years...

;)

And talking about Bush's goals in Iraq, were we not supposed to have a Palestinian state this year? Wasn't 2007 the date Bush set for achieving Palestinian statehood? Is it going to happen in the next three months? Surely, no Democrat or other traitorous cowardly fiend in domestic policy has interfered with the Great Plan / Bush Roadmap, so where is the Palestinian state?

Posted by Abhinav Aima | August 26, 2007 6:52 PM

I think the focus here should be on the Bush administration, and whether it is competent enough to accomplish the said victory in Vietnam in another ten years...

;)

And talking about Bush's goals in Iraq, were we not supposed to have a Palestinian state this year? Wasn't 2007 the date Bush set for achieving Palestinian statehood? Is it going to happen in the next three months? Surely, no Democrat or other traitorous cowardly fiend in domestic policy has interfered with the Great Plan / Bush Roadmap, so where is the Palestinian state?

Posted by Abhinav Aima | August 26, 2007 6:53 PM

Let's get real. "Winning" is code for Iraq allowing US oil companies to siphon off the profits from Iraq's oil. Posted by Hoppy

No, it is not about a few "Big Oil" companies getting profits. It is about ensuring that Western Civ Japan, India, Asian Tigers maintain their access to energy supplies and that the energy markets remain stable and fair.

It's not the evil capitalist running dog profit motive Lefties clueless of global markets imagine. It is a strategic matter - a vital national interest not just of ours, but most nations. Lefty fixation on "Big Oil" companies is silly. ME oil is now national asset, and Big Oil competes with other foreign companies, state-owned and private, to offer the best service for the lowest price.

And the more stable the region, the less the profit the speculators and corrupt take of each lower priced barrel and the more fields can be found and utilized at best price.

And, it means Iraq accepting a perpetual occupation and massive US military bases in Iraq....Petraeus was chosen by Bush. Lunacy is the most accurate word to use in this context.
Posted by Hoppy

No more than Germany was occupied by the fact of massive US military bases for the 40-year long course of the Cold War. The US was there to stop the Red Army and ensure a stable, democratic Europe conducive to our strategic interests continued. Same with our "massive bases" in Asia. As for saying appointing Petraeus was lunacy, you only hear that from the moonbat Left that embraces and cherishes the idea of defeat.

JimBOBThe main point to make here is that it is ludicrous to think that the U.S. will have the political will to continue the occupation for another ten years.

See NATO and SEATO. Over 60 years we had that commitment and may have to get together with allies and agree that ME and Caspian energy supplies must remain stable and protected from radical ISlamist instability and attack.

If most or all of the current troop contingent is still there in November 2008 then there will be a major bloodbath among the Republicans running at that time.

Following WWII, there were plenty of disappointed Lefties who did not get their way about bringing ALL the helpless infants in American uniform back home to their Mommies and families. Oh, well, tough shit. And like so many Lefties slavering for America's defeat and humbling, JibBOB equates Bush's approval numbers from pissed off conservatives, independents, and Centrist Democrats about his postwar bungling, his asinine domestic policies, his Open Borders Immigration & corporatism with a hankering of all those critics for a major US defeat and humbling worse than what the McGovernites inflicted on the nation with Vietnam.

JimBOB - And if the Democrats haven't got the troops out by 2010 they will catch it in the chin too. Politicians will get the message, or they won't be in office for long.

Yeah, sure, the Defeatists and Copperheads will make the Democrats pay.

JimBOB - The "residual force" malarkey won't last, either. A smaller force confined to the shiny new bases won't be viable; it wouldn't be able to keep itself defended or resupplied. Once some U.S. forces start coming out, the rest will follow not long after.

Never having been in the military, you don't understand logistics and minimal footprint and ground supplies requirements for standby AFBs/Armor depots. In case the supply routes from Kurd areas, Turkey, KSA, and Basra SOuth route are cut off, such fortified bases can defend themselves just fine until airlift and reinforcements come in.

Posted by Chris Ford | August 26, 2007 7:51 PM

"Israel, tired of Islamic terrorists attacking Syria [sic - I assume you mean Israel here], put their army into Lebanon and ended up with a protracted period of peace."

That would be the "protracted period of peace" that ended with Israel losing over 1,000 soldiers and being pushed out of Lebanon by Hizballah - the same Hizballah that handed them their heads again last summer?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 26, 2007 8:58 PM

See NATO and SEATO.

I must have missed the part where european host countries were killing our soldiers every day with ied's etc. not to mention running sectarian civil wars killing tens of thousands per year, and in which nearly all local government functions were paralyzed, and all U.S. patrols had to be heavily armed, and the american administration (not to mention all meetings of the local "independent" government) had to take place inside a massively armed "green zone." Yeah, the postwar rebuilding in Europe and that in Iraq are just the same.

Following WWII, there were plenty of disappointed Lefties who did not get their way about bringing ALL the helpless infants in American uniform back home to their Mommies and families.

The U.S. armed forces that fought in the european theater in WWII were helpless infants? And there were slaverling lefties trying to get them all home? In what parallel universe? (Hint: the Marshall Plan and the establishment of NATO happened under President Truman, a Democrat.)

Never having been in the military, you don't understand logistics and minimal footprint and ground supplies requirements for standby AFBs/Armor...

How do you know I've never been in the military? In any case, the notion of indefinite resupply by air isn't a serious proposition. Eventually you need reliable ground connections, and forcing them thorough hostile territory for ten years would lead to politically unsupportable losses.

As a final comment, if you wingnuts want to stay in Iraq for the next ten years, you're welcome to try it. Democrats will appreciate the electoral boon.

Posted by jimBOB | August 26, 2007 9:10 PM

"Four permanent--and possibly defensible--bases overlooking the primary source of oil in an era of increasing oil dependence and increasing competition for the oil that's left."

This is stupid.

Exactly what good are bases - even "defensible" ones - if your troops can't come out of them without getting killed by the locals?

Exactly what do those bases accomplish except possible as tripwires - like the 37,000 troops on the Demarcation Line in Korea - to prevent invasion by another country?

And even then, it only prevents invasion if the other country knows that it will bring the US in on the base country's side - AND the other country already knows the US is NOT going to try regime change - otherwise it has nothing to lose by invading. That was the problem for and with North Korea. They knew they couldn't attack South Korea without the US coming in - and they knew they couldn't beat the US in the long run. However, had Bush actually intended regime change in North Korea, Kim might as well have invaded South Korea in the hopes of taking the peninsula and then sueing for a truce and negotiations. And that would have cost us the 37,000 US lives on the line well before the US could have responded.

Since the only country involved with Iraq is Iran, that does not apply here since Iran already knows regime change is on the cards. Not to mention that Iran has the SUPPORT of most of the Iraqi Shia (if not al-Sadr, except in terms of an US invasion of Iran, where al-Sadr WILL support Iran with his militia.) Iran does not need to invade Iraq to secure its cooperation. The existing leaders already cooperate with Iran. Any likely Shia leader would as well - even al-Sadr. Only in the event of a secular or Sunni strongman would Iran have any interest in possibly militarily involving itself in Iraq.

None of the other countries are relevant - unless you're assuming Russia or China intends to invade Iraq.

So bases there to "protect the oil" are meaningless, given the reality of the occupation. You can't protect the oil pipelines hiding in a base. That's why Iraq isn't pumping any serious amount of oil now and never well as long as the insurgency does not get their cut.

Bases in a country do nothing but provide forward operational facilities for projecting US military power in a region. Obtaining the oil requires actually DOING something like invading Iran - which is why the Iran war is a done deal.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 26, 2007 9:11 PM

"Never having been in the military, you don't understand logistics and minimal footprint and ground supplies requirements for standby AFBs/Armor depots. In case the supply routes from Kurd areas, Turkey, KSA, and Basra SOuth route are cut off, such fortified bases can defend themselves just fine until airlift and reinforcements come in."

You're an idiot, Ford.

If Bush attacks Iran, all the supply routes will be cut off. It's impossible to resupply the size military we have in Iraq now by airlift. Within ninety days, the US forces will be out of food, water, fuel and ammunition and be forced to evacuate the country, under fire, leaving most of their equipment and bases behind to be looted by whoever gets there first.

Not to mention that, as I mentioned above, it is irrelevant if your bases are "defensible" if you can't emerge from them without getting killed. The French found that out in Vietnam long before we found it out again in Vietnam, and have now forgotten it yet again in Iraq and Afghanistan. Troops bottled up in a base are useless. Troops that can only get killed and not defeat the enemy when they emerge from their bases are useless.

Not to mention that none of that is relevant because as I pointed out above, nobody is going to invade Iraq to make the US require any forward operational bases. The only purpose for such bases is to allow projecting force into the region from them - which means, in this context, invading Iran (and perhaps Syria).

Which would be THE biggest military disaster in US history.

You're a moron- as well as an idiot.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 26, 2007 9:20 PM

if yo want to be pedantic about the founding of the Republican Party, why don't you review the timeline for Reconstruction in this country. In 1868, four years after Apomattox, three states were still in such chaos that they were unable to participate in the presidential elections. This despite the superhuman statesmenship of Robert E. Lee counseling cooperation, and the restraint of Copperhead intellectuals like yourself trying to hamstring the effort.

Posted by wayne s | August 26, 2007 9:34 PM

I can't imagine that there will be 2,500 US troops in Iraq in 2017. This war is deeply unpopular. Much more so that the morons in the MSM seem to understand. The American people have no desire to sustain ten more years of this crap even on a much smaller scale.

That may be. But then where is the candidate who is planning to end the US occupation of Iraq?

Perhaps the American adventure in Iraq is destined never to be ended in any decisive way, but just to fade away gradually from public concern. The US has troops stationed all over the world, a few thousand here, several thousand there, some in countries whose names Americans barely know. If troops are very gradually withdrawn and redeployed, and casualties decline, and US activity in Iraq moves to page 2, page 4, page 8 and is finally barely mentioned at all, then what is to prevent the US from keeping a few bases manned by a few thousand troops?

Posted by Dan Kervick | August 26, 2007 9:35 PM

what is to prevent the US from keeping a few bases manned by a few thousand troops?

The Iraqis, I should think.

Posted by jimBOB | August 26, 2007 10:20 PM

Dan,

I hope at some point it dawns on whoever is president that the presence of U.S. troops on Arab soil detracts from rather than enhances the security of the United States. It doesn't seem like rocket science.

Posted by Klein's tiny left nut | August 26, 2007 10:29 PM

The Iraqis, I should think.

Perhaps, but it really depends on which Iraqis you are talking about and which way the future political winds blow. There have been reports that the US is building bases in the Kurdish provinces of Dahuk, Arbil and Suleymanyah, and there is some reason to think the Kurds are inclined to let the US keep bases there.

Posted by Dan Kervick | August 27, 2007 12:46 AM

I hope at some point it dawns on whoever is president that the presence of U.S. troops on Arab soil detracts from rather than enhances the security of the United States. It doesn't seem like rocket science.

I hope so to, but those sorts of considerations don't seem to have had much of an impact on US leaders so far.

Posted by Dan Kervick | August 27, 2007 12:51 AM

There have been reports that the US is building bases in the Kurdish provinces of Dahuk, Arbil and Suleymanyah, and there is some reason to think the Kurds are inclined to let the US keep bases there.

Bases built in Kurdish areas might stay viable longer (though if the Kurds declare independence and the Turks retaliate by invading, all bets are off). However if U.S. forces redeploy out of all shia and sunni areas it's hard to see that as anything other than withdrawal, particularly since these are precisely the areas where sectarian conflict is likely to flare if the U.S. leaves them.

And there's no guarantee that if unrestrained civil war breaks out that the Kurds will be able to stay out of it. If fighting spreads to the Kurdish areas, the U.S. can either take sides (meaning our people will be fighting for the greater glory of, and sending body bags home on behalf of, some local warlord or other), or stand by and wait for one or the other of the warring parties to attack our positions. Neither prospect makes U.S. bases particularly safe places to hang out.

Posted by jimBOB | August 27, 2007 1:13 AM

Chris Ford is now in the Quartermaster Corps.
He has now pretended to serve in at least six different functional areas across three branches of service from the ranks of airman to colonel all in the past month. Chris Ford is a modern day combination of Chesty Puller and George Marshall in his immaginery world.

Posted by Chris Ford lies | August 27, 2007 6:37 AM

"To say that our current policy is working and needs just ten more years to stabilize Iraq is lunacy -- just leaving stands a perfectly good chance of working just as quickly at radically lower cost."

At lower cost to us, but not to the Iraqis. While the occupation isn't hastening political stability, it at least prevents a complete Lebanon-style meltdown. If a large international force had been deployed to Lebanon it might have stopped the worst of the massacres over there.

Posted by Lefty | August 27, 2007 9:42 AM

Maybe what he meant was if we stayed there, it would take 10 years for Iraq to stabilize, 5 years if we left.

Posted by Stuart | August 27, 2007 12:47 PM

I think that it would be best just to withdraw the troops from Iraq. Whether we stay another 10 years and then withdraw or whether we withrdraw tomorrow, our intervention will probably yield the same result: a civil war. With the war costing us so much money and the surge not making Iraq any safer (250 killed in another al-Qaeda bombing) it is time to let the Iraqis fight for the type of country they want to live in, not the type country that the U.S. wants them to live in.

Posted by Kaitlyn | August 28, 2007 12:25 AM