The Small Force

Chris Bowers draws my attention to John Edwards' most specific statement yet, at yesterday's debate, of his view on the question of residual forces in Iraq:

I can tell you what i would do as president. When I'm sworn into office, come January of 2009, if there are, in fact, as General Petraeus suggests, 100,000 American troops on the ground in Iraq, I will immediately draw down 40,000 to 50,000 troops; and over the course of the next several months, continue to bring our combat out of Iraq until all of our combat are, in fact, out of Iraq.

I think the problem is -- and it's what you just heard discussed -- is we will maintain an embassy in Baghdad. That embassy has to be protected. We will probably have humanitarian workers in Iraq. Those humanitarian workers have to be protected. I think somewhere in the neighborhood of a brigade of troops will be necessary to accomplish that, 3,500 to 5,000 troops.

To me, this is clearly preferable to more ambitious plans involving tends of thousands of soldiers. I wonder, though, if it's really possible. My guess is that deploying such a small force into such a chaotic country as Iraq would be too dangerous for the troops themselves. I'm not in a position to make a category statement to that effect, but I have a really hard time envisioning this as workable (think of the supply lines). The logic of the situation is that either you stay in Iraq in force, or else you give up on trying to use the US military as a tool for influencing political developments in Iraq and you leave.

The good news, however, as Ilan Goldenberg notes is that all of the major Democrats have been subtly shifting away from their previous commitment to an ill-defined and counter-productive "training" mission in Iraq.

Photo by Senior Airman Steve Czyz, US Air Force

Comments

"The logic of the situation is that either you stay in Iraq in force, or else you give up on trying to use the US military as a tool for influencing political developments in Iraq and you leave."

Agreed. So why is Edward's plan, which does neither, 'clearly preferable' to staying in Iraq in force, which, as you state, is one of two logical outcomes?

Sk

Posted by Sk | September 27, 2007 10:31 AM

Not that I know a lot about these things but doesn't our overwhelming air superiority kind of even the field? If we have bases close by, and given our airpower, even a small force could be effective in its limited mission to protect specific locations.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | September 27, 2007 10:35 AM

I'm curious why none of the Democratic candidates have suggested redeploying U.S. forces in Iraq to Afganistan, so the U.S. can win the more important war. This would allow the candidate to focus on the Bush Administration's failure to capture Bin Laden and finish the job in Afganistan. Perhaps more importantly, it would give the candidate the chance to maintain a strong and hawkish stance on "terror" - in Afganistan, where it really counts - while withdrawing from Iraq.

Generally, Democrats seem too scared to admit the U.S. has lost in Iraq and to call for a total withdrawal. Redeploying to Afganistan gives them chance to (1) look like they are not "giving up", (2) criticize Bush's terror policies, and (3) fight a war that retains some measure of international legitimacy.

I know a lot of liberals would probably prefer no war at all, but if I had to choose between an illegitimate, never-ending war in Iraq...and a NATO-backed, semi-legitimate, never-ending war in Afganistan, I would pick the latter.

Posted by owenz | September 27, 2007 10:53 AM

Could an embassy in fact be maintained in Iraq if everything goes south? I can envision a helicopters-on-the-roof scenario, with the last man out taking down the flag and then sitting on his helmet as the Blackhawk takes fire from Sadr City.

Posted by DNS | September 27, 2007 11:01 AM

Could an embassy in fact be maintained in Iraq if everything goes south?

I don't think anyone can honestly answer anything but "maybe" to that. But it seems obvious that things are already going south in Iraq anyway. Whether we have an embassy there or not is a minor concern.

Posted by James Gary | September 27, 2007 11:13 AM

I think the viability of the embassy is a real issue, and honestly, it seems you would need a brigade just to hold the embassy compound and the airport. I don't know off the top of my head what the total force level in Baghdad is right now, but as it is we can't keep mortars from coming into the Green Zone and can't secure the road to the airport. I think a brigade is the absolute minimum, unless we just bug out entirely. And at that, a brigade will not allow for the protection of humanitarian workers even within the city, much less the country as a whole. But then I am not really sure what "protecting humanitarian workers" even means in practical terms. A handful of Marines guarding an aid truck is just a target.

I agree the Dems should be pushing a plan to redeploy, say, 50,000 troops to Afghanistan. That amount of force could be maintained for some time, and could actually accomplish a hell of a lot there. And it would refocus the military aspect of the anti-terror mission where the focus should have remained all along.

Posted by Jeff in Texas | September 27, 2007 11:24 AM

If it's going to take several thousand troops just to keep the embassy safe, and even then we can't guarantee that there won't be a Beirut scenario, it seems to me that we at least have to consider not having an embassy in Iraq, at least until things settle down.

I don't understand why some people postulate the embassy as a GIVEN, and go on to argue that we must pay any price, bear any burden to maintain that embassy, as though there were no other option.

I get why we'd like to have an embassy. But if we have an embassy in Chile, and one day there's a violent revolution and militias are roaming the streets and our embassy personnel are at risk despite our best efforts, we'd close that embassy until things were safe again. There's not some divine mandate that we have to maintain an embassy no matter how dangerous it is.

Posted by Steve | September 27, 2007 11:34 AM

"I'm curious why none of the Democratic candidates have suggested redeploying U.S. forces in Iraq to Afganistan, so the U.S. can win the more important war. This would allow the candidate to focus on the Bush Administration's failure to capture Bin Laden and finish the job in Afganistan."

Perhaps this will help you understand:

1) Afghanistan is a less strategically important country than Iraq.

2) If you define "win" as completely defeating the Taliban, this impossible to do as long as they have a safe haven in tribal areas of Pakistan. Nevertheless, there has been tremendous progress in stabilizing Afghanistan, but the country won't be self-sufficient and will need foreign military support for the conceivable future.

3) Osama bin Laden isn't in Afghanistan, so additional troops in Afghanistan won't help you capture him. You could invade Pakistan, as Obama has suggested, but this would require an effort several times the size of the one in Iraq, and would probably not be worth it.

"Generally, Democrats seem too scared to admit the U.S. has lost in Iraq"

The Democrats' Senate Majority Leader wasn't too scared to "admit" this, but its possible that the Democratic candidates haven't done so because they are hedging their bets since Iraq may be "a war we just might win", to borrow a headline from an infamous NY Times op/ed.

"Could an embassy in fact be maintained in Iraq if everything goes south? I can envision a helicopters-on-the-roof scenario, with the last man out taking down the flag and then sitting on his helmet as the Blackhawk takes fire from Sadr City."

A boy can dream I guess, can't he?

"But it seems obvious that things are already going south in Iraq anyway."

It seems like things are going a lot better there than this time last year, no?

Posted by Fred | September 27, 2007 11:39 AM

"but as it is we can't keep mortars from coming into the Green Zone and can't secure the road to the airport."

Did you stop following the news from Iraq closely in 2004? From the Washington Post two years ago: "Easy Sailing Along Once-Perilous Road To Baghdad Airport"

Posted by Fred | September 27, 2007 11:45 AM

>Osama bin Laden isn't in Afghanistan

How do you know?

>It seems like things are going a lot better there than this time last year, no?

It's about the same actually.

Posted by Judson | September 27, 2007 11:48 AM

I'd say keep the number of Embassy personnel (including American troops guarding the enormous compound) down to a number that can be supplied by air: by cargo plane to Camp Cupcake, as that "permanent base" is now being called, and by helicopter from there.

If you can't supply enough troops this way to protect the Embassy, then move the ambassadorial functions to Camp Cupcake, and blow up the embassy buildings in the Green Zone.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | September 27, 2007 11:53 AM

A pullout of troops from Iraq would certainly free up troops to go to Afghanistan while also freeing up troops to go home and to be available for future security.

It is hard to know this far out whether additional troops to Afghanistan will be good policy by the time they come home. After all, our troops may well have worn out their welcome in Afghanistan by 2009. And since a pullout of Iraq is not an immediate thing, we may well be talking more about 2010.

Posted by Lon | September 27, 2007 12:12 PM

Edwards is working with a "what if" scenario here - if the US pulls out of Iraq like he says and the Iraqi government steps up and maintains (or in some cases establishes) order then a small force protecting the embassy and humanitarian workers is in order.

If Iraq devolves into chaos the embassy and humanitarian workers will be evacuated. Forces would no longer be needed to protect them and would also be removed. Edwards doesn't talk about this part because, well, it's a negative outcome of a pullout. It's also something that might happen whether we pull out or not (especially with the strain on our Army forces).

And Fred, really - by what metric are things "better" in Iraq than a year ago? The central government is more divided, the ethnic cleansing proceeds apace in most of the country, and Iraqis are one year more angry at the US presence. The only folks pushing the idea that things are somehow "better" right now are in the White House.

Posted by NonyNony | September 27, 2007 12:47 PM

The central government is more divided, the ethnic cleansing proceeds apace in most of the country, and Iraqis are one year more angry at the US presence.

A lot of the ethnic cleansing has reached a successful conclusion, so in that sense things have gotten better. Fred's strategy is sort of like waiting for Hitler to run out of Jews to kill, and then claiming victory because he's stopped killing them.

Posted by Steve | September 27, 2007 1:36 PM

"And Fred, really - by what metric are things "better" in Iraq than a year ago?"

Well, for one, mass casualty bombings seem to have declined significantly. This year's Ramadan, so far, seems to be fairly quiet compared to last. For another thing, the Anbar province last year was the most violent in Iraq, and now it's one of the more peaceful provinces. And, according to John Burns, the turn away from radicalism and toward moderation may be spreading to other provinces, including Diyala:

"...Since the principal spur to the rise of extremist Shiite sectarian groups in Iraq was the bombing by al Qaeda, and al Qaeda-related groups, to the degree that al Qaeda is put on the back foot by the rise of this moderate Sunni, mostly tribal phenomenon in Iraq, I think you’ll see that opinion in the Shiite community will moderate, and indeed there’s a very important development just over the weekend, when the American military command announced that they were having considerable progress with both Shiite and Sunni tribal leaders in Diyala Province to the northeast of Baghdad, which has become one of the focal points of the war, and to which al Qaeda migrated in large numbers as the tribal alliance against them grew in Anbar. So you have now Shiite tribal leaders beginning to move towards the moderate center, and against the more extremist Shiite militia groups led by, notably, Muqtada al Sadr, the Shiite cleric whose Mahdi Army has been so deeply involved in this sectarian killing. And of course, as you know, Muqtada al Sadr has himself declared a six month moratorium on violence. He’s done that sort of thing before. And the proof of that pudding will be in the eating. But there are some significant signs of a move towards moderation."

Posted by Fred | September 27, 2007 2:38 PM

I suggest that both Democrats and Republicans "plan" for a Bataan style defeat as the conclusion to their mutual adventure in Iraq.

The Iraqis will let you know precisely when this is to occur.

Posted by Hixib | September 27, 2007 3:10 PM

Fred, you fucking assclown. If you are going to bust out the "stopped paying attention in 2004" slam you better provide a link from 2007 not 2005.

Posted by fred is an ass | September 27, 2007 3:10 PM

"Fred, you fucking assclown. If you are going to bust out the "stopped paying attention in 2004" slam you better provide a link from 2007 not 2005."

Peckerhead, the airport road was notoriously dangerous in the beginning of the war. Then it was brought under control by new security measures in 2005. That's why I linked to an article from 2005. The airport road has apparently stayed under control since then, which is why after a few minutes on Google I can't find a more recent reference to it than 2005. News organizations tend to report news; that the airport road has stayed under control since 2005 is not news.

Again, that Jeff in Texas didn't know that the security situation of the road had changed since '04 suggests he hasn't been following the news from Iraq closely since then.

Posted by Fred | September 27, 2007 4:30 PM

Its quite unusual for an embassy to remain open in a war zone. Despite the risk to Foreign Service Officers (who are subjected to frequent mortar and rocket attacks), the State Department won't close the Baghdad Embassy for political reasons. It would look pretty bad to argue things are getting better in Iraq even as the Embassy staff is evacuated by helicopter.

The security situation is much worse than Vietnam. The Tet Offensive excepted (when our Embassy was briefly overrun), Foreign Service Officers were free to travel around Saigon alone or go into the countryside escorted only by South Vietnamese troops. Can you imagine an FSO driving alone in Baghdad or trusting the Iraqi Army with his life?

Once US troops start withdrawing, the Sunnis and Shiites will go after each other hammer and tongs. At that point, there's no way the Embassy would remain in the Green Zone, so no troops would be needed to guard it.

Posted by beowulf | September 27, 2007 4:48 PM

Wow. Days or weeks after I've hammered home on this blog the point that there is NO military or diplomatic or humanitarian mission that the US can effectively carry out in Iraq from this point on, Matt finally says "The logic of the situation is that either you stay in Iraq in force, or else you give up on trying to use the US military as a tool for influencing political developments in Iraq and you leave."

No shit.

But he STILL can't bring himself to say "Edwards is a militarily ignorant moron for suggesting that 5,000 troops can remain in Iraq."

They can't. Edwards IS a moron who simply can't bring himself to admit that because Obama and Clinton would ride all over him if he did.

ANY US forces in Iraq - supported by air power or not - would be targets for the next decade or two by both Sunnis and Shia, not to mention everyone who ever lost a relative to US incompetent bombing and US trigger-happy troops.

The Green Zone will be bombed and mortared daily for the rest of its existence or until the Iraqi civil war situation is resolved.

As for the airport road, I found an article that says an entire US battalion is assigned to that road and patrol it in Humvees 24x7. They also cleared all the medians and other places where roadside bombs could be placed. Apparently the problem now is that the private contractors who use the road shoot up everybody on it more than the insurgents did...

Now...want to try that technigue on every other road in Iraq? How many troops will THAT require?

Morons.

And that still leaves the upcoming Iran war out of the picture.

I emailed Matt TWO articles last night making it VERY CLEAR that the Democratic candidates intend to leave US troops in Iraq until PAST 2013 - the first four years of the next President's term. One article quoted numerous Dems saying this will be the case. It also quoted analysts saying that the assumptions the Dems are using are not correct. The other article pointed out that ALL the Dems were asked if they would pull troops out before 2013 and every single one of them would NOT commit to that.

Matt appears to have ignored all of this. This is the best he can come up - saying Edwards "might" be wrong about this.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 27, 2007 5:27 PM

Perhaps someone has already commented about this, but I think the photograph accompanying this post is quite revealing as to the hollowing out of our military that the Iraq war is causing. Why is a senior airman in our Air Force photographing what appears to be house-to-house combat operations or even accompanying Army troopers on a mission like that? This is no slam against the Air Force (I'm a proud son of a 21-year Air Force vet), but house-to-house combat is not something in which airmen should be involved.

Posted by Dennis L | September 27, 2007 5:51 PM

Re: If you define "win" as completely defeating the Taliban, this impossible to do as long as they have a safe haven in tribal areas of Pakistan.

Back in the 19th century rebellious native Americans, along with some runaway slaves, had safe havens in peninsular Florida. But I think it would be accurate to say the US had won its struggle with the tribes of the old South.

Posted by JonF | September 27, 2007 9:32 PM

JonF ignores the fact that none of those "rebellious slaves" had AK-47's, RPG's, and thousand year history of repelling invaders.

Not to mention that the territory is completely different, the people are completely different, their motivations are completely different, the population size is completely different, the logistics are completely different, the geopolitics are completely different, and a host of other issues are completely different.

All of which demonstrates JonF to be an right wing idiot.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 27, 2007 11:19 PM