Strategery

I guess another way of making the point below is that it remains unclear to me what purpose the current deployment in Iraq is supposed to serve. One purpose it seems to be serving is the general sense that if our soldiers just stay in Iraq, risking their lives carrying out arduous day-to-day tactical missions unrelated to any broader strategic objectives that conditions in Iraq might improve anyway, thus allowing the continued presence of a large American deployment to provide a patina of "victory" to the results. At any rate, via Ilan Goldenberg I see that the GAO is confused (PDF) to:

U.S. efforts lack strategies with clear purpose, scope, roles, and performance measures. The U.S. strategy for victory in Iraq partially identifies the agencies responsible for implementing key aspects of the strategy and does not fully address how the United States would integrate its goals with those of the Iraqis and the international community. U.S. efforts to develop Iraqi ministry capability lack an overall strategy, no lead agency provides overall direction, and U.S. priorities have been subject to numerous changes. The weaknesses in U.S. strategic planning are compounded by the Iraqi government’s lack of integrated strategic planning in its critical energy sector.

It's hardly unheard of to see soldiers used, in essence, as props. It happens at sporting events frequently, and George W. Bush has developed a bad habit of using soldiers as backdrops for partisan political speeches. But to actually send over 100,000 into a combat zone while lacking "strategies with clear purpose, scope, roles, and performance measures" seems utterly unconscionable to me.

Comments

You misspelled "too".

Posted by Cryptic Ned | October 31, 2007 5:28 PM

This would be a front page news story in any country where actual journalism existed.

Posted by Garuda | October 31, 2007 5:37 PM

to actually send over 100,000 into a combat zone while lacking "strategies with clear purpose, scope, roles, and performance measures" seems utterly unconscionable to me.

Well, I read somewhere that if we

keep over 130,000 troops there for another eighteen months, and then tens of thousands of troops for years after that, the situation could well become peaceful and the whole sorry enterprise could be branded a success.

Not sayin' I agree or nuthin', but, dude, that was a pretty fast one-eighty there.

Posted by James Gary | October 31, 2007 5:40 PM

Unconscionable is the word but it's not just GWB. A lot of people seem not to be as bothered about this as you think they would be.

Posted by cemmcs | October 31, 2007 5:53 PM

The ultimate mission is to establish a base in Iraq with about 50-75 thousand soldiers permanently stationed there. The proximate mission is to stabilize the country sufficiently to free up those 50-75 thousand soldiers to engage in some task other than force protection.

However, that force--with the only air, armor and logistical capability--will indefinitely serve as the Iraqi national defense force, under command of the US government.

That's the plan. That's the plan that Clinton, Obama and Edwards plan to adhere to. That's the plan for which there majority support in the senate. That's the plan they voted for when they agreed to build the embassy and to construct the permanent bases.

This all makes sense, from start to non-finish if you understand that establishing these bases was the only real objective of the invasion and occupation.

Posted by jayackroyd | October 31, 2007 5:55 PM

"The horrible discovery in Diyala Province Monday was disturbing even by the standards of Iraq's running sectarian violence. Iraqi police said they found 20 decapitated bodies dumped near a police station west of Baquba, the capital of Diyala province. That same day a suicide bomber on a bicycle careened into a Baquba police station, killing 29.

"The violence was of course nothing new, especially for the Baquba area, which remains the most troubled region in Iraq outside Baghdad. But the bloodshed showed how the success of the surge of U.S. forces in Baghdad and Anbar Province nine months on has perhaps gone as far as it can toward controlling Iraq's violence."

From Time.

Posted by David in NY | October 31, 2007 6:39 PM

Shades of the Western Front, ca. 1917:

We're here because we're here
because we're here,
because we're here.
We're here because we're here,
because we're here
because we're here

(to the tune of "Auld Lang Syne")

Posted by Davis X. Machina | October 31, 2007 6:45 PM

The strategy from Day One was to knock off Saddam, seize the oil, then move on to Iran and/or Syria. Syria certainly, since it's a lot easier than Iran, but Iran was the main target of the Israelis and the neocons eventually.

In fact, according to Hillary Mann, the neocons thought all the way up to 2005 that if we dropped Iraq, the Iranians would quake in their boots and regime change would occur with minimal effort on our part.

The bases thing would happen once Iran and Syria were taken down. There would be bases there, too. The oil would be ours (and Israel's - at least until we double-dealt Israel out of the picture someday.) Period. End of story.

Okay, moving on to Syria or Iran got detoured because of the insurgency.

So the strategy then became establishing some sort of stable government in Iraq so we could get on with it.

Well, that didn't work either. Probably because the only "stable" government we could find was backed by Iran - who apparently was not only NOT quaking in their boots, they were flooding Iraq with economic support, support for the militias, and IRGC agents.

Oops.

So, now the problem is how to move on to Iran and Syria WITHOUT having a stable pro-US government in Iraq. In other words, arm the Sunnis, keep them killing each other instead of US troops, break the country up with partition, whatever.

That is what is slowing the Iran war down. That and the pushback from the US Army who damn sure doesn't want to get in another ground war with a country four times bigger and just as good at guerrilla war as the present mess.

The Air Force and Navy don't care, they're good to go (except for Admiral Fallon, but we can fire him any time.) It's the Army that isn't up for it.

So now the idea for Cheney is get the Israelis to bomb Iran, Iran will retaliate, then we can move on to Iran. And if the Iraqis give us any more trouble, we'll just bomb the crap out of them with more airpower.

None of this has anything to do with a real "strategy" in the sense that most people think of as "strategy".

It's like John McCane and the kid in "Die Hard":

Kid: What's your plan?

McCane: Save my daughter and kill everybody.

Kid: No, I mean like a plan for how to actually do that.

Cheney doesn't care about this sort of "planning". He's a corporate management type. Get people moving. Never mind on what. Just get them doing something, then fine tune it.

So, get a war started with Iraq. Then get one started with Iran and Syria. It will all work out if we just "tough it out."

Reminds me of some movie I saw where some football type dived into the ground and is lying there twitching. The coach comes over and say, "Run it out!"

Bush and Cheney are just "running out" the Iraq war and trying to get the Iran war started.

It's that simple.

While the rest of the world tries to figure out their "strategy".

Once again, everybody is behind the curve on this.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 31, 2007 6:54 PM

[T]hat was a pretty fast one-eighty there, says James Gary about Matt.

He, of course, is missing Matt's point, consistant in both posts, that if we keep a large number of troops in Iraq long enough, things are likely to get better eventually, even though any improvement will be unrelated to or even in spite of the presence of US troops. Hang on for a decade and hope they all kill each other . . .

Posted by rea | October 31, 2007 7:34 PM

Since administration disinformation is so pervasive, we might adopt a simple model that, at the macro level, what is happening is what the administration wants to have happen.

1. Permanent bases guarantee access to Iraqi oil.

2. Incubate a mercenary army

3. Make (steal) a lot of money for Bush oligarchs

4. Leverage war powers to construct a domestic dictatorship.

I'd say Bush is doing very well on all four counts. So a few soldiers, and a lot of Iraqis, are dying. Your point?

Posted by lambert strether | October 31, 2007 7:36 PM

The deployment in Iraq is meant to provide a large military base in the Gulf region. It is now a strategic asset of the first order. It will never be surrendered. Eventually we will withdraw from the cities and retire to the bases. Gigantic air bases from which to project air power from the Caspian region to China and South Asia. Also to provide a logistical base from which to send troops and supplies anywhere in the Gulf.

It's all about oil. In 2 or 5 or 10 years, and then in 20 years and beyond, military force will be needed to defend friendly or at least cooperative oil producers. Defend not just from Jidhadists but from other powers interested in securing the oil for themselves. Russia springs to mind and China, but even Japan and Europe might eventually turn to more military solutions to the oil supply question.

It's strange how the Great Game idea is discounted or ignored.

Posted by rapier | October 31, 2007 7:46 PM

For the record, I don't think the myriad commenters who have asserted that building permanent bases in Iraq was a central aim of the war are correct.

That said, I'm a little mystified by what's so nefarious or objectionable about a permanent base. We have permanent bases in South Korea, Germany, Turkey, Qatar, Uzbekistan, etc. We closed down a big permanent base in Saudi Arabia after we toppled Saddam's regime.

So while the placement of a base in Iraq certainly couldn't possibly begin to justify the sacrifices of this war, I'm not sure I see that there's anything obviously wrong with having one there now. Nor do I see that it confers huge strategic advantages over our existing bases in the gulf and turkey. It seems like a pretty anodyne issue.

So what's the big deal?

Posted by southpaw | October 31, 2007 8:01 PM

[T]hat was a pretty fast one-eighty there, says James Gary about Matt.
He, of course, is missing Matt's point, consistant in both posts, that if we keep a large number of troops in Iraq long enough, things are likely to get better eventually...

You're right. With that in mind, I suppose my revised response to the "Strategery," "Goal Posts," and "Time Heals All Wounds" posts is annoyance with Matt's Capt. Renault-like shock at discovering that our troops in Iraq have no mission, other than to remain in Iraq indefinitely so the Administration can get credit for any improvement there. Hasn't this been obvious to all observers for the last three years?

Posted by James Gary | October 31, 2007 8:01 PM

Richard Steven Hack, rapier and Lambert Strether are batshit crazy. If you think Bush sat around with his neo-con buddies and dreamed up a big tar baby called Iraq then you are crazy. Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney et. al. grossly underestimated the requirements of the task at hand and got us neck deep into a mess. Given that, we can't just kick over the ant hill and walk away. We can make a positive change in the ME if we can stand up and support a functioning Arab democracy. It may not be perfect but it will be a beacon of hope in an otherwise dark and autocratic region.

Posted by danceswithgoats | October 31, 2007 9:19 PM

"We closed down a big permanent base in Saudi Arabia after we toppled Saddam's regime."

We also closed down a big 'permanent' base in The Philippines when the government there asked us to.

Posted by Fred | October 31, 2007 9:30 PM

Amen, Fred. We are closing down big "permanent" bases in Germany as we speak.

Of course, it is all a big conspiracy by Bush and his neo-con buddies to make a ton of money and violate our civil liberties.

Posted by danceswithgoats | October 31, 2007 9:52 PM

What "functioning Arab democracy"?:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/26/AR2007102602402_pf.html

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | October 31, 2007 11:00 PM

After combining the NEOCON and Cheney objectives, we have the goals of establishing an imperial military footprint there, to take control of the production, distribution and, most importantly, the continued pricing of Iraqi and Iranian oil in US dollars. Without this last point, the status of the US dollar as the world's reserve currency will be lost and our national debt will drown this nation. The intent is to remain there as long as there is sufficient oil to make it worthwhile. The complementary objecive of the NEOCONs was to improve the security of their religious homeland, Israel. Our control of that oil, which represents the world's second and third or second and fourth largest estimated reserves, is critical because of the fact that those in the know knew very well what the Germans have just reported and that is that Peak Oil is already here and we will be seeing growing short falls between production and demand of some 3% to 7% per year. In short order, that will lead to economic catastrophy and its associated violence involving the fierce competition for what oil there is. Our military control of most of the world's oil will not only insure our continued access, but it will give this imperialist nation a choke hold on every other advanced nation. That, sir, is what this whole mess has been about, including the current demonizing of Iran and our forthcoming attack on that country. So, you see there really is a mission for those troops, so long as those, who are calling the shots, do not recognize that they have lost the "good battle" or should I call it what it is, the "war crime" battle? To them, that oil is still there to be seized and those large fortress like bases we have built will serve to support our troops who will be funcioning as the oil corporation's militia in Iraq and they will also serve as Lily Pad kick off bases for action elsewhere, such as in the oil fields of Iran.

Posted by tbaum | October 31, 2007 11:22 PM

Two alternative explanations for our presence in Iraq: 1) We're trying to give the Iraqi govt a chance t knit a civil service, civil society and effective army and police. This is the view shared by the vast majority of Americans. 2) The views expressed by Richard Steven Hack, rapier, Lambert Strether and tbaum, and kinda endorsed by uber-fashionista Matty Y, that America is the evil empire and must be destroyed by any means necessary... good luck keeping your majority in Congress and winning the WH if swing voters catch on to your true values.

Posted by wayne s | October 31, 2007 11:34 PM

It should be obvious that "establishing bases" is not a reason for a war. You have a war and THEN establish bases for some OTHER reason.

The reason of course is control of the oil. What other possible reason could there be?

Democracy in the ME?

Please...

Al, Fred, and the rest of the neocon right wing freaks are the ones who are "bat shit crazy".

Or just "bat shit"...

Southpaw, of course, doesn't get it. After basically murdering at least three hundred thousand Iraqis, he thinks there's no problem with our leaving thirty, forty, fifty thousand troops there forever, like South Korea.

Hey, Southpaw, those troops in South Korea aren't well liked either, in case you haven't heard.

In Iraq, they're going to get fucking SHOT AT and BLOWN UP - if you haven't heard.

Yeah, a real "anodyne issue"...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 31, 2007 11:38 PM

We're trying to give the Iraqi govt a chance t knit a civil service, civil society and effective army and police. This is the view shared by the vast majority of Americans.

You ever see Idiocracy?

You might be right, maybe most Americans are just like you. They can't spell or write, they believe things that no one else on the planet believes in because they are prima facie stupid and contradictory to what you could see with your own eyes if you didn't have an emotional investment in pretending otherwise.

We haven't started watering the crops with gatorade yet, but goddamn if you are right we are withing inches of reaching that sort of dumb assery. Gratz.

Posted by Ed Marshall | November 1, 2007 1:16 AM

Matt,

If your Harvard-trained intellect can't imagine what sorts of constructive things are troops are doing in Iraq right now (e.g., responding to tips from Iraqis to capture terrorists and bomb-makers, providing security for provincial reconstruction teams, mediating and facilitating reconciliation between local sectarian groups, training and providing back-up for Iraqi Security Forces, etc.), why don't you ask The Atlantic to send you over there for a couple of weeks to do some reporting?

Spend a few weeks embedded with a typical Army or Marine battalion and see if they're just acting as props, mocking deformed women, or otherwise conducting missions unrelated to the goal of helping to stabilize the nascent democratic Iraq.

Posted by Juan | November 1, 2007 3:37 AM

As usual, Juan's embarrassing inability to reason is displayed.

Nobody said US troops are standing around doing nothing.

What is said is that nothing they're doing is going to significantly affect the outcome.

Except of course for things like the three Iraqi cops one of their gunships killed today in another incompetent operation...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 1, 2007 5:46 AM

I guess the strategy is hope-hope that Iraqis get tired of killing one another and settle down into a peaceful steady state.

Posted by bob h | November 1, 2007 7:20 AM

Hack-

After basically murdering at least three hundred thousand Iraqis, he thinks there's no problem with our leaving thirty, forty, fifty thousand troops there forever, like South Korea.

Hey, Southpaw, those troops in South Korea aren't well liked either, in case you haven't heard.

Sure, I've heard. We're slipping in the polls in South Korea. It's a real shame. Things would be so much better if US troops hadn't stuck around in South Korea to nurture a cosmopolitan, prosperous democracy. Without our nefarious tenacity, South Korea would probably look like that socialist paradise across the DMZ. Clearly the thing to do was leave before our popularity suffered. Sure, they'd be defenseless against one of the most inhuman regimes the world has ever witnessed, but we'd be loved, right? They'd be praising our name in the prison camps outside Seoul.

Oh, and your accusation that US troops "basically murder[ed]" 300,000 Iraqis is savage and unsupportable. The vast majority of civilian casualties are directly caused by sectarian fighters and foreign terrorists, the people US troops are trying to stop. And you accuse the troops of murder. Where do you get off, Hack?

Posted by southpaw | November 1, 2007 7:35 AM

You might take a look at that Post article I just mentioned, Juan -- in which virtually all the members of a US battalion in Baghdad agree that they're not getting much done, because the Iraqi government won't let them (and shows no sign of changing its philosophy on that). They also agree, with surprising opennness, that their own higher-ups are engaged in cover-ups (including diddling the casualty figures):

" 'It's just a slow, somewhat government-supported sectarian cleansing,' said Maj. Eric Timmerman, the battalion's operations officer... 'We were so committed to them as a partner we couldn't see it for what it was. In retrospect, I've got to think it was a coordinated effort,' Timmerman said. 'To this day, I don't think we truly understand how infiltrated or complicit the national police are' with the [Shiite] militias.

" 'This is a dangerous place,' said Capt. Lee Showman, 28, a senior officer in the battalion. 'People are killed here every day, and you don't hear about it. People are kidnapped here every day, and you don't hear about it.'...

"The American people don't fully realize what's going on, said Staff Sgt. Richard McClary, 27, a section leader from Buffalo. 'They just know back there what the higher-ups here tell them. But the higher-ups don't go anywhere, and actually they only go to the safe places, places with a little bit of gunfire,' he said. " 'They don't ever [expletive] see what we see on the ground.' "

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | November 1, 2007 8:08 AM

"Things would be so much better if US troops hadn't stuck around in South Korea to nurture a cosmopolitan, prosperous democracy."

Our troops can be credited with deterring an agressive, totalitatrian neighbor to S. Korea. They can not be credited with nurturing democracy. We supported a dictatorship in S. Korea after the cease fire. Our military aid to S. Korea enabled the dictatorship to apply more resources to oppressing the S. Korean people. The S. Korean people gained a democracy on their own. We did nothing to nurture it. Democracy was seen as a potential danger to our interests there. A danger that I am glad we decided to accept.

Posted by Njorl | November 1, 2007 11:27 AM

George Bush and the neocons live in fantasyland. They believe in ideological first principles that are not connected to reality. Reality has no role in their decision making process.

Dick Cheney lives in oilland. Reality is a part of his decision making process. Unfortunately, he works in reverse, forcing reality to fit his worldview.

For Adolf Hitler, land was primary. He saw no way the German people could have a future without access to more land. Ergo the invasion of Poland. Land, to Hitler, was a zero-sum. Only one people can occupy it and reap the benefits. There are no symbiotic effects. If he had quit with Poland, no one would really have cared.

For Cheney, oil is primary. There is no future without oil. Plans for the Iraq war came directly out of Cheney's office. Bush is the front man, and the neocons provide the moral backing, but the drive comes from Cheney. For Cheney, oil is a zero-sum. Only we can own it if we are to get benefit from it.

However, in the last 60 years, only one imperial power has been able to stop an insurgency -- the British in Malaysia, and they succeeded (over a long period of time) because they avoided the use of military power as much as possible. (Read the British military historian Correlli Barnett.)

There is no plan. The possibility of a plan actually working are miniscule. Events will take control and drive other events. We are the fuel driving the conflict. Without us, the fire continues, but with a lower fuel load, it will eventually die out.

That said, however, civil wars are completely unpredictable and uncontrollable. The damage to social trust in Iraq is so massive that it will take generations to heal. Remember, it took over a century after the American Civil War for the American South to vote Republican. That's a long memory.

As regards Iran. Whoever controls the Straits of Hormuz controls Arabic oil. Cheney's geography is pretty good. I don't trust him. I just hope America's military mutinies in time to avert disaster.

Posted by fred schumacher | November 1, 2007 3:53 PM

"Oh, and your accusation that US troops "basically murder[ed]" 300,000 Iraqis is savage and unsupportable. The vast majority of civilian casualties are directly caused by sectarian fighters and foreign terrorists, the people US troops are trying to stop. And you accuse the troops of murder. Where do you get off, Hack?"

I "get off" from the Lancet study that said at least thirty percent of the excessive deaths of civilians in Iraq were caused by US military action - bombings, shootings, etc.

Which means, since the figures up to this year basically show one million or more dead Iraqi civilians, that 300,000 of them were murdered by US troops.

And it's murder because the war was illegal and thus a war crime.

That's where I "get off".

YOU can "get off" the war criminal bus any time now.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 2, 2007 12:56 AM

Wow... all I want to know is how we can better create a strategy for success. What does a strategy like that truly entail and can it be done. Or are we simply destined to failure no matter what avenue we intend to travel? Recently, in studying the development of QuickPlanner Plus, a new software, I saw an amazing variety of intellectual justifications for different planning strategies and each time there was a caveat that included failure.
How can one plan for success and expect failure. It seems that is what our government is best known for.

Posted by matsonian | November 2, 2007 3:05 AM