Assistant SecDef: Our Strategy WIll Probably Fail

I've noted time and again that one curious element of current US strategy in Iraq is that many of the people charged with planning and implementing it think it will probably fail. Here's Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle Eastern Affairs Mark Kimmitt telling people at the Heritage Foundation "if I had to put a number to it, maybe it’s three in 10, maybe it’s 50-50, if we play our cards right." Now, I think the surge's proponents are being overly optimistic about this stuff.

But the optimists aren't especially optimistic. And it's not as if we're locked in some desperate battle for national survival where it makes sense to roll the dice on low-probability gambles. The war's costs are very real and enormous, while the benefits of success are hard to discern and unlikely to materialize.

Comments

Uh oh. Where are those cretins to come on here and argue that anyone who says teH SURGE!!(tm) wasn't the most brilliantest and successful and cultual of anything ever is to desecrate the honor and nobility of the troops?

Posted by El Cid | January 11, 2008 12:57 PM

The war's costs are very real and enormous

To whom? Probably not to Kimmitt.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 11, 2008 12:58 PM

Right.

Let's hope that this election year will allow for some attention to be paid to the question of what this war is good for, and not merely whether or not our troops are good people. McCain and his insane "keep dying until nobody's dying anymore" argument must be outed as absurd, and the more vague champions must be forced to address how we are supposed to pay for endless war or maintain a military that is already devastated.

Posted by tinisoli | January 11, 2008 1:03 PM

50-50 is not "will probably fail". And the benefits of success are real and enormous and pretty easy to discern, IMO.

Posted by Al | January 11, 2008 1:06 PM

Wow! People who are paid to say positive things about Bush Administration policies in blog comments say positive things about Bush Administration policies in blog comments. Shocker!

Posted by ed | January 11, 2008 1:16 PM

I'd like to see this asshole present his 3 in 10 odds to a roomful of Gold Star mothers and explain to them that this is what their kids died for.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | January 11, 2008 1:22 PM

I guess Al hit the 'Post' button before he could finish his comment. We'll just have to wait a few moments for the really enormous easy to discern benefits to be listed.

Posted by jimbo | January 11, 2008 1:23 PM

"it's not as if we're locked in some desperate battle for national survival"

Perhaps not national survival, but certain a desperate struggle for conservative foreign policy credibility. Lose Iraq and what's next? Paying attention to the UN? Cuts in the defense budget? These are perilous times my friends.

Posted by demisod | January 11, 2008 1:30 PM

Too bad McCain and Lieberman, who assured us that "The Surge Worked" in the 1/10 WSJ, failed to acknowledge Kimmitt's estimate or provide any meaningful discussion of the way forward.

Posted by Asp | January 11, 2008 1:33 PM

Al Qaeda in Iraq is, after all, our creation. We spent $1 trillion and counting to create a franchise for AQ where there was none before. I'd say that is a poor investment.

Posted by bob h | January 11, 2008 1:52 PM

The war's costs are very real and enormous, while the benefits of success are hard to discern and unlikely to materialize.

And "success" depends on the Iraqis themselves, who have no reason to give a shit about us and, in some cases, strong reasons to oppose the national unity the US has decided is "success."

This dilemma is to be expected, from an administration that works by managing expectations and perceptions. In a region where its proxies don't control the media and the political class isn't cowed by the Very Serious Person Syndrome, Bush's need for proper perceptions has run smack into a real world problem. No wonder they're stuck.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | January 11, 2008 2:48 PM

You gotta love Al - a creature of pure assertion.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 11, 2008 8:17 PM