A Big "If"

Tony Cordesman is a brilliant analyst, so I don't take issue with him lightly, but I think he ought to have re-read this sentence a few times before framing his op-ed the way he did:

Meaningful victory can come only if tactical military victories end in ideological and political victories and in successful governance and development.

That's, like, hard to do, man. And more to the point, if you start out with a grain of sand, then add another, then another, then another, etc. eventually you have yourself a heap of sand. The relationship between "tactical military victories" and "ideological and political victories [and] successful governance and development" isn't like that. We're not a dozen tactical military victories away from bringing successful governance to Iraq. I'd say we have no idea how to bring successful governance to Iraq. This isn't what our troops are trained and equipped to do, and it seems cruel to toss them into the theater for an indefinite period of time based on the vague hope that a formula for achieving this other stuff will emerge.

Comments

I'd say we have no idea how to bring successful governance to Iraq. This isn't what our troops are trained and equipped to do,

That's why people other than the troops would take the lead. For example, the UN is taking the lead with respect to the Iraqi elections.

I mean, seriously, Matthew. Do you think there is nobody helping Iraq other than our military? Jeez.

Posted by Al | February 26, 2008 12:59 PM

I more fundamental question is whether, in terms of US interests, there is such a thing as a meaningful victory in Iraq. I mean, even if the most bizarre fantasies of the neocons had come true, it wouldn't have advanced US interests very much. One of the biggest problems with the war from the beginning is its meaninglessness.

Posted by Jim W | February 26, 2008 12:59 PM

I think there's a herd of ponies just over the horizon..........

Posted by steve duncan | February 26, 2008 1:00 PM

Isn't this kind of a ringing declaration of the obvious? The stated goals of the war were to estbalish a secular, democratic, pro-western government in Iraq. David Petraeus argued at the time of his testimony that the 'surge' was only part of a larger strategy and that Iraq couldn't be "won" by military force alone. I think everyone gets this except Bush, McCain, Bill Kristol and the rubber-stampers and knee-jerkers of the GOP. It's one of the many reasons McCain would be such a spectacularly bad president--his blinkered militarism.

Then again, I'm reacting to the sentence, haven't followed the link yet.

Posted by Jim | February 26, 2008 1:03 PM

"We don’t have to be a soldier in a uniform/
To be of service over there/
While the boys so bravely stand/
with the weapons made by hand/
Let us trust and use the weapon of prayer"

"The Weapon of Prayer" by The Louvin Brothers

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | February 26, 2008 1:04 PM

Isn't one of the main lessons of 20th century warfare that a slew of tactical victories will not aggragate up into final victory if you start out with a lousy strategy?

Posted by Shrike58 | February 26, 2008 1:05 PM

And more to the point, if you start out with a grain of sand, then add another, then another, then another, etc. eventually you have yourself a heap of sand.

If the grains of sand are composed, say, plutonium, the heap of sand might be fissionable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass

Posted by tolchock | February 26, 2008 1:05 PM

See, we need to be as dilatory getting out of Iraq as we were impetuous getting in.

I think that's what Obama's been saying.

Posted by Bill | February 26, 2008 1:06 PM

"That's why people other than the troops would take the lead. For example, the UN is taking the lead with respect to the Iraqi elections."

There's also the U.S. State Department. It's not as if American diplomats and other expert civilians (e.g., members of Provincial Reconstruction Teams) aren't playing key roles in aiding Iraq in achieving these non-military objectives.

Posted by Fred | February 26, 2008 1:07 PM

Cordesman isn't saying that 'tactical and military victories' have to lead, in some unspecified way, to 'ideological and political victories', he's saying that 'tactical and military...' have to be followed by 'ideological and political...'-- which strikes me as true.

Posted by MattF | February 26, 2008 1:14 PM

Do you think there is nobody helping Iraq other than our military? Jeez.

Gee, thanks for reminding us- in addition to all the "help" they've gotten from our military, they've also gotten plenty of "help" in the past from the ignorant young Republican pups who were sent to staff the occupation government, and they continue to get plenty of "help" from Republican-connected contractors. No wonder they're so grateful. Heaven help them (for real).

Posted by Steve LaBonne | February 26, 2008 1:17 PM

I would add that just because you establish democracy in a country doesn't mean that it will last any time at all. Pakistan used to have a Harvard-educated female prime minister. Now she is dead and the country is a chaotic breeding ground for terrorists. We could stay in Iraq for 40 years and spend trillions of dollars only to have the whole thing collapse as soon as we tried to leave.

Posted by Mike | February 26, 2008 1:19 PM

This isn't what our troops are trained and equipped to do, and it seems cruel to toss them into the theater for an indefinite period of time based on the vague hope that a formula for achieving this other stuff will emerge.

Agreed. Now how is this different from the Afghanistan mission you support, Matthew?

Posted by Yet Another Mike | February 26, 2008 1:23 PM

i'd really love al and fred to explain to us what the "key roles" that the state department and UN are currently playing in iraq, and towards what end?

as far as i can tell, the report card on the "surge" still shows 15 Fs out of 18 categories.

maybe they're playing those key roles very, very slowly?

the insanity of continuing to spend $150B/year, give or take, all borrowed, for no meaningful strategic gain for the united states is obvious to anyone not blinded by flag pins....

Posted by howard | February 26, 2008 1:25 PM

The possibility for" meaningful victory" in Iraq is gone. It doesn't matter how many 'if's you string together, and how many hypothetical preconditions for victory you posit. All we can debate at this point is how to achieve the least bad outcome, and none of those outcomes can be counted a victory.

The US established several war aims in undertaking the Iraq operation. Some of them could never have been achieved at all, because they were based on erroneous preconceptions - for example, the war aim to eliminate Iraq's WMDs.

Some of the war aims could only now be achieved, if they can be achieved at all, at a total human and material cost that so far exceed what what any reasonable and moral person would allow as an acceptable cost for the achievement of that aim, that only a depraved individual could count it as a "victory".

Iraq is an atrocity: over a million deaths caused; millions of refugees put to flight; an economy destroyed; a collapse of law and order; life prospects ruined. Nothing we do in the future can ever make it the case that that atrocity didn't happen. For many years, people around the world will look back at Iraq and say "How did we allow it to happen?" When those stalwart liberals of the future bemoan the human capacity for destroying our own kind, and promise "Never again!", Iraq is one of those things they will be promising should never happen again. Victory?! It doesn't even rise to the level of a loss. It's worse than a loss - it's an abominable crime.

Suppose somebody said, "We should incinerate and depopulate Iraq, level the rubble, and then re-colonize the cleansed territory with young American democracy scouts, who will make democracy bloom in the desert." Would any non-twisted person regard that as a victorious success in achieving the war aim of bringing democracy to Iraq? Crazy, right? But that's the kind of sick level to which this victory debate has descended.

Posted by Dan Kervick | February 26, 2008 1:32 PM

i'd really love al and fred to explain to us what the "key roles" that the state department and UN are currently playing in iraq, and towards what end?

As mentioned above, the UN is involved with selecting the people to oversee the October provincial elections.

As you may recall, legislation and implementation of the provincial elections was one of the benchmarks. The legislation has been passed, but Iraq needs to be able to implement free and fair provincial election. The UN is taking the lead in this area - presumably because that's an area in which the UN has a lot of experience and in which our soldiers do not. Which was exactly the point I made to Matthew.

Posted by Al | February 26, 2008 1:50 PM

"i'd really love al and fred to explain to us what the "key roles" that the state department and UN are currently playing in iraq, and towards what end?"

You could have just gone to the State Department's website yourself, but here you go. First, the big picture context from The White House:

PRTs Are A Key Element Of The President's "New Way Forward" Strategy

The new strategy President Bush announced a year ago was built around three key elements, ending with a surge of PRTs.  The strategy called for:

1. A surge of additional troops into Iraq: These troops were sent to Iraq with a new mission to protect the Iraqi people from terrorists, insurgents, and illegal militias. 



2. A surge of operations: This surge began in July once additional troops were in place, with new offensives across the country to drive terrorists and militias out of their strongholds. 



3. A surge of PRTs: PRTs are ensuring that military progress is quickly followed up with real improvements in the daily lives of Iraqis. 

Now, more detail from The State Department, about the role of PRTs:

The front-line operatives in the campaign to stabilize Iraq are the American and Coalition members who comprise the Provincial Reconstruction Teams, or PRTs. These are relatively small operational units comprised not just of diplomats, but military officers, development policy experts (from the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Justice), and other specialists (in fields such as rule of law, engineering, and oil industry operations) who work closely with Iraqi provincial leaders and the Iraqi communities that they serve. While PRTs dispense money for reconstruction projects, the strategic purpose of these civil-military field teams is both political and economic. By building provincial governments' ability to deliver essential services and other key development projects to local Iraqis, PRTs help to extend the reach of the Iraqi government to all corners of the country and help build the stability necessary to complete the transition to full-Iraqi control. Some notable projects are: [click the link above for the list]

Posted by Fred | February 26, 2008 1:54 PM

Dan Kervick summed it all up.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | February 26, 2008 2:00 PM

Al/Fred -

Is there a rule that says you must misread MY to make points?

Whoever is in Iraq helping out, they will require the long term presence of American troops. For a project whose success is far from assured. In fact, there is no historical precendent for the kinds of things Cordesman hopes for in Iraq.

So tell us, when do we decide that doing things without precedent in Iraq is misguided? How long do you want to expose US troops on the come?

Posted by otey2 | February 26, 2008 2:06 PM

And if you want a more "granular" idea of what PRTs actually do, you can learn about it from the horse's mouth. Here, the leader of a PRT in the Baghdad describes what he and his team do to facilitate local economic development and better governance.

This is from a press conference that was held at the State Department in D.C. last month. It doesn't appear to have gotten a lot of press coverage. Matt could have gone in person and asked questions about this himself.

Posted by Fred | February 26, 2008 2:09 PM

I love it when conservatives tell us abut all the wonderful things the UN and the US government are going to do for us.

Posted by Otey2 | February 26, 2008 2:15 PM

I love it when conservatives tell us about all the wonderful things the UN and the US government are going to do for us.

Posted by Otey2 | February 26, 2008 2:16 PM

"Is there a rule that says you must misread MY to make points?"

Is there a rule that you have to ignore what MY wrote to make yours? Read what Matt wrote again:

"I'd say we have no idea how to bring successful governance to Iraq. This isn't what our troops are trained and equipped to do..."

In response to which, I pointed out the roles played by State Department diplomats and other civilian experts in governance issues. As I also pointed out, Matt would know more about this if he made any effort to find out about it. For example, going to the press conference where he could have asked questions of someone who is actually working on improving governance in Iraq. Now, maybe the answers to Matt's questions would reinforce Matt's belief that Iraq is hopeless/not worth the effort, or maybe they wouldn't. But since Matt's already ideologically committed to bailing on Iraq, he apparently has no interest in find out.

Posted by Fred | February 26, 2008 2:27 PM

Tony Cordesman is a brilliant analyst

No, Cordesman is an articulate analyst. If he were brilliant, he wouldn't be wrong so often.

Posted by ML | February 26, 2008 2:30 PM

jim - The stated goals of the war were to estbalish a secular, democratic, pro-western government in Iraq. David Petraeus argued at the time of his testimony that the 'surge' was only part of a larger strategy and that Iraq couldn't be "won" by military force alone. I think everyone gets this except Bush, McCain, Bill Kristol and the rubber-stampers and knee-jerkers of the GOP. It's one of the many reasons McCain would be such a spectacularly bad president--his blinkered militarism.

The main problem appears that Bush, the Jewish neocons here and in Israel, Sharansky were wrong about the capaity of Arab Muslims to achieve a secular democratic government, let alone a pro-Western one. If that stupid idealism is wrong, that does not mean the war is lost simply because the natives lack the capacity to elevate their civilization and institutions while handcuffed by tribalism and Islam.

It just means that "Plan B" may happen. A US-trained military simply takes power, throwing most of the squabbling Parliamentarians out of power, with a few jailed or executed as obstacles.

Then with some agreed-on autonomy for Sunnis and Kurds and with enough military capacity they make civil war problematic, the military junta just ramrods all the solutions in like oil revenue sharing and other goals in return for full US support - and puts the US off in distant bases to provide air cover and heavy force for an Iranian attack or insurrection until the Iraq AF, Navy is rebuilt.

That is actually just about perfect for McCain and other militarist realists, other than not getting to put Bush, Sharansky, Kristol, Feith, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld in front of an American firing squad for their lethal idiocy. We gave democracy a try, it failed miserably, so throw all those corrupt failures out, put the country under a military and secret police that will impose a harsh, but welcome level of safety, order, and equitable sharing of resources and revenues.
Which will allow modest ethnic cleansing to solve localized areas of irreconcilable ethnic conflict, and then commit to gradual democratic reforms unlike what the corrupt exiles and militia thugs tried putting in place to rip off both the Americans and the Iraqi people. And no external terrorists given haven, ever again.

Posted by chris ford | February 26, 2008 2:30 PM

We gave democracy a try, it failed miserably, so throw all those corrupt failures out, put the country under a military and secret police that will impose a harsh, but welcome level of safety

And it keeps getting funnier and funnier ...

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | February 26, 2008 3:58 PM

Another breathtakingly naive post.

God, if we only had an army like MacArthur's in Japan, or Matt Ridgeway's in Korea, we'd have more ideological and political victories, and would be on the road to successful governance and development.

You're joking, right?

Posted by Robert Powell | February 26, 2008 4:00 PM

Re Chris Ford

In other words, what is needed is another Saddam Hussein who is under our thumb. Iraq was pretty stable under Saddam, just as Syria is pretty stable under the Assad kleptocracy. Maybe what's really required is a military dictatorship in the US to stamp out those traitorous bloggers and newspaper columnists.

Posted by SLC | February 26, 2008 6:44 PM

Look, Cordesman (and who told you you could call him "Tony", Matt?) is frequently correct in his analysis of military situations, but as for Iraq, he's been clearly hewing a "party line" which is intended to keep him relevant to the discussion.

He knows damn well that Iraq is a lost cause. But if he says that, it will just bring a lot of calumny down on his head and probably cost his organization some revenue.

So instead, he tries to take a "moderate" and "optimistic" view and gently try to point out ways the US might actually get somewhere or at least make it look like the US is getting somewhere even when it isn't.

As for PRT teams, they're absolutely useless. It's completely irrelevant to be building roads, schools, etc., which do nothing to address the primary conflict in the region, whether it's Iraq or Afghanistan.

The notion that if we just dump a couple billion dollars worth of economic and infrastructure improvements into a country, that this will magically make everybody so happy on an individual level that all the warlords, criminals, factions, and other armed groups will just get ignored and fade away grumpily has not been established anywhere.

Doing "good works" in a country definitely is not a bad idea, in general. It simply hasn't been established that it makes any difference when you have a major political or religious division in a country.

This is why Obama's suggestion to dump a billion dollars into Afghanistan in order to try to wipe out the drug industry there is laughable. The poppy industry in Afghanistan is worth at least $2 billion to the 350,000 local farmers, and, more importantly, worth many more billions to the upstream buyers in Pakistan, Turkey and elsewhere.

And that has nothing to do with the fact that the country has been ruled by warlords for generations. As I've said before, how long will it take and how many billions spent to reverse the very NATURE of these countries into something that would have a positive effect on the conflicts in them?

You're looking at hundreds of billions and decades. It's not happening.

And it definitely isn't happening based on outside foreign influence that is despised and hated because it killed half your relatives, as in Iraq, or because it's true interest is in gaining control of the oil - or heroin.

You can send all the PRT teams and NGO's you want into Iraq and Afghanistan. It's not going to affect the Sunni insurgency and the Shia militias in Iraq, or the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, in any significant way.

Ford's notion of some sort of "military coup" in Iraq is a joke. The military and most of the Ministries in Iraq are mostly Shia, with a smattering of infiltrated insurgents and AQI. The "Awakening" are 100,000 armed Sunnis. Who's going to be the "strong man"? You don't HAVE any "strong men" in Iraq any more. The Baath Party and its organization was destroyed, the Shia factions were empowered.

The Sunni insurgency still believes they can regain control of the government. This may or may not be possible. I would suggest that the rise of al-Sadr's militia and the backing of Iran to the other Shia militias makes it unlikely that the Baath Party can be reconstituted in Iraq by force or otherwise. That game is over.

So there isn't going to be a "strong man" taking power because nobody has that kind of backing any more in Iraq. Even al-Sadr, arguably the most popular individual - at least on the Shia side - in Iraq, probably couldn't do it, even if he were inclined to.

The reality in Iraq is that if some sort of "nationalist coalition" can't be formed whose primary motivation is restoring Iraq as a reasonably stable society and kicking the US out can't be achieved, then civil war is in the cards for the next decade.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 26, 2008 8:06 PM