For a change, this and several posts to follow (to be posted over the next few days) won’t directly discuss the situation of women in Iraq (although everything about Iraq relates to Iraqi women, of course). Instead, I wanted to recommend several articles and blog posts about the political and military situation in Iraq. Some of this will be very old hat to some readers, but for others it will hopefully be interesting.
First, David Corn very usefully posts an outline of the situation in Iraq, written by Larry Johnson, “a former CIA analyst and counterterrorism official at the State Department.” Johnson makes a convincing case that the US, as a matter of cold fact, lacks the political will or military ability to remake Iraq. Here’s a sample, but I recommend reading the whole thing.
We could potentially defeat the Sunni insurgents if we were willing and able to deploy sufficient troops to control the key infiltration routes that run along the Tigris and Euphrates River valleys. But we are neither willing nor able. It would require at least 380,000 troops devoted exclusively to that mission. Part of that mission would entail killing anyone who moved into controlled areas, such as roadways. In adopting those kinds of rules of engagement we would certainly increase the risk of killing innocent civilians. But, we would impose effective control over those routes. That is a prerequisite to gaining control over the insurgency.
We cannot meet the increased manpower requirements in Iraq without a draft. We do not currently have enough troops in the Army and the Marine Corps to supply and sustain that size of force in the field. But, even with a draft, we would be at least 15 months away from having the new batch of trained soldiers ready to deploy. More importantly, there is no political support for a draft. In other words, we’re unwilling to do what is required to even have a shot at winning.
While the insurgency is not likely to acquire sufficient strength to fight and defeat our forces directly in large set piece battles, they do have the wherewithal to destroy infrastructure and challenge our control of lines of communication. The ultimate test of a government’s legitimacy is whether or not it can protect its citizens from threats foreign and domestic. Thus far the Iraqi Government has made scant progress on this front.
I have to resist the impulse to quote Johnson’s entire article; it’s short, but it describes concisely the realities in Iraq that hawks have simply refused to acknowledge, let alone provide a realistic response to.
Too many hawks discuss our options in Iraq as if we’re choosing between withdrawal and victory in Iraq. What is “victory in Iraq”? I’d suggest that, at a minimum, victory requires the establishment of a stable democracy in which (to quote Johnson) “the average Iraqi can move around the country without fear of being killed or kidnapped.” (And remember, the average Iraqi is a woman). That doesn’t seem too much to ask for – but it’s far more than the American military or executive branch is realistically capable of offering.
Bottom line: It doesn’t matter how morally correct an outcome is if it’s not something that we can feasibly bring about in the real world.
What is “victory in Iraq”? I’d suggest that, at a minimum, victory requires the establishment of a stable democracy in which (to quote Johnson) “the average Iraqi can move around the country without fear of being killed or kidnapped.”
Let’s forget the “democracy” part. I’d be satisfied with a stable government that isn’t too tyrannical, where the average Iraqi can move around the country without fear of getting killed or kidnapped. I doubt we can even achieve that.
It seems to me that our current strategy consists of two things:
(1) Make grand symbolic gestures and announce them as evidence of victory. Supposedly having elections and getting a constitution passed is a victory against the insurgents, even if the actual strength of the insurgency remains unabated. That we have not been able to defeat the insurgency is portrayed as irrelevent, because we have a constitution.
(2) Look the other way while areas descend into gangsterism and fundamnetalism, as long as the people in charge agree not to attack our troops. This is what is happening in Basra. The British have essentially ceded control of the city to Shiite militias in order to avoid conflicts that would result in British casualties. This may be the only thing they have the power to do, but it certainly doesn’t match up with the rhetoric of how we are achieving victory in Iraq and moving the Iraqis toward a secure, unified, liberal country.
Put another way, we are putting in the semblance of a modern democratic state as the facade that we present to the world, while doing whatever it takes to keep order with an undermanned force in Iraq, even when it expressly undermines liberal democracy, and trying to keep this fact out of the headlines.
The ex-CIA analyst’s article proves far too optimistic.
—
Headline: IRAQ ON THE BRINK OF MELTDOWN
—
Here:
—
“Iraq On the BRINK of Meltdown”? Excuse me, but it seems to this observer as though Iraq plunged over the brink quite some time ago and now finds itself in free fall. I’m just waiting for another Tom Friedman nytimes Op Ed piece chirping “there’s still time to save the situation in Iraq.” No there
isn’t. The time to save the situation in Iraq was 2 years ago. By now, it’s
all gone to hell in a handcart, and events have spun out of control by sheer
centrifugal force. The only material issues we now face involve how
badly the U.S. National Guard will get wrecked by this whole fiasco, and whether the U.S. army will be able to escape from Iraq in one piece.
“Retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey said there are no more troops to be had — and in a year the United States will have to scale back because of rules on how often National Guard and Reserves troops can be called up.
“The Army and Marines are starting to come apart. The National Guard is in a stage of meltdown,’ he said. `By the end of next summer, we’re going to be halfway out of Iraq.'”
This is naive and fails to recognize the brutal realities of politics.
Since it would be politically lethal for the current ruling party to admit it was wrong about Iraq, political survival for the Repubs dictates that America must stay the course until the next Presidential election. Indeed, the drunk-driving C student in the Oval Office has already publicly proclaimed “We are not leaving Iraq as long as I am President.” To make that happen, an executive order will change the rules on how often National Guard and Reserves troops can be called up. This, in turn, will eventually lead to wholesales mutinies by Reserve and National Guard units, which will within the next 3 years completely destroy these institutions. When entire companies of reservists mutiny and refuse to follow orders, you no longer have a fighting force, you’ve got…wait a minute…let me think here.
Oh. Yes. I remember: a panicky mob, like Saddam’s army.
That’s how the American presence in Iraq will finally collapse — not due to
some mythical troop drawdown, because the rules will keep getting changed to force reservists and national guard troops to stay in Iraq until all of ’em
are killed or mutilated by IEDs…and our troops will eventually realize this — but due to mass
insurrections, wholesale mutinies by entire American army corps. That’s the point at which abject panic will set in among American troops and the frantic Viet Nam-style evacuations will start, with panic-stricken national guard troops clinging to the rails of helicopters as they get airlifted out of seething crowds of Iraqis chanting “Death to Bush” and “Long live Iraq.”
For a portent of things to come, note the following article —
Headline: U.S., INSURGENTS LOCKED IN STALEMATE IN ANBAR
Here:
“Insurgents in Anbar province, the center of guerrilla resistance in Iraq, have fought the U.S. military to a stalemate.
“After repeated major combat offensives in Fallujah and Ramadi, and after losing hundreds of soldiers and Marines in Anbar during the past two years – including 75 since June 1 – many American officers and enlisted men assigned to Anbar have stopped talking about winning a military victory in Iraq’s Sunni Muslim heartland. Instead, they’re trying to hold on to a handful of population centers and hit smaller towns in a series of quick-strike operations designed to disrupt insurgent activities temporarily.
“I don’t think of this in terms of winning,” said Col. Stephen Davis, who commands a task force of about 5,000 Marines in an area of some 24,000 square miles in the western portion of Anbar. Instead, he said, his Marines are fighting a war of attrition.”
When more and more of areas like Anbar grow until they combine, all of Iraq will soon become untenable for American occupying troops. At that point the only question becomes the direction of the American retreat. South to the sea, through Sunni-controlled areas, may not be possible, given the strength of the insurgency there. That leaves only a march northward up toward Kurdistan as the sole possible route of escape.
The Greek word “hubris” comes to mind, doesn’t it? It’s all eerily
reminiscent of Athens’ Syracuse expedition in the Peloponessian War…
“Demosthenes now reconsidered his position and proposed that the whole force of Athenians return to Athens immediately. No more reinforcements, he said, could be expected, and the enemy could not be defeated with the forces that were left. Nicias, however, feared what might happen to him if he returned
to Athens without a victory. He advised not go back right away but to move
camp to a safer place and give the matter further thought. Demosthenes was
too discouraged by his defeat to oppose Nicias, and the others believed that
the spies inside Syracuse might still open the gates, so they followed the
plan of Nicias.”
Sound familiar?
A military objective of no strategic importance, a massive attack that
wasn’t necessary, a military operation gone catastrophically wrong…does a reasonable person predict the same outcome?
“For eight days the Athenians marched, fighting all the way. Demosthenes
and his men fell behind and were taken prisoner. By now, hunger and
especially thirst were torturing the exhausted Athenians. Nicias asked for
terms of surrender from Gylippus, and offered total indemnity for all of
the damage caused by the war. But now the Syracusans were not willing to
negotiate.
“The thirsty Athenians marched on for another day under a rain of arrows.
At last they came to water — a river that they had to cross. At the sight
of water the Athenian soldiers broke ranks and fell down into the mud to
drink. There they were slaughtered. Those who were spared were led away as
prisoners.
“The Syracusans put the Athenians to work in their rock quarries, where
most of them died. As for Nicias, they stoned him to death in Syracuse upon
their triumphal return.”
Compare with:
“For 8 days the American forces in Iraq marched to the north of Iraq
toward Kurdistan, fighting all the way. General John R. Vines, commander of
the multinational forces in Iraq, fell behind and was taken prisoner. By
now, hunger and especially thirst were torturing the exhausted American
troops. General Abizaid asked for terms of surrender from Muqtada Al-Sadr
and offered total indemnity for all the damage caused by the war. But now
the Iraqi insurgents were not willing to negotiate.
“The thirsty American troops marched on for another day under a hail of
mortar and small arms fire. At last they came to water — an oasis they had
to cross to get into Kurdistan and up into Turkey. At the sight of water the
American troops broke ranks and fell down into the mud to drink. There they
were slaughtered. Those who were spared were led away as prisoners.
“The Iraqis put the American troops to work in their rock quarries, where
most of them died. As for General Abizaid, they stoned him to death in
Baghdad upon their triumphal return.”
————-
We can all fervently hope it doesn’t turn out that way…but given the incredible hubris involved in the whole Iraq War mess, a reasonable person must fear the worst.
>> “I’d suggest that, at a minimum, victory requires the establishment of a stable democracy …. That doesn’t seem too much to ask for – but it’s far more than the American military or executive branch is realistically capable of offering.”
I don’t think that the military has been given the task of establishing democracy. They are there to protect the Iraqis who are developing the own civil society that will form their own democracy.
Also, Iraq is one of several fronts in a global war. There is an enemy to our own society, right there in Iraq, and at the same time there is an ally getting back on its own two feet, right there in Iraq.
>> “Bottom line: It doesn’t matter how morally correct an outcome is if it’s not something that we can feasibly bring about in the real world.”
But it does matter. The “we” includes the Iraqi People, as well as non-military persons from around the world.
I’ll be interested to see how you avoid your own version of the false dichotomy.
Over at SoCalPundit.com we are covering The Associated Press’ obvious rooting for the Sunni obstructionists. Check it out here:The Associated Press Is Working Hard to Defeat the Draft Constitution
Click here for a National Review article about how the proposed Constitution will Islamicize Iraq, and what that could mean for women and those of non-Islamic sects. Not good.
And the interesting thing is that I picked this up off of Free Republic, which is as about as right-wing a site as you’re going to see. Even they are worried about this.
The Kurds and Sunnis are both likely to vote this thing down because they don’t want to be forced to adhere to a Sh’ia interpretation of Islam. Only 3 provinces have to disapprove of this proposal to shoot it down. I think everyone should be prepared to find out on October 16th (or whenever they finish counting the ballots) that this thing is out and the process needs to be restarted. Which will be a good thing, from my perspective; maybe then the writers will realize that they have to put something together that will satisfy the voting public, not a bunch of clerics and politicians.
A satifactory line of retreat for our troops in Iraq must be established. I want to see out kids come home alive and not as Prisoners of War. Why, because we are concentrating to may of our forces near Bagdad. Envelopment by the insurgents is possible, cutting out supply lines seems to me thier first step toward surrounding us. I am probably mistaken…but Victory for us is no longer an option. Accomadation to reality is, first step is objective, triple checked intelligence on the insurgents motives, means and opportunity. We must withdraw…