November 19, 2004
Casting the key to success
Two items in the mainstream media - a Thomas Friedman editorial yesterday, and a breaking news story today - highlighted what will assuredly be the key to creating security in Iraq: effective Iraqi leaders.
Today's news was of a 300-man raid on a major mosque in Baghdad. With Americans serving only as backup, Iraqi troops stormed the mosque and arrested many. It's unclear whether there was a specific meeting there, or if it simply occurred in the middle of Friday prayers.
Throughout the war, Iraqi Guardsmen have been used against religious targets to avoid the images and inferences created by having foreign Christians taking local Islamic sites by force. But I think there's more to this operation than just religious sensitivity - the Coalition leadership is giving Iraqi leaders the experience they need to eventually take the helm.
Friedman dwelt on this issue yesterday in the New York Times:
The reality is this: Where you have individual Iraqi police, National Guard and Army commanders who have bravely stepped forward to serve the new Iraq and are willing to lead - despite intimidation efforts by insurgents - you have effective units. Where you don't have committed Iraqi leaders, all you have are Iraqi men collecting paychecks who will flee at the first sign of danger. The good news: there are pockets of Iraqi leaders emerging throughout the Army and police. The bad news: there are still way too few of them.
One successful operation such as today's may indicate the presence of just one effective Iraqi leader. However, we should watch for - and applaud - each success by Iraqi forces. As anyone who has studied war knows, there is no leadership school like combat, and each success will build the confidence, reputation, and personal toughness of the men who will ultimately be responsible for the security of their own nation.
Can Americans perform difficult military operations better, in general? Assuredly. Our equipment, training, and experience are all vastly superior, and our troops don't have nearby friends and families to slink away to. Yet we must remember that the creation of an effective and experienced Iraqi force is as much a goal as killing off insurgents. In fact, it is more important in the long run.
Our attention is naturally focused on the Americans - our brothers, fathers, and sons - in combat. But in the smoke and blood of Falluja, let's not forget to cheer every advance by the nascent Iraqi security forces. They, not us, will be the true heroes of a successful Iraqi state.
Posted by Chops at November 19, 2004 11:56 AMRight back at you, congratulations. It’s always nice to hear some relatively good news about progress in Iraq. At least we’re taking care not to come across in a completely ‘crusader’ fashion.
Posted by: AParker at November 19, 2004 12:22 PMChops:
Have you found out the ethnicity and tribe of the 300 Iraqi Soldiers? I heard they are Kurds. If they are Kurds then you’re “Progress” is deceptive. In fact it would probably make the situation worse. Nothing like Kurds to convince Sunnis they are under threat.
I really hope I am wrong. Still, Hope Springs Eternal.
Aldous.
Posted by: Aldous at November 19, 2004 12:43 PMLeaders, Yes. But what is a leader without sufficient manpower to get the job done? A failure in the eyes all but the leader. The fact has always been that Iraq is a huge land mass with extensive borders. Success in Iraq will require manpower the likes of which has not yet been seen.
Come up with the manpower to control the borders, and attack insurgents without first giving them the opportunity to leave the theater of attack, and good leadership may just be effective. Without it, all the leadership in the world won’t make any difference, good or bad. A state of martial law with curfews and checkpoints at every road would help tremendously, however, one can’t have democracy and freedom in a martial law state.
Find the manpower necessary, and one can find hope for Iraq’s future. It remains to be seen if such sufficient manpower can be assembled amongst Iraqi’s, Lord knows Bush et. al., totally got the manpower equation wrong, which is why so many insurgents simply left Fallujah to fight another day.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 19, 2004 01:01 PMAldous - Good question on the ethnicity; I haven’t seen anything on that, but if they are Kurds, then you’re absolutely right.
David - Saddam Hussein didn’t have any trouble finding the manpower, and I don’t think we will either. As Friedman writes in his editorial, there are plenty of Iraqi men in uniforms, but precious few are willing and able to step out and lead. Certainly, we have to think about manpower, but for now, the chokepoint is at the top.
Posted by: Chops at November 19, 2004 02:08 PMSaddam substituted black mail, bribery, fear of torture or loss of loved ones for manpower. While we have wholeheartedly engaged in bribery and some blackmail, and even some torture, I doubt you would advocate we use such methods to the extent Saddam did. Thus, Iraq without Saddam will require far more manpower than Saddam required.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 19, 2004 02:35 PMSaddam substituted nothing for manpower. He used other means, to be sure, but those were in addition. In a nation of 18 million (1990 CIA World Factbook), Saddam peaked his army at 900,000 men (http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-18/1100497980272910.xml; http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030314-iraq01.htm). That’s one soldier for every 20 citizens, including women, children, etc! It went down from there to about 400,000, but remained a massive portion of the population.
And that’s not counting the police and networks of Baathist informants, etc.
To the degree that we are arguing over the size of Saddam’s army, we are being pedantic. However, my point remains that there is a large group of Iraqis with army/police experience, and many have and will recruit in new Iraqi forces unless they find better jobs elsewhere. What the new Iraqi government needs to do is better protect their soldiers and police and provide better, more experienced leadership.
Good article Chops. It’s nice to see some on this side have their heads screwed on the right way. :)
Yet we must remember that the creation of an effective and experienced Iraqi force is as much a goal as killing off insurgents.
That’s a really good point. I just finished Fukuyama’s book, “State Building”, and one of the interesting things he mentions is that well-intentioned aid agencies tend to finance and administer their own operations in their target countries. He argues that, even though it’s more efficient and less corrupt, it stunts the state’s ability to provide the service for themselves when the agency eventually leaves.
It sounds like that’s what our military, at least, is trying to avoid.
The problem, of course, is that this kind of on-the-job training should have been totally unnecessary. Iraq never was - and still isn’t - secure. The election will be interesting.
