May 09, 2004
Iraq & Afghanistan; In Search of a Practicable Exit Strategy
Finally…finally it has happened. Operational commanders in the field in Iraq are finally saying what those of us well-versed in military strategy have been stating since the beginning of the Iraq War: we may win tactically, but without a clear and concise plan of operations, including a workable exit strategy, we risk losing the War strategically.
On the front page of The Washington Post, May 9, 2004, Army Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., the commander of the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division, who has spent most of this year in western Iraq, said he believes that at the tactical level at which fighting occurs, the U.S. military is still winning. But when asked whether he believes the United States is losing, he said, "I think strategically, we are." And he is far from alone is this assessment.
In a situation that can only be characterized as a quagmire—though predictably those in the Bush Administration are loath to call it so—the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan is quickly spinning out of control. The news from Iraq we feast on every day; the news from Afghanistan has been far less frequent but nonetheless disturbing. In both countries, in what now has turned into a two front War on Terrorism, what started out as easy victories for the U.S. military has turned into a long drawn out slugfest with no end insight. And along the way, both fronts have proven that Donald Rumsfeld’s theory of modern high tech warfare is somewhat lacking in substance when confronted with the reality of actual occupational warfare.
The President, in all of his recent speeches/press conferences, is long on the rhetoric of victory over the terrorists and short on details of how that victory would be, should be achieved. Missing is an outline for victory, never mind a long range strategic plan for accomplishing the near impossible; defeating international terrorism, and bringing democracy and stability to Iraq, a country where freedom is far removed from the national palette.
What is needed is a plan which Bush lacks the intellectual capacity to give birth to, and the man who does—Secretary of State Colin Powell—is increasingly ostracized and marginalized by this Administration. In light of that fact, I have taken the liberty to formulate my own plan looking past the mere military stratagem currently in place to a search for a meaningful exit strategy for the U.S. military that does not leave Civil War, the possibility for invasion, and wide-spread terrorist enclaves on Iraqi soil in its wake. Here now are the broad strokes:
- Relieve the Pentagon (Rumsfeld) and Ms. Rice of any further responsibility for Iraq, outside of security issues. It was clear before we prosecuted the War in Iraq that the State Department was better prepared to run post-war Iraq, than the Pentagon. Security and diplomacy are the necessary ingredients for any postwar healing to take place; neither was present in the opening days of postwar Iraq, and scant little is present now. Lack of clear leadership has consigned the Iraqi operation to drown in the quagmire of missed opportunities, indecision, and self-defeating arrogance.
- Re-Institute the Draft. According to the Bush Administration, we (the U.S.) are engaged in two simultaneous wars; one in Iraq, and another in Afghanistan. Neither campaign has enough troops to complete the mission; the Army’s ranks alone need to swell by at least another 250,000 – 300,000 men. At no other time in U.S. history when we have fought a major war, has the standing Army not been bolstered by additional troops incorporated into its ranks by the tens of thousands. The Guard & Reserves is not the answer, we need a bigger force. It is both unfair and militarily unsound to ask the Guard & Reserve to do the work of regular Army troops over an extended period of time. The President has stated that all Americans must sacrifice to see these conflicts through; it’s time for all Americans to do just that no matter how politically unsavory it may prove.
- Additional Corps for 3rd U.S. Army. The U.S. Army is divided into Field Armies, of which it has three, and then further divided into Corps of which it has four, and then Divisions. A Field Army contains 2-5 Corps; just by casual observation one can see that the Army is short a few Corps. The Third U.S. Army currently operates in Iraq with some 135,000 men from the regular Army and Guard & Reserve. I propose four to five new Corps be formed of 40,000 – 50,000 men each, said Corps to be stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan for the duration of these conflicts, both under the command structure of the 3rd U.S. Army.
These men would come from the re-constituted draft. The Guard & Reserve troops would be phased out of the theater and brought home, and all contracts with civilian security firms would end. Outsourcing vital military functions such as support of the troops in the rear, driving fuel and supply convoys, would also cease. In addition, all elements of the 10th Mountain Division would be deployed not to Iraq, where the fighting is confined to an urban setting, but to the mountainous southern and eastern Afghanistan where they can put their training to best use.
- Invite the International Community under the U.N banner into Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush needs to call for a summit in which all members of the U.N. are encouraged to participate, especially those nations directly contiguous to Iraq and Afghanistan. In the case of Iraq, the U.N. should be given the leadership role in putting into place a government that will work for all parties involved. And the possibility of a viable split between the three factions—Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis—in order to form their own nation states should not be ruled out.
- The U.S. should ask for U.N Forces for both Afghanistan and Iraq, whose aim would be to bring stability back to both countries. Without security, there can be no stabilization, and without stabilization there can be no viable political process. The U.S. Army with its newly formed Corps should make up the bulk of the U.N force and maintain overall military command.
- Institute the Martin Plan for Mid-East Peace. Without peace between Israel and the Palestinians, there can be no quantifiable and lasting peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors. Support for terrorism by Egypt, Syria, Iran, and Lebanon etc. has to cease. Take away this issue and a major source of hatred for the U.S. in the Muslim world would be extinguished.
- End reliance on Afghani militias by boosting U.S., NATO, and U.N. Troop strength (See point 2 above).
- Disarm Afghan militias. As long as they are allowed to exist, the power of the central government will be greatly diminished. By-and-large, they already rule the country outside of Kabul, by force. How can a credible Afghan government hold power without the trust of the population and the means to enforce breeches in the rule of law when it is confronted at every turn by dozens of private Army’s within its borders?
- Rein in the opium crop/trade in Afghanistan. Afghanistan has, according to recent reports, once more become the world’s number one grower of opium and exporter of heroin. This grossly undermines all of the wars we are waging; in Iraq, in Afghanistan (War on Terror) and the War on Drugs. New reports from Spain link the drug trade to terrorism as a means of financing their operations. How can a strategy to combat terrorism not include a plan to greatly diminish Afghanistan’s dependence on this crop?
- Broker a lasting settlement between India and Pakistan vis-à-vis the U.N. because their continuing conflict is destabilizing the entire region and diverts both countries’ attention away from the growing fundamentalist Islamic threat within their borders.
- Pressure the U.N., WTO, and World Bank to bring about real change in third world and developing nations by instituting measures to increase wages and benefits. No one could credibly argue that the grinding, pervasive poverty found in nations all over the world does not fuel resentment of first world nations and help swell the ranks of Islamic Fundamentalist movements and other groups whose aim it is to destabilize western civilization. The governments of these nations should be strongly persuaded to put the interest of their populations above all other concerns. And Multinational corporations should be put on notice that there is no country in the world they can set up shop that will sanction their unprincipled behaviors of putting profit above all other concerns. If countries work unilaterally to end the corporate exploitation nothing will change. Only through strength in numbers can a change be realized.
There can be little rational argument that the situation in Iraq is not rapidly spinning out of control. Operational Commanders are now stating as much. A number of problems led us here but underlining them all is an appalling lack of leadership emanating from the Oval Office, and from there the civilian leadership at the Pentagon. One could argue that it was grossly negligent to prosecute a war without a detailed plan in place; that was the over-arching lesson of Vietnam, our civilian led government failed to heed it. Further, the civilian leadership at the Pentagon in an effort to prove their “think-tank” inspired war plan would work, convinced an addlepated President to take this country to war against a sovereign nation, one which presented NO clear and present danger to the security of the United States.
Once engaged, the Iraq War seriously undermined—and continues to undermine—the so called War on Terror, and in my opinion increases the danger to America from terrorists. For either situation there is no end in sight, however by using the plan above as a blue-print, I believe we could extricate the U.S. from both countries within five years, not with out tails between our legs, but with our dignity intact having left both countries better off for our having been there.
If that’s what it takes to win strategically, there’s no hope.
Posted by: Bob Hope at May 9, 2004 07:08 PMNew reports from Spain link the drug trade to terrorism as a means of financing their operations.
The reasons that terrorists are able to use narcotics trading to support their finances is because of the artificial value placed on the “crops” due to “War on Drugs”.
Posted by: Home Run Baker at May 9, 2004 08:24 PM> If that’s what it takes to win strategically,
> there’s no hope.
That’s a funny statement coming from you, Bob! :)
The only other alternative strategy (besides the Bush policy of flailing about and calling it progress) is, of course, for our troops to just leave right now. Thank you, V. Edward, for spelling out an alternative third policy. I’m just hoping that John Kerry (or, for that matter, George Bush) is able to come up with something similar ASAP.
In any event, I hope that your post helps discredit the idea that those who oppose the Bush Administration’s prosecution of the war don’t necessarily advocate simply packing up and leaving.
-Cf
The Above plan is excellent. Except for the draft idea. The survival of the United States is not at stake here. Forcing people to fight is just wrong. We need more troops i agree. Get em from the UN, get NATO forces involved. Take troops from okinawa, south korea. The native people there dont want us around anyways. Re-activate parts of the Iraqi army.
Posted by: Guy at May 9, 2004 11:43 PMTo the V. Edward plan’s salient points:
1. Firing Rummy and Rice will not amount to firing PNAC, and those are the real puppeteers of this mess. It also won’t address the problems that exist in the middle of the chain of command as exposed by the Abu Ghraib scandal.
2. NO ONE with any shred of experience in military matters would suggest reinstating the draft with a straight face. This is PRECISELY a “chicken hawk” agenda, but worse because it has no hawkish talons and no sharpness to its beak. If you want large groups of worthless soldiers, go back in time to a day when they could have made a difference for the better on the battlefield. The problem with manpower is one which I personally helped to create during the Clinton years: we were kicking guys out for the most trivial of mistakes in an effort to “downsize”. All the Bush administration needs to do is reverse that policy, and also increase pay and benefits, with a more comprehensive education grant, and you’d see volunteer numbers rise back up to needed levels as troops for NCOs to lead when said NCOs aren’t getting kicked out for running a red light.
3. More troops makes for a greater requirement for logistical and heavy/air ordnance support. Smaller units are more mobile, more stealthy, and maximize the use of what ground troops are good for: eyes and ears. The strength of firepower comes not from adding 70,000 M16A2s to the battle, but from placing three or four additional gunships at the right place as called in by as few as 8 Navy SEALs. There IS more money to be spent in modern combat, but it’s not on boot-fillers. It’s on 105mm shells, smart bombs, cluster bombs, BLU-82s, and the gadgetry that ensures the small and agile ground force is thoroughly connected to their air support units, which should be dedicated to them full-time.
4 and 5. The U.N. will decline the invitation. The response will be “you broke it, YOU fix it.” I’ll bet a case of beer on that.
6. I agree with the core element that U.S. support for Israel is what makes radical Islam hate us, but we’ve shown by previous hypocrisy (not enforcing U.N. resolutions against Israel) that we cannot be a truly “unbiased” broker for peace in Israel and Palestine. What could definitely happen is that if we shift our stance to (at least nominally) “anti-Israel” and halt all monetary aid to that country, and become highly vocal in criticizing Israel at the U.N., joining the chorus of other nations as they do so to keep terrorists similarly off of their back. Yes, it IS “appeasement”, but Israel isn’t exactly the Sudetanland, y’know. (As a bonus, Israel has no oil.)
7. The problem here is using monsters to fight monsters. It’s like the Iran/Iraq war—as long as the carnage is high on both sides, things are going well. What really needs to happen is that the Afghan government needs to centralize more and strengthen in that centralization, such that tribal militias could be replaced by a national military force, with Afghan civilian control and a rule of law. Make Afghan forces less monstrous, and support them with firepower as they police themselves. Air support to essentially what would be ground Afghan forces playing eyes and ears (and translators). This would also boost Afghan pride that it is still THEIR fight for THEIR country, something you don’t really get, even with blue-hatters.
8 and 9. In light of my version of point 7, I agree with points 8 and 9.
10 and 11. The U.N. will broker what the U.N. will broker. If you think it adds to U.S. prestige when we “pressure” the U.N. to act on our agenda, then you don’t really understand the world community, at all.
Home Run Baker: exactly. The War of Drugs needs to ceasefire. Decriminalize immediately. Not only is the artificial inflation of drug prices a boon to terrorist networks, but it also saps domestic prisons of bed space desperately needed for violent and sex offenders, who are often given parole just to make room for some idiot caught with a bag of crank. Just treat it like alcohol: if you drive under the influence, you are a criminal; abuse it under conditions not likely to harm others, and you’re just a stupid and self-destructive person and your fate is your own.
Posted by: Ciggy at May 10, 2004 11:52 AMCf,
Second, I give him credit for what I thought was a clever application of military pressure during the runup to the Iraq invasion, where Bush’s belligerent pose actually helped reinstate massive UN inspection regime in Iraq. Unfortunately, this ambiguity behind his threats to invade Iraq turned out to be entirely unambigusous: it wasn’t a threat at all, it was simply the preliminary stages of a predetermined invasion plan. The inspections ended because of the invasion, and Bush’s one and only other good decision in his career was erased.
I appreciate your candor. I watched a Joseph Wilson speech in which he outlined ‘muscular containment’ policies which were cogent and worthy policies along the lines you seem to be espousing here. I am not against those options per se. I am not always for full military invasions to enact regime change. I think that we must use the appropriate tools in our tool box - and I want us to have as many tools as possible in that tool box and I like people who think outside of the box, who can invent new ‘tools’ to use.
I think what we disagree on is the rational and circumstances for this war. I agree that it was ‘elective’ in the sense that there were other options. I don’t think that choosing this war in light of the other options makes it wrong.
What makes Iraq different from North Korea? We have had sanctions on Iraq for 12 years, which were being used by the Hussein regime as propaganda proof of our evil. Saddam had no problem with showing children dying of malnutrition and hunger, lack of medicine etc. While he skimmed the oil-for-food program but didn’t give any of it to the people of Iraq. The UN had no problem with it apparently.
We made a mistake in 1992 because we felt the status quo was preferable to an unknown. This is reason enough for me to seek Saddam’s removal after 9/11.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Bush has definately done something different.
Moreover vis a vis Edward V Martins post, you guys have no idea what you are talking about. But thank you for finally coming up with some actual suggestions instead of merely bashing the Bush policy.
Jerome,
What would you have us do Eric? (And by us, I mean those of us who are disgusted at how this administration ignored advice from inside and outside its inner circle and plowed forward with an invasion that looks every day more like a matter of personal revenge than of protecting the safety of our country.)
I disagree. Are we losing in Iraq? I think not. It’s one thing to critizise the policy or the decisions made during that policy it’s quite another to paint a picture of defeat before we are defeated.
Posted by: Eric Simonson at May 10, 2004 01:20 PMCiggy,
I do not wish to get into a chest thumping contest about who has the richer military experience. We have a difference of opinion when it comes to the draft and the people it might attract vs. the all volunteer force. Shall we leave it at that?
Rummy, as you refer to him, set the stage for this morass when he stated publicly that these prisoners would not fall under the Geneva Convention, and indeed would not be called Prisoners of War, thus ensuring that we could treat them as we would…
The U.N would accept the invitation if we made worth their while, let us not forget the U.N. is made up of countries deeply embedded in their own self interests. Make it profitable and they will come.
Ciggy, it appears to me that you miss the point still, regarding reinstating the draft. There isn’t an incumbent alive who is going to give up reelection for reinstating the draft, not even Sen. Hagel. Both Dem’s and Repub’s are using very effectively, the draft issue as a means of hilighting the fact that either 1)we must increase dramatically by as much as 3 to 5 divisions, our military manpower IF we are to continue to fight multiple front military engagements and nation building OR we must discontinue the current policies that lead us to such understaffed engagements.
It is debateable whether we can now increase the manpower via a volunteer military force. One thing for sure, if we are able to raise 3 to 5 divisions of volunteers, the majority will be Bush supporters if Bush is reelected. Non-Bush and non-GOP supporters aren’t going to enlist to get maimed or killed for GOP/Bush “errors” in judgement regarding foreign policy. When I think about it, that is probably a form of human nature justice. Let those who support elective war, fight elective war electively.
Posted by: David R. Remer at May 10, 2004 02:48 PMThe U.N would accept the invitation if we made worth their while, let us not forget the U.N. is made up of countries deeply embedded in their own self interests. Make it profitable and they will come.
I feel reasonably certain that this has been tried.
By the way, I’m not sure how I ended up posting my comment above on this thread. I meant to do it on my other post. I guess the monitor is beginning to burn out my eyes.
V. Edward Martin, I like this post. It is meaty. I meant to respond yesterday but was just not able.
Given the harsh light in which you couch the current Bush policies I am aghast at your suggestions as to what should be done in place of Bush policy.
First of all you begin from a false premise. Everything that follows is just as wrong as what you believe the Bush doctrine to be.
If Iraq is not a quagmire, nor spinning out of control, and there is in fact an exit strategy, of what use are your suggestions predicated on the those points?
I’d like to go through your suggestions point by point… hopefully this evening.
Posted by: Eric Simonson at May 10, 2004 08:26 PMV. Edward, I was not intending to “chest thump”. If you think a draft “attracts” a certain calibre of recruit, then maybe you should take a second look at how it operates: it doesn’t need to “attract” ANYONE because it’s COMPULSORY. I presume when you talk about “comparing” military experience that it means you served in some capacity. Well then. Of the officers and NCOs you talked to who were veterans of the Viet Nam conflict, how many crooned on and on about how GREAT it was that we had a draft, so that we could fill those foxholes at the base camps with all those laid-back, fun-loving, dope-smoking hooligans who were all a laugh a minute and made life in combat that much more interesting? Now, are you sure you were listening with both ears when they talked like that?
As for Rummy setting the stage for abuses of human rights, point taken. There is a dichotomy which is inescapable when it comes to prisoner treatment in the legal world: they are either prisoners of war, or civilian criminals. Either way they have rights. Perhaps in hindsight Rummy’s resignation should have been called for at the moment he said it, unless Congress thought he didn’t really mean what he said?
I agree with what Eric said about U.N. involvement: the profit motive means of getting other nations involved in Viet Sand was tried, did not work when it was tried, and will not work when it’s tried again. Europe made a huge amount of money when Saddam was there, and now that they’re not, no amount of “consolation prize” money will lure them in to doing our dirty work for us. You might want to live in Europe for a while to get a feel for how a European thinks about such things.
David, I disagree with your premise, that throwing more manpower into the breach of Iraq and Afghanistan will solve all ills there. It wasn’t a lack of manpower that gave us Abu Ghraib. It isn’t lack of manpower that makes our troops sitting ducks to car bombs. It isn’t lack of manpower that has our guys just sitting there at Al Najaf looking like horse’s asses just because a fascist is hiding inside a MOSQUE. It wasn’t lack of manpower that had no air support anywhere near the Marines that got pinned down in Nasiriyeh during the conventional phase of the conflict. It wasn’t lack of manpower that has helicopters flying low and within RPG range even though any idiot who’s seen “Blackhawk Down” knows that’s not a very smart thing to do. It wasn’t lack of manpower that shut down a dissident newspaper in Baghdad. It wasn’t lack of manpower that has installed a white American as the interim governor, making Iraq look like the 51st “State” instead of a sovereign nation. It wasn’t lack of manpower that gave us false details of WMDs being in Iraq in the FIRST place. I would submit that none of ANYTHING that’s gone wrong in Iraq is due directly to a lack of manpower, at all.
If you want to fight a modern war like a grown-up, and not like a ten year-old boy lining up plastic soldiers in his bedroom, you will understand that the days of huge lines of infantry pointing rifles at each other are O-V-E-R. It may not be a “new world order” but it’s a new world for combat. The tactics of precision air power and air-supported mobile infantry are just now coming into fruition, and with each conflict the DoD gets a little bit wiser to how it all works. It’s still not completely there yet, but each new application of each new approximation of this doctrine makes the previous conflict look almost like the Civil War for backwardness and unnecessary carnage given the weaponry being employed. But truly modern war doctrine is also heavily dependant on good diplomacy and intelligence to avoid unnecessary wars, and good psyops minimize the dangers that insurgency warfare pose to any democratic nation confronting it. We’ve had none, none, and NONE in those departments. This administration stacked the deck against the ground troops, all the while saying, deadpan, “support our troops”. Now, I say again, fix THOSE problems before throwing more troops into the meat grinder created thereby.
“Let those who support elective war, fight elective war electively.”
What part of the words “volunteer versus draftee” are still unclear to you? Is there such thing as an “elective draft”? That in the ’60s, those draft cards were just… suggestions? They were running to Canada just for the walleye fishing?
Posted by: Ciggy at May 10, 2004 09:51 PMHere’s a down payment on my comments…
Again, your basic premise is that defeat is inevitable unless we have the left in charge. I think not. The left has been painting a picture of defeat from the very beginning. Of course if anything even looks like it’s going wrong those who predicted it all along can claim they were right. After all, ‘A broken watch is right twice a day.’
Your plan’s stated purpose is to reach, “a meaningful exit strategy… that does not leave Civil War, the possibility for invasion,” or, “wide-spread terrorist enclaves on Iraqi soil.” You should have added does not leave Bush in office as well.
1. Relieve the Pentagon (Rumsfeld) and Ms. Rice of any further responsibility for Iraq, outside of security issues…the State Department was better prepared to run post-war Iraq, than the Pentagon…
First of all Paul Bremer is a career state department diplomat. The CPA is staffed with State department employees. Bremer and the Coalition Authority are the civilian controlling authority in Iraq. It is they who have been working on handing over the government of Iraq since May 16, 2003.
The Bush administration did not publicly say this would be quick, easy, and painless. The left has had to revise its tactics since the invasion. They exaggerate this claim so that they can say everything has gone wrong and there has been bad planning from the start.
The truth is not so clear-cut. Plans are based on intelligence and assumptions based on that intelligence. Any plan, no matter how well crafted, is only so good as the conditions on which it is based. In a fluid environment those conditions change. “War plan’s rarely survive first contact with the enemy.” It is as if the left is demanding a step by step itinerary of every setback, attack, or trouble before hand or else everything is gone to hell and we’ve lost due to lack of planning and incompetence.
You are arguing that Rumsfeld and Rice should be fired because they don’t agree with your premises. Your reference to ‘Clear leadership’ is merely a euphemism for ‘they didn’t agree with my hindsight assessment’.
“Security and diplomacy are the necessary ingredients for any postwar healing to take place; neither was present in the opening days of postwar Iraq,”
You are stating the obvious. Obvious even to Rumsfeld and Rice. In fact you cannot say that neither were present in the opening days of postwar Iraq. It is painfully obvious that any plan for Iraq did include security and diplomacy. If you want to be precise say that the plans Rumsfeld and Rice made for security and diplomacy were not adequate. Surely something as vague and necessary as ‘security’ and ‘diplomacy’ wouldn’t be entirely overlooked. We might as well say that ‘planning’ was absent. Even though there were plans.
2. Re-Institute the Draft…
I doubt your sincerity on point 2. But I agree with your conclusion that we will need a bigger force going into the future if we are to expand the hegemony of GW, ‘the merciful and compassionate’. Unless Kerry is elected. Because the war on terror is not ‘primarily’ a military one. And that is your basic point isn’t it?
3. Additional Corps for 3rd U.S. Army…
The draft is not a good tool to discourage war by the way. An all-volunteer force is. It’s easier for politicians to draft the men they need than it is to convince them to join. Vietnam would have been over quicker if we did not have the draft. If the war is truly important and necessary and you can convince the American people it is, then you will have all the men you need. If you cannot, well, you will not have the manpower you need.
Ask and you shall receive. It’s a democracy after all.
I’m with you on expanding our forces. We will have to actually begin cutting the superfluous and harmful social welfare services to pay for it though. There should be plenty of money in the budget after that.
4. Invite the International Community under the U.N banner into Iraq and Afghanistan…
Been invited. Aren’t coming to the party. Which is ok, because the UN does not deserve a leadership role in Iraq. They pretty much forfeited that.
Tell me something, how is it that the UN selling out the Iraqi people for oil money doesn’t disqualify them in your mind from a position of honor over the people of Iraq? If the US had skimmed off billions from the oil-for-food program liberals would proclaim from the highest mountaintop our unworthiness to give a grain of rice to the Iraqi people.
And why would the Iraqi people view the UN favorably after 12 years of brutal sanctions and taking bribes from Saddam?
And the possibility of a viable split between the three factions—Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis—in order to form their own nation states should not be ruled out.
Has it’s own problems. Not least of which is contiguous states opposition to such a plan.
How can you give yourself the leeway to just say, ‘we can’t rule this out’, but somehow Rumsfeld better have everything layed out to the tee or else his plans have failed and are inadequate? Why can’t you have that all planned out?
5. The U.S. should ask for U.N Forces for both Afghanistan and Iraq…
Asked. Will not receive.
Besides, what the hell good does it do to have blue helmets if they’re all US anyway? Why not just paint our own helmets blue and pretend we are UN forces? The temple of internationalism is bankrupt, V.
V. Edward, I don’t think you can lump Afghanistan in with Iraq. Afghanistan is now occupied by NATO and the UN is very active there.
and there is in fact an exit strategy
Eric, if you could provide a link to the ‘to do’ list, I’d appreciate it. As far as I know, the military occupation of Iraq is open-ended. If you know of a checklist of things that need to be done before we leave, I’m interested. Thanks!
Ok, I want to weigh in point by point, too. :)
1. The Pentagon is being phased out, so I’m not sure this is an issue, anymore. The problem is, the State Dept. should have been in charge of post-war Iraq from the start. By all accounts, they (unlike the Pentagon) actually had a plan.
2. Re-institute the draft! I don’t think so. My Dad was career military in the 50’s - 70’s, he & I remember the quality of the military we had back then. I think a small, well-trained, motivated military is a better option. It has the added benefit of keeping us from waging unnecessary wars of aggression. Almost. :)
3. If we weren’t in the business of nation building, we wouldn’t need additional corps. Once we pull out of Iraq (I’m assuming we’ll leave at some point, Eric, the checklist, please), would we keep the extra divisions? What for?
4 - 5. We do need to get the UN (and NATO) involved in Iraq (and increase their, and our, participation in Afghanistan).
People seem to be talking about the UN as if it’s a homogenous entity. It’s not. It’s a collection of people representing 191 different nations, including Muslim states. They all need to be finessed. It’s going to be hard work to convince them to authorize enough troops.
The easy way is to just do everything unilaterally without the hassles of coordination and focusing different nation’s agendas on a single purpose, but we’re living the alternative.
Creating separate Kurdish and Shiite states is an interesting idea. Turkey has said they’ll go to war to prevent a Kurdish state, and Iran would love to make Shiite southern Iraq their newest province. It might be worthwhile to explore the option, but I don’t think it’s feasible given the climate in the region.
6. The resolution of the Israeli/Palestinian problem is key. Bush seems to be letting Sharon have free reign. After all these years, maybe that’s the solution. I don’t know. I do know that US military occupation of Iraq creates the same problem. A UN force representing 191 different nations (even with a majority of US troops) would make a big perceptual difference. Hence the al Qaeda threats to UN personnel in Iraq.
7 - 8. The militais in Afghanistan and Iraq have to go. Absolutely. Why does Chalabi need his own militia? Disarm them all.
Again, NATO is already operating in Afghanistan, as are the UN. We need to persuade all the NATO countries, including the US, to expand their forces in Afghanistan.
The tougher job is to convince the UN to commit troops to Iraq. Considering the hash President Bush has made of relations with UN delegates, Kerry will have an easier time of it.
BTW, Eric. Here’s a State Dept summary presented to Congress,
Senior U.S. officials, with the reported exception of Secretary of State Powell, wanted to keep the U.N. role limited to humanitarian relief and economic reconstruction, reserving most decisions about a post-war Iraqi powerstructure to the United States and Britain.
There’s no evidence that President Bush wanted UN governing or troop assistance in Iraq until recently. To say that we asked, but will not receive is wrong. We never wanted it enough to really try.
Ciggy—
I have more then a few stories to tell of sailors and soldiers who were products of the all-volunteer force of the 80’s and 90’s who were less then desirable individuals. So the all-volunteer force does not guarantee a high caliber soldiers, sailors, airman, and marines. During the Vietnam era, the military reflected to mood of the American society as a whole. It was a turbulent time in American history, and the mood of the whole country was sour. I do not buy into the notion that those men who become part of the military as a result of a draft who be untenable and incapable of the professionalism demanded of today’s regular Armed Forces.
In fact I have lived in Europe, 3.5 years as a matter of fact; 2 years in Germany and 1.5 year in Turkey, and still keep in touch with friends I made there. If…if we begin to treat the Europeans as co-equal partners in Iraq and hold ALL contracts out for competitive bidding, they will come, reluctantly at first, but they will come. Never under-estimate the power of human greed, not over-estimate nationalist pride.
It was a stunning lack of leadership to lead to Abu Ghraib, and all of the failure in our “post-war” Iraqi operations, a lack of leadership from the very top of the Pentagon leadership structure.
High-tech warfare in great as part of a broader plan to fight and win a war. No one could credibly argue that war has now entered into a new era, and that WWII style warfare is coming to an end. However, in order to occupy a nation, especially a nation of millions of hostile, armed citizens, you need troops in large numbers to control them. You cannot fight urban warfare with smart bombs and stealth aircraft. Buildings need to be occupied, territory taken and held. That cannot happen with smart weaponry, as we certainly learned when we could not guard the weapons dumps, and they were subsequently looted, and the arms are now being used to kill out soldiers and Marines. Nor did we have adequate numbers of men to guard the boarders, thus allowing untold numbers of foreign fighters into Iraq, including terrorists, men who are now battling out troops. This new war philosophy did not help the Marines bring a swift end to the uprising in Falluhah, nor has it bright a swift end to the standoff in An Najaf. In order to get and keep control and order in Iraq more troops are needed…
ric—
My basic premise has nothing what so ever to do with the left, or the right, and everything to do with common-sense and a need to salvage what little dignity, honor, and self-respect we can muster.
I make no secret of my distain, distrust and dislike for Bush, and my Plan has nothing to do with seeing him out of office, but it would be a desirable side effect, now that you bring it up.
In order for a plan to survive its first contact with the enemy, there has to be a plan the begin with; outside of the War Plan there was none.
I am arguing that Rumsfeld and Rice should be fired, but they are both guilty of gross incompetence and negligence; I doubt either has read my plan to agree or disagree with it. what is clear is that the Pentagon had no post-war plan for Iraq, at least not one that made sense. They flailed we lost.
The War in Iraq IS NOT A WAR ON TERROR, it is an unjust War being fought to what end, only G.W. Bush knows, or does he? Is it your contention that the War in Iraq is now part of the broader War on Terror? It did start out that way, how did we start traveling down that road? And the War on Terror needs to be fought on several front at once, the military aspect is just one cog in a machine of victory that can only be run by people with vision. The current administration ain’t them!
The draft is not a good tool to discourage war by the way. An all-volunteer force is. It’s easier for politicians to draft the men they need than it is to convince them to join. Vietnam would have been over quicker if we did not have the draft. If the war is truly important and necessary and you can convince the American people it is, then you will have all the men you need. If you cannot, well, you will not have the manpower you need.
Funny, the President’s daughters haven’t signed up yet! We are already in a War, there is none to discourage, now we need to do what is necessary to win them. To use your reasoning the country never should have drafted men into the service to fight WWI, of WWII. The all volunteer force, of which I was a member—is a recent experiment.
And what would you consider a “superfluous and harmful social welfare service?”
V. Edward,
“I have more then a few stories to tell of sailors and soldiers who were products of the all-volunteer force of the 80’s and 90’s who were less then desirable individuals.”
If you took my comparison between an all-volunteer force and a draftee force to mean that I asserted a volunteer force to be PERFECT, then you took incorrectly. I will, however, compare it favorably to a draftee force, in terms of fighting ability, general IQ, fitness, and motivation.
“During the Vietnam era, the military reflected to mood of the American society as a whole.”
Do you want MODERN American ‘society as a whole’ reflected in our MODERN military? Do you want a giant collection of overweight video game addicts who can barely hang onto jobs featuring hair nets and name tags, out in the mean streets of Death to America-land? I would want only the best of the best, of modern Americans, represented there. The former group wouldn’t survive long at all, regardless of their thumb-eye coordination and ability to distinguish delivered pizza from DiGiorno. And as mean as I may sound in ribbing the average young American man in this way, I still don’t want them to die meanly. They are, after all, my fellow Americans.
“Never under-estimate the power of human greed, not over-estimate nationalist pride.”
It is the latter which sublimates the former in the European mind-set, which shows to me that in spite of the time you spent there, you learned little. European pride has been wounded, and more importantly, European notions of what is right diplomatically. That will NOT be swept away by offers of “filthy lucre” as they might characterize it. They can barely sweep away Socialist edifices proven ineffectual, by such greed. To expect them to sacrifice lives for it, is bordering on the ridiculous.
“It was a stunning lack of leadership to lead to Abu Ghraib, and all of the failure in our “post-war” Iraqi operations, a lack of leadership from the very top of the Pentagon leadership structure.”
And a draft, I’m sad to say, will not fill the leadership gap. You cannot draft a good President. That position, too, must be volunteer.
“in order to occupy a nation, especially a nation of millions of hostile, armed citizens, you need troops in large numbers to control them.”
I prefer not to use the term “control”, but rather to provide protection for reconstruction operations, and fire support for domestic Iraqi law enforcement, when requested by them. If Iraqis lay down their weapons and refuse to “control” a certain band of militia, and said band of militia attacks the U.S., that’s one thing—they are a direct enemy to fight on the streets in a high-tech combo of infantry and air power, and the militia will lose. But the sense of “control” meaning U.S. troops enforcing U.S. will on an unwilling people, that never SHOULD be a U.S. goal. Sovereignty starts with the face above the badge enforcing the laws. That face MUST be Iraqi, or we really are just a colonial occupier.
I would even go so far as to say that if protection for reconstruction operations becomes a fight against the general populace, then obviously the will of said populace is made known, that they don’t want such work to be done, and thus it shouldn’t BE done, and we should simply leave.
“Buildings need to be occupied, territory taken and held”
Dinosaur thinking, and it’ll be deadly to us. Objectives are objectives, and a building for its own sake is not an objective, nor is territory (assuming we’re not a COLONIAL power in the making). You find the bad guy, you kill the bad guy, you go onto the next bad guy. Repeat until no bad guys available for targeting. That which you “HOLD” you will die trying to hold. And it’s worth… what? We lost men holding onto worthless rice paddies in Viet Nam, and now we’re losing men and women holding onto piles of stone in Viet Sand. Pitiful. Pitiful and disgusting.
“Nor did we have adequate numbers of men to guard the boarders”
Infrared scanning devices identify infiltrators, and response teams go to meet the infiltrators with a welcome package. Now, are you saying the scanning devices weren’t all in place, or that there weren’t enough response teams? Perhaps some in-flight refueling and less discriminatory application of firepower during high-volume infiltration would be more in order. A paleolithic approach, to put humans on the ground to replace the scanning devices, is really asking for more trouble than any value you get from them. More border guards make for more potential abductees and ransom demands.
“This new war philosophy did not help the Marines bring a swift end to the uprising in Falluhah”
The new war doctrine wasn’t applied in Fallujah. Essentially Fallujah and Najaf amount to terrorists hiding in mosques and feeling those to be a “safe zone” against Coalition attack. Perhaps safe from bullets and bombs, but technology is there to make living in those mosques untenable in the extreme, to flush them out, and then they are “fair game” for killing once again. See here:
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/article/0,12543,351353,00.html
6. Institute the Martin Plan for Mid-East Peace. Without peace between Israel and the Palestinians, there can be no quantifiable and lasting peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors. Support for terrorism by Egypt, Syria, Iran, and Lebanon etc. has to cease. Take away this issue and a major source of hatred for the U.S. in the Muslim world would be extinguished.
Yes, and all fights between husbands and wives should never begin. That way we will have no divorces. It’s all so simple you see. I know you said broad strokes but this is is starting to sound like the proverbial beauty contestant speech.
The Simonson plan for Mid-east peace goes thusly: Israel gives up a contiguous area of land for the state of Palestine. Builds a wall between the two. Pulls out all troops etc.
Viola! a Palestinian state is born. The UN can even declare it so and give some Hamas brigade commander a seat on the policy working group on Terrorism.
Probably that same day, the next suicide bombing will be treated as an act of war and Israel will have to invade ‘palestine’ and should keep it all, kicking the palestinians out for good.
V. Martin,
Funny, the President’s daughters haven’t signed up yet! We are already in a War, there is none to discourage, now we need to do what is necessary to win them. To use your reasoning the country never should have drafted men into the service to fight WWI, of WWII. The all volunteer force, of which I was a member—is a recent experiment.
I would be genuinely surprised if you actually believed we should institute a draft. I honestly thought you were taking this position in the vein of Charles Rangle.
I don’t think they necessarily needed the draft in WWII. (I should look to see if there’s available stats on this,) but I’ll bet a large number of people joined voluntarily.
In any case, that is the key. Voluntarily. Even if you were drafted, you felt it was your duty to go in. Historically, drafted folks don’t fight as well as volunteers. Another reason why the recruiting should actually play up the danger and possibilty of actual battle, not college tuition.
And what would you consider a “superfluous and harmful social welfare service?”
Most of the social welfare service. It’s a broad category. I left is so intentionally.
Posted by: Eric Simonson at May 12, 2004 12:35 AMEric—
Lets hear your plan for peace in the Middle East, and please leave the sarcasm on the stage.
Historically, drafted folks don’t fight as well as volunteers.
Tell that to the men who fought in WWW and WWII (you know America’s greatest generation); I’d love to here if they would agree with you. And do you have proof to back such a baseless statement?
Most of the social welfare service. It’s a broad category. I left is so intentionally.
Is this because you really can’t define it adequately, or that you lack the fact and figures to back your assertions that “Social Welfare” systems should be scraped. Its funny to hear those on the right who are the torch bearers (supposedly) for family and Christian values, which, include compassion and empathy for fellow man, scream the loudest about “social Welfare” programs. Posted by: V Edward Martin at May 12, 2004 07:48 AM
Its funny to hear those on the right who are the torch bearers (supposedly) for family and Christian values, which, include compassion and empathy for fellow man, scream the loudest about “social Welfare” programs.
V Edward, I wonder about that too. There are a lot of elderly people living on Social Security who can only see a doctor because they have Medicare.
I’m not sure how I’d be able to support my and my wife’s parent’s, in addition to my family, if they didn’t have SS.
Eric, what’s the Republican equivalent of Social Security and Medicare? And while your at it, I’d still like to know more about the Iraq exit strategy you claim Bush has. I’ve never heard of it. Where’s the checklist?
Eric:
“I don’t think they necessarily needed the draft in WWII. (I should look to see if there’s available stats on this,) but I’ll bet a large number of people joined voluntarily.”
Propaganda made the draft a formality more than anything else. But the way the propaganda unfolded would give people today the CREEPS with the violations of free speech, etc.
The difference in Viet Nam was that if there were a propaganda effort, it was toothless at best, and for good or ill there was no will to stamp out free speech in the comprehensive “for keeps” way the FDR administration did. There was an assumption that Americans will always support the American cause, and it was a false assumption. With JFK dead, that should have been an even greater indicator that people were going to distrust the government.
“recruiting should actually play up the danger and possibilty of actual battle, not college tuition.”
It should be both, really. Danger and misery, and if you survive, hefty steps up the social ladder as a reward. That was how Gaius Marius crafted the Roman legions in such a way that it became an impeccable engine of death and destruction to anyone who would oppose it. If you wanted to get ahead in life, you became a soldier. And if you fought well and showed military acumen, you climbed the ranks. And if you climbed the ranks, you could one day be Caesar if you played your cards right. Rome declined and died when they got this notion that fighting in the legions was something for hired barbarians to take care of for them. The fat, laid-back Roman citizens were powerless when the hired barbarians decided they should be in charge.
V. Edward:
“the men who fought in WWW and WWII (you know America’s greatest generation);”
I think a lot of our WWII envy could be cured if we had a better understanding of the degree to which America ceased to be a free country during that time. It ironically took the “rebellious” 60s to bring it back closer to the Constitution, and to start making libertarian headway once more.
The only road map back to “the greatest generation” is to perpetrate the greatest propaganda fraud as was done at that time.
Lee:
“Eric, what’s the Republican equivalent of Social Security and Medicare?”
Both Establishment political parties quietly fund welfare for corporations. They are exponentially more expensive than getting prescription drugs to seniors, etc.
Ciggy—
Hum, now there is a new take on the valued men and womeon of that war.
Posted by: V Edward Martin at May 12, 2004 01:03 PMV Edward, don’t get me wrong: the men and women of WWII WERE very great people, but their greatness was inspired and manipulated and leveraged and taken advantage of by a propaganda engine which by today’s standards would be thought of as absolutely beastly, by their own government. We lost 60,000 U.S. Marines taking ONE HILL on Iwo Jima, and it was just reported as a “victory”. Can you even remotely imagine that kind of reporting today? We have one Marine get a lanced boil these days and there are three hour discussions with pundits as to how bad of a disaster the battle was. And while I disagree with the effete nature of those discussions, I do think that the presence of those discussions are the very reason why we fight to begin with. WWII made a dangerous flirtation with dictatorship, saying “there’s a war on, so none of that unpatriotic hoo-ha” as the dissident reporters were muzzled, etc.
Have you seen the clip of Mrs. Sulliven’s speech to other American parents who were losing children in WWII, where she says “do like me, keep your chin up.” The tone of voice is canned and the way she looks out the corner of her eyes, you can tell the speech was under duress. That was how they kept things “humming nicely” during that war. A great generation, sure. Greatly manipulated.
Ciggy—
We lost 60,000 U.S. Marines taking ONE HILL on Iwo Jima, and it was just reported as a “victory”.
Did you mean to say 6,000 dead on Iwo Jima? In fact the U.S. lost some 6, 821 dead by the end of the Iwo Jima Campaign (see">http://history.acusd.edu/gen/WW2Timeline/LUTZ/iwo.html”>see The Battle of Iwo Jima). I do not know where you got that rather wild number. At the Battle of Okinawa the bloodiest battle of the Pacific Campaign, the U.S. lost some 12,000 men killed and some 38,000 wounded (see">http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/okinawa-battle.htm”>see Battle of Okinawa).
No I have not seen the speech in question…but I would argue that the Americans who served and those that stayed at home were some of the best and brightest this country has ever produced before or since. They understood what it meant to sacrifice; they understood honor, and devotion to country; they understood what it meant to represent the flag and uphold the Constitution. Little can be said of this generation of Americans other than we know the value of a good bargain!
Both Establishment political parties quietly fund welfare for corporations. They are exponentially more expensive than getting prescription drugs to seniors, etc.
Eric, I don’t think that’s the answer I’m looking for. Republicans want to get rid of Social Security and Medicare, and my retired parents pay for their food and medicine with… what?
And I’m still waiting for the “to do” list in Iraq. What’s the exit strategy?
V. Edward, yes, 6,000. I had a Carl Sagan “Powers of Ten” moment there it seems.
But to have six Iraq war’s worth of casualties in a single battle, today that just wouldn’t fly.
And while I share your admiration for those who served in WWII, your implicit trivialization of the sacrifice of people like Pat Tillman, I take to be intellectually dishonest if not morally repugnant.
This morning on right wing radio I’m hearing a cry for press censorship in the war, and while this repulses me to my core, I also understand the correlation they make to Lincoln’s actions in the Civil War (where atrocities were perpetrated in huge numbers against the South, but not reported under threat of imprisonment). They didn’t mention FDR’s censorship of WWII, but they did mention Schwartzkopf’s “limiting” of the press in GWI. I don’t like that one bit, not a single iota more than calls from the left wing (and some of the right’s chicken hawks) for a DRAFT.
There IS a way to fight and prevail in a war without either losing our Democracy (or at least the 1st Amendment thereof), or losing vast crowds of our young generation by way of a meat-grinder draft. We have technologies that need to be employed, and tactics that need to be employed (each of which I’ve described in detail elsewhere), and Bush is doing neither, as icing on the cake to what is now becoming a trite slogan—in a war that never should have begun in the first place.
