Posted on 11/30/2005 9:21:47 AM PST by NormsRevenge
Two senior Army analysts who in 2003 accurately foretold the turmoil that would be unleashed by the U.S. invasion of Iraq offer a bleak assessment in a new study of what now lies ahead in that bloodied land.
They advise, however, against setting a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal - unless Washington finds the situation "irredeemable." A timetable "is an excuse for allowing the system to collapse," the Army War College's W. Andrew Terrill and Conrad C. Crane write.
Political pressure is building in Washington for a concrete plan to extricate U.S. forces from Iraq. On Tuesday, on the eve of an important address on Iraq at the U.S. Naval Academy, President Bush told reporters he wants the troops home, "but I don't want them to come home without having achieved victory."
In a February 2003 report, a month before the U.S. invasion, Crane and Terrill had warned that the United States might "win the war but lose the peace" if it attacked Iraq. They suggested armed resistance to an occupation would grow, a harsh American response would further alienate Iraqis, and establishing political stability would prove difficult - all predictions that were borne out.
They warned in particular against disbanding the pre-invasion Iraqi army, a step that was nonetheless taken and is now viewed as a blunder that fed the anti-U.S. insurgency.
In their new 60-page report, veteran Middle East scholar Terrill and Crane, director of the Army Military History Institute, say a U.S. troop presence in Iraq probably cannot be sustained more than three years further. Meantime, they write:
-"It appears increasingly unlikely that U.S., Iraqi and coalition forces will crush the insurgency prior to the beginning of a phased U.S. and coalition withdrawal."
-"It is no longer clear that the United States will be able to create (Iraqi) military and police forces that can secure the entire country no matter how long U.S. forces remain."
-And "the United States may also have to scale back its expectations for Iraq's political future," by accepting a relatively stable but undemocratic state as preferable to a civil war among Iraq's ethnic and religious factions.
"U.S. vital interests have never demanded a democratic state in Iraq before 2003," they note.
As for Iraqi security forces, Terrill and Crane reason it may prove difficult to build "multiethnic and multisectarian" police and military units, and suggest factional militias may come to the fore instead.
The Army scholars devote their closest analysis to the current debate over whether Washington should set a predetermined, step-by-step schedule for a troop pullout. They see "catastrophic" dangers in that approach.
For one thing, they say, as soon as a timetable is announced, some Iraqis cooperating with the Americans "will calculate that U.S. protection is a declining asset" and ally themselves with the insurgents, or seek protection of a militia. For another, the insurgents might do what the North Vietnamese did in 1973: bide their time, build up their forces, and attack all-out once the Americans leave.
Thirdly, with an inflexible timetable, "the United States may end up abandoning a potentially hopeful situation and instead allowing that nation to plunge into civil war."
They see one circumstance in which a timetable is useful, if "the Iraqi government may have only a small chance to survive, but the U.S. leadership does not wish to announce publicly that we have basically given up on Iraq."
I wonder what they would have thought at Pearl Harbor.
Were they from the War College or the Waaaaaahhhhhhh College?
Actually these guys were wrong - there has been no harsh resistance and the majority of the fighting isn't "home grown".
Doesn't matter to the media though, they'll find whatever they want to enforce their own view.
Now, I'm not military but someone explain to me:
"It appears increasingly unlikely that U.S., Iraqi and coalition forces will crush the insurgency prior to the beginning of a phased U.S. and coalition withdrawal."
How does one crush an insurgency while exiting the combat zone?
-"It is no longer clear that the United States will be able to create (Iraqi) military and police forces that can secure the entire country no matter how long U.S. forces remain."
Isn't like 85-90% of the country secure already?
They sound like George McClellan...well, sort of.
These are two fellows who should know better.
It's a good thing we didn't use big thinkers during the American Revolution.
"You're going to what? You're going to fool the Japanese into giving away their plan to attack Midway by planting a fake message?" "They'll never fall for that. And besides, it's disinformation. I'm putting your stupid idea on the six o'clock news".
That's what they'd have done.
"You're going to what? You're going to fool the Japanese into giving away their plan to attack Midway by planting a fake message?" "They'll never fall for that. And besides, it's disinformation. I'm putting your stupid idea on the six o'clock news".
That's what they'd have done.
McClellan was the Wesley Clark of the 19th century.
The "resistance" is mostly in 3 provinces,mostly sunni,
and is getting weaker.We know this because the terrorists
are basically suing for peace.They`ve put out
feelers,asking to join the political process and
elections.
"Isn't like 85-90% of the country secure already?"
Yeah, but there is still 10-15% that isn't, and that's all the dums. care about.
The majority of the fighting is homegrown.
The comparisons to WWII are absurd, as well.
So Saddam and Sons gave Iraq and the ME a bright future????
Only the US brings bleakness?????????????
Good grief.
Yes! Don't listen to two professional analysts at the War College, who do this for a living! "Waaaaah, I can't heeeeeeear yoooooooo!"
Instead, a parade of BS politicians is the only source of policy, information and communication we need.
Our job is to be present in Islamic sh@%holes forever, babysitting medieval morons, handing out toys and getting picked off on the roads. Nothing less will do.
Huh? Did they predict foreign fighters? NO---they thought that the LOCAL IRAQIS would not support us. (Cue Sen. Byrd, "Wrong! Wrong!")
Disbanding the Iraqi army was PRECISELY the right thing to do---it's exactly what we did in Japan. You could not allow the Sunni/Saddamites to be rewarded for supporting him.
-"It is no longer clear that the United States will be able to create (Iraqi) military and police forces that can secure the entire country no matter how long U.S. forces remain."-
No matter how long we remain? That's a ridiculous statement, and collapses all their other arguments.
I`d rather know what the boots on the ground think.And we know what they think:
in a survey last month from the U.S.-based International Republican Institute, 47% of Iraqis polled said their country was headed in the right direction, as opposed to 37% who said they thought that it was going in the wrong direction. And 56% thought things would be better in six months. Only 16% thought they would be worse.
American soldiers are also much more optimistic than American civilians. The Pew Research Center and the Council on Foreign Relations just released a survey of American elites that found that 64% of military officers are confident that we will succeed in establishing a stable democracy in Iraq. The comparable figures for journalists and academics are 33% and 27%, respectively.
Even more impressive than the Pew poll is the evidence of how our service members are voting with their feet. Although both the Army and the Marine Corps are having trouble attracting fresh recruits — no surprise, given the state of public opinion regarding Iraq — reenlistment rates continue to exceed expectations. Veterans are expressing their confidence in the war effort by signing up to continue fighting.
Maybe, but most of that has been "secure" for more than two years now. The most disturbing aspect of the ongoing U.S. military operations is the recurring activity in the 10%-15% that has never been "secure." Just go back to early 2003 and think of how many times the Pentagon has announced a "new offensive in Ramadi/Fallujah/etc." -- which means a lot of the military action today is in places where costly battles had already been fought in the last 2+ years. That's not a sign of progress in any sense of the word.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.