"It is possible that the "Tet Offensive" of Iraq is about to occur. . . But no matter how badly things go in Iraq (and/or the rest of the world) in the next four weeks, the worst thing we can do is cut and run. Remember, we WON the battles of Tet."
I normally avoid Iraq as a topic because my opinions are not popular and I don't have time for flame wars. But these are good questions rationally presented. So I'll bite. And in any case, I broached the subject.
I think folks have been expecting the Tet scenario to materialize at some point, but I do not think either we, nor they are capable of delivering a "knockout blow" to the other side's will to fight. You are right to observe we won Tet militarily, but not politically. So it is the perception of reality that matters as much as the underlying reality itself. We cannot disengage because unlike Vietnam, Iraq is not just regionally significant from a strategic perspective, but globally significant in terms of:
1) the global revolutionary jihad and their goal of constructing an imperial Caliphate initially headquartered in Baghdad and fashioned in the image of their fascist ideology
2) the perception of global American weakness vis-a-vis potential strategic adversaries such a strategic disengagement would create and the new crises such a perception would spawn
3) the source of the global energy supplies upon which determines the difference between global economic growth and global economic collapse.
It was none other than Jimmy Carter who first declared the Persian Gulf region an area of vital strategic importance, signaling the Soviets that we would go to war to protect our interests there. It doesn't matter who the next President may be, they can campaign on "cut and run" from the day after the election in November to Election Day 2008, but when they get into office, they would all face the same reality from day one -- if you leave with the situation in chaos you will be eventually forced to return to the region in a far worse state with far more cost because:
1) America allies in the region will come under colossal pressure and subversion from the revolutionary state or states that emerge from the Iraqi chaos and we will be forced to "re-intervene" to keep the cancerous Caliphate from spreading, or else watch our allies fall one by one, destroying our credibility and endangering our interests
2) The perception that America has left the region to its own devices will tempt others to fill the vacuum, and again, just as even someone like President Carter understood back in the late 70s, we cannot tolerate an attempt by future global adversaries to dominate that all-important region
3) The embryonic Caliphate and/or Iranian client states will gradually come to control more and more of the global energy supply. The smaller Gulf States will come under their sphere of influence or fall, KSA will either collapse from within under the perceived ascendance of the Caliphate to their north, or they will be overcome from without. Either way, even the Europeans and Japan would then be forced to intervene because their own survival would be at stake. Virtually every post-WWII recession has been preceded by an energy-related supply shock. Monopolization of a critical mass the global energy supply by fascist jihadi states or a single revolutionary Caliphate would enable them to either blackmail the rest of the civilized world with economic strangulation (our European and Asian allies are even more dependent than we are), or use the oil revenue from the civilized world to build WMD arsenals and long-range delivery platforms.
"But because of TET the U.S. media/liberals/democrats lost heart, and the war was lost."
"Hearts and minds" is a two-way street. Our center of gravity is our national will. The 9/11 plotters were targeting national will on 9/11, not buildings. Every time our national leadership makes a pronouncement or a promise that they cannot prove or deliver, they degrade the national will to some degree. And it has a cumulative effect.
"Hearts and minds" means framing your issue/message, and staying on that message until you win. You have to have the right message. You cannot appear to be selling snake oil. We have jumped back and forth from message to message over three years and not been convincing with any of them - - eliminating WMD in Iraq, fighting al Qaeda in Iraq (claiming their presence prior to the invasion), and democratizing Iraq to stabilize the region.
The reality is that each one of these three was and is a legitimate reason to wage war.
But because the ultimate verdict on each of these points seem to be destined to be delivered at a future date, and not conclusively proven in the present, the frustration has been building. The failure to deliver on any of these three core rationales has opened up both a gap between perception and reality, and an expectations gap between the national leadership and its citizenry.
Because we have not found the WMD or 9/11 "smoking gun", many, if not most Americans expected, their expectations were dashed. And their patience would not be so thin if there was a credible "plan for victory" (as the administration frames it these days), but with repeated and continual missteps and misstatements over the course of three years, their credibility has been steadily eroding.
The "expectations game" is no game. This is what determines national will.
If I tell colleagues all day I am treating them to a steak dinner tonight on the company credit card, then I treat them to fast food, their expectations have not been met and the gap between expectations and reality will be significant. But if I tell them that we might not have time to go out to eat as we are working on a deadline, but then I call out for pizza delivery on the company dime, they'll be happy they don't have to wait to eat, or run to get food for themselves.
When you continually build up expectations then fail to meet them ("end of major combat operations", "democracy is messy", "insurgency is in its last throes", etc) you destroy your credibility and therefore, you undermine the public willingness to continue along the path you set out because people begin to feel it is a road to nowhere and you don't understand where you are or where you are going.
It is not just far left dems that are bolting. Polling shows one-third of self-professed conservatives are no longer on board. That does not include moderates/independents, who have firmly turned against the administration.
I support the war. I do not support how it has been conceived, communicated or conducted.
Lt. Gen McInerney was on Fox a little while ago saying that he had a normally reliable source that tells him that a chemical weapons attack on the Green Zone/Baghdad that could have generated "upwards of 5-10,000" casualties was part of the plot by al Qaeda in Iraq.
And here is the "spin" from the DoD spokesman in Baghdad yesterday.
perception vs reality = expectations gap = erosion of credibility = political consequences
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=1335
Al Qaeda in Iraq Severely Disrupted, General Says
By Steven Donald Smith
American Forces Press Service
(snip)
WASHINGTON, Sept. 29, 2006 – The killing of al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in June severely disrupted the terrorist organization’s capability, but foreign fighters entering Iraq continue to cause problems, a senior Multinational Force Iraq spokesman told reporters in Baghdad yesterday.
“What the al Qaeda in Iraq could do in May and what they can do today has been seriously degraded,” Army Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said. “They are not as effective or as organized today as they were back in May. But they're still an organization out there.” . . .
http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=13634896&src=rss/worldNews
" . . . The registered refugee figures showed 40,000 families -- 240,000 people -- claiming assistance, up from 27,000 families in July. The figures do not include an uncounted number of Iraqis who have moved home without claiming aid. . ."
Quarter million Iraqis flee sectarian violence
Thu Sep 28, 2006 02:14 PM ET
By Ahmed Rasheed and Peter Graff (snipped)
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A quarter of a million Iraqis have fled sectarian violence and registered as refugees in the past seven months, data released on Thursday showed, amid an upsurge in attacks that has accompanied the Ramadan holy month.
Al Qaeda's leader in Iraq called for the kidnapping of Westerners to swap for a Muslim cleric jailed in the United States, according to an Internet audio tape.
The sectarian killing continued in Baghdad, where police said they had found the bodies of 40 victims -- bound, tortured and murdered -- in the last 24 hours, a total that has become almost commonplace in the capital over the last few weeks.
The United States says violence in Iraq has surged in the last two weeks, and this past week, the first of Ramadan, saw the most suicide bombs of any week since the war began in 2003.
The registered refugee figures showed 40,000 families -- 240,000 people -- claiming assistance, up from 27,000 families in July. The figures do not include an uncounted number of Iraqis who have moved home without claiming aid.
"The reason for this increase is that the security situation in some provinces has deteriorated considerably, forcing people to leave their homes in fear for their lives," said Migration Ministry spokesman Sattar Nowruz. . .
Thanks for your very thoughtful post.
Your final statement, "I support the war. I do not support how it has been conceived, communicated or conducted." deserves further comment.
I too support the war. It is much bigger than simply fighting Islamic fascism on it's soil instead of ours. If a stable and modern nation can be created in the Middle East, uninterested in exporting terror to the west, it has the potential to bring the whole Islamic world into the modern era.
If Iraq can be transformed, perhaps Islam itself can be transformed. An Islam that believes the proper way to strive for men's souls is through the mind, not the sword, would be welcome in the world.
Likewise, I agree with your belief that the war could have been better conceived, communicated, and conducted.
Of the three, communications were the weakest link. President Bush is simply not the gifted communicator that President Reagan was (or even, shudder, President Clinton). But this is a given that cannot be changed.
Which leaves how the war has been conceived and conducted.
As to how the war was conceived:
No one disputes the intial victory over Saddam was brilliant. In spite of the last minute betrayal by Turkey, we achieved a truly remarkable victory.
The complaints come from dissastisfaction with the plans for Iraq AFTER defeating Saddam. With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, it certainly appears we under-estimated how difficult it would be to block sectarian violence.
I'm sure someone can be found who can truthfully say, "I told you so," but that is irrelevant. The facts are, war is ALWAYS unpredictable. The focus should not be on the failure to predict. The focus should be on what to do NOW.
Which brings us to your third point: How the war has been conducted.
In my view we made some mistakes in the way we have conducted the war. A key strategic error was not killing Al Sadr and destroying his militia when we had the chance.
Al Sistani reportedly blocked the elimination of Sadr, and I can understand why we bowed to his wishes. But, in hindsight, we should have killed Sadr and wiped out his militia anyway. The message sent to the other warlords in Iraq would have been crystal clear.
The second strategic error was not sending a message in Fallujah. In my view we should have leveled the part of the city that held out at the end, and not built it back. Then, we should have maintained absolute control of the parts of the city we allowed to be built back. Just as with the elimination of Sadr, the message would have been crystal clear.
Instead, we sent the opposite messages.
Now Sadr is back, and much stronger than before. Fallujah is essentially back in enemy hands. Sistani is much weaker. And sectarian violence is running rampant.
So I'd have to say I agree with you on your last point: The war could have, and should have, been conducted better.
Given the political foes President Bush was/is faced with at home and abroad, perhaps he felt he could not act as forcefully as the situation called for. Or, perhaps his advisors were trying too hard not to make the wrong people mad.
Regardless of the reasons, all of this is water under the bridge. The real question is WHAT DO WE DO NEXT?
Right now the initiative is with the other side. So, at least until the enemy's next move has played itself out, we really have only one option: Be ready, and react quickly.
Longer term, we have only three options:
1. Cut and run from Iraq. This would be a clear defeat for the U.S. and lead to immediate catastrophe in the Middle East. Shortly thereafter an enormous portion of the world's oil supply would be under the control of barbarians. And, shortly after that...
2. Strengthen our forces in Iraq enough to win no matter what happens. This will only work if Iraq can be strengthened enough to eventually stand on its own.
A massive increase in troop levels may not be possible without a domestic draft. The Democrats are salivating for a draft, expecting that to be so unpopular that their return to power would be assured. Perhaps that is why the Bush administration has not asked for one.
3. Win with what we have. This seems to be the path chosen by the Bush administration. If we truly stand on the threshold of the "Iraq Tet", and we emerge the clear winner, then perhaps the other side will be weakened enough that this will work.
To sum up:
Option #1 is a dead loser.
Option #2 might work, but could easily result in domestic political disaster and hence long term failure.
Option #3 has not worked yet, but still might. If it does not work, it too will result in domestic political disaster.
Regardless, if the Democrats win either of the next two elections we will be forced into Option #1.
Option #1 would mean much more than a U.S. defeat in Iraq. It would lead inexorably to the clash of civilizations the Bin Laden's and Ahmadinejad's of the world have been trying to start, and we have been working to avoid.
I think Islam would ultimately lose that war, and might even be completely destroyed in the process (as it would deserve to be).
But such a war would also be the worst war the world has ever seen.