No Third Way in Iraq

Weekly Standard ^ | November 13 2006 | Frederick W. Kagan

[jmc1969]

The United States has two options in Iraq: stay and try to win, or cut, run, and lose. Attempts to chart a middle course--partial withdrawal or redeployment, accelerated hand-over to the Iraqis, political deals with Syria or Iran--ignore the realities of the military situation. The real choice we face is this: Is it better to accept defeat than to endure the pain of trying to succeed?

The U.S. military, under the stewardship of CENTCOM Commander General John Abizaid, has worked hard from the outset to avoid creating an Iraqi military that is dependent upon the continued presence of U.S. forces. The fear of such dependency is one of the pillars that has supported U.S. strategy from the outset.

In order to avoid it, the U.S. military has never fully committed to conducting coherent and comprehensive counterinsurgency operations on its own, preferring to wait until the Iraqis are able to undertake them. We are still waiting, and the insurgency is strengthening its organization and inciting chaos through mass murder and sectarian violence.

The Iraqi military, unfortunately, is still a work in progress. Although there are growing numbers of trained Iraqi soldiers formed into increasingly competent tactical units, those units remain highly dependent on American logistical support for food, shelter, ammunition, and transportation.

Baghdad can still be pacified, but it will require a change of approach and more troops--probably on the order of 50,000, most of them deployed to the capital. The aim would be to clear and hold the Sunni Arab neighborhoods, in the first instance, both to prevent violence within them and to protect them from attacks from their Shiite neighbors. After each operation, we would need to leave behind significant numbers of U.S. troops to preserve the gains, along with such Iraqis as are available.

[Perdogg]

I am going to say until I am blue in the fingers:

The tactical situation in Iraq will be resolved when the strategic situation in Iran is resolved.

Al Qaida in Iraq has been dealt a severe blow. They are not the issue.

The will be the issue if the Sunnis are left to the mercy of Shia extremism.

[jmc1969]

"Al Qaida in Iraq has been dealt a severe blow. They are not the issue."

No, al-Qaeda in Iraq is still extremely strong and controls most of Ramadi and many Anbar towns.

But, Khilizad was in Anbar two days ago and was helping to set up the groundwork for an all out Fallujah style operation on Ramadi after the election.

Even then we need many more troops in Western Iraq to solidify any such gains made by going on the offensive after the election.

[nitzy]

If this is the start of a civil war and I emphasise the word IF....I am concerned about our future posture. I have never heard of a third party to a civil war that did not pick a side. What side should we pick? We can't side with the shia as they already have a sponsor and it is our enemy. The only other option would be to support the sunni and hope to put Iraq back the way it was. Or a third way would be to support breaking Iraq in three. I don't pretend to be smart enough to know the best option but I do know we have to avoid a civil war at all costs.

[Perdogg]

Al Qaida in Iraq is only relevant because some elements of Sunnis population feel the need to ally themselves as protection against the Shia.

If we were to remove the Jeish Al-Mahdi (and deal their masters in Tehran a blow), then the rest of the support for the Ansar al-Sunnah and the MSC would dry up.

There is no civil war in Iraq. A Civil war exists when two or more opposing parties within a country resort to arms to settle a conflict or when a substantial portion of the population takes up arms against the legitimate government of a country.

This a sectarian war. This is settling old scores and trying to force the US out of the Middle East. It's part of the war that Iran started in 1979. They know once we leave we aren't coming back.

[Valin]

Is it better to accept defeat than to endure the pain of trying to succeed?

No. Next question.

[Congressman Billybob]

I agree with the premise of this article. I wrote on the same subject this week, and posted my column on FR first. See below.

Congressman Billybob

Latest article: "The Truth about the War"

Please see my most recent new statement on running for Congress, here.

[Congressman Billybob]

Those who talk about "splitting Iraq into three parts" are, as usual, geopolitical morons. The classic example of a very loose coalition of powerful local governments is Switzerland. Because of language, culture and historical divisions between its four main population groups, the Swiss "cantons" have a higher degree of autonomy than the states or provinces in any other country, much more than in the US.

But with that arrangement, which was necessary at the beginning of that nation during the Middle Ages, the Swiss now have a thoroughly workable nation which has endured for more than 500 years. That's an excellent track record, and it is a good example of the kind of federation which should work for Iraq as well.

Congressman Billybob

Latest article: "The Truth about the War"

Please see my most recent new statement on running for Congress, here.

[jeltz25]

Agree fully, as long as Iran and Syria are allowed to continue to interfere, stability and victory are impossible.

Like the USSR and PRC in Vietnam, but on a smaller scale, it's near impossible to defeat an enemy when they receive unimpeded logistical, manpower and material support from outside forcs on their borders.

The administration's failure to confront Iran and Syria over their interference in Iraq has been one of their great failures, and a near unforgivable sign of weakness.

[jeltz25]

If you compare to Germany and Japan in WW2, Japan was an Island with no outside powers supporting any resistance after the war and Germany also had no outside powers on its borders, it was surrounded 100% by Allied/Soviet forces and the Swiss, who weren't involved.

Trying to fight a war and run an occupation is very difficult if you allow your enemies access to unimpeded and uninterrupted limitless outside support.

[jeltz25]

even if we succeed in Ramadi, its whack a mole. they'll be back as soon as we leave. and the forces we allocate to Ramadi will leave us vulnerable elsewhere. it really is a pickle we're in

[Plutarch]

Baghdad can still be pacified, but it will require a change of approach and more troops--probably on the order of 50,000, most of them deployed to the capital.

The author points out that the Army has been overtaxed, that soldiers have been deployed multiple times, that only stop-loss orders maintain current levels, and then calls for 50,000 more troops.

[jmc1969]

He gave an interview on PBS two days ago. He believes it would be painful, but that we could do it if we wanted to and he said awhile ago that a loss in Iraq would damage the Army and the American psyche far more then if we doubled the troops in Iraq.

[jwparkerjr]

I don't recall at what point the involvement of Iran and Syria became evident, but by not responding quickly and and decisively at that point we surrendered our ability to determine the outcome of our Iraqi strategy.

It's like we're dealing with a patient who has cancer and rather than go after the seed-producing site we wait for signs of the disease to show up somewhere else and then make the patient really sick by treating not the source of the problem but a symptom of the problem. Every time a new tumor shows up we make the patient sick again. Sooner or later the treatment itself is going to kill the patient. Better to go after the source and fix the problem once and for all.

I really have to wonder what it is that keeps us from handling Iran and Syria, even if all we do is use our troops to make darn sure NOTHING moves across Iraq's border without our permission.

I know there is a LOT going on that we are not privy to, and I know that in any conflict if you examine it too closely too soon it looks like all is lost. Just look in on a patient in recovery right after surgery. If you didn't know the whole story you would certainly not see the patient as anything but a goner.

I fault the Bush administration for not beating the drum constantly of how long this war against terror is going to last and using the bully pulpit to point out the collusion of the MSM with the enemy to keep the success stories from us.

[jeltz25]

I agree.

I supported this war partly on the assumption, based on Afghanistan and Bush's rhetoric and "with us or against us" doctrine that either a)our victory in Iraq would be so decisive and overwhelming and we'd be in such a position of strength and have such overwhleming force and a willingness to use it that Iran and Syria wouldn't dare get involved or b)if they did choose to get involved, we would immediately and decisively deal with it and c)they'd be next on the list

If I had known that we'd let them run roughshod, I may have had a different view of things.

[jwparkerjr]

What a great way to put it! I had not really thought about it in those terms, but you have hit it exactly. Were a pollster to ask me if I was happy with the war I would have to say "no", but for a very different reason from others who would say no also. I want us in there to win and I want us to do whatever it takes to assure that victory. I don't care if the rest of the world likes us or not, I'll settle for their fear of us. We are a joke to the Islamofascists, with our quaint ideas of how to fight an enemy. Our insistence on a PC war only prolongs the war and increases the number of deaths, on both sides. We have nothing to gain by delaying the day of reckoning for Iran and Syria, and anyone else in the region who thinks they can outlast us. If it's dangerous to take on Iran now, how much more dangerous will it be when they have nuclear weapons, regardless of how small or primitive?

The Lefties/MSM cost us the war in Viet Nam and they are intent on doing the same in Iraq. This Tuesday's election is so very important. It will become a rallying cause for whichever side wins. For us it will mean it's time get serious with Iraq and its neighbors. For them a win will be seen as support for a cut and run movement.

I can't tell you how often and fervently I pray the Lord will kick a lot of Right and Republican butts out of bed and into the polls on Tuesday. Like my Mom used to say, "Don't make me come in there and settle this for you!"

[SunkenCiv]

Ping!

[FairOpinion]

"The United States has two options in Iraq: stay and try to win, or cut, run, and lose. "


Precisely!

Thanks for the post & ping.

[SunkenCiv]

My pleasure. That does sum it up.

[attiladhun2]

Let's get some perspective here. Eighty percent of the violence is taking place within a 30-mile radius of Baghdad. That is an area about the size of Los Angeles Co. in a country the size of California. That doesn't sound like a civil war to me. In the rest of Iraq schools and hospitals are being built, people are starting businesses, building homes, and generally getting on with their lives. This is settling old scores between Shiites and former Baathists, as well as just plain criminal activity. Iran is also a player here.

Because of the proximity of Iraq to the rest of the Gulf states, we have no choice but to stick this out to the end. Otherwise, we could see the entire region dominated by Iran at the same time the U.S.A. would be going through another Democrat-generated Vietnam syndrome. The dominoes that will be falling will all become Islamotarian and oil will be $150+ a barrel. With nukes, such an Iran would be formidible. Europe would kowtow and Russia and China would be quick to make a military and economic deal with them. The WOT would be over and the Islamotarians will have won a strategic victory on the order of the taking of Constantinople in 1453. Would the end of Western Civ. be not far behind?