Another Report from the U.S. Military in Iraq

Here's another report from my colleague who has two sons who have served in the military in Iraq and also civilian jobs in Iraq. Is this an optimistic picture?

"Both [of our correspondent's sons] have been in Iraq in both their military and civilian jobs. They tell me that the combination of the "surge" and the agreement of the Sunni leaders in Anbar Province to cooperate against the insurgents (probably a misnomer because so many of the terrorists/insurgents are from places other than Iraq) has allowed for significant progress, but that we can not expect a 100% solution. The best we can expect is what they call a 75% solution within the next 24 months, which is Obama's time frame for withdrawal anyway.

They define a 75% solution as a country that is a functioning democracy but still with conflicts and occasional violence between Sunnis, Shia and Kurds; and, unfortunately, continued, but declining, corruption. Oil production is now higher than it was under Saddam Hussein and most of the systems (schools, medical, civil service) are functioning at least as well as they did under Hussein. However, they are not functioning as well as we, as Americans would expect, and there is still corruption within those systems.

Both were there within the last 6 months so probably have a pretty good handle on the situation on the ground. The Iraqis do not want us there. . . but do not want us to leave either. They do not yet have faith in their own police and military institutions to provide security for the country, although they admit that the military and police are improving."

Why?

The two horrific suicide bombings on Sunday in Baghdad may have killed 150 or more people. What I don't get is the motive. What is accomplished by such acts? Can they really be meant simply to demonstrate the Iraqi government's weakness? Surely they can't be meant to attract any kind of popular support - and it seems to me they only serve to slow down the U.S. disengagement from the country. What possible ends do such atrocities serve?

Photo by Joao Silva for New York Times; at http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/10/25/world/20091025-BAGHDAD_index.html

1954? or 1965?

So Bob Woodward does it again, breaking a big story, the classified report from Gen. Stanley McChrystal. Although Woodward is comparing this to the Pentagon Papers, none other than Daniel Ellsberg notes that the present document (unclassified version at the link above) is an official report, not the kind of unvarnished behind-the-scenes material that compromised the PPs.

Nonetheless, the report shows we're at a crucial juncture. Will McChrystal ask for more troops? If so, how many, and will Obama comply? Will this be like early 1954, when Dwight Eisenhower asked Matthew Ridgway (left) to brief his cabinet on the options for intervening in the climactic French-Viet Minh battle at Dien Bien Phu? Ridgway pointed out the size and logistical difficulties of such an operation and suggested that even with seven US divisions and the use of tactical nuclear weapons, long-term success in the war - his real criteria - was far from certain. Eisenhower (who had probably already decided against the intervention) let the general do the persuading. We let the French lose and the Viet Minh war came to a (sort of) negotiated settlement with no loss of American lives.

Eleven years later, Lyndon Johnson faced an even more dire situation and made a very different choice. This time his generals and his Defense Department looked only at the immediate problem - security for air bases from which to launch retaliatory strikes against North Vietnam, rather than the kind of global, long-range view Ridgway had taken. LBJ committed Marines to defend the bases; the Marines asked for and got permission to do search and destroy missions, General Westmoreland asked for more troops to safeguard those already there - and the ball was rolling to a half million men in an ill-defined mission allied with a weak, corrupt, illegitimate South Vietnamese government.

Which way will Obama turn? My hope is that he listens to Joe Biden and others who are saying cut the size of the force and re-prioritize the fight against Al Qaeda, not the Taliban. Obama could even use McChrystal's own words as a cover - note on page 2 that he writes "the key take away from this assessment is the urgent need for a significant change to our strategy and the way that we think and operate."

Does Obama have the guts to a. stand up to the demand for more forces; b. change strategy; or c. the really brave option: say it's not our fight and bring all of our forces home?

Two Soldiers' Views

[Here's a contribution from a colleague; names have been removed. On a related note, Jon Krakauer's new book on Pat Tillman, Where Men Win Glory, has just been released; see the link above.]

1. Son . . . who spent a year as a battalion intelligence officer in Afghanistan, working daily with the Afghan National Army (and has also spent time in Iraq), tells me that Afghan National Army soldier loyalties are much more complex (with even more corruption) than the Shia v. Sunni issue we see in Iraq. He says that it will take decades for the Afghan National Army to reach the point where it can take over responsibility for the security of the country. Decades in Afghanistan is not politically supportable in either the US or in any of the other countries who are providing troops in Afghanistan. He thinks that had Bush (supported by Tommy Franks) not violated the Principle of Mass, and invaded Iraq while we were still fighting in Afghanistan, it might have been possible in a politically acceptable timeframe. However, when we split forces, we lost momentum and it will take decades to get it back, for a lot of reasons.

2. Other son . . . who has also spent time in both Iraq and Afghanistan tells me that the current mission in Afghanistan is no longer supportable. That is, it would take too long and require too many troops to eliminate the Taliban. Frankly, the Taliban, scumbags though they are, is not a threat to America; Al Qaeda is. He thinks we should change the mission from defeating/eliminating the Taliban to eliminating Al Qaeda. He thinks that can be accomplished with a 75% solution in 2 to 3 years. That is, most Al Qaeda units will be destroyed but there will still be a limited, diminished threat.

However, it can not be done with the present force structure; and sending additional infantry troops is not going to help. Rather, he suggests that the force structure include only Special Operating Forces (Marine Force Rec, Army Special Forces, Navy Seals) operating as insert teams with strategically located logical support bases and air support. Changing of the force structure (with SOF units) to comply with a new mission limited to Al Qaeda destruction, would result in a significant reduction in overall troop strength, not an increase.

I am still reading Halberstam's The Best and The Brightest. My concern about Afghanistan is that the current administration will not listen to [officers like his sons], the same way that General Harkin and President Johnson did not listen to Paul Vann and the other junior officers in Viet Nam who were continuing to provide reports of Viet Cong/NVA increases in control while the ARVN was reporting all good news. Obama has bought into the Afghanistan War; it is his war that he is afraid to lose, the same way that Johnson saw China as having been lost by Truman and was bound and determined that he (Johnson) was not going to lose Viet Nam. Talking to other Marines still on active duty or working (post military retirement) in the intelligence community, I receive the same message that I am receiving from my son: We have to limit our Afghanistan mission to Al Qaeda elimination and change the force structure to support that mission. Johnson refused to listen; I hope Obama is different.

Another Country Heard From

"The cause of our disagreement with you is your support to your Israeli allies who occupy our land of Palestine." So says a new audiotape purportedly from Osama Bin Laden; translation from link above. He also told the American people that "you are waging a hopeless and losing war, a war in which the end is not visible on the horizon." Bin Laden even provided a recommended reading list, including (evidently) Jimmy Carter's Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid, although he didn't mention it by name.

Eight years into the Afghan war, and six plus into Iraq, is our great enemy right?

Ted

What a story - it's like some crappy Taylor Caldwell multi-generational potboiler - the big brothers falling one by one, the supposedly useless little brother finding his purpose, the multiple unspeakable tragedies, and the final fall at the climax of a fight over his most heartfelt issue. I talked about this with two of my classes - none of them had ever heard of Chappaquiddick --

Now, who's going to browbeat Congress into passing a good bill as a tribute like LBJ did with the Civil Rights Act? Hey, Orrin Hatch, I'm talking to you - stop saying that if Ted were around that it would be a "real bipartisan bill" - you've been around forever, too, so how about YOU write that bill?

One is the Loneliest Number

As the (real) New York Times reports above, in two days the United States will be the only "coalition" member fighting in Iraq when the last British, Romanian, and Australian forces are sent home. It was always a rather pathetic coalition - even if John Kerry had remembered Poland in the 2004 presidential debates - with the US contributing the vast majority of troops and thus doing the vast majority of dying and wounding. At least George H. W. Bush put together a genuine multinational force for the first Gulf War, with several Middle Eastern nations (especially Saudi Arabia) contributing financially. W. couldn't even get that part right - few military powers other than Tony Blair's puppet government wanted any part of Bush's War of Choice. So now it's down to just brave American men and women to keep paying the price for the biggest foreign policy mistake in our history. Let's hope they all make it home.

Maybe the fake NY Times headline will eventually come true --