January 11, 2007
The new Iraq strategy
When John F. Kennedy was first asked to send troops to Vietnam, he said this: “The troops will march in; the bands will play; the crowds will cheer…Then we will be told we have to send in more troops. It’s like taking a drink. The effect wears off, and you have to take another.”
Watching George Bush’s announcement that he is sending extra troops to Iraq, I couldn’t help being reminded of JFK’s metaphor – and not just because Mr Bush is a reformed alcoholic.
The fear - as Kennedy explained - is that each escalation is never quite enough. The Americans will soon be feeling the need for another "drink" - more troops for Iraq. But for Mr Bush this is very much a case of "last orders". He may even have trouble getting this new troop request through Congress, as Jacob Weisberg explains in today’s FT. And if this latest infusion of soldiers does not do the trick, it really is hard to believe that Congress would accept a further troop request. Nor is is clear where the soldiers would come from.
Unfortunately, it is very hard to find any experts – other than the ones directly employed by the Bush administration – who think that this troop surge is going to work. The Council on Foreign Relations have solicited brief opinions from 13 of their staff experts, ranging from Democrats to Republicans and soldiers to academics. It is striking that only one of them sounds positive about the new Bush policy - and he is Michael Gerson, who until very recently was the president’s main speechwriter.
One of the more damning remarks on troop levels comes from Max Boot, a neo-conservative and a specialist on military history:
"Will 21,500 extra troops make a big difference? Based on classic counterinsurgency calculations (one soldier or policeman per 40 or 50 civilians), pacifying Baghdad, a city of 6 million people, requires a force of some 150,000. The beefed-up U.S. force in Baghdad still will be less than 40,000 strong."
Doesn’t sound too good to me.
But you’re not counting Iraqi police, and you’d whine even more if we were sending the 100,000 you calculate they would need.
Posted by: Todd | January 11th, 2007 at 1:12 pm | Report this commentObviously, you did not listen to Bush’s speech. We are supporting brigades of Iraqi soldiers and Iragi Police. The point to this buildup is that we will remain (Iraqi + US support) in areas that we retake to insure the insurgents don’t return. Additionally, the rules of engagement have changed. The Iraqi force will put down any insurgents, meaning Sunni and Shite. This is an effort to put down the violence and sectarian violence in particular.
Posted by: JRG | January 11th, 2007 at 1:43 pm | Report this commentOther than sticking their heads in the sand and hoping everyone will like us, I don’t see the alternative.
“Almost everyone in Washington understands, even if they don’t say it, that there is no real solution to what now seems to be the most disastrous foreign policy decision in American history” (Elizabeth Drew in NY Review of Books).
That’s quite a verdict.
Add to that the story on page 7 today, “Inmates sent ‘insane’ by conditions in Guantanamo”, in which a Bush official is quoted as saying “we may have to hold people indefinitely [without tria]” - a story that has Sen. John McCain’s photo adjacent, with his back symbolically to the story - and you have the basis for an argument that the Bush presidency has been a moral failure without precedent in the history of American democracy.
Is it not past the time for the British opposition to stand up and say something?
Posted by: Jeremy Putley | January 11th, 2007 at 1:53 pm | Report this commentComplex experimental military and foreign policy based on G. W. Bush’s capacity for strategic management is essential viewing.
What is anyone, let alone the forces he commands, supposed to think when they see his face contorted in an attempt to deliver a simple prepared speech for TV?
Islam has been shown to able to be divided though not able to be conquered.
Having 10 fluent Arabic speakers out of a staff of a 1000 at the US Embassy in Baghdad is not expecting to learn much from or consult much with Iraqis.
If G.W. Bush fails again, it’s up to Congress to govern.
You can bet every Ali worth his salt in the Middle East is training with sniper rifles, IEDs, or anti-tank missiles.
Posted by: david | January 11th, 2007 at 2:37 pm | Report this commentBush is right now a dinosaur in a tar pit.Any which way he moves he is going to choke on his own vormit of utter incompetency. The saddest fact in all this is that American GI’s and even more Iraqis are definitely going to be wasted in the guaranteed carnage been brewed up by GOP geriatrics who use the young to fight their morbid fear of irrelevance and impotency. Why young people still join the army is damn puzzling, given that they are and will remain just disposable heros of hypocrisy not of their making
Posted by: Chunfla Burlbe | January 11th, 2007 at 6:09 pm | Report this commentLet’s be contrarian like those who short stocks that are trading up.
This “surge” thing might just work although not in Iraq but in the surrounding nations. You know which two?? The law of unitended consequences or intended???
Posted by: Nick | January 11th, 2007 at 7:03 pm | Report this commentFirstly, having just returned from a visit to the US, one must recognise the extent of both a “war” and a “we-they” mentality across the population. Thus, opposition can, in Brezhinski’s terms, only suggest “blame-and-run” alternatives. Europeans and others living in a troubled peacetime must recognise the difference in lens colours.
Secondly, one must understand the depth and breadth of the underlying fear of “global islamicisation” amongst American “thinkers”. The neocon media efforts have succeeded there, if not elsewhere. Few noble objectives have ever been achieved on the back of fear. Is that not what this war is all about? A Washington lawyer wrote me an email this week that included nothing less than racist remarks about Arabs, which I find alarming knowing well his credentials and his family.
Thirdly, I hear and read much discussion in more discrete channels about highly developed US-sponsored initiatives/schemes to incite civil disputes/wars in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq. Which warbooks are they studying in Washington? IF Elliott Abrams is leading such efforts and still meets with Bush and Rice, then please report it in the pink sheets.
Lastly, I expect the most tragic shame of all of this is being put ultimately upon the present and future generations of Jews through the misguided fears of some of their over-clever elites. Is it not time to lift the curtains higher on such cabals in Washington and Tel Aviv? Coverage of them so far has been timid if not flattering (see Vanity Fair).
Posted by: Charles | January 13th, 2007 at 12:01 pm | Report this commentWhat is so disheartening is that this ship of fools can never seem to follow their own internal advice.
For example, General Petraeus specifically states in the new counterinsurgency manual which he completed that intelligence is the key in any counterinsurgency effort.
Yet the new Iraqi brigades to be deployed in Baghdad will be mostly Kurds, who speak a different language and very, very few Baghdadis will provide them any intelligence at all.
Matt
Posted by: Matt | January 15th, 2007 at 4:09 am | Report this commentIf Bush is the stupidest man alive, which he insists on proving every day, then our lives are in the hands of the stupidest and evilest man alive. Now unless you believe in such things as the rapture, which makes you a little crazy, it doesn’t matter what crazy man Bush is capable of doing as your fate and everyone else’s is a sealed document and
Posted by: td | January 15th, 2007 at 11:55 pm | Report this commentno matter what anybody does is futile any way. But being that I am not crazy, nor a religious fool, I am scared shitless. And I wish I could get religion real quick.
No, Bush’s surge strategy will not work for the simple reason it does not address the underlying social issues that are the cause of the violence. American soldiers may not be beloved in Iraq, but they are not the reason there is violence (but America did open up this Pandora’s Box by starting a war that the White House never fully thought out). If the US pulls out tomorrow the violence in Iraq will worsen, not get better. Sending more troops is not the answer, but neither is pulling immediately out.
While I have never been a supporter of President Bush and have always found this war very ill-conceived, I think I take more issue nowadays with Democrats than Republicans (IFYI: am a registered Democrat). Democratic Senators and House members allowed the President to invade Iraq. They have since abdicated all responsibility for their role in this debacle. John Edwards is the worst of them all. It is irresponsible to authorize a poorly planned and justified invasion, rip a country to shreds and then say, ‘well heck, this is such a mess, our boys are dying, we need to come home now.” I find the Democrats behavior almost reprehensible. It is easy to complain and advocate immediate pull out, it is much more difficult to accept responsibility for you actions and try and fix the problem. 20,000 new troops are not the answer, but neither is pulling out - the Democrats should show some actual leadership on the issue.
For its part, perhaps Britain (TB) should finally realize that Bush is not going to cut him any slack. The special relationship that does exist, especially between intelligence agencies, the military and foreign ministries, will survive if Blair tells Bush that the policy in Iraq is broken and that Britain will not support the US anymore. It is hysterical that Blair endorsed the Iraq Study Group report and then endorsed the President’s surge. Mr. Prime Minister please wake up.
Posted by: Mike Williams | January 19th, 2007 at 10:04 am | Report this commentIn the immortal words of Thomas Jefferson, ‘it is like holding the wolf by the tail, we can not hold him forever or safely left him go.’ I supported the Administrations plan to invade Iraq as so many good citizens did based solely upon the the Presidents presentation about it’s necessity. I am a Democrat, a retired Army General Officer, a student of history, and I did not vote for Geroge Bush. Our Strategic interest is to protect the oil supply. We should accept that as the premise for being there and base our policies on that reality. The invasion in hindsight has been a huge mistake. The troop surge will not work unless the war planners and politicians get on the same page and accept the fact that, to even contain the insurgency will require a major effort in aggressive military campaigning resulting in tremendous loss of life (largely non-combatants I suspect)and more collateral damage. The U.S. lacks the political will to do that. It is Vietnam all over. For that reason I am against a troop surge. I would rather see us reduce our presence while securing the oil supply and allow the Iraqis to ‘duke it out’. The stronger side will prevail. If the winning side is not the side we want. Then we commit to combat again and this time impose our will. This troop surge is about George Bush’s ego. He does not want his legacy to that he was leader of an ill fated military adventure. I think it is to late for that. Our Political Leadership, Intellectuals, Diplomats, Senior Military Leaders need to stand up against an further Bush follies. A good starting point is the Baker Iraq Study Group report. To undue this mess that we all acquiesed to ( or certainly most of us)will require a bi-partisan effort based on what is best for the country. As a society we were wrong to make war against the Iraqis, and the harm and devastation we have imposed immoral. That is my opinion-over simplified by design, for what it is worth.
WW
Posted by: Walter Whitfield | January 24th, 2007 at 4:57 pm | Report this commentA war based on lies, ignorance, and total arrogance. A war that was essentially finished - another lie. What we have is a totally incompetent foreign Policy driven by a man who most likely stole both elections - in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 with the help of his criminal friends.
He is responsible for 3000+ US soldier deaths, probably hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, has destabilized the middle east and emboldened Iran. He could start wwIII
The continuation of this disaster is nothing but an attempt by Bush to find a way to “save” his presidency, passing the problem off to the next administration. The new escalation is simply to give his admin. a rope, a lifeline soaked in the blood of our soldiers and innocent Iraqis. If he had a shred of decency left he would resign, his presidency belongs in the dust bin of history. Remember, Iraq is not the problem, it is the symptom of the problem, George Bush.
Posted by: Steve in MD | February 2nd, 2007 at 7:07 am | Report this commentit seems that everybody have amnesia ,9-11 does it still ring a bell, oh no I forgot it is just a episode of 24 , maybe a figment of my imagination. when viciously attacked you have no choice but to do what you have to do not to perish , you may not come out intact but you will survive, you swing left and right you kick you stumble you fall but once you get your balance back you aim to destroy, I believe W Bush is the only one trusted by the constitution of the USA with that responsability to destroy the enemy of his people . the whole world agreed that the Iraqi dictator had WMDS and he refused to show that he didn’t have them. case close
Posted by: rachid | February 7th, 2007 at 3:35 am | Report this commentIt seems that the press have forgotten the 3000+victims of the 9/11 more than died at Pearl Habour. They come with defeatist intellectual arguments but no solutions.Because Jimmy Carter was a weak president and allowed the kidnapping of the Americian diplomats without any effective reply, Iran has kidnapped British Service men.
Posted by: Brian | March 28th, 2007 at 12:12 pm | Report this commentThe fight against Islamic extremism will not go away if the US abondons Iraq it will be a victory for terrorism and only embolden them to go for more. The fight against Japan and Germany took six years. This global war on terrorism will be much longer but are there any alternatives? Sure surrender and listen to the intellectuals who are demanding just this in the press. We should have given in to Hitler as well.
Come up with solutions and not surrender to terror.
Freedom of the press to criticize Islam has already been lost in Britain and Denmark and likely Europe as a whole. Are you ready for the nuclear London Blitz?
Islamic countries must be converted to liberal democracies before the radicals get nukes. The Islamic common man and especially the common woman are not radicals when they know the truth. It is the radicals who run the mosques and schools who are the troublemakers. They must be stopped very soon.
The prize-winning policies of Carter and Brzezinski have shown no lasting good results. To return to them would be fatal.
Posted by: Fred | April 13th, 2007 at 12:26 pm | Report this commentIn the first place, I resent the characterization of GWB being a ‘reformed alcholic’when a more accurate terminology for him personally would be a ‘dry drunk’. Otherwise the analogy holds. This country under Bush the second, has been hell bent on ‘remaking’ the Middle East in the image of the neo-conmen dream for quite a few years now. Every single step they have forced our troops to make in Iraq and Afghanistan, has been a disastous blunder.There is zero light at the end of the ‘compassionate conservative’ tunnel. Not one more drop of red American blood, nor one more red cent of American money should be WASTED on either sink hole of GWB’s choosing!
Posted by: Dwight Thomas Powers | April 19th, 2007 at 12:43 pm | Report this commentPeople who send their remarks to this column, cast blame, vent and sweat furiously in their chair are wasting thier time. If you aren’t away from your seat using the motivation towards something more productive, you are contributing to failure. This news is parC! If you want to know what is going on in Iraq, go to Iraq. You can’t believe everything you read and hear from 99.9 percent of all Liberal News sources.
Posted by: Winton Burriss | April 19th, 2007 at 5:39 pm | Report this commentThe surge will not work for two reasons, though I think Bush’s efforts were noble while the liberal Democrats in Congress should be ashamed for not being behind the war.
The first reason the surge will not work is because of the constraints put on the U.S. troops by President Bush. If he would let them, the U.S. military could just anihilate the insurgents. But you see that would mean killing civilians and Bush can’t have that.
The second reason the surge won’t work is that the ignorant U.S. congress will not let the President attack and bomb Iran - the terrrorist’s main safe haven.
If these two things remain the same, then the surge will only have our great country spinning its wheels.
Posted by: Roger | April 19th, 2007 at 11:29 pm | Report this commentAnyone who spent so much as a week hitch-hiking around the Arab world would presumably know how an invasion and occupation by any outside power would work out, particularly one as brutal and clumsy as the Americans.
Posted by: Eric Kraus | April 25th, 2007 at 10:39 am | Report this commentThe good news is that this will fester on for years, and thus, will keep them out of trouble elsewhere. Apparently, the lessons of Vietnam must be relearned by each successive generation.