h1

Brainstorming An Iraq “Super-Surge”

March 28, 2008

Last night I took a few hours to watch FRONTLINE “Bush’s War” on the PBS site.  My reaction was mixed.  Part of me felt vindicated for some of the things that I’ve been posting here in the Chamber and elsewhere, another part felt angry at people like Cheney and Rumsfeld, and yet another part felt just…depressed (which is probably the overriding feeling, but I do encourage everyone to watch it in case you’ve missed it).  

I gave myself a few hours to digest what I had just watched, and although there was quite a bit of material that I was already familiar with, this documentary chronicled the entire Iraq adventure in a way that I hadn’t yet seen.  This led to a small epiphany on my part concerning what to do next, and I figured I’d just throw it out here for debate, so bear with me ’cause there may be some flaws in my thinking. 

The proposals coming from the presidential candidates for our course of action going forward in Iraq have pretty much fallen into two main categories.   McCain is politically wedded to the strategy he championed (the “surge”) in a way that would put him in the same position as Bush insofar as he’s going to keep up the “stay the course” mantra, and has even gone as far as to say that he’d support a permanent American presence in Iraq long after the period of shooting stops (and if it takes 100 years, so be it).  On the other side, Clinton and Obama have rejected the notion of an open-ended commitment, and while the rationale behind a responsible withdrawal may bounce between a few concepts,  the end game is the same:  leave Iraq for the Iraqis as soon as reasonably possible.  Critics on both sides have, rightly or wrongly, argued that McCain’s plan is untenable in the long run while the Obama/Clinton plan is a recipe for eventual chaos and genocide.

Other options for Iraq have gained much less steam.  For example, former presidential candidates Sens Brownback and Biden have proposed a sort of soft partition.  This proposal has probably been less popular because, the way I see it, it involves undoing a lot of what has been done already and is essentially going back to the drawing board in many ways.  That, and there is reason to believe that the idea isn’t popular amongst the Iraqis themselves.

So, I enter another proposal, one that I will call the “Super-Surge”, based on a few facts/assumptions gleaned from the documentary and elsewhere:

-Before the invasion, Gen Shinseki stated the opinion before Congress that success in the months after Saddam’s regime fell would require “several hundred thousand” troops, while people like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz urged a much smaller number.  The eventual plan was somewhat of a compromise, but today, it is pretty much considered conventional wisdom that one of the major errors in the mission was that there weren’t sufficient forces to keep the peace during that critical timeframe.

-The “coalition of the willing” was never much of an actual coalition, as 98% of the troop commitments came form the U.S. and Britain.  Brent Scowcroft,  national security adviser for President George H.W. Bush and a leading figure in the U.S. foreign policy establishment, believed from the very beginning that attacking Iraq would dissolve any kind of coalition we had built in the aftermath of 9/11, and more recently suggested that the best hope for pulling the country from chaos would be to turn the U.S. operation over to NATO or the United Nations — which, he said, would not be so hostilely viewed by Iraqis.

-The doctrine of “clear, hold, build” had shown itself to be successful on the micro scale in the city of Tal Afar.  Originally credited to Col. H.R. McMaster, it eventually became the rough blueprint for the “surge” in that it simply took more troops to employ such a strategy.    Or, in the words of McMaster himself, when asked if additional troops would help the mission:

Yeah. I think one of the critical elements of improving security is the number of forces you have to be able to carry out that security mission, along with the other missions that you have. Securing the population is obviously first and foremost. And this is a mission … for American and coalition forces working alongside Iraqi forces.

The other mission is to develop Iraqi security force capability, … and that takes a lot of soldiers and Marines to carry out that effort: to train these forces, to help them organize and then to introduce them initially in the context of multinational operations where we operate alongside them until they develop the ability to operate on their own.

Also, just securing critical infrastructure, lines of communication — I mean, there are a lot of demands on our forces, and our soldiers and Marines are just doing an amazing job with multiple tasks simultaneously. So I think additional forces will certainly help. Is it the answer in the long term? No. The answer in the long term is still very much the same: that the Iraqis have to develop their own ability to provide the kind of security that is necessary such that economic development and political development can proceed. …

-The current troop surge will come to an end for logistical reasons.  In fact, the troop drawdown is right around the corner:

A senior Pentagon official said earlier this week that the US “surge” is likely to end in July with more troops in Iraq than the 132,000 who were there before five extra combat brigades were sent in more than a year ago.

-Staying in Iraq until the shooting stops (and beyond), as McCain has suggested, is likely to be financially untenable.  The estimates for the cumulative cost of the war have been projected to be as high as $3 trillion.  And although many nations have a significant stake in a stable Iraq, the United States has taken on the vast majority of the burden in terms of monetary sacrifice.

So, you toss some of these things into a pot and stir.  I’m left with a few questions.

  1. Is it too late to deploy a peacekeeping force of “several hundred thousand” troops to stabilize Iraq, or has that ship sailed?  If not, then…
  2. Is it too late to bring together a meaningful coalition to share the burden of the effort, or have those bridges burned?  If not, then…
  3. Could a new, charismatic, inspiring and internationally popular U.S. president (*cough*Obama*cough*) bring together the nations of the world to address the issue?  If so, then…
  4. Would it work in a way that would ultimately save Iraq from descending into chaos, prohibit the formation of a terrorist safe haven, and allow the troops to come home a lot faster than the current proposals?   If so, then…

It’s something to think about.

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Advertisements

5 comments

  1. -Staying in Iraq until the shooting stops (and beyond), as McCain has suggested, is likely to be financially untenable.

    Is that the misinterpreted 100 year thing ? Not for nothing to some degree soft partition almost hard has occurred naturally. The Surge will play out as will the “new” sectarian violence. Prediction. Basra Bagdhad garrisons for the US,Maliki stays for one more cycle,President McCain brings troops home via Afghaistan by 2010.


  2. One of the problems with sending more troops to Iraq is that you then have relatively fewer troops to send to Afghanistan. Iraq and Afghanistan can’t be seperated logistically, since we’re pulling from the same pot.

    NATO and the UN probably aren’t going to do anything in Iraq. But NATO needs to step up in Afghanistan, that’s for sure. A greater NATO presence there would free up more troops for Iraq.

    But still, Iraq consists of multiple Iranian-backed cliques all out for different end-games, forming and dissolving coalitions as it suits them (this includes the actual government…I’m lookin’ at you Maliki.)

    The surge and sectarian violence will probably “play out” in that many people will be killed, and we’ll be back to the same bloody, tense stalemate we’ve been in since the surge started “working.” I bet there’s a huge amount of luck involved. The right politican has to rise at the right moment, and bring together a nationalist (not overtly pan-Shiite) party to power. That’s more than just boots on the ground.


  3. Chen, you aren’t honestly entertaining the thought that the man who wants all of the troops out of Iraq immediately would concider sending more troops as part of a “Super Surge” are you?

    Obama wants to leave the people of Iraq high and dry. The only troops he wants to leave are to protect the support elements left behind. Why would he “bring together the nations of the world to address” an issue that he would seemingly want no part of for his own country? I don’t think the international community would approve.

    Heck, he didn’t even want the surge we did have.

    And partitioning will never work because of where the oil reserves are. The Iraqi’s will never buy that plan, and if forced on them the resulting war would put to shame what violence we have already seen.


  4. RP-

    Chen, you aren’t honestly entertaining the thought that the man who wants all of the troops out of Iraq immediately would concider sending more troops as part of a “Super Surge” are you?

    .

    The idea would be to encourage other countries to help us out.

    I understand that Obama’s “out in 16 months” plan may not come to fruition because of the realities on the ground, but the operative word in there is “out”. I’m only suggesting that this might be an alternate way to achieve that end, as much of a long shot as it is.


  5. Barack will have to forge a new and broader coalition. It will involve military, political and diplomatic forces. That’s the only way to “get the bus out of the ditch”.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: