20,000

[sleigh]

I truly don't know what is the best strategy for Iraq. Obviously, that makes me very much like a Democrat.

We shouldn't have gone in there in the first place. In retrospect, George Senior is looking like a friggin' genius in the first Gulf War for chasing Saddam's troops out of Kuwait and halfway to Baghdad, then pulling back without taking Saddam down and thus keeping Iraq stable.

None of the options are good, for one side or the other or both. Pulling out entirely is good for us in the short run, but what happens when Iraq falls apart? -- because it would. What goes into the vacuum we've created? I suspect we'd end up with a violent partitioning of the country, with the Kurds forming their own enclave in the north near Turkey (which will piss off Turkey mightily), the Shia forming their own country below Iran with Iran's help, and Saudi Arabia allying with the Sunni minority to hold some of the south. It would be a terrific, bloody mess, but hey, it wouldn't be American soldiers dying in the morass...

King George believes that after all the failed strategies he's employed before, this one will somehow magically work. I don't believe that either. I was curious and looked up a few figures. In the wake of WWII, we occupied Japan. In that occupation, in 1946 we had in excess of 400,000 troops there. According to GlobalSecurity.org, as of Mid-November, 2006, 152,000 US troops were in Iraq. Japan covers 145,883 square miles; Iraq covers 169,243 square miles -- so, in a militarily-defeated country that is (roughly) 16% larger than Japan, we have only 26% of the troops that we used for the occupation of Japan.

Yes, I know Japan is not Iraq (especially culturally) and this was a different war and a different time. The analogy is imperfect and maybe even wrong. But... we put close to half a million troops into Japan to make certain it was stable and safe -- in a culture, I would argue, where shame and honor are strong emotions, and where as a result there was far less danger of an 'insurgency.' I suspect that anyone who knew the Middle East at all expected that once Saddam was gone that a civil war would erupt -- and that if we were to control it, then we needed one hell of a lot more boots on the ground.

Another 20,000 troops won't do it. It's throwing a bucket of water on a raging house fire. Here's what I suspect will happen if we follow through on this: 1) we will be saying to those factions who already hate us that yes, we really are an Occupation Force; 2) the violence will escalate; 3) we still won't have enough troops on the ground to control the escalation, and the Iraqi forces will be next to useless; 4) we'll end up losing more of our soldiers; 5) we'll be hearing a speech in a year or so saying "Well, that didn't work either, but now I have a better plan..."

And we're leaving aside the issue of Afghanistan, which is increasingly looking as if it needs some propping up as well.

Doubling the forces in Iraq might do something about stopping the violence, but then there's still the whole panoply of Sunni/Shia/Kurd problems, and those will need to be addressed before Iraq can ever be stable again. But we don't have another 150,000 troops to throw at Iraq -- not without a draft... and I, for one, certainly don't want that again.

We broke Iraq. It's really, really broken. And looking at the pieces, I'm not convinced it's fixable. And if that's really, truly the case, then I would make the reluctant decision to say let's get our people out of there while we can...

Anybody got a better idea?

Comments

[jimhines.livejournal.com]

This sums up a lot of what I've been struggling with. Mistake or not, we as a country went over and broke Iraq. We're responsible, and I think we should do whatever we can to fix it. But then the question becomes, what would work, and is it still possible to repair what we broke. And I don't know ... I really don't like the idea of just washing our hands of the whole mess, but at the same time, I don't see anything that convinces me we're close to any real improvements, either.

[ellameena.livejournal.com]

The problem I see with pulling out is that the country will not magically fix itself when we leave, nor any time in the foreseeable future. We are still dealing with anger and violence stemming from the handling of Palestine post-WWII. As well as the reconstructions of Germany and Japan went, the establishment of Israel was bungled when Palestinians were ejected from their homes and land. (Sorry if this is an inflammatory opinion. It's the truth as well as I've been able to figure it out. If you want to disagree with me, feel free to email privately. I don't want to start a flame war over Israel in sleigh's LJ, just grabbing at the nearest historical analogy for a bad mistake that reverberates down the generations.) If we leave Iraq, it *will* be taken over by Islamic extremists, it *will* become a chaotic and violent and unstable state, and we will be fighting future wars to try to clean up the mess we made. (And we will see further attacks on American soil, as al qaeda follows us home to continue the fight.) I really think it would be a mistake to pull out, now. I also think that staying in Iraq, or increasing troops, is going to be a miserable slog with no end in the foreseeable future, but I tend to believe that we have to follow through. It no longer seems as if our presence there is inciting violence. It seems as if our presence is suppressing what would could easily become a civil war all over the country. (The north and south are relatively quiet right now.) It is very sad that American troops are being lost, but it's also sad that innocent Iraqi civilians are dying in such numbers. It almost seems cowardly to abandon them to this war that they do not want.

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

Like you, I agreed with Colin Powell when he said, early on, "If we break it, we're responsible for fixing it." To me, that was the primary argument for not going to war in the first place. For good or ill, we had a stable Iraq under Saddam, and Saddam was never a direct threat to us. Never. He was a horrible despot and yes, he was slaughtering those he considered enemies, but he wasn't going to bring his army to our shores, nor was he ever going to allow al Queda into his country.

But we took him out, we broke the country, and I don't know if we have the ability to glue it back together again. I certainly don't think the current Iraqi government has that capability.

It's a worse morass than Vietnam, and potentially far more dangerous.

[nomissnewo.livejournal.com]

Read this really good Salon article about how Bush never even considered other options with Iraq than the surge:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/01/10/condi_rice/

-

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

Interesting...

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/01/10/colbert-helps-out-with-bushs-speech/

B

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

See also (http://tomburka.com/archives2/2007_01.php#000985)....

B

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

I love it. In a sad, sick sort of way. Thanks for the link.

[spaceoperadiva.livejournal.com]

I'm not certain that partitioning Iraq is such a wretched idea. It would be good if Iraq could be partitioned without massive violence but does anything happen in the Middle East without violence? The Kurds have been the dog that everybody uses and kicks so perhaps I have misplaced sympathy for them. A Kurdish partition would probably work about as well as Palestine and that's a depressing thought.

How do we fix something that was broken when we got there which we're making steadily worse? The idea that we should stick around and Fix the Problem bugs me not only because of the loss of U.S. soldiers (which in a draft situation could very well be our kids in a few years) but because it's paternalistic and robs the Iraqis of self-determinism.

And while we're doing shaky analogies, I see our current Bush as Marie Anoinette, blithely spending more and more on his favorite hobbies and living off his father's (or in M.A.'s case, her mother's) legacy while the country bankrupts outside the gates of the palace. No matter what we should or should not do in Iraq, how long can we keep this insane level of spending? Better start learning Chinese. I suspect they already own us.

Guess I'm not a fan of Manifest Destiny anymore.

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

"I'm not certain that partitioning Iraq is such a wretched idea."

I'm not certain of that, either. I think arguments could be made that a three-way partition of the land might be the most stable accommodation we could make. The problem would be that to do so means that we (along with other countries, perhaps) would be imposing that on the country without their consent.

That historically hasn't worked out so well (see "Israel" or "Lebanon" or "Palestine").

When thinking of this initially, I was probably more in favor of partitioning the country than of the "Send More Troops" option or the "Let's Get Out ASAP" option. But right at the moment, I'm more favoring the latter of those options... but I still remain open to other options.

But I'm dead certain that 21,500 troops aren't going to make enough of a difference. If we want the "Send More Troops" option, it needs to be in six figures... and I really don't want that -- notwithstanding that we don't have that many troops to send.

[lindajdunn.livejournal.com]

We agree that it's a mess and we agree that Bush's solution is the equivalent of throwing a single bucket of water on a large fire. It won't work. I do not, however, agree that it's unfixable.

What would I do to fix it?

Put Colin Powell in charge, give him a blank check and get the hell out of his way. I think he could engineer a solution (one which would probably upset everyone for different reasons) and get the right people in the right places to accomplish the goal. I also think Colin Powell would decline the job, which is the main reason I nominated him. He doesn't WANT it and anyone who WANTS the job is unsuited to have the job.

It would also cost us more than all the oil in the Middle East and three generations (minimum).

So it's fixable. But too expensive for us to repair. OTOH, if we don't repair it, it's going to come back to haunt us.

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

I liked Powell... until he played "good soldier" and said nothing while the White House was screwing him in the ass. Yeah, he's spoken up a little more since, and I think the man has a good head on his shoulders, but I question whether he is a 'leader.'

I would be interested in hearing what he thinks would be a solution, though. I'd love to hear that.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

We can't double the force; we simply don't have the people or the money.

Our only possible solution is to admit complete and utter failure and plead to the international community for help.

B

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

"We can't double the force; we simply don't have the people or the money."

I agree completely.

"Our only possible solution is to admit complete and utter failure and plead to the international community for help."

I'm more in that camp than any other. I think we need to go to Iran, Syria, the Saudis, and Turkey (as humiliating as that might be -- though I don't personally find admitting "We screwed up" to be humiliating, but more 'honest') and say "Look, it's in everybody's interest to have a stable Iraq. How can we best accomplish that, and what would make you work toward that end? Because otherwise, we're pulling our troops out and we'll leave the mess on your doorstep."

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

And in other news (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-dossari11jan11,0,1174338,print.story?coll=la-home-commentary)....

B

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

OK, now that I'm sitting here crying, what in the hell do I do about it? For 6 years of this maniac's illegitimate rule, we've been writing our letters and sending our emails and voting against him and his minions at every turn. Will nothing short of armed revolution stop this destruction of everything we thought this country stood for?

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

If that's a genuine letter citing the true conditions, then we should all be ashamed...

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

And in yet other news, this was going on (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6251167.stm) while Bush was making his speech. Yep, not only are we NOT going to work with Iran, we're going to do our level best to provoke them.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

In retrospect, George Senior is looking like a friggin' genius in the first Gulf War for chasing Saddam's troops out of Kuwait and halfway to Baghdad, then pulling back without taking Saddam down and thus keeping Iraq stable.

That last is the sticking point, because it's something that few people are willing to face: that Saddam kept Iraq stable. We may have disliked the way he did it, but I for one find it difficult to believe that the average Iraqi is better off now.

[shelleybear.livejournal.com]

What we had to do this time (which we did) was get rid of the two young psychopaths who were his sons.

The Iraqee Housewife Said it Best

[shelleybear.livejournal.com]

The U.S. needs to leave so the situation can play itself out as it was meant to.
This from someone who, realistically has more to lose then anyone, because it is frequently the noncombatants who suffer the most.
For my part:
Fresh blood does nothing to erase the stain of blood previously spilled.
Especially not AMERICAN blood.
We need to get out and let the situation play out as it will.

Re: The Iraqee Housewife Said it Best

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

As I've said, I lean toward that 'solution' myself. I still don't like it, though.

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

The sudden concern with "stability" seems to me to be a signal that we're giving up on democracy and are now interested in installing an effective tyrant. This is the worst mistake the US makes (throughout its existence) in foreign policy, and it's sickening to see us starting to ramp up to make it again. The one argument *for* the war (inadequate) was that Saddam *really was* a loony dictator who abused his own people a lot.

Similarly, the obssession with not splitting. Is this a leftover from the American Civil War or something? But other countries seem to have it also. I have no idea why it's so bad for a country to split. Being small doesn't seem to have hurt Denmark or Luxemburg particularly. And most of these countries people are afraid of splitting are completely artificial constructs, imposed by Western powers around WWI or so (is that it? We're still unwilling to admit that those were mistakes?)

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

At least it will be our tyrant.

B

[jeffreyab.livejournal.com]

Japan was not a good example as there was no major armed rebellion for those troops to have to fight.

As B points out its not just troops, its the money to send them there.

With enough money you could do the whole occupation with contractors using Third World troops like Fijians and Gurkhas etc.

Currently there are about 100,000 private contractors on various duties in Iraq.

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

"Japan was not a good example as there was no major armed rebellion for those troops to have to fight." Or was there no rebellion because we had adequate troops there to suppress it?

I have severe problems with privatized armies -- they operate outside the 'rules' of war, and their allegiance and loyalty is to the corporation for which they work, not a country. And then there's the whole issue of adding corporate allegiance to a bottom line.

A corporate entity with its own armed wing: that makes me absolutely shudder.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

This (http://www.juancole.com/2007/01/bush-sends-gis-to-his-private.html) is required reading.

B

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

A cogent and believable analysis... and one that will be ignored.

[handworn.livejournal.com]

We also put half a million troops into Japan because unlike Iraq, Japan nearly beat us.

My only idea is capitalist. We make Iraq as little like those breeding grounds for extremism, post-WWI Germany and the post-Civil-War South, as possible. How? We simply begin handing out oil money in the form of vouchers (to keep it from being used to buy materiel) to all Iraqis, and invite in The Gap and places like that to sell 'em stuff.

Seriously, profit as an incentive for peace is no new idea, but no one has ever had the opportunity to try capitalism as a tool so directly to end conflict, as we have now. They're rich in an incredibly saleable raw material. We control most of the conditions there, at least on the surface of things. And there are plenty of oil-producing countries around to act as control groups.

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

"We also put half a million troops into Japan because unlike Iraq, Japan nearly beat us."

True. But they nearly beat us because the war technologies we employed were essentially equal (until we used the atomic bombs...). That's the problem right now. Us against Iraq was like a bunch of WWII GIs up against a country whose army consists of medieval knights -- the long-range and devastating power we'd have would make short work of the knights. But once we've taken out their army and we have to occupy their land, well, we've essentially neutralized the advantage. Now we have to worry about someone with a knife because they're the people passing us in the street, and the fact that we have Browning automatic rifle doesn't matter quite so much.

Same with Iraq: we can pound them flat from the air, but once we've taken out their army and their tanks from afar, we still have to send in the army... and much of the advantages of that great distance power are negated.

The war was no contest. But the occupation... I still think that if our intention is to control the violence, we need those half million boots on the ground, regardless. Probably more, actually, in that culture.

We don't have those resources. Period.

As to capitalism -- I don't know. Democracy works when it's created from the inside, when it's what the country wants. It doesn't appear, to me, to work very well when it's imposed on a country from the outside. I don't know that the imposition of capitalism would work any better.

[don-fitch.livejournal.com]

Sadly, I have no better suggestions. We didn't break it in the sense one breaks a machine, we broke it in the sense of dropping the eggs on a stone floor, so "repair" is not an applicable word. It's unlikely we'll even do any of the associated things I think we ought to do -- apologize profusely & humbly, beg for help in establishing some semblance or order, and pour more money into it than we can afford. I'm pretty sure the proposed escalation is the worst possible thing we can do. To Iraq, that is -- starting yet another war (with Iran, most likely) would be the most harmful to us.

We didn't exactly win the war in which I fought (Korea, c.1950), but the results weren't too bad. This one, we clearly lost -- probably in the last century, when the decision was made to embark on it as soon as the opportunity could be created. And I think that, somewhere in there, we've also lost the struggle to make America a Great Country.

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

We could make scrambled eggs, I suppose. ::Steve smiles wryly::

And I'm afraid we may indeed be starting that war with Iran -- we're certainly being confrontational with them.

The problem is that we can "win" nearly any war we start -- if we define 'win' as 'pound on them until their infrastructure breaks and their government collapses.' We have military technology that is second to none. We can rain missiles on them from hundreds of miles away or precision-bomb them from planes they won't be able to touch, and bring in ground troops, tanks, and support vehicles that few countries could match.

What we can't do is march in with enough troops and money to occupy and rebuild afterward (and impose a democracy on them whether they want it or not) -- not with our current troop levels and economy.

Maybe we're just defining "win" the wrong way. We should have said "OK, we won! The country's yours, survivors!" as soon as we toppled the Saddam regime... and left immediately. That wouldn't be right, but we would have 'won' then. Mission accomplished.