The slow restoration of sanity to our strategy in Iraq
From the LA Times today comes an article titled Iraq strategy geared to U.S. pullout. The recent offensive, Operation Phantom Thunder
, is directed against Al-Qaeda in Iraq
, the group responsible for the vast majority of suicide bombings. US forces are less engaged with Shiite militias, hoping that dealing with AQI will give the Mahdi army and splinter groups fewer reasons to create problems. Al Sadr is playing good cop for the moment, but eventually the central government is going to have to absorb or crush
these groups -- however, we've essentially decided that's their problem, not ours. We'll deal with the immediate violence and the Iraqis can deal with hammering out a Sunni/Shiite/Kurd power-sharing arrangement.
On the surface, this offensive sounds like the same old whack-a-mole tactics that have failed for several years, with US forces chasing insurgents in circles. It's not. We're finally holding areas as we clear them and working with both Shiite and Sunni leaders to isolate the insurgents and remove their support base. We've given up on trying to apply the quick-strike Rumsfeld doctrine to fighting a guerrilla war and are doing the job slowly, block by block, with boots on the ground. Where AQI has dug in, US forces are stepping through mines and bombs to get to them, and in a face-to-face fight we win. Where AQI manages to run, we leave enough force to prevent their return, and we work with the populace to create an environment hostile to AQI.
Petraeus and his chain of command are showing some welcome realism in assessing the situation in Iraq:
The point of the current mission, said David Kilcullen, Petraeus' top counterinsurgency advisor, is not to help Iraq "turn a corner" that would allow the U.S. to leave the country in a state of peace. Instead, U.S. strategists hope to beat back militant groups enough to give Iraq's Shiite-led government a chance to achieve some measure of stability. [...] "We haven't turned the tide. We haven't turned the corner, there isn't light at the end of the tunnel. But what we have done is take a failing enterprise and put it on a sound long-term footing."
We've learned from bitter experience that it is essential to retain control of areas after they are pacified :
The United States must not rush to withdraw forces from Iraq's volatile Diyala province and other areas targeted in the latest American military offensive, a U.S. general said on Monday. Brig. Gen. Dana Pittard, the head of a U.S. military unit supporting Iraqi forces, said U.S. troops had withdrawn too quickly from Diyala in the past and violence then flared up. He said U.S. commanders had to be sure that Iraqi forces would be able to maintain security in Diyala, a region with substantial Sunni and Shi'ite Muslim populations, and other areas before handing over security operations to them.
This is part of a multi-pronged strategy that includes diplomatic as well as military efforts:
From the LA Times: If the U.S. can show dramatic progress against Al Qaeda, other pieces of the Iraqi puzzle may fall into place, Petraeus said. For example, Petraeus predicted that pushing back Al Qaeda would help advance what he sees as the most promising development of recent months, the decision by some Sunni tribal leaders to turn against Al Qaeda militants.From Michael Yon
: our current leadership under Petraeus is adroitly pushing political buttons behind the curtains. Based on things I saw, heard, and even videotaped while out among Iraqi tribal leaders in Anbar, unseen hands are reaching out and finding peace with tribes where others found war. Based on what I see all around Iraq, and not just in Anbar, I believe intuitively that most of this war can be ended through smart politics.
It's not going to be easy. AQI isn't going to just roll over and die. But they're becoming increasingly isolated and facing intense military pressure. The bombings that were once intended to inflame sectarian tensions are now aimed indiscriminately at Sunni and Shiite alike : A suicide bomber detonated his explosives inside a busy central Baghdad hotel, killing at least 12 people -- most of them Sunni and Shiite tribal leaders meeting as part of Iraq's reconciliation effort -- Iraqi officials said. A horrible attack, and there will be more to come, with those Iraqis brave enough to stand for peace and stability being the primary targets. But also a sign that the Iraqis will not be played against each other by groups with outside interests and agendas.
There are significant obstacles to long-term stability in Iraq. There will be squabbles as each group tries to maximize its own power. The al Maliki government must find a way to control extremist Shiite elements. There are refugees who need safe homes, there are too many people without jobs, the Iraqi security forces are not sufficiently effective (or neutral). Americans don't see those problems are ours to deal with; we're all tired of the war, tired of the seemingly senseless deaths, tired of the mistakes .However, we're finally pursuing the correct strategy in Iraq: stop the violence, clear and hold insurgent strongholds, and get the local populace working against AQI. If this works we should be able to draw-down troops while still retaining a force to back up the Iraqis if necessary, and this decrease in our presence will hopefully reduce anti-American tensions that are contributing to the current violence. We don't have to fix everything in Iraq, and we're not trying to. But we do have to give this new strategy a chance to succeed so we can leave behind a stable country.
Comments :
Sounds great...
when do the 350,000 additional troops that we need to pull it off arrive?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
That would certainly help
and would have been nice to have from the beginning, but for now this administration maxed out its credit line on asking for more troops with the surge. From a political perspective a big troop increase would have to be supported, probably suggested, by Democrats. Kind of sucks that politics dictates our military strategy, but that's the way it goes.
Doing smarter things with the troops we have is still a step forward.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
It's not a step forward...
...it's pie in the sky dreaming.
With 150,000 troops there is simply no way we can
1) guard the green zone
2) conduct counter insurgency operations in areas, and
3) hold those areas after the CI operations are finished
We just don't have the troops. And trying to do it without the troops is suicide because it means you short yourself somewhere (or everywhere) and the insurents will take advantage.
Remember the plan to create a series of police like military precints throughout Baghdad? Great plan, but because we didn;t have the troops to do it right all we did was give the insurgents a dozen isolated vulnerable targets to pick from. And they did. They hit at least two of them that I recall killing eight soldiers in one case and I don't recall how many in the other.
A good plan with inadequate resources isn't really a good plan because a good plan has to be realistic in terms of what you have the resources to accomplish.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
It's not pie in the sky dreaming
I certainly agree that 350000 would be nice, but progress is being made with what we have -- slowly and with difficulty, but that's expected.
Petraeus is not some naive optimist, he's a realist. He's taking steps to get the Sunni leaders on board, get the locals on board, and these both reduce the need for as many troops. It's also a more selective engagement. We're not trying to kill everyone, we're focused on AQI, which again is efficient use of troops.
I think the only other sensible option is to just give up and leave. Saves US lives but the Iraqi government won't be able to handle AQI alone; it'll turn into an even worse mess than these last few years. From an altruistic perspective it would be good to try to prevent unnecessary loss of Iraqi life and from a selfish perspective it's in our long-term interest to do what we can to stabilize Iraq.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I can't agree
Petraeus is the one who told us we'd need 500,000 (total) in the first place!
I agree he's a realist but he's in the position of being asked to do a job he damn well knows can't be done. He's the rear guard for the retreat.
AQI would be dead within second of our leaving. So what is the benefit of staying?
Bingo. It's been the only sensible choice since this whole fiasco started.
The Iraqi government won't have to because the various militias will kill AQI immediately. The only thing keeping them even remotely together at the moment is our presence. Even with that they've been fighting at a low level. You got to remember that AQI is a tiny little player which has been vastly exaggerated by the Bush administration. They're nothing.
We're well past the point where we have any altruistic choices. Iraq is headed for a sectarian bloodbath, the only question is if we want to stand at ground zero.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Progress is being made
How many times have we heard this only to learn that it was in fact not true.
This is what happens when the little boy cried wolf one too many times.
I don't think most people are to eager to jump on board the 'we are making progress bandwagon' again and again and again and again.
How do you tell an insurgent from AQ? Do they wear little badges?
Turn it over to the locals. Give the Sunni's a cut of the oil profits. And give the Iraqi's an incentive to make their govt work, other than we will babysit you forever.
It is the economy, stupid.
More on progress: Anbar
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-06-13-petraeus-security_N.htm
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
History repeats
If this paragraph doesn't make you cringe then you just haven't been paying attention to US foreign policy over the last 50 years.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
The Sunni militias
aren't noted for atrocities, that's mostly the Shiite death squads. Attacks against Shiites mostly come from AQI bombings, so better the Sunni militias than the (nominally Sunni) terrorist group AQI.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
The Sunni's
are the former Baathists.
Saudi Arabia does not want a genocide against their muslem brothers.
The Sauds are furious that Shiites would be allowed to perform genocide on the Sunni's at the hands of US armed Shiite army.
It is the economy, stupid.
The conclusion here
is that it is very encouraging that (with our support) the Sunnis are turning against AQI.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
The conclusion....
for me is not conclusive.
I will believe it when I see it.
They have cried wolf one too many times for me to have any faith in what they say.
The conclusion I garner is they are trying hard. That they want to pretend like things are stable. Put as postivie a spin on whatever happens as IS humanly possible, so that they can say....... *look* it's all good now. Iraq is stable and the US can draw down........ and take the IRAQ issue off the table for the GOP in the 08 election.
The conclusion I draw is that you shouldn't lie to the American people so much, cause then they won't believe if you ever decide to tell the truth.
I am happy you are glad for what you see as progress.........
but I do not share you faith in that what is being reported is correct and true.
It is the economy, stupid.
support
http://www.juancole.com/2007/05/note-to-bush-and-edwards-on-how-there.html
(emphasis added)
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Well of course
locals are involved, hence the difficulty in cracking down on AQI. That's why it's important and encouraging to see Sunnis step up.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
If AQI is .01%
of the fighters then who cares? Clearly they are not the ones actually doing the bombings. Rather they are the scape goats used by a cynical and desparate white house.
I really don't understand why you accept the White house story versus the experts. When have they ever been right about anything in this war?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Not what I said
I'm not claiming AQI is synonymous with Al Qaeda, nor that it isn't made up primarily of Iraqis.
I'm saying the group AQI is responsible for the majority of the casualties that in a sectarian sense would be attributed to "the Sunnis." They are the ones doing most of the bombings -- they claim credit for them!
Which, again, is why it's nice to see Sunni leaders repudiating these tactics, Sunni militias working against AQI, and Sunni citizens declining to provide them cover. They're repudiating the terror tactics supposedly carried out on their behalf.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Yes its all so very nice
nice to see we are making progress.
It is the economy, stupid.
Come on...
you are accepting the spin uncritically. The experts like Juan Cole say that AQI represent maybe a few percent of all the insurgents. AQI has not been responsible for anywhere near all the Sunni atrocities. They may have been responsible for a few of the more important ones, like the shia shrine bombings.
The Bush administration has consistently called any such attack as the work of AQI as a way to try and bolster the argument for staying, the problem of course is that it simply isn't true.
We're arming the same people who fire mortars at the green zone.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/09/africa/ME-GEN-Iraq-Enemy-No.-1...
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
From your link
Run the numbers. Add up all the casualties that can be attributed to non-AQI Sunni attacks and all those that are probably AQI.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Remember US troops left Anbar
Sunni people took care of the Al Queda terrorists. In fact the Sunni chiefs said that they were able to accomplish in 4 months what US cannot accomplish in 4 years.
Ergo if we leave Iraq, Iraq will take care of the terrorists among them. Thus we are not needed.
Remember Al Queda terrorists are very few--perhaps 1000 or less. you dont need 165000 US troops + hundred more thoussands of Iraqi troops to fight them.
The other problem is the civil war between Shiites and Sunnis. Here Aggressive Reconcialiation effort should be done.
I suggest Sunni imams and Shiite imams should be seen publicly embracing each other and asking their people to forgive each other and move forward for compromise.
Frankly
I am so sick of this stupid war...... I almost no longer care.
Too many excuses for too long. This is what they wanted. This is what the got.
Yeah now everyone we kill is al-Queda.... whoppee we are rounding the corner. (Maybe the GOP can save its a** in the next election after all.)
The Tigris River is polluted and unpotable with dead bodies. (Take your freedom as it comes and be grateful.)
The Iraqi refugee situation is a huge crises of enormous proportions. (Freedom is on the march, literally.)
Our military is stretched to the limit and being asked to unpack their bags they day they are getting ready to fly home to serve YET another tour. (Good men being asked to do too much.)
And the VA is drowning in a beaucratic nightmare of vast proportions while at the same time being grossly underfunded. (Do the patriotic thing and come home to a paperwork blitz of hopeless confusion. Polite thank yous for your service.)
Is it malfesance? Most likely not. Just pure unadulterated incompetance.
It is the economy, stupid.
Same
and I enjoy your commentary. Funny and poignant.
I enjoy
your knowledge of debate and understanding of words and your objective (imho) perspective.
Aw heck. I love you, man..... :+)
It is the economy, stupid.
The stabilization of Iraq
Is in our bests interests. Compared to prior strategies, this time it sounds like actual measurable progress is being made.
Iraq is FUBAR. No doubt.
But I for one would allow Petraeus the time to finish his plan. It might yet fail, but I would not vote to pull the plug on him today.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Exactly (nt)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Who's gonna pull the plug today?
No one.
It is the economy, stupid.
Did I say someone was?
I don't think I said that. I was simply saying that I would not do so.
But if you're spoiling for an argument, I'll humor you: I guess you just don't care what strategy we follow? That's what I'm gathering from your comments. What shall we do in Iraq, if not what we are doing?
En garde, mon amie.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Can you please remember
the ISG report. So resoundingly dismissed as bunk written by old men by the administration. I thought that was a good idea.
They politely did a long long in depth study which had some advice researched carefully and thoroughly, that was resoundingly ignored.
I think Republican Senator Lugar said it best...... so I will stand with his statement at this time. In case you missed it he is not happy with the current course and strategy either.
He suggested starting to redeploy (not pull the plug mind you) today.
So there is an option #4, redeployment. You seem to have missed that one.
Suggesting that because I mistrust media reports because of past bad experience as to the credibility of their reports, to mean that I don't care about the strategy is also a bit disengenious on your part.
It is the economy, stupid.
Huh?
Were we talking about the ISG report? For the record, I liked their recommendations too.
I'm sorry to contradict you, but I did not suggest any such thing. What I said was:
"What shall we do in Iraq, if not what we are doing?"
That question has nothing to do with your trust or distrust of the media. I'm glad you distrust the media. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. I was asking you to describe the alternative action we should be taking, something you think is a better course of action than what we are doing in Iraq today.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Connecting the dots.
I realize I can be unclear at times.
When you asked what shall we do in Iraq..
I mentioned the ISG reports because that report offered a strategy, which is what your question was, correct. I agreed with what the ISG reports said. Does that make sense now?
While you don't see the question as having anything to do with the media, Brendan's post cites the slow painful progress. I offered my questions of the media and its validity because that is what this post is based on. Media reports that we are making progress. While it may not have been concisely and directly related to your post, it is related to the overall criteria and means as to the way we assess progress in Iraq, which I thought was relevant. Does that help clarify for you what I was saying. The second part of the post wasn't directly related to what you specifically said, just a general statement about the sources for news reports from Iraq, which have been misleading in the past.
It is the economy, stupid.
Yes, thank you
The ISG recommendations had a chance of working, but that opportunity may have now passed. I haven't really given that much thought, however, because the ISG recommendations were rejected by the Administration. In other words, they are no longer an option.
One thing that makes me feel better about Petraeus is that his plan seems to include the diplomatic and cultural aspects that were absent before. He seems to understand that the solution must include the local tribemen in the process. The Iraqis must, in the end, own their future.
Of course Tlaloc will say I'm pulling that out of thin air, and maybe I am. The proof will be in the results. We could all be wrong.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
How many years...
How many years into a conflict, and we get this:
*slaps forehead
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Hence
my title =)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Not really...
No I don't think you are pulling that out of thin air. I think Petraeus is painfully aware that COIN relies upon diplomatic and cultural aspects that determine whether the counterinsurgency gets popular support.
I know that he knows it, he says it explicitly in his manual. What is lacking is any indicationthat he has any power to do it. Given that he has zero control of the reconstruction budget which is almost certainly the single biggest factor it is hard to see where he is anything but a cassandra- perfectly aware of the tragedy coming and utterly incapable of preventing it in the slightest.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Let us hope
that like a good diplomat, his work is invisible. If he's good, you'll never get any indication that he's taking action. And if he's good, he knows how to get things done regardless of the bureaucracy.
In Corporate America, lacking a budget or authority or manpower or magic pixie dust was never an adequate excuse for my missing an objective; my boss expected me to find a way around obstacles. Experienced and talented people know how to finesse these things.
If you were so impressed with the level of detail in his plan, I think you should let the man have a few more months to execute it. IMHO.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
I'm going to go out on a limb...
...and assume none of your experiences in corporate america involved ending a well established and popular insurgency in a foreign country with no sense of national unity, a deep tribal culture, and rocked with sectarian strife between inimicably opposed religions.
Look, if your boss asks you to build a supercollider using a few bits of string and a paper clip it doesn't matter how clever you are- it isn't going to happen. There's challenging and then there's bats--t insane.
I was very impressed by the COIN manual. It was well thoght out and realistic. And it was chucked out the window. You are saying I should give him time based on the greatness of a plan he categorically ISN'T following. I don't see how that makes any sense, personally. If he had the resources necessary to follow the plan he laid out then I think there's a chance, only a chance, that he might pull it off. In that case we might debate the chances and the potential outcomes and consequences and whether the man should be given the time needed to see.
But that simply isn't the case and won't be the case because the resources needed don't exist. We don't have the troops and money to put into this project.
And here's another lesson from the business world- when a project doesn't bear fruit it's killed. Companies usually figure out at some point tha a given line of product or reasearch is not going to pay off, or not within any reasonable timeframe and they pull the plug.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
As they say in school
Management is management. Oppressing the proletariat really takes only one skill set ;}
I'm laughing at you Tlaloc. You think you actually know what processes they are going through in Washington. You know exactly what Petraeus is thinking, what plan he's following, and how often he's checking in with the boss. You know the information he's receiving and you know the actions he's taking based on that information.
Can I have the winning lottery numbers while you're at it?
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Wow, acidic
Okay then.
Here's what I know:
I know what he wrote. I know this because unlike several posters here I actually read it. I know what has been reported from Iraq, which granted is almost certainly not the whole story, but it seems to be enough of the story to get the gist.
No, I don't know literally what he's thinking. There are many hundreds of reasons for him to do what he's doing that are plausible, I don't see where figuring out which really matters since none seem to lead to victory. Maybe he's loyal to a fualt. Maybe he's blackmailed. Maybe he had a small aneuryism that affected the portion of his brian responsible for writing the COIN manual. Maybe he just thinks he can cushion the blow better than pretty much anybody else could. I don't know. Frankly I don't care. It doesn't matter unless we're writing a biography of the guy.
What I care about is what is the best path forward. So far you've offered absolutely nothing but blind optimism in the very people who got us into this mess. You have yet to respond to any of the evidence indicating that things are getting worse, not better. And you offer nothing but an almost cultish belief that petraues is some kind of superhero who can do what he has plainly said can't be done.
I think you've answered my question of why you think we should stick it out- you base it on nothing but your wish for there to be some magic cure to a terrible problem.
That's sort of sweet, and at the same time rather nauseating. It's childlike, but also childish. Because while you luxuriate in your personal fantasies about Iraq suddenly fixing itself real people are suffering and dying, and that process is only prolonged by our presence.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I'd also add to that
that while I'm sure we all hope this new plan succeeds, there's 1. no evidence that it'll fare any better than any of the previous plans, although the new focus is a step in the right direction (I agree with Brendan's assessment), and 2. naturally, no expectation that if this plan fails, we won't be asked to give the next plan a chance, and the next plan, and the next plan, ad infinitum. From my naive perspective, knowing very little about what goes on in the heads of our top generals, all I see is plan after plan, general after general, and a war that's still no closer to ending. If the more diplomatic route (which the crazy lefties have been arguing for from the start) turns out more successfully than the previous umpteen failed routes, then I'll be thrilled that the people of Iraq finally get something stable out of the arrangement. But at this point, it's sorta like getting hit in the head with a baseball bat a dozen times, then being promised that the next blow won't hurt. Really. It's different this time.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Yeah well
I get as frustrated as the next person. You've not been exactly pleasant either, you know. You should listen more and assume less.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
High Hopes for Petraeus
but don't forget, Gen. Petraeus answers to his Commanding Officer, the President. So whatever the President says, that is what he has to do or say.
At least that has been the precedent to date.
It is the economy, stupid.
Stabilization would be in our best interest
...if it were possible, but it simply isn't.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
There is a difference
Between what is intellectually possible versus the reality on the ground. Iraq is FUBAR, as I have stated repeated. And there are more interpretations of what is actually happening in Iraq than your own, Tlaloc. I don't mean that to sound harsh, but it is the truth.
To be concise, we have three choices:
1) Stay and piddle around (the Bush plan)
2) Stay and try something new (the Petraues plan)
3) Leave
So I'll put you down for #3, shall I? Please let Missliberties know. She thinks there's no one who wishes to pull the plug right now.
None of these options are ideal. None. We will be damned lucky to get out of there with any amount of honor (don't get hung up on my word choice here). I am in favor of the one that, right now, seems to have the best chance. That may change next week; something may happen that makes #3 my new favorite. But based on what I know today, I say give the man a chance.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
where's the beef?
Indeed there is but here's an important point- what is realistic is a subset of what is intellectually possible. In other words if something is not intellectually possible it is automatically not realistic. US victory in Iraq is not intellectually possible, by which I mean if you study the situation and approach it rationally there is no set of actions on our part that lead to victory. It is therefore automatically not realistic.
Okay so give me some evidence. I have the very person you claim to be an expert (which I agree with) giving you a 100+ pages of reasons why it can't work. oh and by the way he's also the guy in charge. What do you have?
I think she was actually asking about the people with the power to do it, and you have to define "right now" for me, but, yes, I want a withdraw as quickly as we can do safely.
I said as much myself. But since they all reduce to #3 sooner or later why prolong the issue?
Help me out here. Why do you say it has the best chance? What evidence exists to suggest it has any chance at all? I haven't seen one scrap of trustworthy evidence in support of #2, much less something to outweight the ton of evidence that says it can't possibly work.
What we have are inflated and obviously fake reports of "progress" by the same people whose political futures depend on us believing ther is progress. At the same time casualties are up in all categories. No progress has been made by the Iraqi government on any issue of substance. Our military cannot sustain current levels past next April. Current levels of troops are wholely inadequate according to the best theory available on the subject.
You seem so convinced that Petraeus plan is viable, where is the supporting evidence?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
It is subjective
Let me make sure I'm understanding you.
Your contention: Your facts say that Petraeus thinks his task is impossible and unwinnable. Therefore, this is a futile effort.
If I have summarized your position correctly, then my rebuttal is as follows:
Maybe that is what Petraeus really thinks: I'm not reading 100 pages just for this post (sorry). Brendan linked several that have a different take. I have read others, which I am not going to dig up for this because you are obviously not going to listen to them anyway. And really, the point is moot.
Determining what to do in Iraq is a subjective exercise, not an evaluation of a set of facts that leads only to one answer. This is not mathematics; this is war. I hope we have the right man in place now (Petraeus) who can synthesize the available information and make the best choices possible. He has a track record of being effective in difficult areas of Iraq. It seems that he is making progress (again, a subjective assessment) and that he has an actual, implementable plan, and is following it. So for now, he has my support.
I am obviously approaching this differently from you. But I am not attacking your opinions. I am merely stating my own. YMMV.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
"my" facts?
Not quite, here's my position:
I have a ton of evidence that the surge isn't working. Examples (repeated from before just so it's all in one place)- increasing body counts in all categories, a lack of any movement by Iraqi government on critical issue, a hard stop date after which the army literally cannot continue deployment.
Now the opposing position is that Petraues knows what he's doing and should be given a chance. My answer to that is that Petraeus already gave us the manual on the topic and in it he clearly lists why the surge can't work.
Net result- a ton of evidence against the surge, not one scrap in favor...
but maybe I missed something. Is there any evidence the surge is working or could work in the time it has before we will have to start withdrawing?
That is by far the scariest statement I've ever seen about this war. Yes, it is in fact an exercise in analyzing facts and reaching a rational answer. No, it is not a subjective question. Subjective questions have no right answers, all answers are valid. This question emphatically has right and wrong answers. If you want to argue that my answer is wrong, by all means do so. But if you want to argue that Iraq is the national version of schroedinger's cat so that can be in some superimposition of being won and lost at the same time then I have to call BS.
There will be an outcome to the war in Iraq. It will be definitive. I'm pretty sure I know what it will be and I'll give you the evidence I use to back it up. If you have evidence that suggests otherwise I'd honestly like to hear it (despite your assumption that I won't listen). If you want to take your position based on some idea that any answer is just dandy, then I guess we're done because there is no point addressing a point of view that has no regard for objective reality.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
No need for that
You are being exceptionally dogmatic and intentionally obtuse. It must be the physics background.
I am not saying any of those things. Subjective does not mean "no right answers" it means "no precisely definable answers." Now I know in mathematics that is the same thing, but not in life.
What color is the prettiest?
Which city is best to live in?
The answers to these questions depends on who processes the information. It is a synthesis, not an algebraic result.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Uh...
Those questions are subjective because they have no right answer. Exactly as I said. If you answer "Red and Ontario" I can not say you are wrong, because any answer is valid so long as you actually believe it. That's precisely what subjective means.
Compare that to "Did the US win Vietnam?"
That answer is not subjective. You may choose a particular set of circumstances for what constitutes "victory" but for any given set of conditions there is one right answer.
Similarly the question "Will the surge work" is not subjective. It will or it won't. We may not be able to predict the answer correctly but the question is not subjective. There are answers that will turn out right and answers that will turn out wrong.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
RE: Uh...
What, exactly, is the quality of the Vietnam War that makes the underlined concept true for it but false for these:
Just like in your Vietnam War question it boils down to defining "victory" (i.e. by selecting the circumstances), does it not likewise boil down to defining "pretty" and "best" (be defining the criteria to be used int he assessment)?
I would argue that the very fact that you have to define such criteria is, in a sense, an indicator that the question itself is, in fact, subjective (i.e. can potentially have many valid outcomes).
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
RE: "my" facts?
This is a lot like a stock broker saying "I have a ton of evidence that this or that stock is going up, up up!" Remeber the disclaimer they always have to include, though, past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Yes, we continue to kill and capture al Qaeda operatives. Is this "evidence"? Yes. Is this "proof"? No. Your situation is the same.
Well there's your problem right there. You don't recognize that the war can have all sorts of varying outcomes and that each and every one of the is "valid" in the sense of being possible. By your own definition this is subjective.
As pico and Spector would likely agree, the terms "right" and "wrong" are subjective by their very nature. They are defined by the beholder. They are a lot like good and evil in this sense.
Actually, why isn't this an accurate description? Strictly speaking the end result could still go either way and the only real difference is the probability between the two. So yes, like Shroedinger's cat we can't yet determine it's final state.
If the concept is good enough for sub-atomic particles and "reality" in a purely scientific sense, then why not wars? I thought you believe in science, are you saying that you don't believe in Quantuum Mechanics?
So too with Shroedinger's Cat, no?
Do you have any reason I should believe that your evidence can predict the future course of events in the war any more than a stock broker's evidence can predict the future course of events in the stock market?
Given my discussion elsewhere regarding UNKOWN variables, you can't really assess how much better your analysis conforms to "objective reality" than any other analysis thereof, or can you? Do you actually KNOW how much you DON'T KNOW in this context?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
RE: where's the beef?
This is a lot like something being impossible, it is only true ... until it isn't. Two observations:
(1) This is only true if the intellectual analysis took into account all of the known (and more importantly unknown) variables in the situation. Since you analysis cannot possibly have accounted for unkown variables, it is by definition incomplete at best.
Do I know or can I articulate in what ways it might be incomplete? Obviously not, or they would be KNOWN variables as opposed to UNKOWN ones. One example of such a variable might be al Qaeda's operational plans over the next 6-12 months.
(2) The important variables in this analysis have a tendency to shift over time, so something that appears (or is for practical purposes) unrealistic TODAY, my be drastically different TOMORROW.
Just an observation, but this does NOT negate the validity of her assertion, regardless of whether she provides an alternative interpretation or not.
And you have to define "safely" for me. I define it as "in a way that leaves the region in a state which minimizes its adverse impacts on America".
The evidence that this is the "best chance" is merely the fact that the person in charge ... the very same person you are relying on ... is that one who has put it forth, presumably, as the "best chance". Why else would he propose it?
Because you, yourself, have touted Patreaus as the "go to" guy on this subject and so we trust him to make the assessment of the "best option", as opposed to, say, you. :)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
:-}
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
As usual...
...your argument lacks the virtue of resembling reality.
Yes why else would he propose it? Gosh could it be because he's a soldier and he follows orders? Because he has been told he isn't going to get what he actually needs, and so he's doing the best that he can with what they will give him?
Return question- if this was actually the best plan why did he lie when he wrote the COIN manual? Why isn't this plan down there in the text where he could say whatever he wanted?
See one decision was made with no constraints. the other was made with serious constraints. That should clue you into which answer was the real one, and which is the one he's been forced to choose.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
RE: As usual...
Well, that depends on what you mean by "the real one." Do you mean an answer that is bound by the constraints of reality, or one that is not?
Don't know. I haven't read it so I can't comment on it. I don't intend to waste my time reading it. Since Patraeus is the author I assume that he is familiar with the material and has thus factored in the constraints of the current reality and adjusted his answer accordingly. I will accept his most recent determination thereof.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Force density
We have ~90,000 in Baghdad (120,000 would be 2%) and ~10,000 in Diyala (probably more than 2%, since Baqubah was ~300,000 before people fled). Granted, that includes Iraqi forces, but in those areas where we are currently pressing the offensive, we have roughly sufficient force to clear and hold.
The new strategy is limited in scope. It's targeted engagement against AQI and makes use of the new assistance from Sunnis and the (probably temporary) cooperation of al Sadr. There are very real indications, as I mentioned above, that it is producing concrete results.
Of course more troops would help. Obviously Rumsfeld's quick-strike high-tech vision wasn't effective after the initial victory over the Iraqi army.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
You can't do it by parts...
If you try to clear and hold just these two areas all that happens is the insurgents move to where you aren't. That's precisely why you have to have enough troops to deal with all the problem areas more or less simultaneously.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
But we're taking steps to prevent that
Before, we'd chase them around in circles. Now, we're (a) holding areas once clear, (b) more aggressively attempting to prevent escape, and (c) taking political and military steps to make the climate elsewhere hostile to AQI.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Starry eyed
That's the story, but it doesn't hold water
First of all 120,000 for Baghdad is the minimum. According to the manual he'd recommend 20-25/1000 which means 120-150 thousand troops just for baghdad, and we have 90,000. This makes (a) unlikely to happen at all.
Second of all even if we were somehow to miraculously actually clear and hold areas how in the hell could our troops reasonable "prevent escape" (b)? An insurgent without a bomb or gun on him at the time is indistinguishable from his neighbors. Unless we're now trying to prevent any movement of the populous the insurgents can waltz in and out as they please.
As for (c), well again the very best thing we could do to help would be to remove their common enemy, i.e. us.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.