Blame the Dems for Iraq

[Garrette]

Senator Carl Levin, Democrat, who is poised to become the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services committee, was just on NPR a few minutes ago.

He said his plan is to begin troop withdrawals from Iraq in six months.

Separate from whether it is a good idea or bad, how does he plan to implement his plan given that he is not the CINC?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Finding that article again led me to realize a mistake of mine from yesterday. I said “CORDS” was beginning to pay dividends in Vietnam. I meant “CAP.”

Great links. Thanks. I got to meet Victor Krulak in 1992 at a Navy War College seminar. He was the speaker for the topic, Viet Nam. He discussed CAP in detail. The CAP topic had been one of our required reading/writing assignments for that session, so oddly enough, the topic came up!

Combined Action Platoons were very effective at the micro level. What they weren't was fast acting, which left the civilian leadership cold to their effectiveness (no one had the patience with elections on the horizon) and what they also weren't was "the Army's idea" (General Krulak went to some lengths to discuss the "not invented here" syndrome).

"Brute" Krulak was an interesting guy, and a bit controversial. Sheehan (Bright Shining Lie) does not find his efforts during Vann's day to have been of much help. His son was Commandant of the Marine Corps a few years back.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

Separate from whether it is a good idea or bad, how does he plan to implement his plan given that he is not the CINC?

By working with the Democratic House to cut off funding, which forces the CINC to reduce the footprint on the ground. I suspect the White House and The Distinguished Gentleman from Blueland will have a bit of a struggle over this.

I also hear the echoes of "stab in the back" in a far distant corner of history.

DR

 

[Luke T.]

Separate from whether it is a good idea or bad, how does he plan to implement his plan given that he is not the CINC?

He was asked that question and responded that they control the "purse strings". He went on to say that he hoped it wouldn't come to that, but that he thought they had enough votes on both sides of the aisle to overcome a veto.

He said their primary tool at the moment was the mandate from the elections that was a clear message that the people wanted a change.

You can listen to the interview here.

Levin says he would be opposed to adding more U.S. troops in Iraq, even in the short term.

 

[Garrette]

Great links. Thanks. I got to meet Victor Krulak in 1992 at a Navy War College seminar.

Then I'm a bit envious.

Combined Action Platoons were very effective at the micro level. What they weren't was fast acting, which left the civilian leadership cold to their effectiveness (no one had the patience with elections on the horizon) and what they also weren't was "the Army's idea" (General Krulak went to some lengths to discuss the "not invented here" syndrome).

The eternal curse of the United States. We don't have the patience required naturally; to acquire it requires political skill and leadership that is flexible, strong, persistent, and determined.

What we have now is just determined.


In the last article I linked (about CAP), Martin says that the Marine Corps has long been at the forefront of Counterinsurgency thinking. He's right.

I've long said the Army should contract the Marine Corps for our uniforms; perhaps we should do the same for COIN.

As an aside, I visited al Kut in February of 2003 a couple of months after the Ukrainians replaced the Marines. The Iraqis spoke nostagically of the days when the Marines ran the place.

Things got done, then...

 

[Garrette]

By working with the Democratic House to cut off funding, which forces the CINC to reduce the footprint on the ground. I suspect the White House and The Distinguished Gentleman from Blueland will have a bit of a struggle over this.

I also hear the echoes of "stab in the back" in a far distant corner of history.

DR

As I figured, but as you suggest, it's not as easily done as said.

He was asked that question and responded that they control the "purse strings". He went on to say that he hoped it wouldn't come to that, but that he thought they had enough votes on both sides of the aisle to overcome a veto.

I would be highly surprised if he does. The Dems need a more efficient political machine with a more effective arm-twister than I expect Pelosi will be (who's the new Senate Majority Leader?) to get enough Repub defectors.

The veto looms large, methinks.

 

[Luke T.]

I would be highly surprised if he does. The Dems need a more efficient political machine with a more effective arm-twister than I expect Pelosi will be (who's the new Senate Majority Leader?) to get enough Repub defectors.

The veto looms large, methinks.

I believe Harry Reid will be the Senate Majority Leader.

As for the military budget and a veto, it could come down to Congress presenting a budget which the President could theoretically veto, which would result in no money at all for the military.

The government fiscal year ends September 30. It just may come down to that kind of midnight negotiations, with government offices being forced to shut down on October 1 until a budget is approved.

 

[Upchurch]

I believe Harry Reid will be the Senate Majority Leader.

Pelosi is pushing for Jack Murtha.

 

[geni]

No.

Not if he were being honest.

Not if he were honest.

1207 – Mongols begin conquest of China

1227 – Genghis dies. Different areas of empire ruled by his four sons. China rebels.

1230 – Begin reconquest of China

1235 – Mongolian armies sent “East and West”

1236 – Korea rebels and must be reconquered

1258 – Baghdad sacked

1264 – Different areas of empire begin to act independently

1267 – Kublai Khan moves capital to Dudai to concentrate on China and virtually abandons remainder of the empire

1294 – Empire begins to fragment

1335 – Mongols kicked out of the Mideast

1369 – Yuan Dynasty (Kublai’s) overthrown in China


The Mongols had to keep fighting. They had little peace in their conquered territories, and even with the world’s most effective fighting force occupying lands with a fearsome hand, it was not sustainable.

Well yes they did make the error of leaveing some people alive.

Actually, for those in the military, as I was and am, it's a damned sight closer to feel bad than feel good. I've had to write letters to families about deceased loved ones. I do not relish it and would never lightly take action that makes it more likely.

Yes, it does, but it is not a sufficient step, nor a guarantor.

How many troops do you really think the US can throw at Iraq?

This is a complex issue, if you're referring to the post WWI era. Supportive regime, yes. Supportive populace, no. The Kurds weren't happy.

I belive they were delt with in a couple of years.

The "supportive regime" threw in against the new state of Israel and never signed the peace agreement after that initial war. The Kurds eventually rebelled. The 1958 Baathist takeover was definitely not a good sign for the US and could be at least indirectly traced to the roots of the new Iraq.

It was mostly ok for the british untill they got out of the imperial game.

I have, extensively. The Soviets went in as the Mongols did but with far less success. The US went in in a different fashion that worked initially but was not tied to any long term political plan.

Weight of number didn't work. It won't work unless you asre ready to deploy troops in the millions. Even the US can't really do that so it is time to look for other options.

 

[pgwenthold]

See, this is exactly the kind of stuff I have been thinking about for the last couple weeks.

The election was all about Iraq. Basically, the people said, "We need a change in Iraq policy NOW!"

But in what direction? That is not clear. Are we supposed to "cut and run" or are we supposed to start fighting to win?

My take? People want someone in congress to actually step up and ask the president, "What the heck is going on?"

For me, it's all about the issue of oversight, or the lack of it. I think people have recognized that congress has been shirking its duty to provide oversight on the presidency. You may be right. Maybe our currently policy is the best one. But then, maybe it isn't. Unfortunately, the old congress never even asked the question, they just let the President do whatever he wanted, and gave him a blank check to do so.

People want the government to be asking, "Could we be doing it better?" There is no indication that the administration has been doing that (in fact, they always deny that it could be done better), nor has the congress. Maybe the answer is no, but unless you ask, how can you know?

The new congress will hopefully explore our options in handling Iraq. The administration has never done that.

 

[Gurdur]

...The US went in in a different fashion that worked initially but was not tied to any long term political plan.

Pardon me, but allow me to disagree strongly with that.

There were several political and semi-political plans the USA Bush admin went in with when going into Iraq2:

• the PNAC idea that simply deposing Saddam would lead to a democratic take-over and consequent transformation of Iraq
  .
• the wanting to reduce base troop numbers in Saudi Arabia and replace them with bases in Iraq
  .
• the PNAC idea that a democratic transformation in Iraq would lead perforce to a democratic wave affecting Syria and Iran
  .
• and the strongly allied PNAC idea that any such democratic wave would be USA-friendly.

None of these political plans, most of which of which were clearly ennunciated prior to the fact by PNAC, and were all very much longterm political plans, actually succeeded, with the sole exception of creating a Kurdish de facto mini-state in northern Iraq, one which is in fact friendly to the USA -- yet also brings the collateral damage of increasing tensions with Turkey.

The failure of the USA in Iraq is very much a political failure, caused largely by political fashion-driven use of the military and bad occupation follow-ups.

 

[hgc]

Pelosi is pushing for Jack Murtha.

That's for House Majority Leader.

 

[Garrette]

Pardon me, but allow me to disagree strongly with that.

There were several political and semi-political plans the USA Bush admin went in with when going into Iraq2:

• the PNAC idea that simply deposing Saddam would lead to a democratic take-over and consequent transformation of Iraq
  .
• the wanting to reduce base troop numbers in Saudi Arabia and replace them with bases in Iraq
  .
• the PNAC idea that a democratic transformation in Iraq would lead perforce to a democratic wave affecting Syria and Iran
  .
• and the strongly allied PNAC idea that any such democratic wave would be USA-friendly.

None of these political plans, most of which of which were clearly ennunciated prior to the fact by PNAC, and were all very much longterm political plans, actually succeeded, with the sole exception of creating a Kurdish de facto mini-state in northern Iraq, one which is in fact friendly to the USA -- yet also brings the collateral damage of increasing tensions with Turkey.

The failure of the USA in Iraq is very much a political failure, caused largely by political fashion-driven use of the military and bad occupation follow-ups.

I think if you follow the quotations back you will find that my reference was to US operations in Afghanistan, not Iraq. If that wasn't clear, then my apologies.

 

[Upchurch]

That's for House Majority Leader.

Wow. This is just not my week, and its only Tuesday.

If anyone needs me, I'll be sitting in the corner thinking about what I did that hacked off Ed enough to addle my brains.

 

[Garrette]

Well yes they did make the error of leaveing some people alive.

That's one of the reasons that "kill 'em all" doesn't work. You can't kill 'em all.

The Sandinistas got caught and killed at least a couple of times. At one point they were down to about a dozen. Yet they came back, quite effectively.

How many troops do you really think the US can throw at Iraq?

I don't know. I've tried to make the distinction clear between when I'm talking about what needs to be done for victory, what can physically be done, and what can be done given the prevailing political will.

I belive they were delt with in a couple of years.

You believe incorrectly.

It was mostly ok for the british untill they got out of the imperial game.

Now you're saying that occupation works?

Weight of number didn't work.

I've been quite explicit in stating that numbers themselves are not sufficient.

It won't work unless you asre ready to deploy troops in the millions.

That was not true in your example of the British in post WWI Iraq, nor for the British in Malaya, nor for the US in the Philippines (either time). The numbers must be sufficient. There is a rough, historically-demonstrated, ratio of troops to population but providing those numbers is only a necessary condition for victory, not a sufficient one.

Even the US can't really do that so it is time to look for other options.

The US is almost certainly prevented by the prevailing political will from increasing troop strength, and possibly prevented by the limitations on available troops. So for those reasons, you may very well be right in stating it is time to look for other options.

 

[President Bush]

No wonder "cut and run" sounds so appealing to some people.

But it's so negative. What about...

"What happens in Baghdad stays in Baghdad"

 

[Gurdur]

I think if you follow the quotations back you will find that my reference was to US operations in Afghanistan, not Iraq. If that wasn't clear, then my apologies.

whoops, my bad, my apologies.

My points still stand to a large degree, but correction granted; the political aims in Afghanistan were there, and I will describe them tomorrow, but your correction of my post is well-justified.

 

[geni]

That's one of the reasons that "kill 'em all" doesn't work. You can't kill 'em all.

Historicaly killing them all has tended to be consiuder wasteful. Stalin shipped people off to gulags and of course the romans kept a fair number of carthnegians alive for use as slaves.

The Sandinistas got caught and killed at least a couple of times. At one point they were down to about a dozen. Yet they came back, quite effectively.

I think if you got the population of Iraq down to 12 it would be a long time before they gave you any trouble.

Now you're saying that occupation works?

I'm saying it is not imposible if you know what you are doing

That was not true in your example of the British in post WWI Iraq,

Because they had no problems with targetting civilians.

nor for the British in Malaya,

Because the rebelion there was almost entirely forigen lead which meant they had only limited support in the local population.

The US is almost certainly prevented by the prevailing political will from increasing troop strength, and possibly prevented by the limitations on available troops. So for those reasons, you may very well be right in stating it is time to look for other options.

US can increase troop strengh just not in the form of US troops.

 

[Garrette]

geni, we are perhaps not so far apart as it seemed at first.

Historicaly killing them all has tended to be consiuder wasteful. Stalin shipped people off to gulags and of course the romans kept a fair number of carthnegians alive for use as slaves.

Doesn't change the fact it doesn't work when tried.

I think if you got the population of Iraq down to 12 it would be a long time before they gave you any trouble.

Beyond the fact that we can't do that (I mean physically, not just morally), we would face far more serious trouble from people and nations who are not the 12 Iraqis. Still wouldn't work.

I'm saying it is not imposible if you know what you are doing

Agreed.

Because they had no problems with targetting civilians.

I think I disagree a lot. If you are suggesting that they made no distinction between civilians simply going about their lives and civilians who occasionally picked up the rifle and resisted, then I definitely disagree. If you are suggesting that the degree to which they were willing to accept "collateral damage" was higher than that for the U.S. in Iraq, I agree. But this does not prove your point. It simply emphasizes the importance of both media and the lessening global tolerance for violent death. (Particularly when perpetrated by a major power or superpower, regardless of the reason)

Because the rebelion there was almost entirely forigen lead which meant they had only limited support in the local population.

This is quite an oversimplification. Terrain probably had more to do with it than this. The insurgency in Malaya was not a foreign invasion.

US can increase troop strengh just not in the form of US troops.

If you mean other non-Iraqi troops, I don't see that happening. If you mean Iraqi troops, it's happening and has been happening to a much larger degree than is generally discussed in the media.

 

[geni]

geni, we are perhaps not so far apart as it seemed at first.

Doesn't change the fact it doesn't work when tried.

Oh dunno I don't think carthage caused any further problems for the romans.

Beyond the fact that we can't do that (I mean physically, not just morally), we would face far more serious trouble from people and nations who are not the 12 Iraqis. Still wouldn't work.

Probably could be done. Not easy but enough nerve gas would probably do it. The V-Series we swaped with you back in the 50s would probably work if used in large enough ammounts. Perhaps nuke the major cities to save time (I think the US has some Neutron bombs left although not in any significant ammounts).

Then it's just a question of who is prepared to risk pissing off someone who has thhe most powerful army on the planet and has shown it is prepared to kill tens of millions of people to atchive thier objectives. Of course most US troops would dissobey if ordered to do it which would be a bit of a problem.

I think I disagree a lot. If you are suggesting that they made no distinction between civilians simply going about their lives and civilians who occasionally picked up the rifle and resisted, then I definitely disagree. If you are suggesting that the degree to which they were willing to accept "collateral damage" was higher than that for the U.S. in Iraq, I agree. But this does not prove your point. It simply emphasizes the importance of both media and the lessening global tolerance for violent death. (Particularly when perpetrated by a major power or superpower, regardless of the reason)

I'm not sure how easy it is to tell the difference when machine guning villages from the air and droping incendiaries ( in the form of phosphorus bombs)

This is quite an oversimplification. Terrain probably had more to do with it than this. The insurgency in Malaya was not a foreign invasion.

No but the rebellion was mostly in the chinese population.

If you mean other non-Iraqi troops, I don't see that happening. If you mean Iraqi troops, it's happening and has been happening to a much larger degree than is generally discussed in the media.

I thought there were a lot of mexicans looking for a job. If the US decided to side with the Sunnies then there would be all those young men in saudi arabia without jobs.

Shia are a bit harder.