Vote: have we lost in Iraq?

As of today, is the outcome inevitable? If so, what outcome? Please explain why you believe this is so.

I have written 20 articles on the Iraq War, going back to Summer 2003. Initially pessimistic, like Lind and Prof. van Creveld, moving to gloomy, then certain that we've lost. The only remaining questions are when we'll give up, and how much we will have lost in blood, money, and influence.

My articles are at DNI. Here is the latest, with links to the others at the end:
http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/fabius_iraq_sitrep_11-2006.htm

What are your views?

"Contributed to Defense and the National Interest by Fabius Maximus, an amateur military historian."

Well, I skimmed your article.....

...your analysis is vastly flawed and filled with inaccuracies...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting off on SWC with your first post being a personal attack is not a good thing.

Since you clearly disagree with FM's linked material, then the appropriate reply is to post a substantive statement addressing the perceived weaknesses of the other's material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

my forecasts -- however gloomy -- have proven fairly accurate. Certainly more accurate than those of the War's proponents. Perhaps that is more important than the external details you mention.

Also, my comments are not unique or distinctive. The A-team writers on DNI, the real experts, seem to share my views: Lind, van Creveld, etc.

So, bspeer, why not share your views. Correct our facts, give us your analysis and forecasts!

bspeer,

(moderator hat on) If you have a deeper axe against what Fabius has written and linked to, please take it to PMs. Otherwise, feel free to expand on your thoughts by outlining any believed inaccuracies, so others can reflect as well.

Although I did vote, the question brings up the issue of how do we define success in Iraq? What is a win or what is a loss? Are we talking about a military win or a political win?

Personnally I believe that wars are fought to achieve political goals (shades of Clausewitz). Therefore any win in Iraq must be based on the political goal, which is a liberal democracy. The military is part of the solution and the military strategy should help lead to the political goal.

Sooooo....the point is.....in any discussion about whether we're winning or not we each may have our own definition of what the "win" is.

Just a random thought..

Ray

Great point. Here is an excerpt from Part 2 of my Sitrep on Iraq (posting later this week):

"Victory will be the day when the Iraqis solve their political problems and are up and running with respect to their own government, and when they're able to provide for their own security."
Vice President Cheney interview in Time Magazine, October 30,2006

Victory would mean producing in Iraq "a government that can defend, govern and sustain itself."
President Bush, the day after the election

I suspect President Bush means or intends for the Iraq gov't to be allied with us. Would a gov't headed by bin Laden meet his vicotry criteria?

These statements are far more modest than our two previous goal statements.

First there was, according to Bob Woodward, a top-secret National Security Presidential Directive signed August 29, 2002 entitled "Iraq: Goals, Objectives and Strategy.”

Second there was the “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq” announced by President Bush on November 30, 2005.

Yeah, my problem with the 2006 comments are that they represent a political change to the definition of victory. As you noted, they are "more modest." If you move the goal posts far enough you can claim Vietnam was a victory for the U.S.

Not that moving the goal posts isn't common -- after all, we tend to forget that the reason we went to war against Germany in WWII was because of their invasion of Poland (oh, and the Russians invaded, too). Yet, in the end, Poland was still an occupied state -- occupied by one of the original invaders.

Ray

I would say that it is not only a question of defining victory. It is inherently at this stage also a question of defining defeat. Both of those issues were either poorly defined (victory) or not addressed at all (defeat). In a regional context and a local context, they play against us, heavily. The opposition--again another one of those ill-defined concepts that has as we all know evolved over the past several years--does not have to define victory. They simply have to avoid losing, that being defined as their destruction and/or the mobilization of what constitutes an "Iraqi society" at this stage--yet another ill-defined concept to say the least.

And at the risk of saying I have said this before, the truly operative defintions are those set by the "Iraqi" people. If they first redefine themselves along ethnic and sectarian lines then they are very much altering the right and left limits of what we discuss as victory or defeat. And that paradigm also affects how they define their own victory. When it was a case of insurgency, then as I said above victory for the insurgents was a case of the insurgents not losing. Victory for the remainder of Iraqis was determinable by how they aligned themselves in that fight. For the majority as is the case in most insurgencies victory was simple survival in the hopes of betterment for their lives. In the situation now with ethnic and sectarian fault lines grating, victory and defeat for the "Iraqi" people is no longer truly operative. Victory and defeat are according to group and that is a zero sum game--the classic dillema in such conflicts--because any win means that somebody lost and lost big. In that case they can no longer hope to win by avoiding defeat; they have to win in absolute terms, knowing the alternative is absolute defeat.

best

Tom

I am sorry if my comments were viewed as a personl attack. My point is and always will be that posting in anonymity is not the way legitimate historians approach issues, especialyl if they expect serious discussion of their points.

Once again, I apologize.

bs

Even so far, both sides in play.

I don't see either side even reaching their goals. Both sides are losing. One side has to win while the other side only doesn't have to lose. So far, my vote is the Lone Ranger on this poll. The Coalition isn't exactly winning the hearts and minds of the population in the hot spots and the insurgency is going overboard by disregarding the hearts and minds of the population through Murder Incorporated. And to top it all off there is no single insurgency. Their collective plan and performance, for a lack of better words, is worse than ours! Not only are they dealing with the war against the Coalition they are fighting each other as well.

BTW, I posted first then read through the thread. There are some outstanding posts in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray Levesque

...after all, we tend to forget that the reason we went to war against Germany in WWII was because of their invasion of Poland (oh, and the Russians invaded, too). Yet, in the end, Poland was still an occupied state -- occupied by one of the original invaders. Ray

---

"We went to war"? Who is the "we" in this context? The US? The UK? France? Remember, the US didn't have a war with Germany until after 7 Dec 1941, when Germany declared war against the US; the US didn't declare against Germany first. It was reciprocal.

You raise a great point -- which I deliberately omitted from the question to keep the discussion focused. We may be losing, but that does not mean anyone is winning! War is not a zero sum game -- everyone loses if "Chaos" wins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ssfeldjager

"We went to war"? Who is the "we" in this context? The US? The UK? France? Remember, the US didn't have a war with Germany until after 7 Dec 1941, when Germany declared war against the US; the US didn't declare against Germany first. It was reciprocal.

---

Welcome to the forum.

I took it meaning "we" as in "World" War. It doesn't change the context. Poland still ended up behind the Iron Curtain, the world considered WWII a victory, we lost an ally in that war and gained an enemy throughout the Cold War. The "we", is the United States, Britain, and France, et al. I understood the premise of the post without going down the road heading towards FDRs "Europe First", Churchill's unlikely chill up his back on 7-Dec-41, and the look on de Gaulle's face knowing he would have to take a back seat because the Americans were now totally involved. The end to the mean was a victory for the allies. Including the USSR. The so-called mindset of today would consider the outcome of Europe after WWII a major screw up. But that doesn't make it so. The world generally looks upon the end of WWII as a victory. That would also include Germany, Italy , and Japan that was rebuilt. They certainly are no longer our enemies. The only people grumbling about it might be certain Middle Eastern countries/cultures that loved Hitler and hated Churchill. Which bring us to such dealings with fascist Baathists and today's newest battles following Word War II's footsteps. Historically speaking, not much as changed since the first world war. Except the people, places, and things. The first and second world wars were victories, Korea a stalemate still going on today, Vietnam may have been a defeat until it too dies on the vine, and so on but they can all be tied together one way or the other. The victorious war to end all wars ended up creating more wars. "We" win some and "we" lose some but there is always the next one.

"bspeer," I cannot imagine what you have done to "offend" anyone. Good Grief! Much harder criticism is proferred to my posts on my own web site. Warfare is hard and emotional business. Concerning Iraq, we have not lost it yet. The future has not yet happened, and as argued on my web site thematically, "force projection" is the key.

Do we have the collective will as a nation? That is another story. Our children will tell it to their children.

I think the relevant questions are: how do our enemies define defeat and victory?

Specifically: how to Sunni insurgents define them? Al Qaeda in Iraq? The Mahdi Army and Badr Brigades? Run of the mill criminals? We've got five enemies out there in Iraq right now - and what they're after tells us a lot about what we need to do.

I'd venture that the Sunni insurgents define victory as: a retreat by US occupation forces from Iraq, dominance of at least the Sunni triangle, and enough of the oil revenues to stay in business. They'd define defeat as an unresisted occupation by US or Iraqi government forces (i.e. the local population turning to the US as the legitimate authority), economic privation through loss of oil money, and political or military domination by Shiites.

Al Qaeda in Iraq would define defeat as the crippling of their operational cells in Iraq at an acceptable cost to "the West." Note that crippling may not mean shooting everyone or putting them in jail - if they run out of useful targets or get run out of the country by the locals that's as much of a defeat. Victory (against the US) would consist of driving US troops out of the region on a permanent basis. Everything else is a means to that end.

The Badr Brigades and Mahdi Army are seeking a government of Iraq based in Shiite Islam, revenge for Sunni atrocities and control of oil revenue. Note that this is a goal local to their organization. They don't want oil revenue for Shiites, they want it for their members. They are subnational entities which command a patriotic loyalty from their membership. The Mahdi Army additionally does not wish to full under foreign occupation, so they've got to get rid of the US at some point. Defeat would consist of an oil sharing deal that favors Sunnis, or the inability of their armed and political wings to operate effectively.

Garden variety criminals simply want to turn a profit and remain alive and out of jail. Defeat is anything that interferes with those goals.

Thus far, I'd hazard a guess that the Sunni insurgency is headed towards defeat. It's only a matter of time before the weight of numbers begins to tell and the Shiites rip them to shreds.

JONES RE, that is a pretty sharp analysis of the internal situation. What are your thoughts on the impact of Syria and Iran??

24 November Los Angeles Times - Iraq Strategy Takes Page from Vietnam Playbook by Peter Spiegel.

Quote:

---

New tactics favored by U.S. commanders in Iraq borrow heavily from the end of another war that might seem an unlikely source for a winning strategy: Vietnam.

The tactics — an influx of military advisors and a speeded-up handover to indigenous forces followed by a gradual U.S. withdrawal — resemble those in place as the U.S. effort in Vietnam reached its end.

In historical assessments and the American recollection, Vietnam was the unwinnable war. But to many in the armed forces, Vietnam as a war actually was on its way to succeeding when the Nixon administration and Congress, bowing to public impatience, pulled the plug: first withdrawing U.S. combat forces and then blocking funding and supplies to the South Vietnamese army.

If they hadn't, the South Vietnamese army, which had been bolstered by U.S. advisors and a more focused "hearts and minds" campaign in the later stages of the war, could have been able to fend off the communist North, many leading military thinkers have argued.

In their view, progress was undermined by President Nixon's decision to begin withdrawing U.S. troops in 1969 in the face of political pressure at home, despite military objections that the South Vietnamese army was not ready to go it alone. Another key U.S. mistake, they contend, was the deep cuts Congress made to military aid to Saigon beginning in 1974.

For many in the military, the lessons of Vietnam are clear: Maintain public support, and be patient...

---

Quote:

---

For many in the military, the lessons of Vietnam are clear: Maintain public support, and be patient...

---

Trouble with that analysis is that public support was lost in Vietnam and has been lost in Iraq, pretty much game set and match for the insurgents. I am sure the military would have wanted to keep the conflict going, but without the support of the people it's a moot point. The Hearts and mind's strategy was needed at the beginning of the (Iraq) conflict, while it may have some small impact now, I think its a case of shutting the gate after the horse has bolted.

Thanks for posting a link to this fascinating article. The Iraq War run as boomer nostalgia, that's something to consider.

But what is this "Iraq" they speak of? A brightly colored space on the map, certainly. A State, with a government capable of weilding an army -- not likely. A nation-state, certainly not now (or "no more", or perhaps "not yet").

How many wars hve been lost through small but critical false assumptions, like this?

24 November Chicago Sun-Times commentary - Dividing Iraq Might Multiply Problems by Jaroslav Tir and Paul F. Diehl.

Quote:

---

... Our research indicates that the best time to divide a country along ethnic or religious lines is before tensions escalate to civil war or large-scale violence. Since 1900, mini-states that emerge from peaceful breakups of countries have a 95 percent success rate in avoiding militarized confrontations with each other.

The bad news is that the optimal time to partition Iraq has passed. The months soon after Saddam Hussein's removal from power in 2003 -- that is, before Iraqi politics came to be dominated by extremist leaders advocating sectarian violence -- provided a window of opportunity for dividing the Iraqi state...

The partition scenario that now faces Iraq is not as desirable as it once was, but neither is it hopeless. A partition designed to stop a civil war runs the risk of transforming the conflict into an international battleground between the mini-states (e.g., the 1998 war between Ethiopia and Eritrea).

One might similarly worry about Sunni and Shiite states clashing in the future. Based on past cases of partition carried out after civil war, this is a 50-50 proposition. There is also the risk that the new states will fall prey to future civil wars, but this occurs only a third of the time. Thus, there is reason to hope that a divided Iraq could avoid future problems, but several risks loom on the horizon.

Given that the Kurdish northern part of Iraq is generally stable and that there is relatively little violence between the Kurds and other major groups, the separation of the Kurds from Iraq could reinforce peace in the north. Yet, this could also activate a potentially dangerous territorial dispute with Turkey, which has a large and rebellious Kurdish population within its own southeastern borders. Any attempts to expand a nascent Kurdish state could ignite a war with Turkey (and perhaps with Iran and Syria as each has significant Kurdish populations). Securing Turkish cooperation for any plan is essential.

The more problematic scenario is presented by the potential Sunni-Shiite separation. The present sectarian violence suggests that the Shiite and Sunni states would not only be predisposed to fight each other after the separation, but also to experience future civil wars within their own mini-states...

---