Vote: have we lost in Iraq?

[SWJED]

25 November The Australian - U.S. Didn't Have Enough Troops in Baghdad by Kate Legge.

Australia's Commander-in-Chief, Governor-General Michael Jeffery, believes a lack of troops on the ground in the weeks after the US-led coalition went into Iraq hampered efforts to secure Baghdad.

In an interview with The Weekend Australian Magazine, Major General Jeffery contrasted early tactics in Iraq with the counter-insurgency campaign he led in Phuoc Tuy province during the Vietnam War. "We were charged with winning the hearts and minds of local people and ensuring they were safe, which is the antithesis of what's happening in Baghdad. People aren't safe," he said.

Major General Jeffery served in Borneo, Malaya, Papua New Guinea and Vietnam during a 40-year military career.

As Commander-in-Chief he receives regular briefings from the defence chiefs on troop deployments, not policy.

He will not say whether Australia's involvement in Iraq is right or wrong because he won't comment on operational matters. However, he defends Australia's intervention in Vietnam.

"Going in there was right," said Major General Jeffery, who was awarded the Military Cross.

Reflecting on the initial phase of the Iraqi conflict, in March 2003, the Governor-General said: "There weren't enough soldiers to seal Baghdad off."

"Because that didn't take place everything went counter to the way the coalition and the Iraqi Government were hoping.

"A lack of troops, a lack of police, the structures weren't there, the numbers weren't there and this is a vitally important time immediately after the first battles."...

[Steve Blair]

Once again they rehash the obvious. Of course more troops should have been there. They were not. We can't turn back time and change that.

I also agree with Jones_RE about victory. How we define our victory may be meaningless in the context of our enemies' view of victory. The US often seems adrift when victory is something other than (to paraphrase Conan) "to crush our enemies, see them driven before us, and hear the lamentations of their women." If we're pushed out of the total victory plane, we suddenly become clueless.

Methinks yet again we're spending too much time looking at our definition and not enough looking at that of our enemies.

[SWJED]

25 November Baltimore Sun - U.S. Tests Indirect Approach in Iraq by David Wood.

Tens of thousands of American troops are shifting from combat operations against insurgents to training, advising and supporting Iraqi security forces in what military officials say will require a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq.

Rather than allowing American troops to withdraw to the sidelines, the new campaign will keep them directly in the violent middle ground between Iraq's warring factions, as increasing numbers of soldiers and Marines embed as combat advisers with Iraqi army and paramilitary police units. Already, some 6,000 Americans serve as advisers with Iraqi police units, for instance, in high-risk operations similar to those that have killed 4,000 Iraqi police officers over the past two years.

The latest strategic phase, which began this fall and will accelerate in the months ahead, may even require a short-term increase from the 141,000 U.S. troops currently serving in Iraq, senior commanders have said.

In addition to the advisers, thousands of other U.S. troops are directly supporting Iraq's security forces with communications, logistics and transportation expertise, running convoys and maintenance depots, and providing air support and other assistance the Iraqi units need to operate.

To protect all these American military personnel - the final numbers aren't yet determined - a sizable "force protection package" will be required in Iraq: quick-reaction combat forces, search and rescue teams, and attack and transport helicopters and strike fighters. These U.S. forces, in turn, will require their own maintenance, logistics, medical, administrative and other support...

[Bill Moore]

I hope this strategy works, but I still don't think the main issue is the ability of the Iraqi security forces to fight, rather it is their will. To borrow John Robb's phraseology from his global guerrilla website, the Iraqi people have converted to primary loyalties based on tribe, not nation. Perhaps our embeded advisors will encourage them to fight for Iraq. In a short period of time I guess we'll see.

[Jedburgh]

... I still don't think the main issue is the ability of the Iraqi security forces to fight, rather it is their will. To borrow John Robb's phraseology from his global guerrilla website, the Iraqi people have converted to primary loyalties based on tribe, not nation...

I agree 100%. The "lack of will" applies to loyalty to the nation of Iraq taking second place to sectarian/ethnic loyalty among members of the security forces. Unfortunately, with the continuing descent into ever more bitter sectarian conflict, this tendency will continue to expand and fragment the security forces.

There is no easy solution - we are damn near being caught in a Catch-22.

[Culpeper]

I agree 100%. The "lack of will" applies to loyalty to the nation of Iraq taking second place to sectarian/ethnic loyalty among members of the security forces. Unfortunately, with the continuing descent into ever more bitter sectarian conflict, this tendency will continue to expand and fragment the security forces.

There is no easy solution - we are damn near being caught in a Catch-22.

That goes back to my adage I posed somewhere else on the forum that this is "Counter-Mess" warfare where Catch-22 is the bible and only doctrine. Actually, since the majority of the violence is occurring within about a 35 mile radius I'm beginning to look at this as a major violent riot and perhaps LAPD advisers along with military tactics would be better served. I read somewhere the other day that Iraqi forces sat by and watched as several Sunni Iraqis had petro poured on them and they were set on fire alive. I'm going to assume that the Iraqi forces watching were Shiites. And the violence is increasing in the area. You would think that sooner or later they would get tired of this lifestyle. But what can you do? The Shiites were beat up on for a long time and now these Sunnis are still attacking them. I'm surprised the Shiites haven't been organized enough to create a single majority atrocity similar in nature to Rwanda. There must be some type of security going on to prevent this? I don't know. Saddam certainly was able to create Rwanda style action.

[Steve Blair]

Saddam also had several years to get his system running, and I think he did inheirit a functional system of repression. It's rather like Yugoslavia under Tito. He had his "machine" in place by the end of World War II and then kept it clamped down. Once he died, the hands fell away from the levers and things came apart. So with Saddam, even though he's not dead.

[Fabius Maximus]

I find this is all bit puzzling. Much of the Iraq Army will not fight for the Iraq State, so the US Army sends "advisors."

What kind of advisors? Philosophers? Mullahs, priests and ministers?

Who can give men the willingness to die for others? Do we have such people as officers and NCOs in the Army?

[Bill Moore]

Fabius your logic appears correct to me and it seems we're back to the old adage of the definition of insanity is doing the same behavior and expecting a different outcome. In this case we simply need to do more of the same behavior. If it wasn't so tragic it would be a great comedy.

I guess we put the skill set of Mullah, Priest, Persuader, etc. in the rucksack of the strategic corporal. I can see it now, the politicians in the executive branch are lining up the stars, so they can blame this mess on the military.

Reference the violence being restricted to Baghdad, this is a spin piece. While the majority of violence is taking place in the vicinity of Baghdad, there is plenty of violence taking place to far to the North and and far to the West, and more to come if Baghdad implodes. The internally displaced person problem that the violence in Baghdad will lead to additional problems far from Baghdad.

We're shouting at driver who is about to drive his car off the cliff, but the driver has his windows up and his stereo blasting, so he can't hear our warning shouts and he just keeps going toward the abyss. We feel helpless, he (Iraq) is about to die and there is nothing left we can do. We can wake everyone up in the house and have them shout (send more trainers), but he still can't hear us.

Furthermore insurgency is a form of democracy, as is civil war, it is the people taking collective action for change. We can't stand in front of it, either the Iraqi government provides for the masses, or the masses will replace the government. There are no good guys to support. We feel guilty because we created the conditions that led to this mess, but it is their fight now. What else can we do at this point?

[Sarajevo071]

I find this is all bit puzzling. Much of the Iraq Army will not fight for the Iraq State, so the US Army sends "advisors."

What kind of advisors? Philosophers? Mullahs, priests and ministers?

Who can give men the willingness to die for others? Do we have such people as officers and NCOs in the Army?

When you talking about “Iraqi Army” or “Iraqi Government” or “Iraqi Police” you don’t count WHO those Iraqis ARE!? Shias? Sunni? Maybe not important to you or to hard to find the difference but it is VERY important to them… That’s reason why Iraqi government, police and army are failing… They are majority Shia, involved one way or another in killing Sunnis right now. Plus Shia majority want they state, in which US led invasion help allot I may say. They don’t want to fight for US “dream” state or “Iraqi state”… For me that is core problem.

Sadly, I will say it is too late to reverse all those bad decisions and mistakes, or willingly made steps, that bring Iraq in such a bloody state of affairs.

[Fabius Maximus]

Good points, with which I agree.

When we look at units of the US Army, we no longer sort them by loyalty. New Yorkers over there! Catholics over there! Afro-americans there! Of course, it took generations to lose those loyalties, but even at the founding there was loyalty to the nation-state.

Without that greater loyalty, building an army becomes difficult. Esp. an army whose primary task is to fight and kill “their” own people -- a vital note usually overlooked in these discussions.

Unfortunately it is worse than just Shiite vs. Sunni. There are equally strong ethnic divisions in Iraq.

I believe the only national Army indigenous to Iraq is the Kurdish Peshmerga. Many or most accounts of effective fighting by the “Iraq Army” are no such thing, but by the Peshmerga fighting Arabs and Turkman. I doubt they are fighting for an “Iraq” state.