There has been ample discussion in the local and national press about Bush's upcoming Iraq policy announcement. In follow-up to previous posts on the topic (here, here, here, and here), let me offer some thoughts for consideration prior to the announcement since the post-announcement debate is already shaping up with some clarity.
First and foremost, it seems clear many critics of the pending "surge" either don't understand the change in tactics involved or are deliberately muddying the discussion. The change involved here seems to be a marked difference from past practice of clearing an area of insurgents and other nefarious folks with the US military, then leaving Iraqi security forces to hold and revitalize the area itself. The New York Times provides a thorough run-down of how the clear-and-hold strategy using that formula did not work, and how likewise neither did the strategy in 2006 to empower the Iraqis to take control. They clearly proved incapable of the task in the current environment, for a multitude of reasons. Yet, the Reid/Pelosi letter from last week is calling for a short-term emphasis on Iraqi capabilities rather than US forces, an effort that already failed in 2006:
...we believe the way forward is to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months, while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror. A renewed diplomatic strategy, both within the region and beyond, is also required to help the Iraqis agree to a sustainable political settlement.
These are the very tactics, including the emphasis on political settlements, the US has been pushing for many months. The Iraqis have proven incapable of handling the requirements of security in notable areas, and maddeningly slow in achieving the political consensus necessary to move the country forward. Yet Democrats are essentially proposing a gloss-upped version of what didn't work in 2006. Talk about not changing the course.
Such irony is regrettably common. A popular criticism of our involvement in Iraq, including from many liberals, is that Western-style Democracy can't be foisted upon a non-Western country with great ease. Many conservatives can agree with that, and the subsequent debate of establishing a basic democracy versus a Western-style democracy is longer than I have time for here. The point is many liberals were skeptical of the democracy experiment in advnace. So, could someone please explain then why liberals seem mortified that the trial and execution of Saddam Hussein did not live up to Western standards (see the New York Times here and here for ample summary of the imperfections of the execution)?
Darryl at Horse's Ass was quite bothered, though offered analysis that was thoughtful even if one disagrees with it. Stilwell at NPI thought Hussein should have been tried at the Hague.
Such analysis is really quite illogical. Does any serious thinker believe a system of justice in the present-day Middle East is going to meet Western standards? The system approved by the current Iraqi government is much fairer than much of what passes for criminal law and justice in the region; a fact that should be embraced, not condemned. Moreover, does anyone think replicating Slobodan Milosevic's joke of a four-year trial at the Hague would be prudent? In perspective, the Nuremberg Trials wouldn't meet modern Western standards either, but there is something to be said for timely justice of publicly visible crimes against humanity that shouldn't take so long the tyrant dies in custody before facing justice. Mario Loyoa at the National Review's the Corner reviews:
The scheme of war crimes trials was largely invented by the Americans after World War II, and largely for the purpose of making sure that the crimes of the Nazis were publicized and memorialized to the fullest. The concern was not the due process rights of a band of criminals who had committed their crimes openly and flagrantly for all the world to see. Nobody could doubt their identity or guilt.Some have questioned why Saddam was executed on the basis of less than two hundred murders when he was responsible for hundreds of thousands losing their lives. The answer is not just that the particular crime in question was so easily traceable through documentary evidence to Saddam's personal agency, but also that it is important for people to see that even a crime this "small" justifies this punishment.
None of this has to do with the due process rights normally presumed for an individual criminal defendant in a state proceeding where there is a vital concern to protect individual rights from the power of the state. War criminals use the power of the state to commit their crimes. By abusing the powers of state, they opt out of the protections of state. The Allies would have been fully within their rights under customary international law to put the senior Nazi leaders in front of firing squads without any judicial process at all. Indeed, among the Allies, many senior leaders worried about the restraining precedent that would be set by the Nuremberg trials, which arguably went far beyond the sensible requirements of humanist and ethical restraint. The Nuremberg trials were show-trials in the best sense. Their purpose was not justice, but publicity, as Eisenhower appreciated.
That being said, there is much to lament about how the execution of Hussein was handled, and some liberal critics seem to have missed the fact conservatives and supporters of the war of assorted stripes rue the final handling of matters as well. But a smattering includes Rich Lowry, Andy McCarthy, Michael Leeden, and Christopher Hitchens. The four have varied views on the matter, but all agree the handling of the execution by Iraq's government could and should have gone smoother legally and politically.
The fact remains the very Iraqis who critics of the Bush Administration want to empower further (as the Administration itself was attempting to do with little success last year) are the ones who wantonly botched the handling of Saddam's execution. Indeed, there is a total lack of consistency in the argument of many Bush critics. On one hand they object to the actions and culture of the Iraqis, on the other they now back an essentially re-worded version of the strategy of giving more short-term control of security to the Iraqis, with the addition of a phased withdrawal, that hasn't worked. Such a move could be likened to similar blunders by bad investors who buy high and sell low, thus locking in their losses.
Strategically, and more importantly, politically, there really only seems two choices. Get out as soon as possible, which the Democratic base is clamoring for with great zeal. Or attempt the surge and see if it succeeds or fails. If it's the latter, even pro-war conservatives will likely agree it's time to simply wash our hands of the mess that is Iraqi society and get out in as timely a manner as possible (a process that itself might prove rather messy). If it's the former, the security situation will have improved to where the Iraqi government can handle matters and take the sort of political steps currently held in stasis by sectarian strife. All that means we could commence an orderly transition to Iraqi control of security coupled with a steady and significant drawdown of American forces.
Indeed, the surge may not work. Some conservatives like the idea. Even Rich Lowry, one of the Bush's harshest critics in analyzing the last couple years in Iraq, likes the recent steps Bush is taking as a hands-on commander-in-chief. And of course, some conservatives have reservations about the surge. Those are understandable since the surge itself is no sure thing. And if it fails, lots of conservatives will be in the same boat Tom Friedman is in now: "As Saddam's hanging underscored, Iraqis are doing things their way. So maybe it's time to get out of their way."
Either advocates of the surge are right, or the Tom Friedmans of the world are right. There isn't a middle ground on this, yet that seems where many elected Democrats are trying to go on Iraq, doing a delicate dance of catering to their base while avoiding looking terrible on national security (a dance already covered here). Meanwhile, Republicans are obviously in a massive bind since some observers, mostly on the left and in some corners of the media, interpret the 2006 election as a signal for rapid withdrawal from Iraq rather than as a result of broader unhappiness with Republicans that is not so easily pigeonholed into an anti-war box. As such, any support for continued war may be costly, most definitely if a surge doesn't work.
In reality, it seems quite difficult to have a thoughtful, emotion-free discussion of the Iraq issue anymore. Some Bush critics seem no longer capable of thoughtful commentary on the matter, and are blind to the fact there is a difference between offering criticisms of the conduct of Iraq policy (which conservatives have done) versus embracing a Vietnam-era mentality of "let's get out now" (which conservatives for obvious reasons aren't too enamored with). Concurrently, some Republicans are running so scared of the political ramifications they're having trouble offering cogent thought as well. At the same time, some Republicans are so focused on not bowing to the left they're not able to think creatively about adjusting policy to fit a difficult situation.
In the end, we're going to see a ton of commentary locally and nationally after the Bush announcement, and no doubt a hefty battle in Congress. In the midst of the noise of political debate, it will be difficult to discern clear thinking in search of real answers rather than that seeking mere political points. It would seem the best advice is actually wait and see what Bush has to say.
If he produces a plan that is candid about reality on the ground, offers a clear path forward, presents tangible goals to achieve, and includes realistic benchmarks for success that will trigger future troop withdrawals then Democrats will have a tough time stopping the plan in Congress, short of the universally bad idea of cutting funding for troops in the field. If such a plan is devoid of such components, Democrats won't have to worry about stopping it, because outcry from even pro-war conservatives is likely to be robust. And of course, local reaction is likely to be interesting as blood sport goes.
****
UPDATE: The New York Times previews some of the "benchmarks" noted above in a story today. The article is a reminder that such goals need to have consequences, good and bad. If the Iraqis achieve certain benchmarks there should be obvious benefits. If they don't, there must also be clear and undesirable consequences to induce them to avoid such failure.
Posted by Eric Earling at January 08, 2007 08:15 AM | Email ThisSome would argue, myself included, that "justice" can be more allusive in America than in many places because of the omnipotence we give judges and the methods we use to place them into positions of such importance. And with a media that gives activist rulings cover and even its blessing, this nation's "justice" system is little more than an extension of the legislative and executive branches, with judges far too often showing little more loyalty to the law than any other politician or activist.
Would Saddam have received a fairer trial here in America? With the right jury he might have been eventually out playing golf with O.J. Simpson, or on death row for the next 50 years with his lawyers relaying messages from him to his Baath Party in Iraq.
For the record, whether justice is obtained or not is the measure of success. It's not about how the system is perceived or whether some technicality was fairly used to win release of a murderer. Justice was served in Iraq and that is really all that matters.
Posted by: MJC on January 8, 2007 08:38 AMFirst, the only way to win in Iraq is to let the troops be troops and stop expecting them to be policemen. Look at what the Ethopian Army was able to do, because they were not looking over their shoulders to see what the world was thinking. If we do not treat this like a war then we are destined to fail. When soldiers on the battlefied are more concerned with whether or not their actions may or may not warrant UCMJ action by some lawyer who is back in his air conditioned office secured inside the compound it wont matter how many more troops we send to Iraq. Here is my plan. First and foremost I would talk to the Iraqi government and work with them to revoke the Visa's of any reporter who is deemed to be a propaganda tool of the enemy (i.e. CNN with their sniper videos). There would be protest and what not, but at least the enemy would loose it's propaganda tool. Then allow the troops to fight the enemy. There may be a surge of civillian casualties, but when the enemy uses them as human shields what can you do let them shoot you instead. The Iraqi people would see this as a sign that we actually want to do something for their country and you wopuld see them even more on their side. Finally I would get someone to be the "Spokesman of the War". Have someone go on the air weekly and give the news of the good fight in Iraq. Therefore we would finally be winning the propaganda war. This would scare Al Qaeda more than anything. A united American Public is one of the most powerful weapons we could have in the war on terror.
Secondly, I noticed that the President is having a meeting with the D's 3 hours before he airs his new plan. My question is how much of it will get leaked between the end of the meeting and the airing of the plan?
Posted by: TrueSoldier on January 8, 2007 08:49 AMAnyone who says we have not been successful is a figgin' idiot. You measure success on the criteria of your objectives, the Iraq Resolution set forth the criteria.
Essentially one thing remains, set Iraq up to as a stable non-threatening nation.
Defeating the insurgents requires two things: Cut off support, then kill them.
Iran, Syria, and Saudia Arabia are active in supporting the insurgents. We have to get serious with these countries, let them know serious consequences will follow for support the insurgents, then follow through.
Second: clear and hold, the military must be cut loose to clear insurgent infested neighborhoods, then hold the area.
Right now I see no signs of either thing happening.
Posted by: JCM on January 8, 2007 09:07 AMI followed your link to the goals of the Iraq war resolution. They were:
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
I believe our national security has been severely damaged, not enhanced, by the war. Since the war began, the number of Al Queda terrorists in Iraq has increased from 0 to hundreds or thousands; 3000 Americans have died; tens of thousands of Americans have been seriously injured, many for life; our relationships with many of our best allies have deteriorated; our enemies have been strengthened and emboldened; we have spent or committed over $1 trillion which prevents us from defending against much greater threats; we have diverted resources from Afghanistan where we have gone from winning to losing; and we have injured our ability to defend against threats from countries like Iran and North Korea.
If that's success, what would failure look like?
Posted by: Bruce on January 8, 2007 09:24 AMHello? That's the point. Fight them there instead of here. If it was the other way around, you'd still complain. It's what you do.
our relationships with many of our best allies have deteriorated
Who? France? Germany? Russia? China? Those would be your allies. Our true allies - you know, the ones who weren't being bought off by Saddam - are still with us. If it was the other way around, you'd still complain. It's what you do.
our enemies have been strengthened and emboldened;
Strengthened? No. Emboldened? Yes. And just why is that? Because they read and hear stuff similar to what you write and say and recognize American is divided against a common enemy? Thanks. If it was the other way around, you'd still complain. It's what you do.
we have diverted resources from Afghanistan where we have gone from winning to losing
People like you were against invading Afghanistan, too. Spare me. If it was the other way around, you'd still complain. It's what you do.
we have injured our ability to defend against threats from countries like Iran and North Korea.
You mean having 150,000 troops next door to Iran 'injures' our ability? How? And just what do you want us to do with North Korea? Invade? Bomb? Please. If it was the other way around, you'd still complain. It's what you do.
See, it's always the same with people like you, Bruce. You always have the right answers ... even if they contradict your other 'right' answers. You are nothing but a reactionary, knee-jerk leftist who thinks he knows everything. Go protest something.
Sort of. The problem is that as you kill them you increase there support. Especially if you kill them in messy ways. For example you have a city block known to house one insurgent. Not wearing a uniform or fighting openly, you have no way to tell him form everyone else. You basically have three ways to get him. You can make him expose himself which is tricky and risk him carrying out a successful attack which makes you look weak.
You can go door to door and search all the houses. This can be imprecise and angers the people whose houses you search.
Finally you can bomb the whole block. This gets the insurgent, but really angers the people around.
The greater chance you have of getting the insurgent the greater the likelihood of collateral damage which works to convert noninsurgants to insurgents.
the number of Al Queda terrorists in Iraq has increased from 0 to hundreds or thousands -- Hello? That's the point.
Ah, now I get it!
Our true allies - you know, the ones who weren't being bought off by Saddam - are still with us.
True. God Bless Moldova!
... and flat-out mistakes ...
People like you were against invading Afghanistan, too.
I'm not sure what you mean by "people like me". I personally was in favor of invading Afghanistan, as were the vast majority of the American people and most of the world.
Posted by: Bruce on January 8, 2007 10:03 AMI also agree with jimg that the American left has extensively emboldened our enemies by suggesting to them that if they kill enough of us we will quit. Every American killed in Iraq does so as a partial result of the efforts of the left in this country to undermine their efforts, portray their successes as failures, and give the terrorists hope that despite their huge losses that they can coerce us into surrender.
If the American left had put this nation's interests above its hatred of Bush in the beginning we could have achieved some acceptable level of stability in the Middle East. Instead, their self-fulfilling prophecy of failure and defeat has been accepted by the majority of Americans and now the left is ready to hand Al Queda and terrorism another victory. Something to take real pride in - not!
Posted by: MJC on January 8, 2007 10:36 AMthe other side does not give a rip about our "gentlemen's" way of battle. they kill, and don't wring their hands. remember the head-sawings? the 9-11 souls (may they rest in peace) that were jumping? how about the gassed Kurds?
this leftist softness will kill us all. non-violent libs are entitled to their views, but don't let them drag everyone into the fire with them using their surrender & appeasement mentality. stakes are too high.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 8, 2007 11:34 AMEven Bush and Cheney have stopped making such ridiculous claims.
Posted by: Bruce on January 8, 2007 12:07 PMOn the other hand, Congress helped get us into this war. Just like Korea and Vietnam, they did not declare war. They can't escape getting us into the war by not being responsible enough to have a vote on declaration of war.
Posted by: KS on January 8, 2007 12:21 PMStop crying about the way the Iraqi regime is. That is them. That is the way they are and in order to change them it will take years and years.
As I mentioned over the weekend on NWR this troop surge is eerily similar to the response from Athens in 414 BC. (bear with me. i am getting to the "learn from history so as not to repeat history" thing here.)
Athens then the regional power of the day severly underestimated the Island of Sicily and the city of Syracuse. They sent a huge force to attack a foe, who really was no threat.
Unfortunately the neighbors of Syracuse did not all line up, as thought, behind and with Athens. Instead many joined forces with Syracuse in a regional alliance against the invading Athens.
Athens got bogged down for a couple of years. An attempt was made to call the troops home. It would have been embarrassing of course but taking the lumps and going home was one of the options.
Instead the democrats of Athens decided to double their force. Sparta meanwhile,(the enemy of Athens) then built up forces on Athens' northern front.
The result was that the new Athenian troop surge turned out to be a major disaster. Every soldier was killed or enslaved and they lost half of thier navy.
Do I believe that that scenario would match our exactly? No. However I do believe that a recollection of history might serve us well at this time.
Personally... I think it is time to work on bringing the troops home. Declare victory on any number of achievements.
Posted by: Coyote on January 8, 2007 12:34 PMb--yes, but due to big brass's limitations/orders/preferences/pc trends in military & lawyers' castrations of the soldier's real job.
c--no, not well-coalesced, not well-expressed or repeated effectively to the left's shouts & also using a pc soft-named enemy identity;
d--yes in spades;
comforting the enemy--remember the CNN sniper video? too few positive military images and pix;
too much greiving stats/pix by press; 1st 2007 headline in Seattle Times was body count, not all the GOOD things acheived despite a war; no stories about heroes, just the Watada-deserter types & the Cindy Sheehans with bigger articles on front pages; good stories/acheivements buried.
media selective amnesia of successes and forgetting history's lessons.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 8, 2007 01:08 PMIt's a mistake to get too caught up in what al-Qaeda thinks. The key to winning the war on terror is not to win a mind game with al-Qaeda, it's to convince the moderates of the Middle East to turn on al-Qaeda themselves.
Posted by: thehim on January 8, 2007 08:17 PMIt seems like by this time, the Iraqis should be predominantly patrolling Bagdad. There are too many American lives being lost there. If Iraq doesn't care enough to secure Bagdad, why should we put young soldiers lives on the line to do something Iraqis need to be doing now ??
Posted by: KS on January 8, 2007 08:23 PMThe claimed "surge" is merely a trickle. 20,000 more troops is just a drop in the bucket and they won't stay very long anyway. Not nearly enough troops to make a difference.
Eric says:
"First and foremost, it seems clear many critics of the pending "surge" either don't understand the change in tactics involved or are deliberately muddying the discussion." And Eric links to the "Kagan" proposal where US forces will "clear and hold".
The US troops may do a little "clearing" in Baghdad, but will do no "holding". They will not stand on street corners to provide security for everyday Iraqis. It makes them sitting ducks, plus they have no comfortable bases in the neighborhoods.
So this is just more "wack a mole" and the forces of disorder will return as soon as the US forces leave.
The Iraqi army is not capable of doing any "holding". The plan is to send 3 additional Iraqi army brigades into Baghdad. That is about 4000 to 5000 troops. That is laughable.
And all you chest beating super warriors calling for more robust "rules of engagement" are just venting. Shooting up Baghdad neighborhoods will be a political nightmare and won't kill one more insurgent. They will just melt away and wait for us to leave. We'll just have a lot of burned out buildings and dead civilians and kids on our hands.
Posted by: chew2 on January 9, 2007 08:31 AMperhaps we should listen to Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, who's slated to take over in Iraq.
petraeus co-wrote the army's counterinsurgency field manual, which states that we need 20 COMBAT troops per 1,000 people. slate's fred kaplan did the numbers and he comes with a need (per petraeus) of 120,000 combat troops for baghdad alone. we have 70,000 combat troops in all of iraq.
so any call for 20,000 or even 50,000 more troops is more pissing in the wind.
http://www.slate.com/id/2157155/?nav=tap3
we'll see how long petraeus serves before bush replaces him b/c bush can't handle the truth of the FUBAR he helped to ceate in iraq.
Posted by: dinesh on January 9, 2007 11:07 AM#20 - And you are being reactionary. The rules of engagement against an enemy that doesn't acknowledge any rules as such is downright ludicrous in an environment such as that. Lives are on the line - and I am not necessarily talking about Bagdad. Reread my comment before spouting off any more about rules of engagement.
Posted by: KS on January 9, 2007 12:46 PM#22
I reread you comment. You still don't make any sense. Invoking "Patton" rules of engagement is ridiculous. We are fighting guerillas who hide among civilians and we are attempting to stablilize a country. Who exactly are we going to shoot at with all those Patton type tanks and artillery, and how will that help us stabilize Iraq.
If you want to save lives then our troops should withdraw into enclaves. If you want to "win" then at least 50,000 of our troops must "hold" Baghdad and protect its people from violence, and that means many of those troops will die on the streets doing that job.
Or maybe you just want to drive around Iraq shooting things up and destroy the country. So much for spreading democracy.
Posted by: chew2 on January 9, 2007 01:36 PMYou brought up Patton type tanks and artillery, which are way outdated since WWII - what's your point ? What I said is that we need commanders along the lines of Patton and a change in the policy on rules of engagement. You don't think so ? then I believe that you don't want us to win the war, Chew2. FYI- I disagree with the Neo-con policy of spreading Democracy.
Posted by: KS on January 9, 2007 06:38 PM
KS
"Entering Bagdad under those conditions is a recipe for disaster. Furthermore, if that's the case, I hope that Congress blocks this move"
Then you'd better hope congress blocks the move, because most of the 22,000 new troops are headed for Baghdad.
What pisses me off about you republicans is that you always think there is a cheap, esay free lunch answer that involves no sacrifice.
"We have to take the gloves off." "We have to stop fighting with one hand tied behind our back". "We have to send out troops to protect the borders." "We should bomb Iran where the real problem lies". Bullshit. We need a whole lot more troops in Iraq to enforce our will. Period. If we're not going to do that, then we should begin to get out.
Some strutting new Patton like general won't change that. Rules of engagement won't change that, when the guerillas are hiding among those we are supposed to be helping. I asked you before. Who are we going to shoot with those new rules of engagement you are asking for, and how will that help us stabilize Iraq?
Yes, I hope Congress blocks the move until there is confidence and more explaining done by Bush. Right now, I question if the President is doing what his Generals in the field have advised him, based on past performance. For instance - Why didn't we make an decent instead of a half-assed attempt to seal off the borders of Iran and Syria ? (I know that for a fact) Obviously, I have problems with his war and was promoting a change in approach. Do you deny that we are fighting the war with inappropriate rules of engagement ? So what may I ask is your solution ?
Posted by: KS on January 10, 2007 07:19 PMWashington Post coverage of Bush speech:
"Military experts last night wondered, as one said, how a "thin green line" of 17,500 additional soldiers in Baghdad could affect the security situation in a city where many of the 5 million residents are hostile to the U.S. presence. "Too little, too late -- way too late," said retired Col. Jerry Durrant, who has worked as a trainer of Iraqi forces.
"The 'surge' is actually quite small," said retired Army Col. Andrew Bacevich.... "In effect, Bush is counting on the Iraqis to pull our bacon out of the fire," Bacevich said, adding that there is no evidence that the Iraqi military and government are capable of doing so."
"An Army officer who recently commanded a battalion in Baghdad predicted last night that the plan would fail because Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his government "will do things to maintain protection" of Sadr's forces. He also dismissed as "happy talk" the president's notion that the predominantly Shiite Iraqi army and police could reassure pro-insurgent Sunni neighborhoods by conducting foot patrols through them."
Posted by: chew2 on January 10, 2007 10:07 PM