There are about a thousand reasons why I’m psyched that Phil Carter is finally home from Iraq. Near the top of the list: he can finally start writing about the war in public, again. First was his killer op-ed in the Sunday Times. Now, he’s got an even better piece in Slate.
During the last two years, the U.S. presence in Iraq has consolidated in massive superfortresses like LSA Anaconda and shut down dozens of smaller bases and outposts across the country…
This [strategy] presumes that U.S. forces are able to respond at a moment’s notice. Nothing could be further from the truth. The American battalion responsible for Balad is stretched over hundreds of square miles… A medium-sized city like Balad, with 100,000 residents, might be patrolled only by a company 100 to 150 men at any given time.
This violent weekend proves that America needs to radically change its course in Iraq, while some form of victory still lies within our grasp. First, the U.S. military must reverse its trend of consolidation and redeploy its forces into Iraq’s cities. Efficiency and force protection cannot define our military footprint in Iraq; if those are our goals, we may as well bring our troops home today. Instead, we must assume risk by pushing U.S. forces out into small patrol bases in the middle of Iraq’s cities where they are able to work closely with Iraqi leaders and own the streets.
Counterinsurgency requires engagement. The most effective U.S. efforts thus far in Iraq have been those that followed this maxim, like the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment in Tal Afar, which established numerous bases within the city and attacked the insurgency from within with a mix of political, economic, and military action.
Damn right. Welcome home, Phil.
UPDATE 1:20 PM: “Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, the senior spokesman for the American military in Iraq, said that… the American-led crackdown in Baghdad has not succeeded in quelling violence across the capital and a new approach is needed.“
UPDATE 10/20/06 2:19 PM: “WTF?” says Phil. “I see it as very significant that these comments from MG Caldwell came out in his prepared text, not in response to Q&A. I deduce from that fact that these comments were deliberated and approved at the highest levels in Iraq, and possibly in Washington. I’m still trying to figure out why, after so many statements that we were succeeding, the U.S. would decide to say that we needed a course correction. Here are a few guesses:”
1) The senior U.S. leadership in Iraq is helping the White House diminish and manage expectations in advance of the 2006 midterm elections. By lowering the bar for performance, the military provides factual support for Republican candidates who say we’re doing as best we can in Iraq.
2) Amb. Khalilzad and Gen. Casey desperately want to reframe the debate from “stay the course vs. cut and run” to something more realistic. But to do that, they first need to give everyone a sharp reality check about what’s going in Iraq. This goes hand-in-hand with the upcoming release of the Baker Study Group report.
3) The senior leadership in Iraq is simply tired of spinning. They did not clear these statements with Washington, and are way out in front of where the White House and Pentagon want to be.
4) Amb. Khalilzad and Gen. Casey want to push the Maliki government to do more, so they are indicating with this statement that U.S. forces have reached the limit of their capability to provide security for Iraq. If so, they’re playing a very high stakes game of poker.
5) Least probably, Gen. Casey and Amb. Khalilzad are simply at their wit’s end, and they have decided to be as blunt as possible.
Tom linked Phil’s article today, too: http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/archives2/003858.html
And here I remember about a year or so ago, reading on this site that the problem with the US troop deployment over there was that we were too visible — we were stirring up trouble by being in the streets, and that we needed to consolidate into well defended bases so the average Iraqi wouldn’t see us. Now we need to be omnipresent and engage them, apparently.
Out in the streets, or hunkered in somewhere.…yes, we hear both…and we hear that it is better for troops to get out of their vehicles and simply walk.…whatever.
here’s the greatest hinderance to “victory”, in my humble opinion, irregardless of whether we should be there in the first place or not:
my son is career army officer. When asked what his number one priority or duty is…his reply is what has been indoctrinated into our military personnel for years.…“to protect my troops“
patent failure recipe.
every military leaders first priority should be to destroy the enemy, period. take the hits and get the job done.……and get out
like I said, just my own Nam era Marine attitude/Patton quote feelings.….….
Getting back out among the people in the cities of Iraq is by no means a new idea. It worked well in Vietnam to quell a rising insurgency. The powers to be need to dust that idea off and put it into action in Iraq. Combined action units of U.S. and Iraqi military living working and patrolling from bases in the cities would go along way to turning this mess around. (been there, done that, bought the t-shirt, and read the book, OIF III)
the problem in iraq is that the officers in the country aren’t willing to let the iraqis take over. its like they are kids learning to ride a bike with training wheels, they will never learn to ride if you never take them off. the same is true with the iraqi forces if they are never given an oppurtunity to do things by themselves then how will they learn. we have held there hand for long enough lets let them do something for a change, if they screw up oh well at least they will learn from it.
Rumsfeld is trying to reinvent the wheel as it pertains to warfare. He has ignored the lessons learned in the last 75 years of modern warfare. His tactic of limited boots on the ground and heavy reliance on high tech, very expensive military “toys” has proven a complete failure.
What is the most effective killing machine in Iraq today…not the $15 million dollar Striker, the M-1 Abrams nor the highly vaulted Predator drone… its the US Marine sniper. One man with a low cost precision rifle.
Today there are over 150,000 Vietnam era M-113 Armored Personal Carriers, totally reconditioned and ready. They can be outfitted with any current weapons platform in days.… and they are paid for. The Military Channel rated it the best Armored vehicle in the last 75 years # 1.
The Military won’t use them, instead they deploy a limited number of Strikers around 120 of them. 3000 M-113’s could secure Iraq’s border and stop the insurgents resupply and re-enforcements…but Rumsfeld won’t admit he was wrong.
This war cannot be won in the current mode our troops are forced to fight. Boots on the ground wins wars, politicians lose them.
After being wounded 5 times in Vietnam on two combat tours I have a pretty good perception on what works and what doesn’t… we are going to lose in Iraq if Bush doesn’t fire Rumsfeld immediately.
I keep hearing that “A new approach is needed.” NO, the OLD approach is needed. Where is the Power of the Air Force bombers? Where is the guided missle accuracy of our Tomahawks from submarines? Where is the Carrier based strike planes? We are not using our resources to knock out the IED bomb builders, instead of sending foot soldiers to do hand-to-hand combat inside urban buildings. Warn the civilians to clear a suspected area, and then LEVEL it. We started the Iraq war that way. The Israeli’s took out the Hezbolla in Lebanon that way. Get the politicians out of the war, and let the Military do their job because they are the best, and are being held back by the politicians. The way to win a war is to fight using all our might. (From a Submarine Veteran, Korean War.)
Massive force plays right into the insurgents hands. (Look at how disastrous the Israeli operation was in Lebanon, both politically and militarily).
More boots in the steets means more US casualties, and that simply is not going to work politically. And at this stage, with more of the population turning against the US, it’s questionable whether the overall effect would be beneficial. They may get some insurgents as the cost of creating a lot more.
This ‘new approach’ is going to have to be more than military.
what the f is all this whining about?!!
we arent losing anything and all this talk about sending more troops is hilarious.
there’s an election on in congress ya’ll!!!
do you really think that W’s going to unleash the dogs with CNN filming BEFORE the vote?!!!
a little thought please.
the comsymps are already calling this the new tet!!
a week after the new congress gets elected youre going to see some serious raghead death come down, but it wont be the remfs in the forts doing it, they have to follow rules, it will be the IA with air support, hence the new lighter jdams.
dont even think of trying to paint optimists as
sycophants…
Amen to Nick and Thorn11ACR. Overwhelming force, massive destruction and total victory is the formula to end this. The best way to impress other threats coming from terrorist organizations, North Korea and Iran was/is to show them what happens when they engage with the US militarily. Then, we reubuild the country and have allies, or at least peaceful countries.
Rumsfeld and Bush have exceeded even the stupidity of Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara. The Pentagon is stuffed with middle level REMFs and political generals. We are basically screwed. Our troops are wearing down, the Army is dumbing down its recruiting. AARRGGH!
And we still haven’t found the WMDs. And the Pentagon won’t model the successful campaigns.
“The best way to impress other threats coming from terrorist organizations, North Korea and Iran was/is to show them what happens when they engage with the US militarily.“
That’s why states like North Korea believe they need nukes: it’s seen as the only way of deterring a US attack.
The idea that you can ‘win’ in Iraq or Afghanistan by using more force is laughable.
As for “serious raghead death” — 300,000 not enough for you? Get real.
The ‘left’ are not re-working Iraqi strategy — the Generals are, no doubt at Mr. Rumsfeld’s insistance for political benefit (and all of those players hail from the RIGHT side of the isle, BTW). I believe the current handling of Iraq has an element of ‘trial-and-error’, due to the fact that the U.S. has not gone muzzle-to-muzzle with this kind of enemy (at least not for over 30 years) and walked away with a clear ‘win’. The press is not to blame for what is happening — the truth is there for all to see, and you can put whatever ‘spin’ you want on it to make you feel better. That doesn’t change the reality of the situation.
I see parallels, though, with the new thinking in U.S. troop deployment and how the French handled the Vietnamese insurgency during the French Indochine conflict. The Viet-Cong feared the French more than U.S. troops because the French didn’t fall-back to call in an airstrike or artillery when they encountered the enemy — they went in close, and stayed close, with their engagements and hounded the enemy relentlessly until they defeated them. This constant, close-in fighting seems to have waned in popularity, over concerns for U.S. Force protection. Will Iraq see a full return to this engagement tactic? As long as we’re in-country, and still have the moral resolve to keep trying in Iraq, they just might…
I CAME FROM A MILITARY FAMILY AND BACKGROUND. I MARRIED A ARMY MAN AND DIVORCED ONE TOO. I BELIEVE OUR PRESIDENT IS A COWARD AND ONLY IN IT FOR THE MONEY THAT IS WHY HE LET OSAMA BIN LADAN FREE RIGHT AFTER THE 911. WE, AS AMERICANS JUST NEED TO GO IN THERE AND KICK BUTT UNTILL THE JOB IS DONE.WE AMERICANS ARE NOT THE GREEDY COWARDS AS OUR GOVT,SEEMS TO BE.WE AMERICANS WORK HARD AND PLAY HARD AND WHEN SOMEONE CHEATS OR STEPS ON TOES WE TAKE ACTION. LOOK AT WW1,WW2, OUR PRESIDENT NEEDS TO RE-READ HISTORY AND PLAY BY THE RULES SO WE WILL HAVE VICTORY.I AM PROUD OF ALL WHO ARE NOW SERVING OUR COUNTRY AND THEM MEN AND WOMEN NED BE APPRECIATED.
As a moderate republican with over 18 year working in the middle-east I know that the Bush Administration Blew It. We should never have went into Iraq. Yes, I wrote the White House and my representitives and told them the same thing. The Bush Administration does not listen it reacts. Now we are in Iraq and everything that I and others with experience in the region told the White House is happening. Its a no win situation. No that we have committed, Americas enemies (there are many) are betting on our quiting before Iraq is secure. We are faced with economic issues and security issures. Both have to be recognized and accepted if we can obtain a lasting solution in Iraq. We also have to recognize the Iraq Peoples divers culture. If the Bush Administration can not admits its mistakes and seek real support from the region. As long as America is in Iraq our forces as a lighting rod for attacks and we swell the ranks of the “terrorist” organizations.
We are going to need a statesmen with the wisdom of Solomen to get us out of the mess Bush has placed us.
This nation took 12 years to come up w/ a viable Constitution even though it was practically 100% European (mostly English speaking) and Christian. Through our Reformation, Protestants and Catholics could live together peacefully. All came from a tradition of nation states, not waring tribes. And still, we didn’t get it right. 70+ plus years later we had a full blown civil war w/ 600,000+ casualties.
Iraq is tribal — different languages, religion, etc. The only time they have had “peace” has been when one faction has had its foot firmly on the necks of the others. Unlike Christianity, Islam has not yet had its Reformation. Sunnis and Shia must, Must, hate the other. To accept the other is be a heretic.
Yet, in 5 years they have gone fom being ruled by an utter despot on the order of Caligula to a democratically elected, constitutional government. The numbers that voted give the lie to those who say the Iraqi people don’t really want democracy.
Our problem with the insugency cannot be explained by simply saying the President and/or Rumsfeld is an idiot. Dammit, why can’t we give the Devil his due — the insurgency is a problem because a relitively very few men who are willing to murder civilians in whole sale lots can shed an incredible amount of blood for a lot less effort than it takes to stop them. They can cow numbers of non violent persons all out of proportion to thier numbers.
The Iraqis will have to find a way for Sunni to live w/ Shia as co-equal members of society. They will if we help buy them time to sort out a problem they have never faced since the day after Mohammed kicked.
Can anyone truely doubt that we have the ability to win? Wars have always cost blood and treasure. They have always required tenacity and a long view — this war is no different. The surest way we can lose is to fail to view this as a war at all. After that it’s easy to give in to the short-sighted moral cowards who populate the far left of our political spectrum and the A.D.D. aflicted “aren’t we there yet?” ignoramuses (or is it ignorami) whose only use for a history book is to level a wobbly kitchen table.
If we were such a nation, we would be two instead of one — Union and Confederacy, and be speaking German on the east coast and Japanese on the west!
Jay R. Smith, why is it you and the 1/3 of the American public who think (more or less) like you, can’t accept the FACT that Bush and Company have CREATED the hot bed of terrorism that they said Iraq was back in ’03?
Screw Rummy, the Mcnamara of our age. My dad (chief Navy MAAG) was fired for telling Mac and Maxwell Taylor that we were losing the Vietnam war back in 1961… History repeats itself for the neocons — after all, they believe in the idiotic “End of History” crap, and have this foolish messianic “vision.” Blindness is more like it. I was against the war, but if I was for it, I’d still hate the way Bushco has done it. Fire Shinseki, White, and all the brass they advanced: BRILLIANT!
I doubt there are any WMD’s over there in Iraq. Bush just lied about them so he could blame a CIA attack on an innocent nation. Then he sent troops there to cover the oil thieves that work for Bush. Iraq is a scapegoat for those greedy bums in DC.
I refused to deploy there as I knew we were used for a money making mission.