Obviously, the giant news of the day is Bush’s plan for more troops in Iraq. And I have to say, I’m having trouble getting my arms around the story. Because I can’t find anyone — anyone — that thinks this “surge,” this “escalation,” is a good idea. That believes it will truly deliver a significant impact.
I know a lot of you guys who hang out here at Defense Tech are committed supporters of the President. Who think he’s done a solid job, given extremely difficult circumstances. So let’s hear from you: Will adding 20,000 troops really make much of a difference in Iraq? How?
Don’t get me wrong. For more than three years, I’ve had soldiers complaining to me about the lack of boots on the ground. About how winnable this war might be with more troops. But these guys didn’t want a 10 or 15 percent increase in manpower, like the President will call for tonight. They wanted several divisions to join ‘em. Enough troops to completely blanket the country — or at least to pull off the classic counterinsurgency move of clearing out neighborhoods of guerrillas, and holding the areas for the good guys.
As Fred Kaplan notes, incoming Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus and his co-authors “discussed this strategy at great length” when they put together the Army’s new counterinsurgency field manual.
One point they made is that it requires a lot of manpower at minimum, 20 combat troops for every 1,000 people in the area’s population. Baghdad has about 6 million people; so clearing, holding, and building it will require about 120,000 combat troops.
Right now, the United States has about 70,000 combat troops in all of Iraq (another 60,000 or so are support troops or headquarters personnel). Even an extra 20,000 would leave the force well short of the minimum required and that’s with every soldier and Marine in Iraq moved to Baghdad. Iraqi security forces would have to make up the deficit.
In the short term, then, say for a year or so, enough troops might be concentrated in Baghdad if troops now deployed in Iraq have their tours of duty extended, troops due for redeployment to Iraq are mobilized several months ahead of schedule, nearly all these troops are transferred to Baghdad, and enough Iraqi troops can be mobilized to make up the remaining slack.
Meanwhile, how will Petraeus be able to keep Baghdad’s insurgents from simply slipping out of town and wreaking havoc elsewhere? This is what happened in Fallujah when U.S. troops tried to destroy the insurgents’ stronghold in that city. (emphasis mine)
It doesn’t even seem like the surge’s intellectual authors even back the plan. Gen Jack Keane, who helped push the idea to the White House, called for 32,000 troops — 50% more than what the President is supposed to ask for. John McCain, Congress’ most visible backer for more troops, is squirming, too. On the Today show last week, the Senator was asked if 20,000 more soldiers would be enough. His answer: “Im not sure… To make it of short duration and small size would be the worst of all options to exercise, in my opinion.“
UPDATE 1:55 PM: “The thousands of troops that President Bush is expected to order to Iraq will join the fight largely without the protection of the latest armored vehicles that withstand bomb blasts far better than Humvees,” says the Baltimore Sun.
Vehicles such as the Cougar and the M1117 Armored Security Vehicle have proven ability to save lives, but production started late and relatively small numbers are in use in Iraq, mostly because of money shortages.
UPDATE 2:20 PM: Good analysis in this video from Paul Rieckhoff and Lt. Gen. Rick Francona. “This is not like a Haily Mary pass on the part of the President,” Paul says. “This is like calling a draw play when you’re down big in the 4th quarter.“
UPDATE 2:33 PM: The surge option “has deep blind spots that destroy my confidence in [its] proposed solutio[n] as anything except a recipe for accelerated defeat,” says former Bush-backer Joe Katzman. He’s got a long, detailed list of the escalation effort’s unanswered questions. A few:
* If capturing terrorists in Iraq continues to result in “catch and release” due to a poorly-functioning and often intimidated Iraqi judicial system, what do you expect to accomplish with more troops? A higher flow-through rate?
* What are the fundamental attitudes on the ground of Sunni and Shi’ite leaders? Are the Sunnis really prepared to deal, or are they still maniacally focused on their loss of dominance in Iraq?
* If you stupidly continue to let Moqtada “death squads” al-Sadr live, what lasting good do 50,000 troops do when you propose to deploy them for a while in Baghdad? US troops have whittled down his forces before — how do the long-term results look now? What happens after US troops leave, if al-Sadr is still breathing?
UPDATE 3:50 PM:Matt Yglesias has a pair of talking point memos on the surge that are almost indescribably vacuous. Click on over for a laugh. Or a cry.
There is one substantive point in these memos, however: that two-thirds of the “new” Iraqi troops in Baghdad will be Kurdish pesh merga. That could actually be the move that brings warring Shi’a and Sunni factions together: both groups absolutely, completely hate the pesh’s guts.
(Big ups: Umansky)
{ 20 comments… read them below or add one }
On why $1B is a joke.
Iraq is a country of ~25M. Assume only 15M are in the working population. Now assume that unemployment is at only 20%. (the CIA fact book estimate from the sunny days of 2005 was 25-30%).
So thats 3M people. Or a whopping $333 per unemployed person to find/create/give jobs.
Even in a perfect world, with no corruption and perfect stability, do you think this would be enough money to significantly affect the unemployment rate in Iraq?
Add in the Iraqi military and you have the numbers to do the job. I suspect most of the newly deployed troops will be imbeds.
I’ve always been under the impression that we’ve had to grow the Army by at least 250,000 active Army soldiers, (ideally I think we should have at least 150K infantry in the entire US active Army. And reassigned tankers doing foot patrol does not count.) on top of what we have.
What amazes me, is even with the Rumsfeld etal looking at China as the future threat, we weren’t looking back then to increase the size of the ground forces. Technology can only go so far and I doubt China’s military was/would have presented easy targets for B2′s to drop their GPS guided bombs.
So throw in the China threat, urban warfare, and insurgents, all of these necessitate a far far larger ground force than what we currently have or are even making a case for.
Go figure.
I do not suscribe to the information spewed by most news organizations regarding the progress or lack thereof in Iraq.They have their own agenda, and promote failure.I do look at the troop increase, coupled with Saddam’s execution,the present offensive in the Sunni/Haifa St section of Bagdad, the new offensive in Africa as good news.We are doing something different.I believe the scenerio is changing for the better.
“Indeed. And so much for wisdom. The business is full of smart fools who won’t learn, and on some days I am one of them. I have gone down with more ships than Captain Ahab – and usually for honorable reasons – but I am getting tired of it, and I am getting especially tired of getting out on these seas with dumb bastards who punch holes in the bottom of the boat and call it smart.”
Dr. Hunter S. Thompson
“Songs of The Doomed”
More than the numbers, it’s what they will do that matters. If the new troops, and the Iraqi security forces, are sent to go aggressively after the militias & terrorists, then this surge could work. If they are merely to hold a defensive posture, then forget it.
So let me get this straight: Bush is now defying the Baker Report, Congress, the military, and the American public by escalating the war…Forgive me for not brimming over with optimism…
http://www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com
In my humble opinion, another 20,000 troops is a drop in the bucket. It would take another couple hundred thousand troops and more aggressive and forward operations to make a difference in Iraq. The alternative is a withdrawal. The middle path — sustained but small-scale presence — is just an irritant and only creates enemies without putting in place forces to destroy them. Problem is: we’ve tapped out the Army and Marine Corps. There is no reserve. There aren’t enough fresh troops for a long-term large boost in numbers. We’ve occupied ourselves into a corner.
Maybe one day looking back some of the cough dessenters will finally be able to see the forest rather than just the tree Iraq. We are in a WOT that war is widespread and Iraq is a mere battlefield. Don’t forget the forest.
2/3rds being Kurdish peshmurga?
That sounds like a recipe for disaster (although I admit I forgot about the Peshmerga being a possibilty in my previous comments):
A, why would the kurds really want to send their forces to the south, without a good bribe (like, say, Kirkuk)?
B: I’m sure Sadr will piss on Malakai who will piss on us if the Peshmurga are brought in to pacify Sadr city.
Clear Hold Build —
Westmoreland’s Vietnam-era
complaint about clear-and-hold remains just as valid today:
The practice left the enemy free to come and go as he
pleased throughout the bulk of the region.” He also pointed
out that, in Vietnam, there were “simply not enough numbers
to put a squad of Americans in every village and hamlet.”
SOME IDIOTS – JUST CANN’T LEARN.
The insurgency in Iraq after the so-called
“clearing out neighborhoods of guerrillas, and holding the areas for the good guys”.
Wake up buddy, there are no guerrillas or good guys.Iraq used to be run by the minority Sunnis – now the majority Shias are fully armed and won’t let the Sunnis get control again In fact they are going to ethnically cleanse them (payback time).
Coversely, the Sunnis can only fight to the death to try and prevent their extermination.
The US military is now just another tribe in the mix.
Murdoc: With all respect, since you are the military expert and I’m just a civilian with a nasty imagination…
I don’t see that 20k offensive troops would work.
Currently, the US stays out. But lets say I’m al Sadr and the US carries out this strategy and wants to come into Sadr City, and do a little red-teaming from Sadr’s point of view…
a: All the good troops, I tell to evaporate. Put your AK-47 back in the closet (it is LEGAL, remember?), hide your heavier artillery, and just act like everyone else because you are everyone else.
The US is going to leave, the Sunnis will still be there tomorrow.
The US wants a pitched battle, don’t give it to them. “No Mahdi army here. No sir”.
b: Encourage EVERYONE else to do the same. And keep the cameras rolling. If the US starts evacuating the area to try to pull a Falluja or other strategy which requires barracding off Sadr City shout “Ethnic Cleansing”. Modern telecom is priceless, use it.
Get Malaki pissing on the US. He’s done it before, with the US pulling the barracades from around Sadr city (what happened to the kidnapped/missing US soldier which triggered that incident, anyway?)
c: The local hotheads, however? Encourage em. Slip em a little extra ammo, and watch from a distance. Tell them to snipe, to IED, to ambush, etc. Hit and run, NEVER engage in fixed battle.
Have them target the Peshmurga and Sunni (any shiites in the Iraqi army just would refuse to fight), not the US primarily, they are less well armed.
Any teenager who’s had his door kicked in by the US army, watched his sister and mother forced to the ground, should afterwards receive a discrete visit and an AK.
d: Target all disloyal translators. Anyone you have who speaks english, you try to infiltrate the ranks of US-translators. Then you try to kill all those who aren’t shiites. The goal is to make the US deaf, or even better, listening to the wrong thing.
How would an extra 20k troops, in a population of 2 million or so, be able to respond?
20,000 more troops in Baghdad?
Let’s see, assuming they are all COMBAT troops (and current backup personel can cook the extra 60,000 meals a day and wash 120,000 dinner and dessert plates), and those 20,000 work in SHIFTS, then that is only one extra combat soldier for every 1,000 Baghdad residents – Yeah, that’s gonna make a big difference.
Those poor boys are just gonna be picked off like fish in a barrel.
You guys are reaching new idiotic heights with that Baltimore Sun quote.
SO NOW ARMORED HUMVEES AREN”T GOOD ENOUGH!?!?
Defensetech and the Sun both had stories about how the up armored hummers were needed so badly a few years ago! Everyone knew their were better solutions then-now you target that weakness now?
I drove an 1114 for a year knowing their were better solutions-noone reported on-but now when you want a push an agenda you plug it.
The press once again, has show they are sick!
Murdoc is right on the money, apparently our move into Sadr’s territory has been forcing the bad guys to stand and fight-we need to keep the pressure on.
I’m just going to paraphrase one of the RAND Vietnam-era Motivation and Morale reports:
Evade and hold beats sweep and clear.
If you send a force the insurgents can’t beat, and they’re smart, there won’t be a battle. You won’t find the insurgents. When you leave, they’ll reappear. This gains you nothing. You have to stay. You have to stay until the country is stable.
20 000 more sniper targets.
“20 000 more sniper targets.
Posted by: Bruce at January 11, 2007 04:31 AM”
Or 20 000 more muzzles pointed at the snipers.
Finally-we’re going to try to limit Syrian and Iranian support for the bad guys…… I hope.
I believe we also have to lay off the ubiquitous humvee. The humvee (armored or semi armoured ) is a divine piece of automotive locomotion.
The concept we have a vehicle of this flexibility, capacity and protection on a standard platform in the 6 ton range has given our troops outstanding flexibility (iraq has many bridges,trails and overpasses in rural areas with a 6ton (or less) limit. The concept the m1114 (and some armour kits) was already in production was a lifesaver. (although many will argue slow to ramp up) Sure, it will be replaced….. by improved Humvees. The actuality you can actually put 2000 lbs of metal on it and still have something useful good for about 60000-80000 miles is great.
This vehicle on the standard Humvee platform has given many units a 85-95% servicibility rate despite probably 100 million 200 million? miles a year. It gives life saving protection in all but the most extreme cases (considerable explosive, direct hit)
Try to remember guys that there have been almost 33000? ied attacks in 3 years (the US govt claims 300,000 attempts 90% are foiled/fail) plus countless other skirmishes and ambushes and you have seen perhaps 150-200 propaganda videos of Humvees damaged/destroyed on the internet. You are seeing the best they can produce, and some of them are probably near misses. (Think of how many outtakes of Junior Samples trying to get his line right on Hee Haw existed)
The meerkat, cougar, Buffalo, Rhino Runner(30 ton) etc are specialized and important vehicles which will see about 500 total operating in Iraq. They have nowhere near the go anywhere/availability/flexibility of the Humvee.
There are 22,000? humvees in Iraq vs 300 (20 ton)Strykers, 2000? (15 ton) m113s 500?(60 ton)M1 abrams and about 600 (15 ton)m1117s for a reason. Hummers are pulling the vast majority of important weight. Nothing is going to replace them. However, they may be joined by another 400-600 or so m1117s as an important complement.
If Vietnam was the helicopter “Huey” war (poor country, no roads, Jungle ) Iraq is the Humvee war (oil rich, lotsa roads, city based combat) Vietnam could not be fought without helicopters (millions apiece, 4000-10000 lost/damaged). Iraq could not be fought without the Humvee. It is a road war. (100-200k apiece 900-4000 lost/damaged?)
Maintainence and logistics per mile of a vehicle is roughly the square of the weight so a 12 ton vehicle has approximately 3-4 x the logistical requirements of a 6 ton vehicle, with a 20 ton vehicle about twice that. and a 70 ton Abrams 4-6x that.
Theres no way you can fight the enemy the way we are putting 100 to 200 million road miles a year on a non- standard chassis or over about 6 tons. The iraqi bridge and infrastructure alone would limit your movement with bigger vehicles in many cases.
If but for the Humvee we would be out of the fight. The Jeep or Land Rover would be a joke. If the war is “successful” it will be a large part due to the Humvee chassis and its ability to adapt
–jjf
I disagree with this article. What is better unless you have been there? My Marine is hoping for more Cougars because he has seen too many of his squadron die in armoured Humvees. He has second tour coming up in August.