As many of you already know, Stratfor has been an important resource for deep analysis of many geostrategic problems facing the United States. While their analysis is typically dry and dispassionate, they tend to examine all angles without favor and do a pretty good job of distilling the issue for general consumption.
They have not been Iraq war cheerleaders, nor have they been obsessively morose in their characterization of the challenges there. So I thought it might be a thought-provoking exercise to include an excerpt here of their most recent analysis of the options in Iraq, which is posted in full on Military.coms Warfighters Forum page.
While I understand none of you want this page to turn into an Iraq War site, we will be including a few more Iraq items than usual as the Sept. 15 interim report deadline approaches.
…Following the Republican defeat in Congress in November, U.S. President George W. Bush surprised Iran by increasing U.S. forces in Iraq rather than beginning withdrawals. This created a window of a few months during which Tehran, weighing the risks and rewards, was sufficiently uncertain that it might have opted for an agreement thrusting the Shiites behind a coalition government. That moment has passed. As the NIE points out, the probability of forming any viable government in Baghdad is extremely low. Iran no longer is facing its worst-case scenario. It has no motivation to bail the United States out.
What, then, is the United States to do? In general, three options are available. The first is to maintain the current strategy. This is the administration’s point of view. The second is to start a phased withdrawal, beginning sometime in the next few months and concluding when circumstances allow. This is the consensus among most centrist Democrats and a growing number of Republicans. The third is a rapid withdrawal of forces, a position held by a fairly small group mostly but not exclusively on the left. All three conventional options, however, suffer from fatal defects.
Bush’s plan to stay the course would appear to make relatively little sense. Having pursued a strategic goal with relatively fixed means for more than four years, it is unclear what would be achieved in years five or six. As the old saw goes, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly, expecting a different outcome. Unless Bush seriously disagrees with the NIE, it is difficult to make a case for continuing the current course.
Looking at it differently, however, there are these arguments to be made for maintaining the current strategy: Whatever mistakes might have been made in the past, the current reality is that any withdrawal from Iraq would create a vacuum, which would rapidly be filled by Iran. Alternatively, Iraq could become a jihadist haven, focusing attention not only on Iraq but also on targets outside Iraq. After all, a jihadist safe-haven with abundant resources in the heart of the Arab world outweighs the strategic locale of Afghanistan. Therefore, continuing the U.S. presence in Iraq, at the cost of 1,000–2,000 American lives a year, prevents both outcomes, even if Washington no longer has any hope of achieving the original goal…
Read the entire Endgame article in this weeks Warfighters Forum.
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
The next paragaraph is interesting too:
“In other words, the argument is that the operation should continue indefinitely in order to prevent a more dangerous outcome. The problem with this reasoning, as we have said, is that it consumes available ground forces, leaving the United States at risk in other parts of the world. The cost of this decision would be a massive increase of the U.S. Army and Marines, by several divisions at least. This would take several years to achieve and might not be attainable without a draft. In addition, it assumes the insurgents and militias will not themselves grow in size and sophistication, imposing greater and greater casualties on the Americans. The weakness of this argument is that it assumes the United States already is facing the worst its enemies can dish out. The cost could rapidly grow to more than a couple of thousand dead a year.”
C-Low, very interesting post. I have been wondering for a while if we need to take the fight to Iran. They seem to be the biggest threat in the ME. I’d like to see a break down of American casualties as a result of weapons either made or brought to Iraq through Iran. With its location being flanked by both Iraq and Afghanistan I would think some kind of spec ops forces could easily operate in Iran turning disgruntled Iranian tribes against the oppressive leaders (a la Taliban in Afghanistan). Keep our main forces in Iraq and Afghanistan but take an unconventional fight to Irans leaders and extremists.
Just my thoughts but Iran seems to be responsible for many American deaths, how we just allow this to keep happening is beyond my mind.
Interesting comments in the NYT this week from Sarkozy re Iran and crossing the nuclear threshold-he all but gave the green light to Israel and the US to prohibit Iran from obtaining a nuclear capability when he said that a nuclear-armed Iran is ‘not acceptable’.
While he also said an invasion of Iran was ‘insane’, that doesn’t exactly leave out the possibility that France will block US efforts to mount a raid on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
This is an amazing admission from the (new)leader of a country that has played a significant adversarial role in limiting US power the past decade.
Per C-low’s comments,
The US has been in a covert proxy war with Iran for several decades and the only reason it wasn’t at the top of the list (after AQ, before Iraq) was because it is an even more difficult problem to solve for this administration than Saddam’s Iraq (and they’ve yet to get that one right)
The US has had numerous, still-secret successful covert operations against Iran going back 20 years. A full frontal attack against Iran would be counterproductive to the limited objectives our govt has set upon re Iran.
What objectives?
We want them to stop supporting global terrorism. We want them to halt the capability to make nuclear weapons. We want them to stop meddling in Iraq and killing our soldiers by proxy (unfortunately, we had to add this objective after 2003)
What can the US offer Iran in exchange for their good behaviour? The fact is, nothing, with oil at $70 plus a barrel.
Can we bend them to our will with our military might? Given the way our leaders pursue our military objectives in recent wars, we’re seriously starting to erode our credibility in that dept, if we haven’t already.
Sadly, all our leaders have given us is hope for a strategy- hope that the next crop of leaders in Iran find it counterproductive to support global terrorism, threaten to destroy Israel and subvert the govts. of sovereign neighboring states.
Otherwise, unfortunately, we are heading for a showdown like nothing the 20th century ever came close to delivering.
J house
Contian Saddam instead of the action we undertook? We will never know but considering that containing Saddam required massive forces pernamentley based in Saudi Arabia a major driver in AQ cuasi beli. And considering that although Iran may hate Saddam at least as much as we hated the Stalin you don’t think it feasible Iran, Iraq, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas forming alliance even temporarily against the Big and Little Satans aka US & Israel not possible??
I believe our position today would be much more percarious if we had chosen a Defensive only psoture.
-A loosely allied Radical cresent (Sadam was secular personally but after his 91′ beatdown he implemented heavy Islamist mentality into his forces thinking them more effective warriors) with secure solid lines of transport from Iran all the way to Lebanon
-March 13 group would have been easily quashed
-Hezbollah would have been much more effective who knows maybe even a push for the Golan either non-conventional or not may have been attempted with secure resupply lines.
-Isolation of Iran would be impossible. A embargo of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and possible more would look like a true “war on Islam” that the Radicals preach.
Thats my personal view I think all speculative and really irrelevant since you cannot undue what has been done. Bottom line is in 03′ we made a judgment call with what Intel we had congress voted the public support was their and a path was set. We are were we are no were to go but forward.
*As for your “Lincoln’s advice- “one war at a time”". This follows my earlier point that the real problem debating the GWOT is how people see it. Is it WW2 were we faught one enemy Faciasm on mulitiple fronts on 3 continents no less all of thier own flavor but loosely aligned or are we fighting independent multiple enemies that we don’t have to defeat all of to win.
–Saddam/Iraq, Libya, Iran, Syria, Taliban/Afghanistan, Hezbollah, Hamas, IJ, PLF, Muslim Brotherhood, Taliban, Abu Sayaf, AQ, and hundreds more small more localized groups across the ME all the way to Asia are all the same enemy Radical Islamist just of different stripe and flavor. I don’t really see how we can stop or check the growing Islamist threat without at minimum degrading heavily the above listeds abilities.
*The sad part is I run into many people like J House who from his 10:07 comment clearly sees some of the risk but wants leadership not some keyboard jockey to explain it in laymans terms (not saying anything just how I like to get thinks explained). Bush has been a utter complete failure at both rallying the people and explaining the consequences goals objectives of this GWOT. He in my view at least could appoint someone to handle such work if he is either unable or without time.
*Just one quick point since I know it will be coming soon. What is victory what is winning what is the goal of the GWOT. Very simply it is to take down the major powers of the Islamist movement Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, possibly Syria. Then and while empower the moderates or at least non-Islamist to the point were they can begin to function like we do in the West. We have radical Christians and racial this or that groups but we control our own the Ayrian nation don’t go blowing up African or Jewish cities because if they did try we would arrest and control them before they got to the point of ability. The old British system of strong men was proven failure because they were like Saddam willing to work even support Radicals for his own empowerment.
—–We need a debate in this nation but not over what could have should have been done back in 03′. The debate simply needs to be “what is this GWOT WW3 or some minor Grenada holding action for show”. We were attacked on 9-11 by one Islamist stripe of which the others have attacked US prior and all are sworn enemies of US. Was our goal after 9-11 to crush/check this enemy Radical Islamist or was our goal after 9-11 to just break some sh*t make a half hearted look at what we can do Boo Attempt.
That last question to me is critical because if it was the latter we are doomed. Very simply you cannot Boo a Zealot on a mission from God. These Islamist see no chance of defeat for them its win win. If they fail and die during Jihad they go to Heaven guaranteed, and if they win instilling Islamism across the globe they live in heaven on earth. You cannot contain, you cannot scare, you cannot intimidate, you cannot negotiate with such a mentality all you can do is surrender or fight.
whew. at least StratFor is “dispassionate” LOL!
okay, I’ll add mine in for free. (hope the Guv is listening in) ya wanna “contain” Iran? MAKE NICE WITH RUSSIA FIRST!
have a look at the map…consider, a JOINT action against Tehran, across the Caspian.
that would be a walk, and do-able if we could agree that Tehran is potential threat to BOTH U.S and Russian interests.
Article makes sense on where to put forces, but a few comments.
1) Surge isn’t status quo and is working. Iranian Army is getting better and we have built combat outposts for them to operate from when we leave. Corruption/infiltration of Iraqi police still seems to be a problem. Biggest problem is the U.S.Army is going to burn itself, its Soldiers, and equipment out in the process if it continues as is…and Democrats won’t allow it anyway
2) Slow reduction…The Hillary and “Republican seeking reelection” option…draw down some but leave some there. Where you put them and what their role is, is the subject of this article
3)Sudden reduction…The unrealistic option. Massive civil war and genocide with Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey filling the vacuum in perhaps a non-cordial manner
Put reduced forces in Kuwait and Southwestern Desert? Gotta get al-Maliki/successor to agree to split oil first. Kurds would probably be an easier sell than the Shiites. If they agree to split oil to get us to leave Shiite areas and protect Kurds, we still need a joint Arab peacekeeping force with strong Saudi participation to sit with us in the Southwest and to keep anti-Iraqi forces under control with Sunni tribe help.
I can see adopting or building an airfield out in the boonies and parking lots of M1, Bradley’s, helicopters, and fighters there with two brigades protecting it and supporting the Iraqi Army with air attacks/support there and from Kuwait. Then we can always fly ground Soldier back to link up with equipment when/if the “I told you so” moment comes from Iran aggression/export of nukes to terrorists.
Even if we could afford to stay the current improved course forever, it would be political suicide for Republicans or Democrats since unlike NATO…folks die, and you can’t send Soldiers and their families to Iraq for 3 years like we did in Germany. A draft would never fly. If we move Southwest and to Kuwait as the article suggests, we still deter, but Soldier deaths drop dramatically, and our deterrence becomes more politically acceptable.
This is my prayer
Dear God. Please let there be another 9-11. Maybe even worse. So we don’t have to worry more about congress whining.
So we can go to war with Iran.
They need our freedom. And we are the liberators of the world.
For freedom and prosperity.
God bless the United States of America
AMEN!
Saddam was a tough problem for the US for the past 2 decades, and Iraq will continue to be. I don’t necessarily argue ‘containment’ as practiced by the Clinton administration was the correct policy, nor can I blame the Bush administration for overreaching in going after Saddam post 9/11. Clearly, the status quo with Saddam supporting terrorist movements and attempted assassinations against our former presidents could not continue.People easily forget how much potential Saddam had to cause trouble for the U.S and the region.
That said, we were obviously not prepared for what was unleashed once he was removed and went in with typical shortsightnedness.
In terms of the global Islamist insurgency that the US govt continues to underestimate (both on the effect its foreign policies have on the strength of the movement and it’s reaction to eliminating it), I don’t have alot of faith in our leaders to come to grips with what is required to extinguish it. We are too sensitive in this day and age to domestic and foreign criticism and media pressure to do what is hard, and necessary. Syria and Iran have basically been given a pass since the Bush doctrine was announced.I doubt our next leader will have to fortitude to take on this challenge.
BTW, I currently live in an Islamic S.E. Asian country and even the moderates here sometimes echo Bin Ladin’s words re US foreign policy actions, such as unqualified political,financial and military support for Israel…we have a greater challenge than we can even imagine.
CarbineAtTheReady, you are seriously praying for the death of thousands of people?
@joe
No, actually I wasn’t serious. I was just probing mentality by doing a completely and utterly insane statement.
I’m glad that you responded as you did.
And that there was a response.
Yawn.
There’s a host of other options including “Cold War, the Sequel” within an entire spectrum of eventualities. I’m certainly in the “we’re eventually going to have to bust a lot of heads and we’ll need to expand the military to where it should have been all along” camp, but that is only because I study history.
This piece is reminiscent of the author’s ‘Coming War With Japan’: just another future history that isn’t going to happen.
I am of course suspicious about the timing as well, wondering who’s policy wonks is the author trying to influence.
It’s very odd to me that no one seems to ask, Are we making progress? Not quick progress, not how close are we to done but weather we are even moving in that direction. That information is really about the only think missing in making a choice as to what to do. If we are making progress it would be stupid to leave. If we are not and it’s getting worst not better than maybe it really is time to change up what we are doing.
My point here is that no one wants to see people die, but I like the idea even less of letting them die for something we give up on even though we are getting the job done. It would be like hiking half way up the mountain and then give up because it’s to hard not because you can’t go on.
I personally think we are making progress, although slower than I would like. But making progress is the point and if while this might be a 4 or 5 more year project. I kind of feel like it’s worth it.
The ultimate irony here is that if the US withdraws from Iraq, and Shiite Iran becomes the dominant power in the region, Osama bin Laden will wish the US had a couple of divisions in Sunni Saudi Arabia to protect it.
Of course, US forces stationed in Saudi Arabia is why he attacked the US in the first place. Ah, the irony, to see Sunni Arab al-Queda rolled over by Persian Shiites…
I say the answer is to take all the money that would be spent on maintaining order in the area over the next 30 years, spend it on 200 new nuclear power plants and electric vehicle technology, and tell the entire region to go &^%$ itself once and for all.
I don’t get it…
it one breath commenters here agree that there is irony with the US potentially backing up the Saudi state effectively protecting OBLs homeland.
Where in another the same old song and dance about Iraq, Iran and AQ all supporting one another in the global Terrorist cause when in REALITY, they have all been over the majority of the past decade sworn enemies over political, religious, tribal and purely practical lines.
It’s this kind of revisionist, black/white, unenlightened thinking that has created this mess in Iraq.