The death of U.S. strategy in Iraq

The Christian Science Monitor ^ | June 17, 2008 | Robert Dujarric and Andy Zelleke

[forkinsocket]

John McCain has set off a firestorm by suggesting that the timing of the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq is "not too important." What is important, he said, are the casualties in Iraq, pointing to long-term US troop presence in Japan, South Korea, and Germany. He should be commended for his "straight talk" in articulating what he believes, despite its unpopularity.

But Senator McCain has yet to give the American people clear answers to three fundamental questions: What, exactly, are the political objectives of keeping large numbers of American soldiers in Iraq for years to come? What plausible outcome would benefit the United States enough to justify the wrenching costs of achieving those objectives? And what, concretely, is the strategy for getting there?

McCain may genuinely believe there is still a political objective, albeit a far more modest one than President Bush and the war's supporters originally articulated, that can justify the sacrifice of still more American lives and treasure. But if he can't do better than slogans such as "winning" and "stability," it's hard to avoid the conclusion that such an objective simply doesn't exist. And in that case, we can add one more exorbitant cost to the war's bill: the death of strategy.

Carl von Clausewitz famously explained that war is simply a continuation of policy by other means. Distasteful as that might seem, it has the virtue of ruling out wars that have no defined political objective. Writing under the shadow of the political upheavals resulting from the Napoleonic wars, the Prussian strategist understood that war is inherently political, and not merely a technical and mechanical confrontation between armies. As such, "victory" cannot be defined solely by the body count of the enemy.

[forkinsocket]

Response: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/no-more-gazas-11464

[Jeff Chandler]

So these clowns haven’t heard for the thousandth time the strategic importance of Iraq in the war against radical Islam? They haven’t noticed the demoralization of Al Queda and their lack of support in the Islamic world as a result of their defeat in Iraq?

Do they really believe that the only reason we went to war was to oust Sadaam?

I have a four-year-old grandson who is stuck on “Why?” He loves to ask the same question repeatedly. Liberals are like four-year-olds.

[SolidWood]

What a load of drivel. Anyone failing to recognize the importance of Iraq in geopolitics has the intellect of a rock.
Also McCain deserves credit for being a steadfast proponent of the “surge” strategy, years before it was implemented. The war is right, and McCain is right on the war.

[Tallguy]

So these clowns haven’t heard for the thousandth time the strategic importance of Iraq in the war against radical Islam?

The problem is that over 40% of our voting citizens think that bad things go away if you simply don't acknowledge their existence. Don't like the War? Leave. These are the same people that only heard "Weapons of Mass Destruction" amoung GWB's reasons for invading Iraq. The attention span of a gnat.

[Blood of Tyrants]

When they don’t like the answer, they pretend they didn’t hear it and answer someone else. The answers are simple:

What, exactly, are the political objectives of keeping large numbers of American soldiers in Iraq for years to come?

Answer: A stabilizing presence of US troops and aircraft in Iraq keeps the Sadr’s Shiiteheads at bay until Iraq can stand on it’s own.

What plausible outcome would benefit the United States enough to justify the wrenching costs of achieving those objectives?

Answer: Hello? McFly? Hello? Maybe you haven’t heard but there are these people who want to impose radical Islam on all of us. Maybe YOU, Mr. Dujarric and Mr. Zelleke wouldn’t mind living as a dimmuh under sharia law, but the rest of us won’t have it. Besides, you couldn’t have your gay pride parades anymore.

And what, concretely, is the strategy for getting there?

Answer: Doing what we are doing now. Catching up to terrorists and capturing or killing them until they decide it isn’t worth it anymore.

[Bryan24]

What, exactly, are the political objectives of keeping large numbers of American soldiers in Iraq for years to come? What plausible outcome would benefit the United States enough to justify the wrenching costs of achieving those objectives?

It's articles, and quotes, like this that show just how stupid you can be and get a job in print journalism. These writers obviously never heard of West Germany, Japan and South Korea.

[Old North State]

I agree, If there is no effective counterweight against Iranian hegemony in the Gulf the fire Jimmy Cater started in the region will burn it to the ground. If Iran, armed by then with nuclear weapons, takes out Israel or attacks Saudi Arabia we could get sucked into a nuclear exchange with madmen.

[Tallguy]

As far as Iran’s nuke ambitions go, Israel has a lot to worry about. But it is Europe that is going to immediately be within nuclear IRBM range. They are slowly waking up to that fact.

The United States will need an absolutely ‘leak-proof’ homeland defense system to guard the ports, border crossings & airports. I’m sure Reid & Pelosi know how to design such a system. / sarcasm off.

[Sam Gamgee]

I agree. As far as nation building, I couldn't care less. For me its all about Al Queda. Who the hay do the “experts” think we have been fighting over there. They still think this is about Sunnis and Shiites. It is about Al Queda and foreign fighters drawn in against US forces. We definitely should get out of the business of protecting holy sites and all types of security work - I hope by now that is all with the Iraqis. US soldiers should not be there as babysitters, but as hunters, tracking down and killing off the foreign fighters.

[Williams]

How about McCain holds up a map and points to Iraq. That country borders: Saudi Arabia (remember in the Gulf War Saddam briefly invaded SA?), Kuwait (Major oil producer Iraq invaded), Iran (nuff said?), Jordan (major stabilizing friend of USA) and Turkey (major NATO Ally screwed us on Iraq war but still very important and flirting w radical Islam).

There shouldn't need to be any further explanation. Oy.

[Sam Gamgee]

Bingo. That is why the nuke issue is rather immaterial for me. If the Eurotrash wants to keep selling their wares to Iran and having their oil with the cost arming their Jihadi enemy, screw ‘em. About time they look after their own security.

For me the issue is Iran is already engaging US forces in Iraq. They are arming our enemies and sending their insurgents against the US army. That is a good enough reason for me to rain some hellfire onto a their training camps.

[Polybius]

But Senator McCain has yet to give the American people clear answers to three fundamental questions: What, exactly, are the political objectives of keeping large numbers of American soldiers in Iraq for years to come?

McCain has never claimed that we need "large numbers" in Iraq. He has, however, made it clear that Victory, and not squandering that victory by timetables and a premature bug out, are what matter.

By abandoning European affairs after the "victory" of World War One, all that America achieved for the sacrifice of World War One in 1918 was have to fight an even greater war in 1941. If the U.S. had repeated the bug out of Europe in 1945, all that America would have achieved by the sacrifice of World War Two would have been a Soviet Empire that include all of Western Europe.

What plausible outcome would benefit the United States enough to justify the wrenching costs of achieving those objectives?

Well, let's see here .... The Persian Gulf region contains 70% of the World's known oil reserves. Bugging out of Iraq would leave radical Islamist Iraq with military hegemony of the Persian Gulf region. Radical Islamist Iran considers America "The Great Satan", believes that suicide-martyrdom gains the dead martyr an Eternity in Paradise and is actively seeking nuclear weapons and ICBM's to deliver them.

With control over the economic life blood of Western Civilization, just imagine how long it will take before the Iranians bully or bribe the Europeans to improve the missile technology they already have.

So we are talking about a benefit of avoiding a strategically intolerable situation.

We are talking about NOT having 70% of the World's oil reserves controlled militarily by Islamist fanatics who armed with nuclear-tipped ICBM's that will be able to reach U.S. soil within the next decade or so.

Maintaining military forces in Iraq capable of dealing with the Iranian strategic threat: ......... Billions and billions of dollars

Not having America's and Western Civilization's oil supply at the mercy of Islamist fanatics and not seeing New York City and Washington, DC go up in mushroom clouds ......... Priceless

There are some things that money can’t buy … unfortunately common sense is one of them. For the rest, there’s MasterCard.

And what, concretely, is the strategy for getting there?

The Surge, that McCain championed when even Rumsfeld and George W. Bush were against it, is defeating the enemy in Iraq.

Troop Surge, Iraqis’ Anger Puts al Qaeda ‘On the Run’

Once the enemy is defeated, a much smaller number of troops will be required to keep the wolf from returning.

At some point, however, Iran will have to be dealt with and that needs to be done BEFORE Iran joins the Nuclear Club.

[Tallguy]

This is a war of a very old type — a multi-sided war. A war with more than 2 sides, each with multiple opponents & multiple war aims against each. It’s a slugfest like the 30-Years War of the early Modern Era. All alliances are temporary & betrayal is around every corner.

I would agree that the US’s primary opponent is AQ. Secondly, the Sunni radicals. The Iraqi government has to deal with both the Sunni & it’s own Shia ‘base’.

Iran is the flank state - almost like France was during the 30 Years War — pushing here, probing there. I hate to say it, but we are filling the role of the Habsburgs with our elite Spanish Legions. That would seem to suggest that we are destined to lose, but History never repeats exactly.

[Sam Gamgee]

Well, I agree we could lose - but only because of lack of will and vision. For instance Colonel Hunt makes a great point that Rummy made the dumb mistake of removing the elite soldiers once Saddam was taken down and replacing them with the grunts. He should have done the opposite. Throwing a hundred thousand walking targets into Iraq was not a great strategy. Killers are trained to kill - and that is what the elite groups of all the armed forces are trained to do. I think there is also a serious lack of will (and UN brown nosing) that will prevent any action against Iran in the near future. And who knows what damage the new Supreme Court ruling will bring. Perhaps orders will be to shoot and avoid taking prisoners at all costs?

[Plutarch]

If present trends continue, and Iraq progresses towards a semblance of a representative republic, the media cannot admit a U.S. victory, and will instead need reframe the argument. Count on it, we will get story after story about how awful is the Government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

The historic analogy is China circa 1941. It served Soviet interests for the U.S. to be at war with Japan, and therefore Chiang Kai-shek was a hero we needed to defend against the Japanese. In 1945, the Japanese were defeated, and the Chinese Communists had an opportunity for power. Now Chiang Kai-shek was a corrupt dictator we were best rid of.

Watch out Maliki, the NYT will be coming after you.