We'll never win in Iraq if we don't go on the offensive

Houston Chronicle ^ | Dec. 27, 2004 | ANTHONY H. CORDESMAN

[bayourod]

Tactic of protecting troops will only extend the war

Americans cannot see a tragedy like last week's attack on a military mess tent in Mosul, Iraq, without wondering how it could ever have occurred — and how it can be prevented from ever happening again. Like the furor over improved armor for trucks and Humvees, the attack rouses the instinct to make force protection the immediate priority for U.S. forces in Iraq. No American wants American soldiers to be vulnerable.

These instincts, however, are wrong. The United States can win in Iraq only through offensive action. It cannot afford to make every American base a fortress, or to disperse scarce manpower and other military resources in force-protection missions. U.S. forces have to be mobile and able to redeploy where the threat is — even though such redeployments often mean moving forces to vulnerable areas. If the Pentagon concentrates on protecting troops in the short run, the war will last longer and total casualties will be greater. Worse, the United States will simply never win.

This is not a pleasant message for military families and the ordinary soldier in the field. Senior commanders understand its importance, but no one who has just been wounded or seen a friend die does. Experience also tells us that incidents of this kind lead to immediate political opportunism: members of Congress grabbing headlines, contractors rushing forward to sell in the guise of helping the troops. It also leads to instant news media trials of commanders for failing to protect our troops. This happened after the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996, and it gave the attackers a major additional victory.

Demanding that American troops keep their distance from Iraqis, or imposing security restrictions that make it difficult or impossible for them to work with the military, is also problematic. The United States cannot possibly achieve its political goals in Iraq — or the goal of reducing its own military presence over time — unless Iraqis are treated as partners. Humanitarian aid, economic assistance, the creation of Iraqi military, security and political forces that can defeat the insurgents and give the new government credibility — all require the cooperation of Iraqis.

War is not about eliminating risks; it is about managing them. America should do everything it can to manage its risks in Iraq, and the military is constantly learning and adapting. So, however, are America's enemies — and they understand they can only win politically, not militarily. This in part explains the attacks earlier this month on Shiites in Karbala and Najaf, which killed 68 Iraqis and wounded about 175. It also helps explains last week's attack in Mosul; the insurgents knew the bombing would receive extensive news coverage in the United States, and they no doubt are aware of the results of recent polls that show rising opposition to the war among Americans. Why not try to divide Americans and Iraqis the way they are trying to divide Sunnis and Shiites?

The brutal reality is that the United States is fighting a "war after the war" that has already killed and wounded far more Americans and Iraqis than the war that drove Saddam Hussein from power. It is an intense war, with some 1,600 to 3,000 incidents and attack attempts a month. Troops are dispersed and sometimes vulnerable. All of this means more attacks are likely before Iraqi elections next month and constant fighting well into 2006. For months and years to come, insurgents and terrorists will continue to try to exploit every fault line in Iraqi society, in American politics, and in regional and international affairs as well.

There is no certainty that the United States will win in Iraq. The war after the war is a far more difficult one than the war against Saddam Hussein. If America overreacts to attacks and lets the enemy drive its agenda, losing the war in Iraq will become not just possible but almost certain.

Cordesman, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, is the author of "The Iraq War: Strategy, Tactics and Military Lessons."

[bayourod]

Maybe after the elections.

[Max Combined]

Good, well reasoned article.

[Finalapproach29er]

A-men.

We're treading water right now. We need to make things happen if we are to win.

Pray for action, and victory.

[Jim Noble]

Maybe after the elections.

They're over.

Bush won.

If not now, when?

[Cobra64]

I will never understand why we do not use air power to take out these thugs. The boots sight a target, an A10 does the damage to the enemy.

What am I missing here?

[SevenMinusOne]

We have been and our continuing to currently fight the most successful unconventional war in history - As President GWB said very early on....this will be a different kind of war, it will be hard and difficult....and the simple reality is....we are going to have to cowboy up from time to time and stop acting like the sky is falling every time the enemy lands a blow (we are at war!) -

However, we are not at war with the citizens of Iraq but with the terrorists and killers that hide among them - Does that make it difficult.....YES, it certainly does....Does it make it frustrating.....Damn straight it does! - But we are fighting and winning this WOT in the only systematic way possible that will assure victory down the road!! -

Thank God for the adult / serious leadership of men like GWB / Rumsfeld and the Commanders on the front lines (though I do wish GWB would do more to stop the recklessness of the JAG (military lawyers) -

The notion that we aren't taking the fight to the enemy...or that we are fighting a PC war is simply and utterly ridiculous!! - We have been on the offensive since day one! -

As GWB told you very early on - many (in fact most in certain ways) of our successes will not be heard about! - They will happen in the dark of the night and not a word of this progress will be touted by our MSM (and trust me it isn't being!...and rightfully so....you are safer because of this!) - Now cowboy up! and understand you aren't hearing about half of our successes but they are damn sure happening -

[SevenMinusOne]

I will never understand why we do not use air power to take out these thugs. The boots sight a target, an A10 does the damage to the enemy. What am I missing here?

What you are obviously missing is any actual combat experience - It simply does unfold that way 95% of the time - The endless lists of ways that type of reasoning is flawed would take up too much of my time to list -

[oceanview]

its up to the iraqis forces now - let them go on the offensive. we went house to house in Fallujah, what's next, house to house in Mosul with our Marines? and then someplace else?

[mainepatsfan]

Get the new government elected and then tell the Iraqis that if they want freedom they've got to fight for it.

[Radix]

The old media is the only real weapon that these insurgents have. The liberal press is so anti-Bush that only by relegating them into insignificance can we really solve the problems. The insurgents require the likes of Reuters, the AP, and the rest of their media enablers in order to be truly effective in swaying opinion in America.

Too bad for the media that are likely to be the last ones to realize that they simply no longer matter. They'll resist just as the insurgents do, but in the end they are toast. There will always be the hard core subversives, but the new young generation is simply not reading newspapers or watching network news programs.

It is an interesting coalition that they have going right now, old media and islamic terrorists. Still, this administration is unlikely to waiver now.

[bayourod]

Well, I have no combat experience, and certainly don't doubt what you say, but the entire Afghanistan and Iraqi battles are offensive actions to protect us here at home as opposed to us just hunkering down in our houses and letting them attack us at will.

Fallujah seemed to me to be our most successful move yet, although very costly (three new headstones in my local VA cemetery).The house to house urban warfare in Fallujah was unavoidable, but perhaps after the elections we will initiate less costly offensives.

[Decombobulator]

We do use airpower, at least we did when there were large numbers of terrorists concentrated in an area. But it would just not be practical to use a plane/helicopter every time there is a small number of terrorists. But they're not strong enough anymore to mount any attacks serious enough to require A-10's to hit them.

[mainepatsfan]

Perception is the key. It's always been tough for democracies to wage war and keep the public back home supportive of the war effort. It's even tougher in this era of 24 hour cable news and the Internet.

[Williams]

The offensive needs to be against Syria and Iraq.

[bayourod]

Definitely Syria, but I'd add Iran if the insurgents don't topple it soon.

[Cobra64]

But they're not strong enough anymore to mount any attacks serious enough to require A-10's to hit them.

I would suggest that if there is enemy fire directed towards American troops from any stucture, I would destroy the stucture. I believe in breaking the backs of the enemy. I like General Patton's philosophy. "Use the blood and guts of my enemy to grease the wheels and tracks on my tanks."

[SevenMinusOne]

Perception is the key. It's always been tough for democracies to wage war and keep the public back home supportive of the war effort. It's even tougher in this era of 24 hour cable news and the Internet.

To a point I understand your sediment ...and I also agree (to a point) - But don't let the MSM fool you....that our WOT isn't popular here at home (USA) - It most certainly is -

Polls are meaningless for the most part and they are certainly meaningless now (considering we just had the ONE real poll last month) -

And no matter how the MSM try and spin...the fact is over 60 million Americans voted for continuing this attack on terrorism - The Country stood and supported this WOT as well as the leadership of GWB -

All other polls are meaningless and sauced! - The real poll showed this on Nov 2nd -

Don't be fooled - the majority of American's support this war -

[mainepatsfan]

Oh I agree that most Americans support the war effort. The terrorists are the ones who believe they can change that through their actions.