One thing is certain–American soldiers will continue to die in Iraq and sometime next year, we will still be wrestling with the same basic question. Who lost Iraq?

Oh, I think we all know the answer to that one Larry. This was Bush's war from start to finish. However, the next president will likely be a Democrat, and the GOP/right-wing noise machine will blame anything that goes wrong in Iraq on the new Prez, completely ignoring how badly BushCo fucked up the previous 6 years of war and occupation.

Juan Cole today speaks to that.

Useful thoughts. I am still reading the Jones report, and reflecting how its support staff are from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Ever since I began posting here, I drew attention to Anthony Cordesman of CSIS, and his constant emphasis that the utterly key metric was the progress of Iraqi security forces. I agree with you about the mission and ROE problem for US forces, and observe that Cordesman has been saying this for several years.

I was and am opposed to the invasion. I believe there were better things that could have been done in the region, not the least keeping CENTCOM focus on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. If you would, I'd appreciate your thoughts about JTF-Horn of Africa, about which I've heard very good and very bad things, and am not sure where truth exists. That JTF leads to the broader question of the mission of Africa Command, as it forms, and how to deal with issues such as Sudan.

Darfur, much as people ignore it, is a subset of the situation in Sudan, and, for that matter, actively affected by actions of France, Chad, India, China, Uganda and Kenya, as well as the increasingly autonomous South Sudan.

There are multiple elements of the security forces, including the regular military. Cordesman, early on, pointed out that the Iraqi military often were brave but short-changed, as joint missions were undertaken with US forces in armored fighting vehicles and Iraqi forces in school buses. Still, there has been improvement in military forces.

As the report points out, the Ministry of the Interior and its subordinate police units are in a disastrous state. Even more than regular military, police and intelligence units often are the heart of dealing with an insurgency. I don't have an answer to fixing this area, and am not sure there is enough national identity to fix it. It's hard to explain, but regular military can have an esprit de corps that even with poor top leadership, can turn out some effective units. This is harder for police. I remember some Vietnamese Army units making valiant last stands against the 1975 invasion, but still wonder how much better they could have done with a more stable and secure population. No, I don't think that getting US air support would have made much of a difference.

So far, I haven't seen, in the Jones report, anything that corresponds to the absolutely essential component of subduing and reintegrating the Filipino Hukbalahap insurgency: a national leader, Ramon Magsaysay, who, as Minister of Defense and then President, visibly worked for the people, rooted out corruption, and was accepted as a fair leader. Is it possible that a coalition of several sectarian leaders could carry out that role? If so, they have to first think of themselves as Iraqis, and then they have to break regional cultural characteristics of nepotism, baksheesh, and tribalism. I tend to think that is not possible. Still, any continuing effort must try to establish that leadership, which Maliki alone can't provide.

If Bush cannot be forced to focus on the police/Ministry of the Interior, or a major change in US forces ROE and missions, I have no short-term answer. Could a Democrat picking up this mess improve those key areas? I'm inclined to say not, and definitely recognize we are stretched to the limit of our regular forces. People tend to forget that special operations forces are indeed special, and can't be expanded overnight when, for example, the basic Arabic and Farsi courses at the Defense Language Institute take over a year.

Is there a Ramon Magsaysay, a Sir Robert Thompson, an Edwin Lansdale, or equivalent somewhere in Iraqi ranks? If so, I'd certainly like to find him.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

This statement, "We do not have a large enough Army to impose a political settlement in Iraq." and ones like it that are accepted as givens, lead to the seemingly obvious conclusion that we need a larger army.
I do not accept the premise and would like to have us use more accurate language when discussing these issues.
What is closer to the truth is, our army is too small if we want to maintain bases and troops in over a 130 countries around the world with substantial number of troops stationed in cold-war driven bases with logic from over 50 years ago.
Do we need 38K troops in South Korea? How about substantial troops in Germany or Japan? The list goes on and on and on to the absurd.
We are the most militaristic country on the face of the earth, the leading arms merchant to the world and our economy is tied to war and the military.
We have more than a large enough military to impose our will anywhere in the world, the fact is it is utililized illogically. We need to careful when using simple language that conveys an untruth.

Ever since I began posting here, I drew attention to Anthony Cordesman of CSIS, and his constant emphasis that the utterly key metric was the progress of Iraqi security forces.

I find myself increasingly skeptical that this is the 'utterly' key metric.

The persistent failure here, and the inability after near five years to make any tangible progress suggests that there are underlying deeper and more critical issues, of which 'security forces' issues are a symptom.

I'm beginning to think that the key metric lies somewhere else.

Here I go again. Democrat or Republican-- they'll leave Iraq when the oil runs dry.
Hey, we're still in South Korea, Japan and 100's of other places around the globe.

The religion as well as the politics of the USA is globalized capitalism. Ask anybody.

We bomb/invade/regime change other countries in order for them to get with the program.

So, you heathen communists, terrorists, or whatever out there-we're gonna get you...

Dr Wu The last of the big-time thinkers

You just said something that is the equivalent to mentioning that your wife is senile! Of course we have absolutely no reason to maintain large standing armies in Germany, Japan and Korea. If fact we should all be taking the blame for the fact that we do have those standing armies. How often do you hear of a groundswell of public opinion aimed at removing troops from those areas?

But, this is a forbidden subject, not to be discussed with women and children in earshot. This is simply not allowed to be debated. It is approaching the subject of whether there really is a God. Just think - if we ever discussed such a subject we might decide that we don't really need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on our military, and the next thing that might happen is peace would break out. So, go sit in the corner!

Hoppy in Sacramento

I keep wondering just what more we can lose by impeaching Bush and Cheney.

Man, talk about ironic but that sure as hell sounds similar to what is being uttered about our position in Iraq. Like the argument that sectarian violence and chaos will surely follow an American withdrawal. As if that isn't what's been occurring in spite of our occupation. As if it isn't getting worse every day with us there.

IDK, maybe I'm just crazy!

But but butbutbut if we don't keep those troops in Japan, China will invade Taiwan!

And and and andandand if don't keep those troops in SK, NK will invade!

Ahahahahah also if we weren't in Germany, they would rebuild their Nazi war machine and ally with communist Russia. Or something.

Remember the Maine!

SeeDee
Reply to JeffC & Hoppy2:

Do you think that the built-in system involving 'revolving door opportunities' for 'retiring' Pentagon brass and the corporations who've raked in the un-told TRILLIONS of DOLLARS through the fraud-inviting contract bidding/letting modus operandi could possibly have something to do with the military's 'wrapping itself in the flag' (an easy thing to do for 'service' members) and engaging in an on-going bamboozlement of the American public?

It is a given that 'Freedom isn't Free'..and it is also a given that un-principled elements will use such sloganeering to rape the tax-payers.

To me Petraeus is an example of the fact that America is getting no bargain in the funds spent by the Pentagon...especially since the days of Ronnie 'Raygun'.

What Did The Surge Accomplish If We're Back to Square One?

Petraeus said that a unit of about 2,000 Marines will depart Iraq later this month, beginning a drawdown that would be followed in mid-December with the departure of an Army brigade numbering 3,500 to 4,000 soldiers.

After that, another four brigades would be withdrawn by July 2008, he said. That would leave the United States with about 130,000 troops in Iraq.

Could some one please explain to me how the SURGE worked if by next July we are back to where we were in troop levels back in January of 2007 (before the Surge), especially if no political goals are met?

Coonsey's View

HTTP://WWW.FREEWEBS.COM/COONSEY/

J. McCutchen

It took Hillary from 2002 to 2006 to figure out that Bush had scammed her (Madeline Albright 2007). Now we're paying the price

Juan Colke a few months back at the start of "the [18+ month] Surge" insisted that representatives ask the simple question "What is the mission?"

Sen Warner did today

Via McClatchy

Free At Last

Sen. John Warner of Virginia one of the most influential Republicans on national security matters, asked Petraeus if his recommendations would make America safer. Petraeus initially evaded a direct answer, saying:

"Sir, I believe that this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq ."

Warner asked again.

"Sir, I don't know actually," Petraeus said. "I have not sat down and sorted out in my own mind. What I have focused on and been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the Multinational Force-Iraq."

Hartgal
After two days of hearings, this was the key moment for me.

I think it's a mistake to equate the image projected by Pitraeus with that projected by Ollie North, the fawning treatment of Pitraeus by the media notwithstanding.

Ollie North was a handsome Lt Colonel who could portray himself as merely following orders--just an ordinary loyal American doing his job in a dangerous world.

Pitraeus is a fish-faced General with a bad haircut who has been portrayed and has portrayed himself as being in charge of leading Americans to their death. Generals are admired only when they win wars or are dashing; Pitraeus hasn't won diddly and he's dull. And anyone who claims to be in charge of anything is fair game in America.

The public outcry over 'attacking' General Pitraeus wouldn't be any different than the buzz over Obama saying nuclear weapons weren't on the table. The media would sweat and cackle for a couple days, then the truth would set in, and whoever 'attacked' Pitraeus might even be respected more.

Truth and facts do not really matter. Disagree? Please go back and watch what happened to Lt. Colonel Oliver North when Congress tussled with him as they tried to get to the bottom of the Iran Contra scandal.

Fortunately, that didn't happen this time. Ollie North was a showboating prima donna, overflowing with arrogance, dash and charisma. The camara loved him, and he grabbed hold of it to put on a right-wing show, and lecture and mock Congress. Petraeus was much more professional and restrained, and the Senators more than held their own against him.

"On September 11, 2007 - 1:13pm hcberkowitz said:

". . . . More fundamental is the sine qua non of a significant number of people who think of themselves as Iraqis, and are willing to work toward national institutions. Ironically, the most developed idea of nationalism, intertwined with anticolonialism, was in the Ba'ath Party. Not every party member was evil."

Saddam Hussein was put into power, and propped up/supported, by the West to be an maintain stability -- by whatever means necessary. One result was that he was one of the Middle East's foremost exterminator of human instabilities -- from political opponents to "terrorists" (real and imagined as to the latter). Bush I had that knowledge, and knew better than mess with it. Bushit II, and Cheney, knew and know better than poppy Bush: so they demolished that cork in Pandora's bottle.

Thus we are where we are: back to before the first Western intervention/s and the drawing up of the artificial "country" of Iraq. The foremost problem now is to continue the efforts to impose (or, politiely, "construct") Western notions of "country," "gov't," and "state" onto a region which was always tribal and nomadic, to which borders are anathema, and those from the outside who attempt to impose them are the enemy.

"We" should never have gone in, of course -- for numerous reasons, the above being most significant. The only solution is to get out -- to, finally, stop meddling in other's "foreign" affairs in effort to transform them into being ourselves in keeping with our provincial bigotries. And there's the rub: What have
"we" wrought, and what will be the consequences thereof?

We know some of the consequences: We have created not only more enemies but also more terrorists. In effort to suppress more blowback we have planted the seeds for even more of it. And "we" continue, domestically, to play chest-thumping politics against reality, against the predicted horrors "we" have unleashed.

Solution? "We" have so discredited ourselves in the eyes of those we allegedly set out to "liberate" that there is no way "we" can accomplish anything positive in Iraq, or the region -- except more of the same: death and destruction. The only positive possibility is to turn the matter over to the UN for political resolution and get the hell out -- except we "can't" because they gang that got us here are opposed to even the existence of the UN.

Ugly does as ugly is. We got the gov't -- the overtly criminal gang -- the arrogant blind deserve and demand. The solution is after the fact, and too late: "Avoid foreign entanglements" (George Washington).

I want reality to be something other than it is.

All beside the point -- to the degree of irrelevant. The central fact is the right wing extremists -- led, as it turns out, largely by chickenhawks Bushit and Cheney -- have always held that the US lost in Viet Nam because of various groups of "traitors" and "cowards" here at home. They have always known, in short, that Viet Nam "coulda been won" -- and with Iraq they set out to prove that "Fact".

And look what they had: control of Congress, control of the Executive and military -- and no institutional opposition of consequence. So they had the perfect opportunity, unopposed, to prove their thesis. And what did they do? They repeated all the mistakes made in Viet Nam (beginning with going in in the first lace), and also added in doing all the things not done in Viet Nam that would have won that effort.

And what did they accomplish? They proved we couldn't have won in Viet Nam (consider the numbers: 500,000 US troops v. millions/billions of Asians). And that we can't win in Iraq by the means used in Viet Nam.

In reality, we couldn't and can't win in Iraq so long as we demonize the Iraqis themselves as the enemy. In truth, no military can win as an occupier of someone else's turf/country. But try to tell that to history-illiterate racists.

Why was that key for you? It does seem a rejection of GWB's assertions.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

The surge is a success because all the political goals have been met. The Democrats have surrendered.

Kabuki ? I think Bunraku is closer

bluebell said: "The surge is a success because all the political goals have been met." Well, that is so far.

Bushites keep talking up the dim prospects for the area should we pull out. What they don't dare whisper, and as most TPMers know, prospects are dim regardless (see "chicken salad" above). No one will be walking away from this looking like a hero.

"All the political goals" of the Bush delaying policy haven't been met, yet. As the major goal is to hold off the worst effects of this fiasco until the Bushites can blame them on the next administration.

Most DC Democrats have taken the shortsighted approach of letting it all slide until 1/09 when, ostensibly, they will have the keys to 1600. As the months before the election goes by, the wisdom of this tack will have rather obvious holes in it.

Bad as they are, our Iraqi propects are not equally dim in all directions. But, simply staking out an alternative position (however wise) and running on it cannot be enough. This administration needs to be reigned-in, opposed, weakened, or replaced, and as quickly as possible. And, no tactic or strategy to do this that's legal should be passed over.

Afterthought: as the war draws to a close, the State Dept. should be about the business of talking (Helsinki, Berne, or ??) with all the neighboring stakeholders about what can be done to ensure the anticipated peace.

Our jerks, never! Regarding everything, they've always thought they can just cram their way down everyone elses' throats.

Kevin Russell Cook

(CORRECTION) Not sick of informative good blogs like Larry's and Emptywheel, just the additional blah blah afterwards instead of action. And the stupid talk shows on it, and the tv shows on it. Happy Holidays.