US commanders in Iraq grim about prospects
Once the terror insurgency in Iraq had begun, it quickly became evident that the U.S. had no plan or strategy in place to defeat it, notwithstanding President Bush’s rote reassurances that everything was going just swell, that difficulties in a war were of course to be expected, and that if we just “stayed the course” we would “win.” Bush thus became the emperor who wore no clothes: his words about Iraq were manifestly, stunningly, false, yet no one in the Republican party or the mainstream conservatives movement ever deigned to notice this embarrassing fact (while the Democrats were too absorbed in their anti-Bush madness to notice it, let alone to make an intelligent issue of it). I would say, over and over, to establishment conservatives and Bush supporters with whom I would get in contact, “The emperor is wearing no clothes—Bush’s words about ‘war,’ ‘victory,’ ‘success,’ and ‘building a stable democracy’ bear little or no connection with reality.” I would never get any agreement from them or even an acknowledgement of the point I was making. But reality cannot be suppressed forever, and neither can the hideous mess in Iraq and our lack of any serious intention, means, or plans to prevail over it, as the below New York Times article (lightly abridged by me) makes disturbingly clear.
October 31, 2004 Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 31, 2004 11:47 PM | Send Comments
Huh…could have sworn I just read descriptions of “intention, means, and plans” in that article. Train Iraqi security forces, retake and hold key rebel cities, destroy the main leadership of insurgency, while rebuilding civilian infrastructure. Seemed clear to me. There were problems mentioned, to be sure, but who could seriously expect all of this to go off without a hitch? Posted by: Dan on November 1, 2004 11:15 AMGood point by Dan. Let me clarify. First, my criticism of the administration for their lack of a visible strategy on the insurgency goes back to the summer of 2003. Back then and until very recently, we weren’t even hearing the kinds of things we’re hearing now, about plans to take back the insurgency-dominated cities and so on. All we heard, or at least the MAIN thing we heard, for over a year, was “we are moving toward democracy in Iraq.” The goal of elections had superceded and replaced the goal of defeating the enemy. Second, more recently, as in this article, we are hearing about more specific military and political plans to defeat the insurgents. However, my criticism remains valid that these are not _serious_ plans, that is, as the quotes of the U.S. officers in the article attest, these plans are unlikely to be able to achieve the end they are supposedly intended to achieve, which is the destruction of the insurgents’ ability to keep fighting and destabilizing any successor government in Iraq. To give one example, let’s say we cleared out Fallujah and a couple of other cities. That wouldn’t be the end of the insurgency, because the insurgents would just melt into the Iraq populace and continue from elsewhere their attacks, the roadside bombings, the suicide bombings, and would also continue to be replenished by jihadi allies crossing the borders which are still apparently unguarded. Now, I’ll admit it’s possible that the administration and the military are more serious now than they used to be about defeating (and not just intermittantly hitting back at) the insurgency. But frankly they have a huge credibility problem with me after a year and a half of my hearing them speaking boilerplate detached from reality. Posted by: Lawrence Auster on November 1, 2004 11:41 AMHow do we deal with the fact that the Iraqi population does not want us there? Posted by: David on November 1, 2004 11:47 AMI don’t think that what David said is correct. I just saw a poll that said that 63 percent of the Iraqis want us to remain for the time being. Posted by: Lawrence Auster on November 1, 2004 11:53 AM“If you have four infantry companies, one is always on leave,” a senior American officer said.” As I repeatedly said before, there is a chance for a semi-positive outcome, Shia crashing Sunny (probably very bloody and brutal affair) and establishing a sort of federation with de-facto independent Kurds, Shia strong-man regime and Sunny ruled under marshall law. This outcome depends on Shia locating their long missing spine and actually fighting and killing Sunny. This statement by a senior American officer does not inspire confidence in Shia. Posted by: Mik on November 1, 2004 12:14 PMI see what you’re saying here, Lawrence. I agree that either Bush (and his buddies) had no real plan for crushing the rebellion to begin with or has utterly failed to articulate what that plan is to the American people. Given that he had some good reasons for the invasion in the first place that were themselves never articulated, I lean towards the latter explanation. Nevertheless, you may be correct: they might be making this up as they go along. Still, I stand by my opinion that removing insurgent control of major population centers will by a very large margin reduce the potency of the rebellion (though certainly not ending it outright). In particular, I believe the presence of a large, trained Iraqi security force fighting alongside US forces and then, more importantly, handling long-term patrol detail in the liberated cities will do a great deal to remove whatever support for the insurgency exists among the general populace, as well as reducing the “fear factor” (to borrow from pop culture) they currently experience. Ultimately, only time will tell which of us is right on this count. Historically, large nations occupying regions in the face of partisan warfare have done very poorly. Since we’re stuck here now anyway, here’s to teaching history a thing or two, eh? Posted by: Dan on November 2, 2004 2:08 PM |