Consequences of our "great success" Iraq Surge

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/woundedplatoon/view/?utm_campaign=homepage&utm_medium=proglist&utm_source=proglist

Politicians and the Pentagon love to tout the Surge as positive validation of our counter-insurgency and Middle East strategies. But this documentary describes the human costs on a particular platoon of soldiers from Fort Carson, CO, which had one of the highest kill and casualty rates in the Army. Due to the Army's desperate need for more boots on the ground, they relaxed their admission standards and granted waivers to young men with criminal records. While those men mostly served gallantly and performed similarly to non-criminal peers, they also had a higher incidence of misconduct. After their first tour (pre-Surge), the platoon returned to Fort Carson and some engaged in substance abuse, criminality, and poor performance. 15 of 42 soldiers in the platoon left the Army for various reasons, which reduced the unit's combat readiness and seniority. Their commanders asked if anyone wanted to talk about problems, and "offered" mental health services, but it was mostly lip-service and troops were scared to come forward, possibly risking harsh judgment or punishment (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10374760). The fort was terribly under-staffed and under-trained for PTSD treatment anyway, and even needed to outsource to local doctors in town.

Despite these problems at Fort Carson and elsewhere, Washington needed more troops for the Surge in 2007, so many unfit soldiers were called up again to deploy after just one year home (the military recommends two years). Despite pending criminal investigations and evidence of PTSD/substance abuse against some, the Army broke its own rules and allowed these troubled men to return to combat. These already mentally and physically wounded men were now asked to live in forward areas outside base protections, and street fight with more intensity and at a higher frequency. Their tours were extended from 12 to 15 months midway. Morale was down and casualties were up, as well as unconfirmed reports of indiscriminate killings of non-hostile Iraqis. Complaints of PTSD rose, as did demand for battlefield mental health services. But since many of the needy soldiers now lived beyond the wire, they were inaccessible to psychiatrists, and those who got treatment were often declared "fit for duty" despite obvious warning signs. Instead, the Army prescribed a huge amount of pharmaceuticals such as anti-depressants and sleep aids like Ambien, to 20,000 soldiers in total (prior to the Iraq War, combat soldiers did not take psychological drugs due to supply logistics and inability to monitor treatment). Yet the warning labels for those drugs state, "Do not perform hazardous activities while medicated. May cause side effects such as depression, aggression, insomnia, reduced inhibitions. Take only under the close supervision of a doctor." Withdrawal from those drugs can also be severe, and due to combat constraints, soldiers would exhaust their prescriptions on the field and wonder "now what?". Soldiers also got their hands on black market Valium, pot, and other drugs.

Since the Iraq War began, 17 soldiers from Fort Carson have been charged or convicted of murder/attempted murder/manslaughter, many of whom had prior criminal records, symptoms of PTSD and TBI (traumatic brain injury), and were taking prescription or illegal drugs. 36 others have committed suicide. Fort Carson had 14,000 soldiers, so their suicide rate is 40% higher than the overall US male population (according to WHO). When asked about these matters, retired Fort Carson officer Colonel David Clark, head of the 506th Infantry (that this platoon is a part of), said, "The Surge worked. War is a dangerous thing. [There will be] psychological problems for soldiers; is that reason not to do it? You gotta do what you have to do."

Easy for him to say from behind a desk.

Obama's Afghanistan escalation

For the first time since 2001, according to polls, a majority of Americans believe that the war in Afghanistan is "not worth fighting." Fifty-seven percent of independents and nearly three-quarters of Democrats oppose the war — and overall, only 26 percent of Americans support the idea of adding more troops. Indeed, if Obama were to escalate the war, his only allies would be the Pentagon, Congressional Republicans, an ultraconservative think tank called the Foreign Policy Initiative, whose supporters include Karl Rove, Sarah Palin and a passel of neoconservatives and former aides to George W. Bush.
- R Dreyfuss, Rolling Stone Oct. 28

I was disappointed with our Nobel Peace Prize laureate's rhetoric during this week's Afghanistan speech (he plans to send in 30,000 more Marines for ~18 months, many straight from Iraq, which must be demoralizing for their families). NATO may add 5-10,000 troops too, but I am skeptical. He can argue that this course of action is the best choice of dismal options, and remind us that he inherited this conflict, but don't feed us the same tired War on Terror crap. Public opinion is majority against a troops surge, partially because Americans feel that Afghanistan is not "winnable", nor critical to our security anyway, and they're probably right. Even the worst-case scenario of a Talibanized Afghanistan is not like North Korea or Iran. The country is mostly illiterate, dirt poor, internally divided, and geographically isolated, like Somalia with poppies instead of pirates. They may export some petty criminals and terrorists from time to time, but their ability to do harm is greatly diminished vs. 2001.

Obama did not heed the protests of Congressional Dems, VP Biden, and Karl Eikenberry (US ambassador to Afghanistan and a retired general who served in Afghanistan from 2005-2007) in this decision. He caved to our rock star generals instead (McChrystal and Petraeus, the latter rumored to seek a run for political office, assuming we are successful in Afghanistan?). Eikenberry's protest is especially noteworthy since he was part of the McChrystal/Petraeus/Odierno clique from West Point, and Army chums place a premium on loyalty. But his experiences in-country have soured him to the possibility of working with the Karzai regime towards victory. I hope President Obama hasn't forgotten the man he was as Candidate Obama. I understand that he must represent the Office of the President now, respect the conservative mainstream, and placate Pentagon interests. But if JFK deferred to the hawks during the Cuban Missile Crisis, probably none of us would be here. Sometimes the bravest thing to do is not to fight.

Biden warned that the world will test a young, idealistic Obama the minute he assumes office, and maybe Obama wants to show the world that he is a tough war president too. Maybe he fears that weakness on Afghanistan will create an opening for the GOP in the 2010 midterms. But after 8 years of fumbling and violence in the Middle East, it's disrespectful to the American people and the people of the world for him to re-hash the same tired Bush arguments for prolonging and even escalating a frustrating war. Ironically, many of the arguments he made on the campaign trail against Bush's Iraq Surge could equally apply against him here. Change we can believe in?

First of all, we were NOT attacked on 9/11 from Afghanistan, and not a single hijacker was Afghan (or Iraqi). Osama and other Jihadists did receive sanctuary in Afghanistan from their days as fighters in the Mujahadeen against the Soviets. But the Taliban government under Mullah Omar had little inkling Al Qaeda was planning 9/11, and probably would have tried to stop them if they found out (because obviously it would trigger a Western invasion and the toppling of their fragile regime). Why do you think Sudan expelled Osama and even offered him gift-wrapped to Clinton? The old Taliban was more interested in retaining power than attacking America. Where did the 9/11 attacks come from then? First, it came from our oil rich "buddies" in the Persian Gulf - suicidal fanatics and rich financiers in Saudia Arabia, Yemen, etc. Second, it came from within. The 9/11 hijackers were granted entry into the US months prior to the attack, and learned to fly, evade authorities, and infiltrate airport security. You can't really get that training in the remote terrorist camps that Clinton bombed. Maybe at best the 9/11 terrorists learned basic combat tactics, explosives, and weapons training in Afghanistan - skills that were not pivotal in accomplishing the 9/11 attacks. But the panic and mania immediately following 9/11 allowed NATO to justify an Afghanistan invasion and Taliban coup to the UN, and the rest is history. So just because the war is sanctioned by the UN and 43 nations have contributed to the effort doesn't make it a righteous or necessary war (see Kosovo conflict).

And then Obama claimed that we can't allow the "same people" who perpetrated 9/11 to regain a foothold in Afghanistan to launch new attacks against us. The same people are not in Afghanistan now! Our initial special forces operations in Afghanistan in 2001 decimated much of Al Qaeda (some estimate up to 85%), and improved international surveillance has greatly reduced Al Qaeda's ability to travel, communicate, and obtain resources. By our Nat. Sec. Advisor's own admission, there are fewer than 100 "real Al Qaeda" inside Afghanistan (meaning Arabs directly connected to Osama's network and acting as his agents). Mullah Omar's Taliban no longer exists, and he is probably not even in country (same with Osama, who is quite ill by some accounts and only serves as a symbolic figure for terrorism). The "new Taliban" (or so we call them) are groups of Pashtuns, Uzbeks, Tajiks, or other dissident minority groups who are conducting an insurgency against foreign occupation and the Karzai regime, which is widely and accurately viewed as illegitimate and corrupt. Taliban means "students", as in those who have attended fundamentalist madrasas and subscribe to that form of Islamic doctrine. Most of the current "Taliban" have not even attended such schools (and are illiterate in fact), and they are definitely not unified and cohesive. Just as we lumped all communists together during the Cold War to our peril, we can't label everyone who is not friendly to the NATO presence as Taliban. At least Obama offered the olive branch to any Afghans willing to lay down their arms, but I am not sure how that offer will be received by the insurgents and Karzai.

Pakistan is a different and more delicate situation, so I will limit this discussion to Afghanistan. Clearly those nations' fates are intertwined, but does anyone really think that the Pakistani Taliban would be so belligerent today if we were not across the border in Afghanistan and killing Pakistanis with our drones (thereby undermining the Pakistani government that is supposedly critical to winning the War on Terror)? Whereas Al Qaeda ostensibly fight us because of who we are, the Taliban fight us because we are there. They have little interest in a global caliphate or the destruction of the West. They may not complain if those things happen, but they are not dedicated to achieving those goals. They fight because a foreign force is occupying their country (and a force with a history of imperialism, hostility, or at least disrespect to the Muslim world). So if we boost our military presence there, shouldn't we expect the insurgents to do the same? And let's remember that Bush/Obama already sent 21,000 new troops earlier this year to launch new offensives, and since then violence has only gotten worse and the Taliban have made shocking gains (they now "control" or roam freely in 15-25% of the country).

What will 30,000 more troops do for a rugged nation that is bigger than Iraq (both acreage and population, and a more diffuse rural population at that)? South Vietnam was a much smaller state, and the US had nearly 1M troops there, as well as 0.5-1M better trained and better equipped South Vietnamese forces. McChrystal's people want to copy as many successful Iraq techniques as possible, but the two wars are not interchangeable. As part of the "clear, hold, build" strategy, US forces will embed themselves with the local population to better protect them from insurgents. But many villages (especially in the volatile Helmand Province and Pashtun areas) do not want more Marines in their lives. They may not love the Taliban, but that doesn't mean they'll welcome us with open arms and offer aid (especially when collaboration with foreigners may provoke Taliban reprisals). It's not like the Iraqi Sunnis who were sometimes happy to have a US presence to prevent Shia takeover.

The hope is that we can train enough Afghan security personnel to assume ISAF's duties, so we can start our "victory withdrawal". Obama's plan is to train 400,000 more Afghans in the near future, which is a pipe dream. We probably couldn't even train 400,000 new American cops in a year. And as we've seen in Iraq, rapid recruitment of armed forces leaves us vulnerable to infiltration. Another problem is most Afghans don't trust the security forces, who often shake people down like thugs and are not trustworthy (or even participatory) in difficult combat situations. Plus it is quite challenging to develop a unified national army and police there, built from the remnants of the brutal Northern Alliance and local warlords. We have very little expertise in nation-building and peacekeeping in tribal/communal societies (see our great record in the Balkans and Africa). Afghanistan's forces are comprised of a dozen distinct ethnic groups, each of which is chiefly concerned with protecting its own population and probably won't risk themselves for anyone else (or may even be rivals with each other).

Obama is a young president and I'm sure a little awed or intimidated by the dashing senior brass at the Pentagon. He is not a pushover, but I think he is also very conflict and risk averse. He doesn't want the wars to overwhelm his other foreign and domestic policy initiatives. Generals always say they need more men/resources, and always believe that victory is not only possible, but assured, if they get what they need and we get out of their way. Heck, what manager doesn't ask for those things at work? In other words, the Pentagon's advice will always be biased, even if chickenhawks like Feith and Wolfowitz aren't directing traffic anymore. Our military leadership loves America and wants to keep us safe, but they are also arrogant and career-minded. Insurance companies resist health reform, so it should be expected that our generals resist withdrawal plans. Some hypothesize that McChrystal's force request was deliberately leaked early to the press to make it even harder for Obama to reject it. If Obama spurns the generals' request and Afghanistan continues to deteriorate, things will be very bad for him and his party. But the generals aren't car salesmen, and Obama and the American people shouldn't be shmoozed or pressured into buying an extended warranty and DVD entertainment system that we don't need.

I know we can't just pack up and abandon Afghanistan tomorrow, but after 8 years of spinning our wheels (at best), we really need to act with caution. If our objective is to stabilize and modernize Afghan society (the humanitarian mission that our NATO allies are more concerned with), as well as containing or hunting down those committed to international terrorism (the military mission that the US is more concerned with), then our actions should not destabilize the region or create new terrorists. I know I was pessimistic about the Iraq Surge and my fears did not really materialize, but most experts agree that Afghanistan is a much more difficult challenge. What is wrong with Biden's strategy of de-escalation? He believes that a surge would be counter-productive and we should actually reduce our footprint, shifting to surgical strikes against Al Qaeda and obvious Taliban targets. If we can't trust Karzai and we don't have the troops to really execute the Counterinsurgency Manual (and we don't), then what is the point of taking the McChrystal/Petraeus approach that will probably require a decade of more commitment to Afghanistan? Just because we're too ashamed of possible defeat?

To conclude, I was hoping Obama would declare a plan something like this (which also has a chance for success):

"My fellow Americans, fighting is not the only way, nor the preferred way, to defeat Al Qaeda and international terrorism. With UN backing, we invaded Afghanistan to bring to justice the perpetrators of 9/11 and those who protect them. While that objective still remains partially unresolved, we have gravely wounded Al Qaeda since then, and their ability to threaten our homeland, or even wire money to each other, is much reduced. For that, we all owe thanks to the Bush administration, our allies, and those in the armed forces and intelligence. It is true that Osama's inner circle roams fairly freely in the border region with Pakistan, and I am not happy about that. I pledge to constructively and respectfully work with the Pakistani government to address this problem. But as long as we maintain diligent surveillance, take good opportunities for surgical strikes with minimal civilian casualties, and support friendly military, economic, and democratic development in the region, I am confident that Bin Laden and his network pose minimal danger to us.

It is true that Taliban-like insurgents in Afghanistan threaten our allies in the Karzai government and our interests in the region. But unless we have a clear, quantifiable, plausible strategy and milestones for assessing and containing that threat, then it is not worth more American lives and resources to police a nation the size of Texas and as rugged as Alaska. Our armed forces are the toughest in the world, but they are stretched thin and not being used efficiently. By gradually and rationally drawing down US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan during my presidency, our men and women in uniform will be able to spend more time with their loved ones, receive improved training back home, and focus on small-scale counter-terrorism rather than state-scale counter-insurgency, which are two distinct missions. Withdrawing from a fight can also increase our security, because it will permit us to recuperate and be ready when the next serious fight emerges. We will still maintain a lean presence in Afghanistan to assist in the training of Afghan security forces, execute counter-terrorism operations, and aid the Karzai government to improve transparency, prosperity, the rule of law, and basic services to the Afghan people.

America is a great nation, but we have our limits and must respect the other peoples who share the planet with us. We cannot and probably should not intervene every time there is civil strife, and we should be aware that our extended military presence overseas may cause resentment and play into the hateful rhetoric of our enemies. Sometimes we must be humble and let other nations take the lead in attending to their affairs. Yes there will be delays and failures, but America did not become a global power overnight either. Let me be clear that we are not retreating like cowards or throwing our friends in the Middle East to the wolves. America will always be there when we are called upon and there is critical need, to friend and foe alike. While we may not be surging troops to Afghanistan, we will make a diplomatic and development surge. Under military protection and rigorous standards of accountability, we will greatly increase our aid projects. We will listen to our allies, deliver what they need, and offer our input while respecting their wishes. But our assistance is not unconditional and open-ended, and I will ensure that every taxpayer dollar spent on Afghanistan is an investment in real progress for the future, or it won't leave our shores. We can also defeat terror and extremism by being good global citizens and peacefully improving life in needy countries, so that the conditions which spawn hatred and violence never materialize. Thank you and good night."

http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R912020900
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_fact_check_obama_afghanistan
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/30493567/the_generals_revolt
http://worldaffairs-manwnoname.blogspot.com/2009/08/problems-with-our-afghanistan-approach.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=120346497

Obama and Iraq

But Obama took the turkey that night with a barely-noticed side comment that gave me pause. The Dems were asked to explain their lack of support for Bush's surge proposal earlier in the year, when the effort appears to be producing results now. All 3 rehashed the same talking point that the surge was intended to give Iraqi politicians some calm in the streets, as breathing room to push through overdue legislation and reconciliation. But of course the latter has not really happened, so the Dems declared the surge a failure as a result. They admitted that there was a significant reduction in violence, but what is the point if the leaders are still stalling? Spoken like true politicians – they downplay the positive news that fewer Iraqis are suffering each day, but the fact that the Iraqi government is still dysfunctional partially validates their opposition to the surge. Let's be honest, America can't make the Iraqi government any better. Most poor nations have terrible, corrupt governments, especially ones emerging from war and dictatorship. We even deposed the previous ineffective PM Al-Jafari to get Maliki in power, and now we're stuck with him and the political disaster we've moderated since 2003.

Obama: Although I would point out that much of that violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar province -- Sunni tribes -- who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know what, the Americans may be leaving soon, and we are going to be left very vulnerable to the Shi'as. We should start negotiating now. That's how you change behavior.

Obama went a step further than his rivals, and then fell off the cliff. He claimed (with no evidence of course) that the Anbar Sunnis took notice that the Dems regained Congress in 2006, and felt that change was in the air. Maybe the Americans would be leaving soon, so to avoid total Shia domination in the wake of the US withdrawal, they better shun Al Qaeda and play ball now. This was his explanation for the reduction of violence! One or two stupid comments may be forgiven as slips of the tongue (boycotting all Chinese-manufactured toys, attacking targets in Pakistan unilaterally – he has since rescinded this proposal), but any more and it becomes a pattern of poor judgment/self-control.

Maybe he really is that naïve about foreign affairs. Most world polls showed that no one really cared about the midterm election, and Congress has very little non-fiscal war authority. Maybe foreigners already know that the Iraq War is very unpopular and declared a lost cause among Americans, but it matters not if the president wants to continue the fight. What troubles me even more is the fact that none of the Dems could effectively answer the surge question, yet it seems rather obvious to me. It's not a short answer, but nothing in the Middle East ever is. Of course more US troops on the ground engaged in more offensive operations should improve security. Our military should have shown more interest in taking to the streets and vigorously protecting the Iraqi population years ago, instead of just hunkering down in fortified rear bases and only protecting "economic targets". Morally it's the right thing to do and politically it builds trust. Because an insurgent war boils down to which side wins the support of the people, and our side is handicapped because of our nationality and our past performance. The surge had an effect, but 2007 was the deadliest year for US troops post-invasion, and cost us hundreds of billions of dollars. Was the sacrifice worth it, when violence was probably going to somewhat decline on its own? It's not like Iraq is a peaceful paradise after the surge. Since our invasion, Iraqi sects have engaged in ethnic cleansing (not necessarily genocide, but definitely population transfer). Neighborhoods have become much more homogenized, and over 2M Iraqis have become internal or foreign refugees. Separated, impoverished peoples are less likely to engage in organized murder. Yes it may be helpful that US forces erected barricades, checkpoints, or other dividers to separate the hostile parties, but the Iraqis were doing it to themselves anyway.

Bush often cites his "doomsday scenario" for why we have to remain in Iraq: if we leave the violence will spill out of control, extremists will take power, and terrorism will spread elsewhere or follow us home. But this is uncertain, and experts contest it. Maybe the bloodletting of 2006 hit its peak, and now the nation is settling towards equilibrium as analysts predict. In any power vacuum, there will be struggle for dominance, and it may get ugly. But eventually a new order will take root and hopefully all parties will see that they have a better chance to achieve their goals via political channels than in battle, where they could lose everything. Instead of patrolling the streets and bombing suspected militant hideouts, America should be encouraging rival groups to the bargaining table. I know a "wait and see" attitude is risky, but 800 US soldiers might still be alive if we acted differently ( http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=173&a=4145).

I know it's hard to deliver a compelling point during a thirty-second debate window, but real issues often can't be nicely packaged for mass consumption. At least say something meaningful and accurate. You can claim that improvements in Iraq were actually independent of the Bush surge, and that military escalation will never be able to fix the greater problems in the Maliki government, as the Dems already noted. As I said, popular support is the true decider of an insurgency/civil war. If the choice is between extremist militias/Al Qaeda and America, then we should be ashamed if we are losing ground. But the militants and Al Qaeda have behaved so terribly in Iraq (especially in the last two years) that the public has turned against them, and they didn't need us to convince them. The militants' strength is their ability to infiltrate, strike fast, and disappear into the populace before we can respond. Yes it is helpful if our forces "clear, retain, and hold" contested neighborhoods, but it's pointless if the fighters just relocate and make trouble elsewhere.

Sunnis used to harbor and rely on insurgents/Al Qaeda for protection against the Americans and Shia who were marginalizing (or in some cases butchering) them. But Qaeda's brutal tactics and twisted form of Islam eventually turned them off. They saw through Osama's BS that the terrorists were not fighting for the liberation of Iraqis, but actually coldly sacrificing them in a Sunni-Shia civil war (sparked by their alleged bombing of the Golden Mosque) and their battle against America. Iraqis don't want to be Qaeda's pawn any more than they want to be ours, and they are tired of the sectarian bloodshed and cruel targeting of innocents in public places. Some Sunni leaders, mostly in Anbar Province, sided with US forces to drive them out (often after accepting large bribes from us, and we even armed their militias for better or worse). Of course there is the danger that they will switch allegiances again, but their change of heart was not due to the surge – it was due to Qaeda's cruelty and our opportune (albeit risky) carrot diplomacy. There is nothing wrong with bribery if it accomplishes what fighting can't!

That is what we need more of in Iraq, shrewd diplomacy instead of more fighting. Let's be honest; we can't force the Maliki government to do anything, and they can stall forever because they know America needs Iraq as a strategic base and oil supplier. Contrary to Obama's assertion, I think the Iraqis in power realize that we're not leaving anytime soon, not after making such a massive investment there. The Shia and Kurds know that it's mostly their country now (Iraq is only the second Shia-led nation in history, and the other is a major enemy of the US), and considering their ugly history of oppression by Sunnis, Turks, and others, why should they make any concessions to their rivals? The last two times Congress has changed hands, did the dominant side make an effort to include and placate the minority side? In fact, their first order of business was consolidating power and pushing through their narrow agendas. So we shouldn't expect any better of the Iraqis, not without motivation at least.

If we want to "win" in Iraq, we may have to incentivize the Shia to play ball. Yes they do enjoy the privileged position now, but it may not last without US backing. If we really mean to threaten them into action, then cut the double-talk and toothless reprimands. Blindly loyal Bush is a lost cause, and the Dems have started down this path but they have to clarify how far they are willing to go. Because as sad as it sounds, the Maliki government is now a larger problem in Iraq than Al Qaeda (according to current and former generals like Colin Powell). There were pseudo-legit elections and a multi-ethnic representative government was formed, but as we've recently seen in Kenya, the availability of democratic mechanisms/elections doesn't ensure justice, cooperation, and the rule of law. Iraq resembles the "Five Families of New York" more than a Western democracy. We could tell Maliki that if he fails to cooperate and we leave (no more money, no more US air strikes and offensives whenever they ring us), the well-armed Saudis have already proposed to support Sunni groups in our wake. His country might become a Saudi-Iran battleground with a new sectarian war even bloodier than 2006, and there's no glory in presiding over a pile of rubble. How would they like that? On the positive side, if we give them guarantees then maybe we can convince them that reconciling with the Sunnis and militants will give them even more goodies down the road. And it's not like Iraq doesn't need help (terrible inflation and unemployment, social services mostly absent, shoddy infrastructure, meddling neighboring nations). The Iraqis have to see us as a long-term strategic and business partner, not just a policeman or a crutch. I don't think it's such a stretch for our next president to realize and advocate this.

Kenya:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17774507&ft=1&f=1001

Iraq surge:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/082407C.shtml

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/world/middleeast/11iraq.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/08/07/surge/

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId =17857251

http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/176

----------

As to the gaffe, I don't know - a lot of Republicans have been calling
it that, but I don't really see a serious problem with what Obama is
saying (and I know I'm kind of an Obama fanboi, but I'd believe this
no matter who was saying it).

From what I remember, the justification for the surge is that a burst
of troops will fix things well enough that when we inevitably have to
withdraw down to pre-surge levels, the surge will have made things
better than they were before. This is basically what Bush and Petraeus
said when the proposal was presented last year. Otherwise, all the
surge will have accomplished is a temporary lull in the fighting while
people wait for us to be over-extended again. So I don't think calling
Gibson out when he said the surge was working was a bad idea by the
dems. Don't get me wrong - improving the lives of Iraqis is a good in
itself, but if all we are doing is delaying things for 9-15 months
when we have to start withdrawing troops again, can we really say the
surge "worked"?

And the reason the violence has receded during the surge is partly
because we've pacified Baghdad, but also partly because of the "Anbar
Awakening", as you noted. And the Anbar Awakening was partly a result
of local tribes tiring of Al-Qaeda, but much more so because the
Sunnis realized that a united Shi'a government and militia forces are
a much bigger threat to them than the Americans were. They're
basically scared shitless that if we withdraw, they're toast, so
they're getting all the guns/training they can in the meantime. Would
they feel this pressure to make nice if they felt we were never going
to leave? I'm pretty sure not, and there have been a lot of Sunnis who
have said that basically fear of America leaving was a motivation. How
much this is influenced by domestic politics is hard to say, but given
how much the rest of the world pays attention to what goes on in the
US, I doubt it would fail to escape their attention that a potential
major policy shift might be underway in the US.

As (yet another) a side note, it's interesting being the UK how much
the rest of the world pays attention to what's going on here. I've had
people asking me detailed questions about the procedures of the Iowa
caucus that I'm sure most Americans wouldn't even know how to ask - I
guess because we figure most people in the US don't give a shit about
the rest of the world (or even our own country for that matter), the
rest of the world doesn't give a shit about what's going on in our
country, but that's really not true - the foreign press in the UK
probably covers US domestic politics better than most US sources; even
Al-Jazeera has pretty decent coverage of US politics.

So I agree that it's probably an overly-boastful statement and the
answer is a lot more complicated, so minus points for him on that
answer. However, I don't think that you can deny that insurgents in
Sunni areas changed their behavior in part because they sensed a
possible shift in US policy, which came about in part because the
American public is obviously tiring with the war, which was clearly
expressed in the 2006 elections. I also agree with you in that I don't
think there are any easy solutions to Iraq, but if you look what
happened when the Brits withdrew from Basra, I think that's pretty
suggestive of the dynamics going on right now in Iraq - there is no
pressure to solve any problems now because they know the Americans
will always be around to provide security. Once they sense that we're
on our way out, then you might start to see them making real progress,
because then they have to.

If you're interested, I think his plan shows that he's not that naieve
about Iraq: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/IraqFactSheet.pdf -
I'm not sure his plan is better than any other candidate, because Iraq
is such a clusterfuck, but on the stump and in his issue papers he
shows he's aware of the complexities at least.

----------

If people really want to support a candidate, they shouldn't just sing his or her praises all day and excuse their mistakes. The world has enough cheerleaders and salesmen out there; feedback and oversight are critical duties of the citizenry and free press. We are here to keep them honest, double-check their work, and suggest improvements. We shouldn't just leave it in the hands of paid campaign strategists or media blowhards with their own agendas. We are the Donald! Why were our parents harder on us than all the other kids? Because they love us the most and they want (and expect) us to do our best. They refuse to accept "good enough" and push us to do better. Bad parents are apathetic and just spoil their kids with undeserving affection/compliments. I think it's more helpful to support a candidate by criticizing them every step of the way and demanding better. Maybe then our leaders wouldn't take us for granted after Election Day passes.

Remember that Bush plunged the US, Afghanistan, and Iraq into a lot of problems partly because he surrounded himself with apologists and yes-men who didn't challenge his assumptions/opinions. I think true patriots and supporters would hold candidates (especially favored/popular candidates) accountable for what they said and did. We still want to vote for them and persuade others to do the same, but we have to acknowledge faults and call a spade a spade. Otherwise there is no incentive to improve if our leaders dismiss the sheepish masses as infatuated and blindly loyal. Preoccupied with idol worship, we might forget to keep the best interests of the country in mind. They are not infallible deities, and should have their feet over the coals at all times. When appropriate we have the right to criticize them (after all, they are working for us), not just accept everything they have to offer as the best of all worlds. Obama might well become one of our greatest presidents, but a lot of his support comes from his rock star celebrity, not necessarily his merits as a prospective leader. Let's be honest; many voters (and candidates!) have no idea what it takes to be a president, myself included. I am just trying to barely educate myself on some issues and make the best guess I can. But ultimately as JFK said, one ignorant voter can compromise democracy for all of us (no accusations intended, and I'll be the first to admit my ignorant voter status). Americans have the right and duty to scrutinize the hell out of our future leaders. Better do it now before it's too late, or we'll have to clean up another Katrina/Iraq.

----------

I'll stick to the Iraq issue for the rest of this email (because it interests me more) and touch on campaigning later if I have time. I know you and several others on this email list are strong Obama supporters, and in the end I might vote for him too. Especially if the choice is him against Romney (I have come to hate him for all reasons except his Mormon faith!). But stupid is still stupid. You know I like to diss the pack leader and root for the underdog, so take it with a grain of salt. Though I think you will be hard pressed to defend his argument that Iraqis even paid attention to the midterm election, and it had something to do with the positive changes of 2007. Actually many in the Middle East media hailed Rumsfeld's departure as the real turning point for US involvement in Iraq, not the midterm election. Not sure if everyday Iraqis paid attention though.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6138966.stm

I couldn't find the link, but I remember in the wake of the Dems regaining Congress last winter, NPR interviewed Iraqis on the streets and they basically didn't care or think it would change anything for their country. Of course the world cares about who will become the next president (especially the UK as our closest ally), but a few shifting chairs in Congress is not big news. Americans barely care about Pakistani parliamentary elections in February, and that result might actually affect us! Do you think Iraqis, who have their own convoluted domestic politics, and face the daily challenges of finding work/acquiring scarce goods/avoiding death, care that Jim Webb won Virginia and now the Dems have a narrow majority in the Senate? There was no "major policy shift" underway just because Reid and Pelosi said so. They might have duped gullible and exasperated American voters, but skeptical Iraqis know better than to trust more blowhard American politicians (who never saw a minute of war, and might not know the difference between Sunni and Shia) with big promises of changing things.

Good timing for this Obama/surge discussion though, since Morning Edition is running a series on the effects of the surge this week: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17899543

If you don't believe me, listen to them. Their main factors that contributed to the reduction in violence:

(1) The Mahdi Army (largest Shia militia) was given a ceasefire order by its leader al-Sadr to stop targeting Americans and Sunnis (not sure what led to this decision), and now he is busy studying to become an Ayatollah.

(2) The factions were weary of civil war and supporting Al Qaeda, plus they are more segregated now so it's harder for them to murder each other daily.

(3) General Petraeus was under strong pressure to reduce US casualties, so he and others embraced a plan to cut deals with the Sunni insurgents. Instead of fighting with them daily, we would bribe them to work for us.

The strongest reason they cite is number 3. Nowhere in their article did they mention Sunnis reacting to the Congressional election (sorry Obama). And surging 30,000 troops into greater Baghdad and the Sunni triangle (a region of over 10 million Iraqis) probably couldn't account for the widespread, night-and-day reduction of violence (sorry Bush). So from the evidence at hand, it appears that the Bush surge and 2006 elections are not the chief causes. Violence was inevitably on the decline due to demographic factors in Iraq (as L and I said, the nation is a lot more segregated/displaced/ethnically cleansed now) and Petraeus' clever but risky strategy of bribing Sunni militants into cooperation. Since the majority of anti-American insurgents are Sunni, this seems to make sense. And with the Mahdi Army on vacation, the few Sunnis still living in mixed neighborhoods might feel less threatened, less dependent on insurgents, and more willing to work with Americans. Actually it's the Shia Maliki government that has been vehemently protesting this initiative. Of course they don't want Americans cutting deals and arming their rivals.

I guess that is how you change behaviors during a traumatic war in the Middle East. Paying Sunni militants $10/day in the CLC program ("Concerned Local Citizens") to patrol their own neighborhoods seems affordable and practical. It takes the crosshairs and pressure off exhausted US forces, and gives Iraqis a sense of solidarity, purpose, and gainful employment (so the desperate ones aren't lured and bribed by Al Qaeda instead). If Sunnis feel that the National Police are just a corrupt Shia militia in uniform (they would be correct), then this is a better way for them to fight for their people, stand up to rivals, and try to make their homeland better. Stepping up reconstruction efforts doesn't hurt either (schools, utilities, jobs). The people need immediate, tangible compensation, which is something that the Dems in Congress didn't and can't provide. This strategy is not without concern or criticism though. In some cases, we are creating mercenaries out of fighters who were shooting at Americans a month ago. We are trusting them to do the job of US soldiers. And history tells us that empires in trouble, like Rome, are the only ones desperate enough to rely on mercenaries. Also what's stopping these Sunni CLCs from using their new found cash and arms to take revenge on Shias (as Maliki fears) or even their American employers? Analysts are worried that Petraeus' move might buy us some temporary calm in Iraq, but long-term it's a recipe for an even bloodier future civil war. Time will tell.

Ignorance also produces false assumptions and fears. Your assertion that an American withdrawal is undesirable among Sunnis is also dubious. It was their country before we deposed Saddam, and the anti-American insurgency is mostly Sunni. Contrary to some allegations, most attacks on American soldiers came from Sunni Iraqis, not foreigners or Iranian-backed Shias. The Al Qaeda sympathizers who remain are also Sunni (though Qaeda has tried to kill Sunni leaders that cooperate with the US). They are also probably quite upset at us for losing power through de-Ba'athification, as well as the corrupt political processes that brought unfit leaders like Chalibi and Maliki into positions of influence. This 2006 poll suggests that Sunnis are the most eager ethnic group to see the Yanks gone ASAP, while the semi-autonomous Kurds are the least, especially now with the Turkey-PKK problem ( http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/27/iraqis-poll/ ).

Yes I think some Sunnis are concerned with Shia domination without the US to keep a lid on things, but it's almost moot since the country is already Shia-dominated. Don't forget that Shia Muslims are a tiny minority in worldwide Islam, so there are plenty of sources of support for Iraq's Sunnis if we vacate (especially Saudi Arabia and Egypt). Sunni nations are scared shitless of a "Shia Revival" in Mesopotamia, and will strongly oppose any Iran-Iraq-Hizbullah axis from developing. As bizarre as it seems, Sunnis are more hostile to Iran than we are, so they'll be damned to let Iran enjoy the spoils if America leaves. Let us also not forget that some Sunnis (including former Al Qaeda in Iraq leader Zarqawi) really view Shias as vile heretics, and may want to kill them more than Americans or Jews. No matter what, president 44 has to do a better job reading up on Islam and Middle East history (or at least appoint the right advisors).

http://www.cfr.org/publication/11179/shia_revival.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7309835 (I already blogged about this piece)

Obama's pdf that you forwarded doesn't say anything new or insightful on Iraq (though his humanitarian agenda is very commendable), and a total withdrawal by 2009 is not as easy as some Dems make it sound. How much would we leave behind? The training and equipping of Iraqi security forces is incomplete. Just the process of cleaning (desert dust is murder on machinery) and packing up all our stuff would take over a year. It would also be very expensive (not as expensive as continuing the war for years, of course), and we are just talking about withdrawing to neighboring Kuwait, not Camp Pendleton. And our forces en route to Kuwait probably won't be able to stop along the way on their 350 mile journey through scorching desert, due to security concerns (unless we erect a series of huge fortified "rest stops" for them). Have Obama or others given this much thought? I am tired of incomplete planning and empty promises, but I better get used to it since this is campaign season after all.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12360390 (Iraq withdrawal logistics)

------

From NPR on the surge and causes of reduced violence:

"The real debate, in my mind ... (is) not whether things are better in Iraq — they are unquestionably like night and day, (the) change in the level of violence. The real question is what caused it," McCaffrey said.

What caused it is open to debate. "Improvements in security are a result of the greater number of coalition and Iraqi security forces and the strategy that guides the operations we conduct," Petraeus says.

But some current and former military officers with whom NPR spoke disagree. McCaffrey and other former officers say that a surge of 30,000 additional troops into a country of 30 million could never have enough of an impact alone to turn things around. "The least important aspect of the so-called change in strategy was the surge," McCaffrey says.

Once Insurgents, Now Allies

If it wasn't just the surge, how did it happen? It could be, in part, exhaustion among Sunnis, tired of fighting and dying. Or also, in part, a cease-fire declared by the largest Shiite militia, others say. But another part, and possibly the most significant, can be traced to the end of last May. That month, 126 U.S. troops died; it was the second deadliest month for U.S. forces during the war. Petraeus was under pressure to reduce those casualties.

"Petraeus seems to have concluded that it was essential to cut deals with the Sunni insurgents if he was going to succeed in reducing U.S. casualties," Macgregor says.

The military now calls those "deals" the Concerned Local Citizens program or simply, CLCs. It's a somewhat abstract euphemism. The CLC program turns groups of former insurgents, including fighters for al-Qaida in Iraq, into paid, temporary allies of the U.S. military.

Creating a New Force

Some 70,000 former insurgents are now being paid $10 a day by the U.S. military. It costs about a quarter billion dollars a year. It's a controversial strategy, and Macgregor warns that it's creating a parallel military force in Iraq that is made up almost entirely of Sunni Muslims. "We need to understand that buying off your enemy is a good short-term solution to gain a respite from violence," he says, "but it's not a long-term solution to creating a legitimate political order inside a country that, quite frankly, is recovering from the worst sort of civil war."

That civil war has subsided, for now. It's diminished because of massive, internal migration, a movement of populations that has created de-facto ethnic cantons. "Segregation works is effectively what the U.S. military is telling you," Macgregor says. "We have facilitated, whether on purpose or inadvertently, the division of the country. We are capitalizing on that now, and we are creating new militias out of Sunni insurgents. We're calling them concerned citizens and guardians. These people are not our friends, they do not like us, they do not want us in the country. Their goal is unchanged."

Macgregor, a decorated combat veteran and a former administration adviser, articulates a view that is privately shared by several former and current officers. It's not that they believe the plan isn't working. It's that they see it as a dangerous one with potentially destructive consequences. But McCaffrey argues that at $10 a day, the gamble is worth taking. "We can pay them that for 10 years if we had to," he says. "Better we provide an infusion of cash where we're keeping a local night watchman for us on duty than we conduct combat operation. Money isn't even a factor we ought to take into account."

A Temporary Freeze

Macgregor says that people are desperate for success. "They want to believe that we have done something positive for the population of Iraq. That we are helping them to become something positive," he says. "The thing that worries me most of all is what happens over the next 12 to 24 months in Iraq. Could we not have made matters worse in the long term? Are we not actually setting Iraq up for a worse civil war than the one we have already seen?"

Iraq can be seen as a conflict temporarily frozen. The largest Shiite militia group has temporarily sworn-off attacking both the U.S. military and Sunni Muslims. Sunni groups are, for the time being, allying themselves with the United States for a fee. And in the north, Kurdish militants are focused on Turkey rather than Iraq. It is a waiting game. And still, quietly, each group builds its own armory, preparing for the inevitability of fighting another day.

To stay or not to stay in Iraq

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080225/wl_mideast_afp/usiraqmilitary_080225213220

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blake-fleetwood/we-need-to-stay-in-iraq-_b_88134.html

As shameful as it is, I'm actually beginning to be against a quick withdrawal from Iraq. We know that no display of military strength can force those morons in Baghdad to actually govern, but for now our military is providing some peace on the streets. More kids are going to school and more commerce can take place, at least better than 2006. They are fatally dependent on us, which is bad but at least there is a semblance of security. If they depend on us and we can't even deliver (as it seemed like before), then we might as well leave and save everyone the trouble. But for now at least it looks like we're "effective", so we might as well continue. Because lord knows the UN, NATO, Turkey, Iran, or other Muslim states won't be of much help (and even if they did participate, they would suck worse than us).

We're just lucky that Al Qaeda turned off much of the population so badly that the Iraqis gave us yet another chance. They may not love us there, but at least many seem to tolerate the status quo in hopes of more improvements, just wanting to get on with their daily lives. "Radical anti-American cleric" Muqtada Al-Sadr recently decided to extend the ceasefire of his Mahdi Army, though of course some members aren't heeding it. Al Qaeda intimidates and deliberately targets Iraqi civilians; we're no saints but at least we're paying and feeding them instead. When the US military mistakenly kills civilians, at least we try to financially compensate the next of kin, though I know it is little consolation. The social services are still deplorable, and we need to do a WAY better job speeding up reconstruction. Though nothing will get done if we leave. I know we can't really influence reconciliation, but hopefully we can keep a lid on things like Marshal Tito in Yugoslavia.

I know we created most of the mess, but if we leave soon, a lot of the "progress" in 2007 will be for naught. In Parliament there is some progress on reversing de-Ba'athification and oil profits sharing, plus over 30% of the 2007 Bush benchmarks were met. It's not a great record, but not disastrous either to warrant an immediate and chaotic withdrawal. I don't think we should/can stay in Iraq for decades as McCain might want (except for a small Korea-like force of 10k troops, maybe). But finally our armed forces seem to be learning stuff from their time in the Middle East, and they are getting better at working with Iraqis and treading lightly. Fortunately much of AQ in Iraq is decimated (or so they say), and they seem to prefer to target "collaborator" Sunni leaders more than better-protected American targets. There are fewer large bombings, and probably less weapons smuggling across the border (Iran's been quieter, and Bush has toned down his aggressive rhetoric as of late). Sure there will always be some attacks and killings, but if we're keeping order in the streets at least as well as maybe Haiti or Colombia (I know, the bar is THAT low), I'd say that is better than our total absence from the country. If a new wave of violence begins, then we might need to re-evaluate our role there, as the Powell Doctrine suggests. But while relative calm persists, hopefully we can draw down our forces to 50k or so, and just focus on the hot spots like Baghdad and Mosul (but the Pentagon plans to maintain 140k troops through 2008 unfortunately).

We keep hearing that the Iraqi security forces will be trained and ready in 18 months (they said that 36 months ago, sheesh). But maybe they might actually meet some minimum criteria. After the British left (and the Poles, Danes, Auzzies, Koreans, and others might follow suit soon), Iraqis took more control of Southern Iraq security. But the most populous provinces still depend on a robust US presence, and there are still neighborhoods that even our most hardened troops won't venture into. What I know for sure is if we leave in 2009 as the leading Dems propose (though I doubt they will or can follow through on), we will definitely be saving blood and treasure, but at the expense of Iraq's future. Though I am definitely not endorsing the GOP's "winning at all costs" mentality, if they even have a reasonable concept of victory anymore.