Is it worth the lives?

[Seahawk]

Last One:

THE WAY AHEAD:
In my judgment, we can still achieve our objective of: a stable Iraq, at peace with its neighbors, not producing weapons of mass destruction, and fully committed to a law-based government. The courage and strength of the US Armed Forces still gives us latitude and time to build the economic and political conditions that might defuse the ongoing civil war. Our central purpose is to allow the nation to re-establish governance based on some loose federal consensus among the three major ethnic-factional actors. (Shia, Sunni, Kurd.)

We have very little time left. This President will have the remainder of his months in office beleaguered by his political opponents to the war. The democratic control of Congress and its vocal opposition can actually provide a helpful framework within which our brilliant new Ambassador Ryan Crocker can maneuver the Maliki administration to understand their diminishing options. It is very unlikely that the US political opposition can constitutionally force the President into retreat. However, our next President will only have 12 months or less to get Iraq straight before he/she is forced to pull the plug. Therefore, our planning horizons should assume that there are less than 36 months remaining of substantial US troop presence in Iraq. The insurgency will continue in some form for a decade. This suggests the fundamental dilemma facing US policymakers.

The US Armed Forces cannot sustain the current deployment rate. We will leave the nation at risk to other threats from new hostile actors if we shatter the capabilities of our undersized and under-resourced Army, Marine, and special operations forces. The Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs must get Congress to provide emergency levels of resources, manpower, and energy into this rapidly failing system. If we do not aggressively rebuild ---the capability of the force actually deployed in Iraq will also degrade--- and we are likely to encounter a disaster.
The primary war winning strategy for the United States in the coming 12 months must be for Ambassador Ryan and General Petraeus to focus their considerable personal leadership skills on getting the top 100 Shia and Sunni leaders to walk back from the edge of all-out civil war. Reconciliation is the way out. There will be no imposed military solution with the current non-sustainable US force levels. Military power cannot alone defeat an insurgency—the political and economic struggle for power is the actual field of battle.

A sufficient but not necessary condition of success is adequate resources to build an Iraqi Army, National Police, local Police, and Border Patrol. We are still in the wrong ball park. The Iraqis need to capacity to jail 150,000 criminals and terrorists. They must have an air force with 150 US helicopters. (The US Armed Forces have 100+ medevac helicopters and 700 lift or attack aircraft in-country.) They need 5000 light armored vehicles for their ten divisions. They need enough precision, radar-assisted counter-battery artillery to suppress the constant mortar and rocket attacks on civilian and military targets. They should have 24 C130’s---and perhaps three squadrons of light ground attack aircraft. I mention these numbers not to be precise—but to give an order of magnitude estimation that refutes our current anemic effort. The ISF have taken horrendous casualties. We must give them the leverage to replace us as our combat formations withdraw in the coming 36 months.

Finally, we must focus on the creation of a regional dialog led by the Iraqis with US active participation. The diplomatic process in the short run is unlikely to produce useful results. However, in the coming five years---it will be a prerequisite to a successful US military withdrawal ---that we open a neutral and permanent political forum (perhaps in Saudi Arabia) in which Iraq’s neighbors are drawn into continuing cooperative engagement. A regional war would be a disaster for 25 years in the Mid-East. A continuing peace discussion forum may give us the diplomatic leverage to neutralize these malignant forces that surround and menace Iraq.

6. SUMMARY:

We have brilliant military and civilian leadership on the ground in Iraq. General Dave Petraeus, LTG Ray Odierno, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker have the country’s treasure and combat power at their disposal. Our cause is just. The consequence of failure will be severe.

The American people hold that the US Armed Forces are the most trusted institution in our society. The polls also show that domestic opinion is not calling for precipitous withdrawal. However, this whole Iraq operation is on the edge of unraveling as the poor Iraqis batter each other to death with our forces caught in the middle.

We now need a last powerful effort to provide to US leaders on the ground ---the political support, economic reconstruction resources, and military strength it requires to succeed.

Barry R. McCaffrey
General USA (Ret)
Adjunct Professor of International Affairs
USMA, West Point, NY

[kach22i]

Seahawk, thanks for posting that article. I think it is trying to sell a "big turn around", I wish I could believe.

Known as fact; the well organizined and well funded (though unaccounted US cash) the insurgents were told to stand down while the US does its "surge".

All predictions that once we leave they will rise up are correct. There is no stopping this; it's their history and culture.

We have all seen examples of "Arab Cowardice".

Surrendering in mass, running from fights, terrorism, hit and run.....................they don't see it as "Arab Cowardice".

They see it as "Arab Smarts".

It's smart to surrender to fight another day. It's smart to run from a fight if you are losing. It's smart to use terrorism when conventional means are not available. It's smart to "hit and run" a larger better-equipped enemy.

They think it's smarter to divide and conquer, and it's the only thing they know.

It’s a sad fact that the Iraqi’s are not brave enough to stand up for themselves, and we can’t force them to do it.

[Purrybonker]

Originally posted by kach22i


It’s a sad fact that the Iraqi’s are not brave enough to stand up for themselves, and we can’t force them to do it.

That statement qualfies you as a complete and total arrogant ass.

But, you know what? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt...

I'll carry on with coffee number 2.

[Seahawk]

Originally posted by kach22i
Seahawk, thanks for posting that article. I think it is trying to sell a "big turn around", I wish I could believe.

I won't disagree...but I felt the upfront analysis alone was worth the read.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by Purrybonker
That statement qualfies you as a complete and total arrogant ass.

But, you know what? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt...

I'll carry on with coffee number 2.

I've had good role models here.

A non-war example of "AC".

I know this good Arab engineer, nice guy well meaning and so on. Anyway once on a project (not mine) the builder decided to substitute a different kind of joist without telling or asking anyone and eventually the owner fired him for a host of reasons. The architect tried to help out the owner and new general contractor to get the project back on track, but the engineer no longer wanted anything to do with the project and would not even return phone calls. He was afraid to take on any additional liability from undocumented changes, and did not feel he could "catch everything".

Now, I can see the engineers point, but I also know about following through and "braving it" especially if someone is willing to pay for the services.

This is not an isolated incident, I grew up with Arabs, all tough guys until evenly matched or out matched. And always willing to pounce on a weakness or stab you from behind and kick you when your are down, and I don’t mean this in a figurative way either.

[Purrybonker]

Originally posted by kach22i
I've had good role models here.

I always bristle at generalizations of people's (particularly negative ones) characteristics or traits by ethnic (or any other) origin, particularly when these are passed down in judgement of those living in conditions that we can't even begin to imagine.

People are cowards, arseholes or exemplary human beings because of who they are, not because of where they were born or any other broad generalization.

I thought that this principle came into broad understanding and acceptance a few decades ago. Did you miss the memo?

[kach22i]

Originally posted by Purrybonker
I thought that this principle came into broad understanding and acceptance a few decades ago. Did you miss the memo?

Being PC has nothing to do with what I've said.

People are different all over the world, they have different values, different cultures.

What you and I may brand cowardice, Arabs would brand as smart or common sense.

What we see as practical compromise for the common good, they may see as contemptible weakness.

I am different from them, they are different from me. This message has been lost. There may be a common ground and common or mutual interest, just very important in knowing that we see things differently. At least as differently as democrats and republicans.

[Purrybonker]

Originally posted by kach22i
Being PC has nothing to do with what I've said.

Absolutely - and being a racist, a bigot or just plain prejudicial has nothing to do with being PC either.

Nor does it have anything to do with being a what?

oh, yeah an arrogant ass, I'll give in on the complete and total part now that I've banged down coffees 3 and 4.

Yep - you da man, you know when to call a spade a spade.

Hey, just make sure to send everyone here an invite to your 70th birthday party next year.