Calling all military: Critique this Iraq plan
posted at 12:49 am on November 17, 2006 by Allahpundit
The author, Maj. Eric Egland, is soliciting comments on it from people who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan. His e-mail address is at the end of the piece. I like his bottom-up, wisdom-of-crowds approach; what conservative/blogger/conservative blogger worth his salt wouldn’t?
Seems like it would take a long time to implement, though:
THE U.S. MUST win in Iraq. This can be achieved sooner by making these six key course corrections. The top U.S. Army general recently announced plans to have the same number of troops in Iraq until at least 2010, so there is time to change regardless of what happens in the next congress, and change is urgently needed as public figures show October was the deadliest month for U.S. troops in Iraq.
The 2010 target was announced before the election, though. Even if the GOP had won, a full-force commitment for four more years when 60% of the public is already sour on the war simply isn’t realistic. If Egland’s plan were put in place immediately and showed dramatic results in very short order, then there might be a little play in the joints re: withdrawal dates. But how likely is that?
Egland’s plan is brick and mortar. An alternate plan by an unnamed retired senior officer was published tonight in Time magazine. It has a better grasp, I think, of what the time frame here really is and what our goals actually are: one year to strengthen the government as best we can and hammer the hell out of AQ and the Shiite militias. If everything works out, we start pulling out next winter having left Maliki and company with a fighting chance. If it doesn’t, we start pulling out next winter anyway having lost the war.
Call it the drywall plan.
Is the knot of killers in Iraq so thick that it’s become impossible to untangle, though? Somewhere between Hobbes’s state of nature and Ethniklashistan lies Baghdad:
“No single narrative is sufficient to explain all the violence we see in Iraq today,” Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the CIA director, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Wednesday.
Attempting to describe the enemy, Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, the DIA director, listed “Iraqi nationalists, ex-Baathists, former military, angry Sunni, Jihadists, foreign fighters and al-Qaeda,” who create an “overlapping, complex and multi-polar Sunni insurgent and terrorist environment.” He added that “Shia militias and Shia militants, some Kurdish pesh merga, and extensive criminal activity further contribute to violence, instability and insecurity.”
And on that note, over to you, military readers. Feel free to post your e-mails to Egland in the comments here if you like. My parting wish is that whatever happens, one way or another, we don’t leave until this guy is dead. Hopefully in as painful a manner as possible.
Update: Moran hit it on the head this morning, so I’m obliged to quote:
National polity has been shattered. It is doubtful whether even the 50,000 troops recommended by many observers – including Senator McCain – could restore any semblance of peace and security in the 4-6 months that General Abizaid says we have before the situation becomes irreversible. Unless we are willing to stay for 5-10 years with this level of commitment and expenditure of blood and treasure, I can’t see how the faith of the Iraqi people in government, in law and order, in civil society can be re-established.
I doubt whether there would be very much support in America for that kind of commitment. Especially since there is absolutely no guarantee that Iraq won’t devolve into a jungle anyway.
There is still good that can be done that has a small chance of improving the situation. Going after the militias with those additional troops would at least solve one of those macro problems that are bedeviling the Iraqi government.
Update: Krauthammer: “We have given the Iraqis a republic, and they do not appear able to keep it.” He blames Saddam.
Update: Those 20,000 troops? We might need them just to replace the coalition forces that could be heading home soon.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I like mutual assured distruction.
Yes, I know it’s MAD.
Kini on November 17, 2006 at 1:09 AM
Then again, I was just a dependent.
But my Father was in the military, does that qualify?
Kini on November 17, 2006 at 1:12 AM
It’s unrealistic that American troops can remain in Iraq for several more years. The only way Iraq can turn into a success story is for the people, themselves, ‘in order to form a more perfect union’ join together in a common cause of nationality and national identity. What can make that happen? What could bring common, every day Iraqi’s together under their flag to fight for the future of their country? Are they so damaged by years of tyrannical rule under Saddam that they still can’t see their way to freedom and self-rule? I believe they are. These people need to heal in an environment where they are not under constant attack from terrorists sent by Iran and Syria. Seal the freakin’ borders! Don’t let anyone in! Destroy the insurgents already there! More troops may be needed to make this happen, but, by God, just do it! There is no more time.
thedecider on November 17, 2006 at 1:12 AM
The forces we face out there are mobile, highly adaptable, loosely organized, and have little central authority. We are still stuck with a very top heavy type of military organization, where initiative is punished, and commanders are taught to be so risk-averse as to leave units completely paralyzed and unable to react.
The Soviets were thrown out of Afghanistan because of the same reasons, and if we don’t learn the lessons now, we’re doomed to repeat them.
His six-step plan goes a long way towards fixing the problems…
RustMouse on November 17, 2006 at 1:34 AM
I’ve been a civilian for 32 years now but Maj Egland’s approach would have made a lot of sense to me back in the day and I suspect things haven’t changed all that much in a lot of respects.
bdfaith on November 17, 2006 at 1:56 AM
btw, there’s an excellent Michael Ledeen post on NRO that has a lot of bearing on the topic under discussion here.
bdfaith on November 17, 2006 at 1:58 AM
Hello! This message needs to conveyed by American politicians as loudly as possible. “Muslims are not ready for self government. They need a dictator or a sultan. They simply are not capable.” Maybe a kick in the gumballs will spark some Arab nationalists to take up arms and fight for an ideal, fight for a nation.
Theworldisnotenough on November 17, 2006 at 2:00 AM
I agree, but a tad difficult under a Sharia’ish constitution. Just not going to happen, en masse. Also, national identity doesn’t mean anything under Islam. Islam is a religion, a culture and a state.
I think the damage is from Islam. Under Islam, self governance is not permitted. If it were, I think they would have figured out that Semtex belts aren’t that fashionable.
AZ_Redneck on November 17, 2006 at 2:12 AM
Retired Marine Col. Thomas Hammes has an interesting perspective, endorsing a form of 10-year plan as well, saying “let’s not make the same mistakes rushing out as we did rushing in.”
Hammes: We are not providing proper equipment for our troops in country… simply because we don’t want to spend the money. The equipment is backed up in our repair depots, and the repair depots are only working 8 hours a day. The administration will not authorize overtime.
Melissa Block: And how much more money would that take?
Hammes: Does it matter? We’re the richest country in the world, we’re asking young men and women to fight for us under our orders, and we’re telling them “yeah, but we really don’t want to pay overtime… that’s a little expensive.” It’s an immoral decision.
Constantine on November 17, 2006 at 2:21 AM
PDAs and sister cities.
Brilliant plan.
Vanya on November 17, 2006 at 2:29 AM
That’s all fine as far as it goes, but until we stem the flow of terrorist and militia support from Syria and Iran, no revision of strategy will bring peace to Iraq. And unless we lean on Russia and China, who have become Iran’s military and nuclear sugar daddies over the past several years, we will never contain Iran’s ambitions and stop their meddling in Iraq.
What we’re looking at as a local situation is really a move on the global power chessboard. Until we start addressing it as such, we’ll continue to be mystified at how little progress we’re making in Iraq.
geoff on November 17, 2006 at 2:39 AM
There are many ways to fight wars. We are trying head on now and that is a stalemate.
The invasion of Iraq acheived it objective. The removal of Saddam. We must disengage our troops and allow the Iraqis to stand up for themselves.
Since we are no longer tied to trying to stablized the government I say we remove threats to the government. Sadr for one and other militias must be hit hard as we withdrawl.
but Im not talking about falling back to Okinawa. We still have good friends in the region. Kuwait for one would welcome our troops there to keep out the insurgency tht might spread from Iraq. Also is the kurdish area that we could base in to watch iraq.
The insurgency thanks to the anti war and the democrats have made the US into the enemy. We must give the insurgency the chance to turn itself into the enemy. Its a shame we have to sacrifice some iraqi people but the Shiia and Sunni have already deceided that they want to war with each other.
The focus of defeat of any enemy is based on what his main strength is. For the insurgency it is their belief that they represent their religeon. To defeat that we must allow them to behave contrary to what their religeon preaches.
By removing ourselves from areas we arent welcome we remove US as the enemy. We got a bloody nose in Iraq. A boxer who does that stops going toe to toe and starts boxing. We must duck and bob and weave instead of going toe to toe.
Without a doubt Iran and Syria are involved in this war already. We must tax their ability to aid the insurgency. Embargoes against both countries will weaken them and weaken the insurgency.
So the strategy is containment. We move into more secure areas and allow the enemy to over extend then we hit back with out superior firepower when they are out of their element. We stablize as much of the region as we can and work to continue to weaken the enemy and his supporters.
William Amos on November 17, 2006 at 2:54 AM
It all boils down to geopolitics and dealing with realities. You cannot swat at flies forever without eventually trying to get at the source.
Russia and China, along with their proxies, Iran, Syria, and North Korea need to be dealt with in whatever manner works out best for us, so that we may neutralize the threat from that region permanently.
Eventually, this would also include Saudi Arabia, as they are primarily responsible for the Wahabbism that has been in large part responsible for encouraging and fomenting such as Bin Laden. Not to mention the monetary and other support that they have provided Islamic entities to work against us here in the U. S. – they are not our friends (duh!) and are not likely to be unless we demonstrate that we are serious about preserving our heritage and culture.
That is what the majority of these truly understand – strength equates to determination, unity, and purpose.
Anything else is perceived as weakness and will be exploited as it has been to a degree already.
We are in a battle for our culture, our civilization, and our way of life.
It will take all of us working together, but – we can make a difference – it is not too late.
If this takes the equivalent of a Pax Americana, then so be it – we must step up to the challenge!
Think about it!
Emmett J. on November 17, 2006 at 2:54 AM
Sounds good, except that the enemy is also here in our own back yard (literally). Sort of like the Pogo cartoon where he says, “I have met the enemy and he is us”.
As with any war, we must also battle those elements that would weaken us from within or suffer the same fate as the Ancient Roman Empire.
Emmett J. on November 17, 2006 at 2:58 AM
You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.
hillbillyjim on November 17, 2006 at 2:59 AM
We had had some defeats lately. The best solution to weakness at home is some victories.
We must create the battlefeild for those victories. Iraq isnt the place now. We must make the enemy come out from the rocks and into our gunsights. Cities in Iraq favor them to much.
William Amos on November 17, 2006 at 3:01 AM
No, but they have figured out that they do make a statement!
Islam is the real enemy.
Think about it – under the “traditional” Judeo-Christian systems, people have the freedom to even deny the existance of God. While we may or not agree, generally no one is upset enough to kill over what is a difference of opinion (belief). Women may dress as they please and even work (and more).
In Islam, the penalty for denying God’s existancewould be death. We already know how women are treated (without a peep from NOW or any other so-called “feminist” or “women’s rights” group). In fact, the very definition of Islam is, “submission”. How telling.
So the choice is clear – freedom or slavery – and we are still free to choose.
The real question is – which will we, collectively choose?
Emmett J. on November 17, 2006 at 3:07 AM
These folks are so conditioned to their very existence being dependant upon, and credited to, this Hitleresque regime that encouraged everyone to spy on everybody else, that not only killed dissenters, but their families as well, that made their daily existence DEPEND UPON Saddam and his thugs, and on, and on.
Where we are failing is in the war of ideas. The average Iraqi sees a blue zillion propaganda AQ videos to our one. Until we address this disparity, and get our message to the people to whom it matters the most, we are not going to prevail in this “hearts and minds” battle. We have to marshall all of our resources and combat these idealogues with better ideas and, yes, better propaganda.
hillbillyjim on November 17, 2006 at 3:09 AM
Where, then – Kabul, Riyadh, Dearborn? If the enemy comes out any further, they’ll be in our government –
too late – they’re here!
Emmett J. on November 17, 2006 at 3:11 AM
You have a very good point. We can do better.
Emmett J. on November 17, 2006 at 3:12 AM
You would think that America, with Hollywood and all of the left coast wizards could come up with a PR campaign that would win the hearts and minds of anyone, anywhere.
The truth of the matter is, sadly, that the majority of Hollywood and these so-called wunderkind do not see a victory for the USA as a victory for THEM.
They glory in putting themselves in opposition to “the man” and somehow finding a way to “overcome.” It’s all so tiresome. Predictable. And now, as it turns out, suicidal. But don’t think that’ll stop’em. Just ask them.
I’m probably not telling anyone here something that they don’t already know. As I have stated before: This Is Not A Drill.
hillbillyjim on November 17, 2006 at 3:28 AM
Asking for a flame here, but I think something needs said about all this.
We keep saying the Iraqis won’t stand up as long as we are there to do it for them, or words to that effect. However, everytime we hear of another suicide bombing, they are often outside either Police or Military recruiting stations, killing upwards of 50 Iraqis.
Yet, they keep coming and signing up.
Yes, there are problems, as there are in every war. Yes, tactics will change and sooner or later, we will leave. But, as long as I see Iraqis coming into recruting stations and facing the fear of another suicide bombing, I think there’s hope for them.
LewWaters on November 17, 2006 at 3:40 AM
Y’know? Something needs to be said here for the Peacenik regime. Why can’t we just get along, and that folderol.
Do you people not realise that you are going to be the FIRST targets of these people? That you are the easiest targets, therefore, the first to be taken out (with Minimal Damage)?? Don’t you see that you’re setting yourself up to be THE target?? DUMBASSES!!! Do you think for a second, that these barbarians will stop and think: Oh, he was thinking about being all liberal and shit, so let’s go ahead and spare this one. HAH!!! You stupid, stupid ignorant, and uninformed assholes. I hope we’ve got better than this to show the REAL enemies.
hillbillyjim on November 17, 2006 at 4:06 AM
Constantine,
I don’t know who Colonel Hammes is, but I live, work, and go to church near a major center of repair depot activities. I work for one contractor, have dozens of friends, former shipmates and acquaintances who work for various others, and I can assure you that such places DO NOT work eight hour days. Most work three overlapping 10-hour shifts, five or six days a week.
It’s so easy for someone to claim knowledge that they don’t actually possess, but that doesn’t make it so. (Agreed that could just as easily apply to me)
Freelancer on November 17, 2006 at 4:27 AM
Maj Egland’s plan seems solid from my perspective. And, unfortunately, that’s why it will never be implemented. It is very “brick and mortar,” and it simply takes too long. The American Republic has lost its staying power, especially in wars such as these, with a seemingly ungrateful local populace and active fifth column at home. This plan involves a much needed change of culture, one that is most definately possible but that would take far too long for the current political climate. This thing is still winnable, but I have to wonder at our will to win it. I was there in ’03, I remember the cheering crowds and the “God bless George Bush, God bless US Army” shouted at us from cars and streetcorners. The war was briliantly handled, the peace remarkably botched. Water under the bridge.
Anyhow, the “drywall plan,” as AP so succinctly puts it, has a little more wishful thinking than I’d like. It’s major flaw, though, is mentioning a time table to our enemies right off the bat. Major offensive or no, if they know they only have to hold out for one year, they will melt into the woodwork and disappear, only to reappear in greater force as the last of our birds departs the airfield. Also, it works on the assumption that A) the Iraqi government has some kind of overall control over it’s forces (sorry folks, it doesn’t), B) talking to the UN is more than “sound and fury, signifying nothing” (sorry folks, it ain’t), and that C) State will grow a backbone with regards to dealing with the Arabs (sorry folks, past history indicates otherwise). It sounds like a decent idea, but it simply won’t work! Too much wishful thinking, not enough ground-up fixes, and that bloody timeline that refuses to go away. The only workable points are increasing boots on the ground and going after the murderous b*stards where they live.
Now, I don’t claim to be an expert and the above is simply one man’s opinion. But speaking from my (somewhat limited, admittedly) experience and observations, of the two plans referenced here, only one has any serious chance of success. We need to take the slow road and ensure some degree of self sufficiency before we can safely leave, and that requires the monetary, tactical, strategic, and cultural changes outlined in Maj Egland’s plan. It’s not perfect, by any means, but it contains too many battle tested elements to be lightly cast off (tethered blimps, pushing authority and operational responsibility down, encouraging improvisation/innovation, dropping the peacetime mentality etc.). I, for one, hope we do implement something like that. If that means I’m back in the sandbox a time or two more, it’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make. I only hope the rest of the country feels the same…
Militant Bibliophile on November 17, 2006 at 4:49 AM
As an old Army Ranger etc., IMHO the problem isn’t the troop levels but the rules of engagement. We overwhelmingly crush the bad guys when we actually fight them, and could do the same with 1/10th the personnel in the region.
The politicians and lawyers and embedded leftist media apply THEIR idea of PC and cultural sensitivity to the missions of the military, rather than the military being able to adapt to the methods used by and effective against the culture with which they must deal.
Expecting our troops to do the job using the methods of dealing with sweet, well fed pet labradors when faced with a pack of rabid, starving hyenas makes the job nearly impossible even if Charlie Rangell started up the draft tomorrow and sent a MILLION troops in there.
LegendHasIt on November 17, 2006 at 5:02 AM
War by committee. Sounds like a doctrine only Chamberlain could love.
seejanemom on November 17, 2006 at 5:08 AM
I neve understood why the coalition forces stopped fighting so early, about three weeks into the invasion, after Bagdhad fell.
Sure, there have been some engagements, such as the retaking of Faluga, which seems like pure Public Relations and not legitimate, for the city still seems to be under the control of the terrorists, or was several times after we were told that it was re-taken.
The job was not finished. The enemy was not properly defeated. They were left alive and able to regroup.
I have been hoping that somehow the US could reengage and press for three to six months minimum, and kill a few thousand more from this resistance-terrorist collaboration, enough till real control was established.
Now that Iraq has its own government and is not coming through and establishing control itself, and now that the US has relinquished control to that Iraqi government, so much so that they are telling the US what to do, and actually trashing the US on the world stage, it appears to be too late for the US to turn around and go full tilt, blow things up and kill people, till the resistance is destroyed.
For example, I’d love to see Muktada al Sadyr and his militia pushing up daisies.
I don’t like seeing our soldiers used as ducks at a shooting gallery.
Let them get out their and fight!
William
William2006 on November 17, 2006 at 6:04 AM
Legend is right. P.C. is killing us.
I got out 15 tears ago and that might render my opinion irrelevent, but I think we DO need to send in more troops … and put them on the Syrian and Iranian borders. There they can stem the flow if weapons and jihadis AND preposition themselves for a thrust inside those two nations whom we are already at war with. They are well aware of the fact that they are at war with us, I just wish that we, America, Canada, Australia and the entire Western World would wake the hell up and realize it before it’s too late.
Tony737 on November 17, 2006 at 6:10 AM
Legend is right. PC is killing us.
Our society needs to define war. If we have to go to war it needs to be scorched earth not winning hearts and minds. Sounds extreme I know but we need to bulldoze every single structure, dynamite every single bridge, displace every single person. Then leave. Put out an ad at the U.N., free land, come and get it. If the bad guys want to take it back…let them…it will be a tent city for 200 years.
If it is war we need to do WAR….if it is not then stay home.
OK you can hammer me into the ground now people.
Limerick on November 17, 2006 at 8:06 AM
The only problem, HBJ, is that Hollywood wants us to lose. It’s the same with all the other libs; they want to see the military pull out, tails between their legs, to justify their ridiculous opinions of our great nation.
We need John Wayne; we have Sean Penn. What else can I say…
rmgraha on November 17, 2006 at 8:41 AM
I have been to Iraq twice. The only people there who deserve democracy is the Kurds. This is a cultural issue. The people don’t WANT democracy and they sure as hell won’t fight for it. There is too much corruption that is rampant in their culture. There is no sense of pesonal responsibility or work ethic. I could go on.. but I have to go to work. I’ll read that plan and post later.
BadBrad on November 17, 2006 at 8:46 AM
I like my plan for Iraq. It’s a guaranteed win no matter what.
frankj on November 17, 2006 at 9:12 AM
I am not really qualified to evaluate these plans. It seems to me that the public would embrace a plan that was reasonable, with clear metrics. The problem with this type of war is that there isn’t the clear sort of progress that is easy to define–one army advances, the other retreats, geography gained, geography lost. So other measures have to developed and communicated. Like it or not, the “trust me” days are long gone.
The civilian and the military leadership needs to be willing to re-evaluate and chuck out what hasn’t worked, and to start looking at short term wins, not some nebulous “when they stand up” objective.
honora on November 17, 2006 at 9:26 AM
LegendHasIt wrote: “As an old Army Ranger etc., IMHO the problem isn’t the troop levels but the rules of engagement.”
You’ll be interested to know that Ny Post columnist Lt. Col Ralph Peters (Ret.) agrees with you.
georgej on November 17, 2006 at 11:15 AM
I assumed Hammes was referring to depots in Iraq. It wouldn’t make sense to ship equipment back to the states for repair.
Constantine on November 17, 2006 at 11:16 AM
Being in the Navy I haven’t actually been feet dry in Iraq, however I have floated around in the Gulf during four deployments: Desert Storm, OIF, twice during Southern Watch and even scrambled to Somalia to support the Army during Blackhawk Down.
I agree with MAJ England’s assesment of what needs to be done. We need to make an all out push to rid Iraq of the insurgents and the Al Sadrs. Have a sit down with all of the leaders of the different factions and let them know that they are either part of the solution or a part of the problem and the consequences of remaining a problem.
Don’t let the public and the politicians determine the course of events in Iraq.
ic1redeye on November 17, 2006 at 12:08 PM
Limerick, this is no ‘hammering’ but your way is Plan B. We’re trying to set up a democracy who’ll fight along side of us. Turn enemies into allies, train them and let ‘em fight while we move onto the next target. If Plan A doesn’t work, THEN we go to Plan B. Nuke ‘em! Problem is, we kill the good guys along with the bad guys. There are thousands of people signing up to join the New Iraqi Army, MILLIONS of people voted, they WANT this to work. If it doesn’t, and we go to a non-nuclear Plan B, the terrorists will just turn the whole country into a training base. Buildings? Who needs ‘em? Afghanistan had very few buildings left standing and that mad it all the more perfectly suited for them. If we go to Plan B it’s gotta be nukes.
Tony737 on November 17, 2006 at 2:31 PM
Muslims are not capable of creating anything but tyranny. We need to get out, and play Sunni against Shia as long as we can.
PRCalDude on November 17, 2006 at 2:47 PM
Amen – there’s a phrase for this –
Total War!
and it must be fought to win, which is done by destroying the enemy.
Show the public what total war looks like and remind them that this is our fate if we do not fight decisively.
Our enemies will not worry about political correctness -
Neither should we!
Emmett J. on November 18, 2006 at 12:10 AM
Thought this was a pretty interesting article. Would be interested in the take of any of you military folks.http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/061120fa_fact
honora on November 18, 2006 at 9:27 AM
Well that didn’t work. Go to newyorker.com and click on the article by Peter Boyer called How Rumsfeld Revamped the Military and Lost Iraq, or something like that. (It says nasty things about Clinton so it can’t be all bad!!)
;^)
honora on November 18, 2006 at 9:30 AM