Gens. Lynch, Mixon: Drawdown would be disastrous
posted at 12:30 pm on July 6, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
The question isn’t whether withdrawal is going to hurt the military’s ability to secure Iraq. Everyone knows that it will, including Domenici, Lugar, Warner, Voinovich, and whichever other Republicans are set to abandon ship. The question, given the fact that the surge isn’t going to last forever, is whether the territory now being gained and the areas being secured can be held by a pre-surge number of troops once the surge is over or whether we’re destined to lose that territory the way we’ve lost it so many times before. If we are, then what will keeping a large force achieve? You can lose with 40,000 troops as easily as with 120,000.
Responding to a question from CNN Senior Pentagon Correspondent Jamie McIntyre in a video briefing, Iraq Commander Major General Rick Lynch said, “Those surge forces are giving us the capability we have now to take the fight to the enemy. And the enemy only responds to force and we now have that force. We can conduct detailed, kinetic strikes, we can do cordon and searches, and we can deny the enemy the sanctuaries. If those surge forces go away, that capability goes away, and the Iraqi security forces aren’t ready yet to do that. So now what you’re going to find, if you did that, is you’d find the enemy regaining ground, re-establishing the sanctuary, building more IEDs, carrying those IEDs in Baghdad and the violence would escalate. It’d be a mess.”
General Lynch said the extra forces are needed to “mature the situation” and allow them to turn areas over to Iraqi security forces so they can start withdrawing US troops, but “that’s not going to happen any time soon.”
Gen. Mixon, speaking specifically of Diyala, makes the same point:
Maintaining security in Diyala province north of Baghdad will be impossible if U.S. troops are withdrawn from Iraq, according to a U.S. senior ground commander there.
“We obviously cannot maintain that if the forces are withdrawn — and that would be a very, very bad idea, to do a significant withdrawal immediately,” Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, commander of U.S. forces in northern Iraq, told CNN’s Jamie McIntyre on CNN.com Live…
“Now I have enough force to go in, establish permanent compound outposts throughout the city that will be manned by coalition forces, Iraqi army, and Iraqi police, and maintain a permanent presence.
“But all of this has been made possible with the additional forces that have been given to me as a result of the surge,” Mixon said…
“We would like to see things move along more quickly. However, a counterinsurgency operation is a long fight,” he said. “We’re going to have to develop a strategy in the near term to deal with the immediate threat, which I believe the surge has done.”
It sounds like they’re saying we need to sustain surge-level forces indefinitely, but even if we had the political will to do that we apparently don’t have the manpower. Exit question: What exactly are they asking for here?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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
Comment pages:
“Patience.”
Nonfactor on July 6, 2007 at 12:39 PM
The problem is the ‘Iraqi security forces’ necessary to make this plan succeed. Yeah, we can stabilize the region, but when the people are so rotten that they can’t make it work on their own, what then?
PRCalDude on July 6, 2007 at 12:45 PM
What exactly are they asking for here?
They are asking for the tools to achieve victory. Since the invasion of Iraq our commanders have said we do not have enough troops to control all of Iraq. This is where Bush has failed. You do not fight a war on the cheap.
If we do not have enough troops to win bring up the draft and get the required boots on the ground.
unseen on July 6, 2007 at 12:47 PM
David Kilcullen — who has been through Islamic insurgencies and is now advising Gen. Petraeus — has been talking about recruiting more Iraqi Soldiers and increasing their divisions from 11 to 20. And as he’s in Iraq right now, I doubt he would be recommending it if he thought the people were too rotten to make it work.
Karl on July 6, 2007 at 12:49 PM
PRCalDude on July 6, 2007 at 12:45 PM
The problem is the ‘Iraqi security forces’ necessary to make this plan succeed
No the problem is the President has had his head up his a** for years. We should have had twice as many troops on the ground since day one. We should be using the oil rev to help pay for the invasion and we should be shutting down the borders between Syria and Iran.
We should be training the Iraq army also but our first requirement is to impose our will on the country. After that the training will be easier.
unseen on July 6, 2007 at 12:51 PM
I’m all for that. Let’s begin by drafting in San Francisco. :)
Guardian on July 6, 2007 at 12:54 PM
As the security situation improves, as there are less casualties, and as life in the towns and cities starts coming back into some semblance of normal, it because less of a strain to have the troops stationed there. Serving in Iraq becomes less of a morale issue, it becomes less costly in terms of equipment, ammunition, and other logistics, etc.
While I would agree that at the current pace of activity it would be difficult to impossible to keep troop levels as they are indefinitely, if things begin to settle down quite a bit, it shouldn’t be as big of a problem.
One thing we must NOT do under any circumstances is abandon the people in Diyala again. If we abaondon the people of Baqubah after ejecting AQI a second time, it is all over. AQI will be back for good if we do that.
crosspatch on July 6, 2007 at 12:54 PM
You can safely ignore the doom-mongering CSM piece. Retention rates are actually highest among Iraq vets.
Every month the ISF get more numerous and more professional, as the chaff is winnowed and more recruits are trained. It’s just a matter of time till we get enough permanent outposts firmly established with ISF that can hold them. Probably the end of the next year there will be enough security we can leave without a bloodbath following our exit.
TallDave on July 6, 2007 at 12:56 PM
We don’t have the troops for it. Already, my cousin is there a third time, this time for 15 months.
One of my friends who is enlisted says that the rules of engagement are still so ridiculous that people are getting charged with murder left and right for defending themselves. If we had taken the WWII approach to warfare since day 1, we wouldn’t be having this problem. But our flag officers and governmental elites can’t seem to dispense with the political correctness necessary to win this war.
On top of that, the people are Islamic. They’ll do whatever their sheiks and imams tell them to do. Britain ran into the exact same problem in the 1920s in Mesopotamia.
PRCalDude on July 6, 2007 at 12:59 PM
What are they asking?….
They aren’t asking, they are telling. Military solution is ‘X’. Less then ‘X’ is not sustainable. They are laying out what the military needs, not what the country ‘wants’ to hear. Time to grow up America. Take the battle to the enemy or man the battlements, you can’t do both.
Limerick on July 6, 2007 at 1:02 PM
they are asking permission to take the gloves off.
Political will for, um, reinforcements is not the same as political will to use it.
cadetwithchips2 on July 6, 2007 at 1:04 PM
Maybe they should be asking for a draft then.
PRCalDude on July 6, 2007 at 1:05 PM
FTFY.
Sorry, but since Vietnam, the word ‘Draft’ has become utter political poison. And its not just the Boomers and Xers, its people my age too. My age group has largely been raised and taught in schools to believe that the draft was just slightly less horrible than the Holocaust on the injustice scale. I’m exaggerating, but not as much as you might think.
Bad Candy on July 6, 2007 at 1:06 PM
I’m all for that. Let’s begin by drafting in San Francisco
Guardian on July 6, 2007 at 12:54 PM
They could be on the front,front,front lines.
unseen on July 6, 2007 at 1:08 PM
Draft????…with a 50/50 attitude about the war in the first place? Never happen.
I served in both systems. The political divide in the country at the end of the last draft made the Army one sorry outfit. It took a while to shake out the all volunteer Army but it is much better.
Limerick on July 6, 2007 at 1:10 PM
We don’t have the troops for it. Already, my cousin is there a third time, this time for 15 months.
PRCalDude on July 6, 2007 at 12:59 PM
Then call up the draft. Get the boots on the ground and win the damn war. Change the ROE if needed. Send the laywers to the front lines. They can talk the enemy to death. The bottom line is Bush needs to be commander-n-Cheif and win the damn war instead of playing politics.
unseen on July 6, 2007 at 1:12 PM
Under promise, over deliver.
And an iPhone for everyone, should do it. :)
Bacchus on July 6, 2007 at 1:13 PM
unseen, you call up a draft there will an opposition to it that’ll make our amnesty opposition look like a bunch of amateurs. Drafts are no longer politically feasible. We’ll turn Iraq into a smoldering crater before we make a draft.
Bad Candy on July 6, 2007 at 1:15 PM
To do their job!!
Of course, Harry Reid will say they’re lying!
Tennessee Dave on July 6, 2007 at 1:16 PM
Sorry, but since Vietnam, the word ‘Draft’ has become utter political poison.
Bad Candy on July 6, 2007 at 1:06 PM
Again you do not win a war by being political. You win the war by winning the war. While I agree with you a draft would cause issues in the counrty it is probably what is needed to win the war. If Bush does not have enough b***s to do what is needed the least he can do is raise the wage in combat zones to enlist more people to sign up. I’m sure there is some compromise between an all out draft and a withdrawal of the surge.
unseen on July 6, 2007 at 1:17 PM
I was thinking we could air drop them into the Anbar province suspended beneath psychedelic parachutes and have them decked out in tie dyed uniforms. Shoot anyone who isn’t lying on the ground laughing their ass off.
Guardian on July 6, 2007 at 1:21 PM
unseen, we live in a democracy, politics is part of the equation. You can’t void it unless we move in a dictatorial direction. I agree wages should be upped for military service, but a draft is a no-go. That’s all I’m saying.
Bad Candy on July 6, 2007 at 1:22 PM
I’m not aware of many commanders that would actually welcome a draft, irrespective of political feasibility.
It took 30 years to purge the services of drugs. would we draft felons?
If we’re talking numbers, what we ought to do is some deep soul searching: allow women into combat arms? ditch the “dont ask dont tell” policy?
say what you will, and there are far reaching effects to either, but we are at war, and we’ve lost good people to policies that may be considered perfectly reasonable in peacetime.
just throwing it out there
cadetwithchips2 on July 6, 2007 at 1:24 PM
Bad Candy on July 6, 2007 at 1:15 PM
and
Limerick on July 6, 2007 at 1:10 PM
If we are in a war for our society’s survival than it is our leaders duty to lead us. If we all need to fight then we all need to fight. The main problem with the war on terror is that the vast majority of Americans have no dog in the fight. They are not called for any sacrifice.
Like I said above a draft may be the last solution and there maybe some compromise in between the two. however I point out a draft to those that say we can’t win the war because of a lack of troops. We have the means to get the troops. The problem with Iraq is not a lack of troops it is a lack of Leadership and a lack of political will to do what is needed. I am tired of all the “we can’t” talk.
unseen on July 6, 2007 at 1:25 PM
Guardian on July 6, 2007 at 1:21 PM
that could work.
unseen on July 6, 2007 at 1:26 PM
Hasn’t many of our military’s leaders basically said they don’t want a draft? That they want an all volunteer force? I think unseen has a point about raising the wage though. Being a soldier ought to confer a lot more benefits than it does. There’s a spending bill even the Democrats couldn’t vote against. Call it like the GIs Get A Raise and Better Benefits Act and watch it sail through Congress.
apollyonbob on July 6, 2007 at 1:30 PM
Boots on the ground are never going to be enough. You can lead a horse to water… The reality is, we can never secure that country, without brutal collateral-damage type force, and that will never ever happen.
bmac on July 6, 2007 at 1:33 PM
For how long would you draft someone? How much training can you fit into that ‘acceptable time frame for mandatory service’ and still use them in combat?
We don’t need partially-trained cannon fodder. We need motivated professionals who want to be there and have the tools and training to do the job. We need the authority to increase end strength and whatever funding is required to attract volunteers to serve in that capacity.
Realistically, winning a war with draftees isn’t even possible anymore. The requirements of modern warfare have evolved beyond the ability for people to be able to just pick it up as they go along.
So there you have it…the word ‘Draft’ has become utter military poison.
James on July 6, 2007 at 1:35 PM
unseen, we live in a democracy, politics is part of the equation
Bad Candy on July 6, 2007 at 1:22 PM
No, we live in a republic. The founders understood that there would be times that our leaders would have to do some things that we would not like for the greater good of our country. The Congress and the President could call up the draft without the input of the citizens if they thought that was what was needed. They would most likely lose their positions come election day but if that is what is needed that is what is needed.
I agree with you that the polictical will is not there because our leadership is staffed with cowards and blowhards unable to make decsions. That does not mean it can’t be done. It just means that we are leaderless in times of great uncertainity.
The draft should have been called up on 09/12/07 and we should have marched from the tip of North Africa to Indonesia. Drainig the swamp as we went. The war would have been over by now and all of human civilization would have been better off. Instead, we have been selective and have allowed our enemies to arm and to form partnerships with great countries. This will lead to great conflicts in the years ahead. There is still a window to avoid a great and costly world war with billions dead but the window is fast closing. If we do not show the will to defeat our enemies now it will only get worse. History tells us so.
But like others say there are points between the status quo of today and the draft. We should push those options to the edge of the envelope and do what is needed to win.
unseen on July 6, 2007 at 1:41 PM
Unseen, people would sooner turn the Middle East into a series of smoldering craters with a WWII style conventional air campaign than actually get in nasty urban warfare on that massive scale, so many people have been absolutely poisoned to the idea of a draft, you would probably get full scale riot or even revolt and refusal to obey draft orders trying to enforce it. Truly. I can’t emphasize how bad a reaction to a draft would be.
Bad Candy on July 6, 2007 at 1:50 PM
we can never secure that country
bmac on July 6, 2007 at 1:33 PM
There is nothing on earth that can not be done if you have the will to see it done. If we can link the Alantic and Pacific oceans, if we can put a man on the moon, if we can conquer small pox and polio, if we can defeat Germany and Japan, if we can build an instrument to see the smallest piece of matter, if we can harness the power of nuclear fission, if we can learn the power of flight, then we can secure a damn piece of earth the size of CA. Will we have 100% peace? No. We do not have 100% peace in CA or NY. But we can SECURE the country.
Our people have forgotton the greatness of this country. I blame the teachers and PC. We are the GREATEST country in the history of the world. Yet you tell me we can’t secure a piece of rock? the Romans, the British, the Ottoman empire and Sadamm were all able to secure this piece of rock and yet we can’t? Please…..
unseen on July 6, 2007 at 1:51 PM
For how long would you draft someone? How much training can you fit into that ‘acceptable time frame for mandatory service’ and still use them in combat?
James on July 6, 2007 at 1:35 PM
Until we have VICTORY. Does anyone understand the concept of Victory anymore?
unseen on July 6, 2007 at 1:53 PM
unseen on July 6, 2007 at 1:41 PM
You are largely correct. But even without a draft, there is much to be accomplished at home. We need to reinvigorate the concept of the Citizen Soldier for the war on the homefront. Bush et al said go about your business during the war on terror. that was the opposite of what needed to be said.
We need to be our own leaders. Those in the beltway cant/wont.
Rumsfeld did well to reduce the ratio of combat soldiers to support staff. Why cant we take on the support roles like we did in WW2 and free up more soldiers to do the soldiering?
cadetwithchips2 on July 6, 2007 at 1:57 PM
unseen-
Of course securing that country is possible. My point was that unless we are willing to level 3/4 of Iraq, and take the political heat for it, all the troops in the world could continue this “policing” for decades to come, with the same result.
bmac on July 6, 2007 at 1:57 PM
I agree with unseen. So did General Patton.
Guardian on July 6, 2007 at 1:57 PM
Unseen, people would sooner turn the Middle East into a series of smoldering craters with a WWII style conventional air campaign than actually get in nasty urban warfare on that massive scale
Bad Candy on July 6, 2007 at 1:50 PM
If that is what it takes to win this war…
What happens to our freedoms, our liberties, our way of life when the clouds appear above American cities. Do you think a draft will not be called then?
unseen on July 6, 2007 at 1:58 PM
Guardian on July 6, 2007 at 1:57 PM
Patton was a great American HERO. We need more of his children in this day and age and less of Chamberlian’s and Meade’s
unseen on July 6, 2007 at 1:59 PM
When you’re in a tough fight and a precarious political situation a drawdown is just stupid.
A certain number of casualties can occur in normal engagement operations but to increase the casualty rate by leaving troops short of backup is remarkably idiotic.
Setting up American service men and women as sitting duck targets is beneath despicable.
Speakup on July 6, 2007 at 2:01 PM
bmac on July 6, 2007 at 1:57 PM
Which society would you rather have? A 7th century one or our society? What makes you think that if Iraq is exposed to our society they will not chose the same thing. If we give them law and order to make that decsion and if we celebrate our society instead of hiding it because we don’t want to “offend” someone’s beliefs the war would be over by now.
unseen on July 6, 2007 at 2:03 PM
unseen-
I don’t quite understand your post, but I think they will not choose the same thing, because something we fail to understand is that they are fundamentally different than us. They are not Americans in funny clothes. Before you say something like “all people want freedom”, please understand, sometimes they don’t.
bmac on July 6, 2007 at 2:11 PM
I better, or else they’ve wasted 20 years on me. The only thing is, it isn’t what you’re describing.
You make some good points, especially regarding the ROEs. You also make some astoundingly bad points about bringing the war to those nations who aren’t in it, even tangentially.
James on July 6, 2007 at 2:12 PM
cadetwithchips2 on July 6, 2007 at 1:57 PM
All good points. We do need to get the majority of American into the fight somehow.
Bush has made so many mistakes. He has based his decsions mostly on political points, from immigration, the WOT, the budget, spending, SS withdrawal. If instead he did what he thought was right without regards to politics things would be different today.
It was his fear of repeating his father’s one term that drove most of his early decsions and his desire for a “legacy” that drove his last two years.
unseen on July 6, 2007 at 2:13 PM
The answer may lay elsewhere. I would hope we are training some Special Forces Iraqi types. It will then be incumbent upon the Iraqi government to get them the equipment necessary to carry out quick strike missions when a threat appears and the ability to continue training their own forces without our MTT teams. It seems the only way to combat the threat effectively is to strike hard and fast as soon as a threat is detected and no more of this wait and see if the locals handle it. It didn’t work in Fallujah and it didn’t work in Baquba so let’s get smart about this.
Boots on the ground may serve as a visible presence, but as we have seen it doesn’t act as a deterrent to the radical Islamic thugs. It may also involve more instances of Americans allowing the Iraqis to supply an Iraqi solution, however distasteful that may be. Rest assured though the human rights groups won’t condemn them since they are too busy messing with the US and Israel.
LakeRuins on July 6, 2007 at 2:14 PM
You also make some astoundingly bad points about bringing the war to those nations who aren’t in it,
James on July 6, 2007 at 2:12 PM
Syria, Iran are in the thick of it. Pakistian’s hands are filthy with blood in India and Afganistian. Saudi Arabi, Yemen, and others are activily funding resistence and spreading propganda. Sudan is in a hot war, the Horn of Africa is in a constant state of war.
People want to seperate the war in Iraq and Afgansitian but it is all connected. Libya is the model we should keep in mind. There fear caused them to come to the table. Victory settles many issues.
unseen on July 6, 2007 at 2:20 PM
LakeRuins on July 6, 2007 at 2:14 PM
That may be what is needed. Boots on the ground do provide law and order. Law and order is needed to stop the terrorists from gaining a toehold. If we do not know what is going on on the ground how can we or Iraqis react to it?
unseen on July 6, 2007 at 2:24 PM
Libya’s fear was right at the very beginning of our invasion of Iraq. The entire middle east was afraid…for about 3 weeks. Until they saw how we were going to fight this war, PC style. There is exactly zero fear of the U.S. now,and that is the problem.
bmac on July 6, 2007 at 2:27 PM
…includes a lot more than Syria, Iran, our (nominal) ally Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc.
James on July 6, 2007 at 2:38 PM
bmac on July 6, 2007 at 2:27 PM
and
bmac on July 6, 2007 at 2:11 PM
That is the problem I agree. We are not fighting to win.
As far as your other post. I am not talking about “freedom”. I am talking about our culture. Equal rights for all, wealth generation, food, household goods, etc. Even our porn could be used to bring people out of the dark ages. After all if not for porn there would be no internet like it is today.
I’m talking about selling our culture. Advertisment of the vices and virtures of our society. Instead our soldiers are told to keep their heads down so we don’t “offend”. Let’s give the people of Iraq a real choice not Sadamm lite or Islam lite but pure American capitalism and its Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness creed. Open up some nightclubs, some malls, and some red light districts. Give Al Queada a real reason to fight us instead of the supposed gender of vegtables, let’s give them full frontal nudity. Hell they may all die of heart attacks and do the job for us.
unseen on July 6, 2007 at 2:40 PM
General Mixon is a good man. My husband had the good fortune to work with him in a previous assignment and he’s really done great things with the 25th ID.
As for a draft-I didn’t want it when I was in (remember it was briefly bandied about during Desert Storm) and my husband or anyone else I know wants it back. Sure, once in a while they’ll say something like “punk kids who have no idea what sacrafice is, might do them good” but in reality, if you don’t want to be there, they don’t want you.
Bad Candy, I know you’re not exaggerating much.
Catie96706 on July 6, 2007 at 2:41 PM
James on July 6, 2007 at 2:38 PM
Yes it does. The line you are either with us or against us comes to mind. right now we have allowed the dems and the left and the rest our AMerica’s enemies to narrow the war while they continue to attack us from the sidelines. You can not wage a sucessful war while your enemies rearm in sancutary zones. We do not have to invade all those countries but we should be able to operate in all of them when our enemies show themselves. Make it hurt to be our enemies. A lot of those in the peanut gallary will stop kicking us in the ankle if we adopt this view.
unseen on July 6, 2007 at 2:44 PM
exactly! Post WWII the USA was simultaneously feared and respected because we fought to win. That was the golden age of America. Up till that point, “PC’ was unheard of. The language was victory. Period. People sacrificed willingly. We were rationed gasoline and lots of other things as well. Few complained.
Whenever I need to see a doctor, I go to the local VA hospital. I love to hear stories from the last of the real heroes of that time. These giants of men are leaving us as the PC crowd cements our country’s doom.
Guardian on July 6, 2007 at 2:46 PM
War is too serious to boil down to a ‘line,’ which is why I’m glad it’s more in my hands than in yours. I echo Catie’s point…I don’t want to command draftees.
For the record, though, I’m glad you understand how the ROEs are losing this war for us.
James on July 6, 2007 at 2:48 PM
We don’t need a draft, we need to make some budget decisions.
At the end of the Cold War, we had 18 active-duty army divisions. Today, with a larger population base to draw upon than we had in 1990, we have 10. Theoretically at least, it should be possible to nearly double the size of the army without resort to a draft.
If we wanted a larger army, all it would take is for Congress to authorize a force increase and raise the money to pay for it. We haven’t done this to any large extent for multiple reasons:
1. Lack of political will. On 9/12, if President Bush had asked Congress to authorize another 8 army divisions, he’d have probably gotten them. But he didn’t. And he can’t now, because his “political capital” is already spent.
2. Lack of army enthusiasm for a larger force. One of the benefits of a smaller army is that it can be much more choosy about who it takes. To raise another 8 volunteer divisions, with an unemployment rate at only 4.5%, would require either a massive pay increase or lowering the entry standards. Congress seems reluctant to raise the money, and the army isn’t interested in lowering recruit quality (which is why they’ve raised the enlistment age to 42 instead of dropping the enlistment standards).
3. The army is moving away from the division as the basic battle unit in any event. It’s now the brigade combat team that comprises the primary battle organization, and by reorganzing the old division structure the army is creating more brigades without increasing the overall number of personnel.
Could we use more active-duty soldiers? You bet. But nobody who is serious about the issue – not in Congress, or the Pentagon, or in the administration, or the general pubic – wants a draft to get them, and for good reasons.
It’s ultimately a question for Congress and the president to haggle over, specifically concerning money. We can find more volunteers to step forward, if we’re willing to make military service more competitive with the private sector.
Spurius Ligustinus on July 6, 2007 at 2:51 PM
unseen
Selling them our culture? You might as well try to convert them to christianity, that is, it will never happen. This is what I mean when I say we fail to understand they are NOT LIKE US. They will never want our culture. Unless of course you were joking.
bmac on July 6, 2007 at 2:56 PM
Then what is the point of requiring everyone to register for selective service if not for the purpose of drafting?
Guardian on July 6, 2007 at 2:57 PM
James on July 6, 2007 at 2:48 PM
War is based on lines. WW2 was boiled down to two words “unconditional surrender”. While geopolitical points must be factored in they should not lead the horse. The horse must be victory and those that fight against us no matter where they are located must be dealt with to achieve that victory.
Iraq would be won by now if Iran and Syria where not rearming our enemies and the rest of the Islamic world were not funding them.
unseen on July 6, 2007 at 2:57 PM
Lynch acknowledged the American public’s impatience with the pace of securing Iraq, but he cautioned against applying arbitrary dates and timelines in gauging success in a highly variable environment.
“I now have the forces I need to conduct that mission,” Lynch said. “What I can’t tell you is how long it’s going to take to secure the population and defeat sectarian violence.
“It’s going to take as long as it takes, and you just have to be sensitive to that,” he said.
bnelson44 on July 6, 2007 at 3:02 PM
bmac on July 6, 2007 at 2:56 PM
Why do you think this? Do you think our culture is worse than theirs? Our culture is like crack. The more you get the more you want. Look at Hollywood’s, pepsi’s, coke’s success around the world. Give them the choice. Export our culture wholesale into these lands. Sure the hardcore fraction will reject it. they already reject it. But the children, the young, the women, the minorities they will embrace and fight for it. Within 50 years the society will be much like ours. Germany and Japan are great examples of what exporting our culture can do.
unseen on July 6, 2007 at 3:04 PM
Good question; Jimmy Carter resurrected selective service registration when it was still possible that we could end up in World War III with the Soviet Union. The Soviets are gone, but selective service remains.
The draft is an anachronism. Not only would it be wildly unpopular if put into effect, but the advance of technology means that a highly trained force of technically savvy professionals can acomplish what used to take a much larger force to achieve. That’s why the army is loathe to lower the entry standards.
Spurius Ligustinus on July 6, 2007 at 3:09 PM
The draft is an anachronism. Not only would it be wildly unpopular if put into effect, but the advance of technology means that a highly trained force of technically savvy professionals can acomplish what used to take a much larger force to achieve.
Spurius Ligustinus on July 6, 2007 at 3:09 PM
Except for conflicts like Iraq where you need massive amounts of boots on the ground to contol law and order. I understand that “occupation” is a non PC word anymore but the fact remains you have to be able to control the battlefield after the fight to secure your victory. The USA army is the greatest fighting force in the world but it is a second rate power when it comes to occupation. We do not like to occupy another country it is against our views on freedom and liberty but it is a needed part of the armed services. And that service requires numbers not just the application of laser like force.
unseen on July 6, 2007 at 3:17 PM
unseen-
The islamic world is alot different than Germany or Japan. Besides, it’s not like Coke, Hollywood and porn have exactly improved our culture.
bmac on July 6, 2007 at 3:21 PM
Not to beat a dead horse, but Germany and Japan began to accept our culture only after they were brutally and decisivly nearly obliterated, causing them to re-think their entire culture. This is not happening in Iraq.
bmac on July 6, 2007 at 3:30 PM
I agree that we need more infantry; we became too enthusiastic with the “peace dividend” mentality in the 1990s and cut back too much in the force structure.
All I’m saying is that we should be able to produce the additional boots on the ground without drafting them.
Spurius Ligustinus on July 6, 2007 at 3:33 PM
Spurius Ligustinus on July 6, 2007 at 2:51 PM
For the record I am not for the draft as the first option. It should be the last option used but it still needs to be an option. As your post states there are more and better ways to get the required numbers of boots on the ground.
My point is that many are saying we can’t win because we do not have enough soldiers. Or that it can’t be done. I suggested the draft to put the lie to that point. It is not a matter of not enough troops, it is a matter of not enough poliical will to get the required troops.
There are many ways to get the number of troops: better pay, a call to arms by our leaders, and a draft are just some of them.
The debate should be what do we need to obtain victory not why we can’t achieve it. The Dems arguement: that the war is lost, that victory is immpossible, that Iraq is a tar baby that has no way out are all bogus. Bringing up the draft idea shows how bogus their arguement is. There is no reason why we can not win except the political will is not there.
If we lose this war the blame needs to be leveled at all those that did not do what was needed to win the war. REPs and Dems in Congress, the Media and the Whitehouse are at the top of that list.
unseen on July 6, 2007 at 3:34 PM
The islamic world is alot different than Germany or Japan. Besides, it’s not like Coke, Hollywood and porn have exactly improved our culture.
People are people are people. So what if they haven’t imporved our society. We are not trying to improve their societies we are trying to give them choices. You do not have “freedom” if you have no choice. Islam narrows the choices, we should expand those choices.
unseen on July 6, 2007 at 3:42 PM
We are going in circles here, may be time to move on…..
bmac on July 6, 2007 at 3:48 PM
bmac on July 6, 2007 at 3:48 PM
Maybe it is. I understand you point, I just don’t agree with it. Your central point says that a whole subsection of the human population is inherently different than the rest of it. History says differently.
unseen on July 6, 2007 at 3:59 PM
Fair enough unseen. Good day sir!
bmac on July 6, 2007 at 4:01 PM
Using a draft to just fill slots to have more boots on the ground is like having Hell’s Angels guarding the drug evidence locker for the police. I don’t disagree that there needs to be boots on the ground I just don’t agree that they have to be American boots. With todays high standards for induction into the military nowadays I doubt too many of them would get through the prescreening anyway. Too many Riatalin babies out there and with our government schools even fewer who could meet the academic standards.
/in spite of what Mssr Kerry would have you believe
LakeRuins on July 6, 2007 at 4:10 PM
We’re in overall agreement on the need to do what is necessary to win, which would include finding ways to sustain the “surge” until it has the desired long-term effect.
Bringing back the draft, however, would be counter-productive to that end. It would take an already increasingly unpopular war and make it so politically radioactive that whatever will remained to prosecute it would disappear almost overnight.
That’s why the only people in Congress who have proposed a draft have been Democrats who see the issue not in terms of a war strategy but as a cynical tool of domestic politics. I wouldn’t consider the draft as a last option, as much as not an option at all. Not if we’re interested in winning, anyway.
Spurius Ligustinus on July 6, 2007 at 4:14 PM
Spurius Ligustinus on July 6, 2007 at 4:14 PM
Good points. But I question if it is as radioactive as it seems. Yes I know conventional wisdom says it is but is that true? Would the American people allow the media and Dems to be so anti-military if their sons and daughters were in harms way?
The vast majority of miltary familes of today are incensed at the MSM and the Dems for their treatment of our military. What would the effect be if the vast majority of American familes had a stake in the fight?
Some of societal problems might actually be better with a draft. The gang problem comes to mind.
True the younger generation would probably be against it but would the majority of Americans be against it?
Anyone got any poll numbers on this?
unseen on July 6, 2007 at 4:42 PM
Jesus jumped-up Christ. Talking about a draft? And dismissing the idea because it’s [i]politically unpopular[/i] or [i]not tactically effective[/i]? How about unbelievably odious and authoritarian?
Just when I think things can’t get any more ridiculous.
rho on July 6, 2007 at 4:45 PM
bmac on July 6, 2007 at 4:01 PM
you too.
unseen on July 6, 2007 at 4:45 PM
How about unbelievably odious and authoritarian?
rho on July 6, 2007 at 4:45 PM
How so?
unseen on July 6, 2007 at 4:47 PM
bmac on July 6, 2007 at 4:01 PM
One final thing read this story and see if the Iraqi society is so different from ours:
http://michaelyon-online.com/wp/baqubah-update-05-july-2007.htm
Most Iraqis I talk with acknowledge that if it was ever about the oil, it’s not now. Not mostly anyway. It clearly would have been cheaper just to buy the oil or invade somewhere easier that has more. Similarly, most Iraqis seem now to realize that we really don’t want to stay here, and that many of us can’t wait to get back home. They realize that we are not resolved to stay, but are impatient to drive down to Kuwait and sail away. And when they consider the Americans who actually deal with Iraqis every day, the Iraqis can no longer deny that we really do want them to succeed. But we want them to succeed without us. We want to see their streets are clean and safe, their grass is green, and their birds are singing. We want to see that on television. Not in person. We don’t want to be here. We tell them that every day. It finally has settled in that we are telling the truth.
unseen on July 6, 2007 at 5:05 PM
unseen:
If you cannot see how the government forcing people to go and kill other people is odious and authoritarian then I cannot convince you.
What really chaps my ass is that I bet you were incensed by the Supreme Court decision WRT eminent domain.
rho on July 6, 2007 at 5:35 PM
unseen
It is my belief that the muslim world, including the Iraqis, are indeed inherently different than us. Their culture is based on Islam, which makes them different than the Japanese or Germans for example. Because of that, they will be resistant to change, especially to western values. History also shows, culture’s tend to change after some sort of cataclysmic event, like being all but wiped out by an invading force. My point was, this is not happening in Iraq, they are not facing extinction, or a war that is draining every resource in the country. Japan and Germany were so soundly and brutally destroyed, that the people were forced to re-think what got them to the brink of extinction. The muslim world is not facing this crisis, not even close. Until they are, I don’t believe they will want our culture or values, on a large scale.
bmac on July 6, 2007 at 5:51 PM
rho on July 6, 2007 at 5:35 PM
I believe that the government should have the power of eminent domain. I just don’t think the government should use that power for economic reasons to grow itself through growth of its tax base.
As far as a draft it is a DUTY for a countriy’s citizens to defend it. If you find that DUTY odious and authoritarian that’s your call.
We are at war with people that want to destroy our country. A victory for them in Iraq will hasten that destruction. A loss for them will help ensure our country’s survival. It is not a hard stretch to imagine our country may call us to the fight if needed.
Freedom does have certain obligations, true, but trying to argue that those obligations are a reason to not do them is illogical
unseen on July 6, 2007 at 6:02 PM
they will be resistant to change, especially to western values
bmac on July 6, 2007 at 5:51 PM
I agree with this. I also agree that change is easier when the society has been through a major event like WW2. However our own society is a great example of how change happens. 40 years ago we were a divided society by race. Now we have a mostly color blind society when it comes to employment, education, etc. True racism still survives to some degree but society of 2007 is totally different than the society of 1960. The society of the South in 1960 was basically the society that had exsisted since the founding of the country. It no longer exsits in any meaningful way.
unseen on July 6, 2007 at 6:10 PM
unseen
Yes, our society has changed in 40 years, but the difference is our value system is almost the polar opposite of the muslim world. Our self-worth is derived from love, work, and family. Their (not all, but most) self-worth is derived primarily by how good a muslim they are, and how loyal to their clan they are. These are not attributes that lead to a “progressive” society.
bmac on July 6, 2007 at 6:27 PM
unseen:
Truly, I would defend the country.
Sending conscripts to fight in Iraq is not defending the country except in the most circumspect manner. Using your argumentation you can justify the draft for any military excursion including Darfur or Somolia.
I don’t mind the country (by which you really mean the federal government) calling us to fight. I do mind the country (by which I really mean the federal government) ordering us to fight. If you stop using patriotic words, and use accurate ones, it sounds a lot less appealing:
“We should institute enforced conscription so that the United States federal government can have enough soldiers to engage in whatever foreign military excursions it deems appropriate.”
rho on July 6, 2007 at 7:02 PM
It’s Bush’s fault for now striking while the public fury was white hot.
He let it cool and now wants to hammer cold metal.
All you get is a maul bounced into the forehead and a sore wrist.
If he had called for 1 million men and women to volunteer on 9/12, he might have gotten 2.
If he had sent 500 troops to Iraq and acutally initiated true Shock ‘n Awe, the insurgents would never have isen …out of fear of the crazy, brutal, bloodthirsty infidel Cruisaders.
Instead, we got a pussyfooting invasion, a pussyfooting occuptation, and a pussyfooting control of the Syrian and Iranian borders.
And its hard to change from that to what should have been this late in the battle.
The spirit has gone from rage to diffidence.
And the indecisive in the west are not in the mood for admitting that we need to scrap all plans that have failed to win this conflict, so far.
And fight it hard, for real, to conquer Islamofascists everywhere that one of their jihadis raises his head.
Our fury will need to be rekindled.
Only a terrorist attack that dwarfs 9/11 will have a chance at doing that.
Till then, with Western politicians in denial, we are forced to fight with both hands tied behind our p.c. backs.
And watch our own soldiers go on trial for doing their best with these pussyfooting Rules of Engagement battling against an monstrously-ruthless and amoral enemy.
No better soldiers have ever served.
No weaker commanders have ever failed to served them well.
profitsbeard on July 6, 2007 at 8:45 PM
typo- not striking (instead of now) above…
profitsbeard on July 6, 2007 at 8:46 PM
and: 500k troops…
(Typing mad messes up the fingers)
profitsbeard on July 6, 2007 at 8:47 PM
Typing mad messes up the fingers)
profitsbeard on July 6, 2007 at 8:47 PM
I know the feeling.
unseen on July 6, 2007 at 9:35 PM
We should institute enforced conscription so that the United States federal government can have enough soldiers to engage in whatever foreign military excursions it deems appropriate.”
rho on July 6, 2007 at 7:02 PM
We could use those words. Or we could use these:
We should issue a mandatory call to arms so that the United States of America can have enough soldiers to win the generational struggle over jihad. Furthermore, a selfless service to the United States of America like miltary service will enable our citizens to truly treasure our great country as our founding fathers envisioned.
Yes words mean things. However the facts are the same. We are in a war. It matters to us and to the world wether we win or lose. Our leaders need to do whatever it takes to win the war.
Now is a draft a geart idea. No. As other posters have said there are other ways to increase our boots on the ground. But if all else fails and your country/government calls you answer the call. Wether it is “odious and authoritarian” does not enter into the discussion.
unseen on July 6, 2007 at 9:52 PM
Their (not all, but most) self-worth is derived primarily by how good a muslim they are, and how loyal to their clan they are. These are not attributes that lead to a “progressive” society.
bmac on July 6, 2007 at 6:27 PM
Is this due to who they are or because they have had no other choice in the last 1400 years? Give them the choice and like the other 80% of the people they will make the right one.
unseen on July 6, 2007 at 9:57 PM
But won’t drafted troops be demoralised entering a conflict perceived as failing? I mean I read somewhere that a lot of people joined the Vietnam peace movement because they didn’t want to be drafted.
aengus on July 7, 2007 at 7:18 PM
Comment pages: