http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00980.html
The Smart Surge: Diplomacy
By Wesley K. Clark
Monday, January 8, 2007
The odds are that this week President Bush will announce a "surge" of up to 20,000 additional U.S. troops into Iraq. Will this deliver a "win"? Probably not. But it will distract us from facing the deep-seated regional issues that must be resolved.
The administration views a troop surge of modest size as virtually the only remaining action in Iraq that would be a visible signal of determination. More economic assistance is likely to be touted, but absent a change in the pattern of violence, infrastructure enhancement simply isn't practical.
Yes, several additional brigades in Baghdad would allow for more roadblocks, patrols and neighborhood-clearing operations. Some initial successes would be evident. But how significant would this be? We've never had enough troops in Iraq. In Kosovo, we had 40,000 troops for a population of 2 million. That ratio would call for at least 500,000 troops in Iraq; adding 20,000 now seems too little, too late.
Further, U.S. troops so far have lacked the language skills, cultural awareness and political legitimacy to ensure that areas "cleared" can be "held." The key would be more Iraqi troops, but they aren't available in the numbers required. Nor are the Iraqi troops reliable enough for the gritty work of dealing with militias and sectarian loyalties. Even if militia fighters in Baghdad can be temporarily suppressed, they could redeploy to continue the fight in other areas.
What the surge would do is put more American troops in harm's way, further undercut the morale of U.S. forces and risk further alienating elements of the Iraqi populace. American casualties would probably rise, at least temporarily, as more troops appeared on the streets -- as happened in the summer when a brigade from Alaska was extended and sent into Baghdad. And even if the increased troop presence initially frustrated the militias, it wouldn't be long before they found ways to work around the neighborhood searches and other obstacles, if they chose to continue the conflict.
Other uses for troops include accelerating training of the Iraqi military and police. But vetting these Iraqi forces for loyalty has proved problematic. So neither accelerated training nor adding Iraqi troops to the security mission can be viewed as though a specified increase in effort would yield an identical increase in return.
The truth is that the underlying problems are political, not military.
Vicious ethnic cleansing is underway, as various factions fight for power and survival. In this environment, security is unlikely to come from smothering the struggle with a blanket of forces -- and increasing U.S. efforts is likely to generate additional resistance, especially from Iraq's neighbors. More effective action is needed to resolve the struggle at the political level. A new U.S. ambassador might help, but the administration needs to recognize that the neoconservative vision has failed.
Well before the 2003 invasion, the Bush administration was sending signals that its intentions weren't limited to Iraq; "regime change" in Syria and Iran was often discussed in Washington. Small wonder then that both countries have worked continuously to feed the fighting in Iraq.
Dealing with meddling neighbors is an essential element of resolving the conflict in Iraq. But this requires more than border posts and threatening statements. The administration needs a new strategy for the region, before Iran gains nuclear capabilities. While the military option must remain on the table, America should take the lead with direct diplomacy to resolve the interrelated problems of Iran's push for regional hegemony and nuclear power, the struggle for control of Lebanon, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Isolating our adversaries hasn't worked.
Absent such fundamental change in Washington's approach, there is little hope that a troop surge and accompanying rhetoric will be anything other than "staying the course" more. That wastes lives and time, bolsters the terrorists and avoids facing up to the interrelated challenges posed by a region in crisis.
The writer, a retired Army general and former supreme allied commander of NATO, is a senior fellow at UCLA's Burkle Center for International Relations.
Escalation
Escalation
[size=75]You are as bad as Alan, and even he hits the mark sometimes. -charlie
"Not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservative." - John Stuart Mill[/size]
"Not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservative." - John Stuart Mill[/size]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-soltz ... 38190.html
Jon Soltz
01.09.2007
All Roads to Iran
Why? That is what I have been asking myself all week. Why are we going to escalate the war in Iraq?
Twenty thousand more troops in Iraq won't secure Iraq, and probably not even Baghdad. The numbers are so simple, I can't believe that politicians are even willing to risk their careers for a security mission that can't be accomplished.
When I served in Kosovo, we protected a Serbian church for six months. We had 40,000 troops to protect 200,000 Serbs that needed our protection. That is a ratio of 1 soldier for every 5 civilians. In Iraq, escalating the war from 130,000 troops to 150,000 troops will do little to secure a country of 26 million.
The idea that going to door to door in Baghdad will make a difference is even more ridiculous. Not only was a Stryker Brigade extended in Baghdad several months to unsuccessfully secure the city, but we have gone door to door in other cities such as Fallujah, only to return later because we couldn't seize and hold terrain. Securing Iraq would require 500,000 troops for 7 to 10 years. So why are we going to send more troops to Iraq for a mission that can't be accomplished without diplomacy?
Last fall, the USS Eisenhower was sent to the Gulf, and this week it was reported that the USS John C. Stennis battle group is also to be deployed to the region. Add to that that last week Admiral Fallon was nominated to replace Gen Abizaid as the head of Central Command, which has the war fighting responsibility for the Middle East. Traditionally it's commanded by the Army and Marine Corps, which would make sense considering the extensive ground combat operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan. So why take the Pacific Commander and insert him into commanding two ground operations, while building up our naval presence in the region?
Iran.
During the past two months, since Republicans lost control of Congress because of Iraq, the Bush Administration has at times made some mind boggling decisions unless you assume the obvious -- that they are preparing to target Iran.
With the American military drastically over-extended in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are no viable ground options for Iran. The current operational plans for striking nuclear facilities in Iran will almost certainly be naval and Air Force operations. With Admiral Fallon being an aviator, it is an operation he is well suited to plan, prepare, and execute. His nomination is nothing less than a signal to the American public that the Bush Administration is preparing to launch strikes at Iran.
If the United States strikes Iran, the Iranians will continue this fight, but maybe not the way the public is expecting. Their best assets are their two large militias that they control outside of Iraq. The first is Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. Any attack on Iraq will certainly lead to regional conflict with the Israelis. The second is the Mahdi Army inside of Iraq. They are loyal to the anti-American cleric Muqtada Al Sadr, who will also almost surely again rise up to fight American forces inside of Iraq.
In April of 2004, Mr. Sadr's forces revolted against American forces and precipitated a month of bloody combat.
There are just enough US Forces in Iraq to keep just enough security to prevent a larger scale civil war. There aren't troops in the country for any additional offensive or defensive operations; just enough to hold our current battle space. During our confrontation with Sadr's forces in 2004, a pumped up 1st Armored Division with 20,000 troops was extended an additional four months in order to deal with the Mahdi Army.
Does 20,000 troops sound familiar?
It's not enough to secure Iraq, but it may be just enough to deal with the Mahdi Army if we deicide to strike Iran.
Politically, it all ads up. Short of the politically risky move of cutting off funding for all military operations, there is nothing the Democratic Congress can do to control these troop deployments. This allows this administration to demonstrate to the public that the White House -- and not the new Democratic Congress -- is in fact "really in charge."
Yet, there is still one sliver of hope. Congress can assert itself by strongly supporting a bill that Senator Ted Kennedy will introduce today, that will require new authorization from Congress before the President can escalate the war and prepare for a strike against Iran. It's likely that the bill will be vetoed by the President, so this bill will need widespread support. There are very few second chances in life, but the Kennedy bill will give one to those who voted to give the President a blank check in 2002. This is their last chance to reclaim their oversight power, do right by the Troops, and represent the will of the people.
Will they do so? Call your Senator and Congressman and ask them. The Capitol Switchboard is 202-224-3121.
Jon Soltz is a powerful leader in the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans community and is originally from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. From May to September 2003, Soltz served as a Captain during Operation Iraqi Freedom, deploying logistics convoys with the 1st Armored Division. During 2005 Captain Soltz was mobilized for 365 days at Fort Dix New Jersey, training soldiers for combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. He also served his country with distinction in the Kosovo Campaign as a Tank Platoon Leader between June and December 2000. Soltz is a graduate of Washington & Jefferson College with dual degree in Political Science and History.
Jon Soltz
01.09.2007
All Roads to Iran
Why? That is what I have been asking myself all week. Why are we going to escalate the war in Iraq?
Twenty thousand more troops in Iraq won't secure Iraq, and probably not even Baghdad. The numbers are so simple, I can't believe that politicians are even willing to risk their careers for a security mission that can't be accomplished.
When I served in Kosovo, we protected a Serbian church for six months. We had 40,000 troops to protect 200,000 Serbs that needed our protection. That is a ratio of 1 soldier for every 5 civilians. In Iraq, escalating the war from 130,000 troops to 150,000 troops will do little to secure a country of 26 million.
The idea that going to door to door in Baghdad will make a difference is even more ridiculous. Not only was a Stryker Brigade extended in Baghdad several months to unsuccessfully secure the city, but we have gone door to door in other cities such as Fallujah, only to return later because we couldn't seize and hold terrain. Securing Iraq would require 500,000 troops for 7 to 10 years. So why are we going to send more troops to Iraq for a mission that can't be accomplished without diplomacy?
Last fall, the USS Eisenhower was sent to the Gulf, and this week it was reported that the USS John C. Stennis battle group is also to be deployed to the region. Add to that that last week Admiral Fallon was nominated to replace Gen Abizaid as the head of Central Command, which has the war fighting responsibility for the Middle East. Traditionally it's commanded by the Army and Marine Corps, which would make sense considering the extensive ground combat operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan. So why take the Pacific Commander and insert him into commanding two ground operations, while building up our naval presence in the region?
Iran.
During the past two months, since Republicans lost control of Congress because of Iraq, the Bush Administration has at times made some mind boggling decisions unless you assume the obvious -- that they are preparing to target Iran.
With the American military drastically over-extended in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are no viable ground options for Iran. The current operational plans for striking nuclear facilities in Iran will almost certainly be naval and Air Force operations. With Admiral Fallon being an aviator, it is an operation he is well suited to plan, prepare, and execute. His nomination is nothing less than a signal to the American public that the Bush Administration is preparing to launch strikes at Iran.
If the United States strikes Iran, the Iranians will continue this fight, but maybe not the way the public is expecting. Their best assets are their two large militias that they control outside of Iraq. The first is Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. Any attack on Iraq will certainly lead to regional conflict with the Israelis. The second is the Mahdi Army inside of Iraq. They are loyal to the anti-American cleric Muqtada Al Sadr, who will also almost surely again rise up to fight American forces inside of Iraq.
In April of 2004, Mr. Sadr's forces revolted against American forces and precipitated a month of bloody combat.
There are just enough US Forces in Iraq to keep just enough security to prevent a larger scale civil war. There aren't troops in the country for any additional offensive or defensive operations; just enough to hold our current battle space. During our confrontation with Sadr's forces in 2004, a pumped up 1st Armored Division with 20,000 troops was extended an additional four months in order to deal with the Mahdi Army.
Does 20,000 troops sound familiar?
It's not enough to secure Iraq, but it may be just enough to deal with the Mahdi Army if we deicide to strike Iran.
Politically, it all ads up. Short of the politically risky move of cutting off funding for all military operations, there is nothing the Democratic Congress can do to control these troop deployments. This allows this administration to demonstrate to the public that the White House -- and not the new Democratic Congress -- is in fact "really in charge."
Yet, there is still one sliver of hope. Congress can assert itself by strongly supporting a bill that Senator Ted Kennedy will introduce today, that will require new authorization from Congress before the President can escalate the war and prepare for a strike against Iran. It's likely that the bill will be vetoed by the President, so this bill will need widespread support. There are very few second chances in life, but the Kennedy bill will give one to those who voted to give the President a blank check in 2002. This is their last chance to reclaim their oversight power, do right by the Troops, and represent the will of the people.
Will they do so? Call your Senator and Congressman and ask them. The Capitol Switchboard is 202-224-3121.
Jon Soltz is a powerful leader in the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans community and is originally from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. From May to September 2003, Soltz served as a Captain during Operation Iraqi Freedom, deploying logistics convoys with the 1st Armored Division. During 2005 Captain Soltz was mobilized for 365 days at Fort Dix New Jersey, training soldiers for combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. He also served his country with distinction in the Kosovo Campaign as a Tank Platoon Leader between June and December 2000. Soltz is a graduate of Washington & Jefferson College with dual degree in Political Science and History.
[size=75]You are as bad as Alan, and even he hits the mark sometimes. -charlie
"Not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservative." - John Stuart Mill[/size]
"Not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservative." - John Stuart Mill[/size]
