Military Analyst Martin van Creveld Calls for Bush's Impeachment

Martin van Creveld is really shrill!

Forward Newspaper Online: Costly Withdrawal Is the Price To Be Paid for a Foolish War By Martin van Creveld November 25, 2005: The question is no longer if American forces will be withdrawn, but how soon -- and at what cost.... Confronted by a demoralized army on the battlefield and by growing opposition at home, in 1969 the Nixon administration started withdrawing most of its troops in order to facilitate what it called the "Vietnamization" of the country.... [T]his is not a pleasant model to follow, but no other alternative appears in sight.

Whereas North Vietnam at least had a government with which it was possible to arrange a cease-fire, in Iraq the opponent consists of shadowy groups of terrorists with no central organization or command authority.... [S]imply abandoning equipment or handing it over to the Iraqis, as was done in Vietnam, is simply not an option.... [T]he new Iraqi army is less skilled, less cohesive and less loyal to its government than even the South Vietnamese army was.... Washington might just as well hand over its weapons directly to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Clearly, then, the thing to do is to forget about face-saving and conduct a classic withdrawal....

American forces will have to fall back on Baghdad. From Baghdad they will have to make their way to the southern port city of Basra, and from there back to Kuwait, where the whole misguided adventure began.... A withdrawal probably will require several months and incur a sizable number of casualties. As the pullout proceeds, Iraq almost certainly will sink into an all-out civil war from which it will take the country a long time to emerge -- if, indeed, it can do so at all. All this is inevitable and will take place whether George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice like it or not.... A continued military presence, made up of air, sea and a moderate number of ground forces, will be needed.

First and foremost, such a presence will be needed to counter Iran, which for two decades now has seen the United States as "the Great Satan." Tehran is certain to emerge as the biggest winner from the war -- a winner that in the not too distant future is likely to add nuclear warheads to the missiles it already has.... [A] divided, chaotic, government-less Iraq is very likely to become a hornets' nest. From it, a hundred mini-Zarqawis will spread all over the Middle East, conducting acts of sabotage and seeking to overthrow governments in Allah's name....

Maintaining an American security presence in the region.... will involve many complicated problems.... Such an endeavor, one would hope, will be handled by a team different from -- and more competent than -- the one presently in charge of the White House and Pentagon.

For misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C sent his legions into Germany and lost them, Bush deserves to be impeached and, once he has been removed from office, put on trial along with the rest of the president's men. If convicted, they'll have plenty of time to mull over their sins.

Now this is, even by my standards, very shrill. Has Martin van Creveld simply caught an extreme case of the madness to which we have all succumbed as a result of the incompetence, malevolence, mendacity, and stupidity of George W. Bush and his administration? Or is van Creveld hearing things about the White House--through his own military-academic and Israeli-security networks--even more terrifying and devastating than I am hearing through my networks.

The Bush administration: worse than you can imagine, even after taking account of the fact that it is worse than you can imagine.

Comments

[Rebecca Allen, RN, PhD]

If you believe Sy Hersh, Bush ISN'T going to withdraw. Yes, he'll pull out some ground forces, but will try to make up for that with greatly increased levels of air bombing. Which, of course, will only inflame world opinion against us even more.

[Michael Carroll]

Please repost this without hyperlinking the whole thing.

[dilbert dogbert]

I was trying to think of what good will come out of this missconcieved adventure. The only one that comes to mind is that we will finally learn the lessions of Viet Nam. The Viet Nam syndrome will return with a vengence.
Any other suggestions??

[Dubblblind]

Yes Dilbert, how about congress rediscovering the balance of power and not allowing an imperial presidency to ever again take us into war.

[jimBOB]

Bush won't withdraw voluntarily. He'd rather leave the forces in there being slowly chewed to pieces than admit his mistake. So, this can end three ways:

1. Forces stay in till 2009, withdrawal by Bush's successor.

2. Bush/Cheney removed, either by impeachment or 25th amendment, troop withdrawal to follow.

3. U.S. forces hollowed out to the point where they are overrun, with departure as a desperate Dunkirk-style ejection. Huge casualties.

2 and 3 seem really unthinkable. However, if we start drawing down the force, the remaining troops could end up experiencing 3. So if I had to bet, I'd bet on 1.

The talk of withdrawal before 2006 I don't find credible, unless it's just a Potempkin withdrawal, which I doubt would fool anyone, and risks outcome 3.

[Charles]

Brad, the Bush Administration has never exceeded my imagination and will not unless it starts telling the truth.

Many of the worst things that Bush has done were predicted ahead of time. The deficits are one widely known example. It was also predictable that a National Guard deserter (or whatever euphemism one chooses to describe the known facts) would be deficient as a Commander in Chief.

And so my question, ever since December 12, 2000, has been, "If a man will steal democracy, what *won't* he do?"

Unfortunately, a lot of establishment Democrats refused to fight it out in Florida, or again in Ohio. They were willing to accept a king rather than risk the boisterous workings of democracy. They *still* start shouting "Shut up! Shut up!" when one asks questions about the fairness and integrity of American elections.

It was always obvious that Bush would fail as a president. The only question was how much damage he would do. We have a general idea of the scope of the reckoning, though doubtless many more bodies and IOUs will be found stuffed in closets and under the carpets.

The bill is much more than the American public as a whole should be willing to pay. Let the ones who foisted this Sad Sack on the nation pay.

[lise]

Forgive the aside, but has the blog been off-line for a couple of days? I was not able to read Brad's posts from several computers.

[Movie Guy]

Brad,

It's hard to believe that you believe some of the stuff you write about President Bush. It's my judgment that your personal hatred is clouding a reasoned presentation or effective analysis. And I believe, sadly, that you are too quick these days to mix facts with fiction on some issues.

Martin van Creveld, a professor at Hebrew University, wrote one of the worst and most amateur withdrawal scenarios that I have read to date. Martin is an idiot to think any withdrawal will be conducted in that manner. Complete idiot.

[I presume you don't know who Martin van Creveld is? That to call him a complete idiot is to checkmate oneself--kinda like saying, " I don't know who this Aquinas guy is, but he doesn't know much about philosophy"?]

[sm]

"3. U.S. forces hollowed out to the point where they are overrun, with departure as a desperate Dunkirk-style ejection. Huge casualties."

Look at the Hurricane Katrina fiasco, add to that the lack of equipment in Iraq right from the beginning, then tell me that this can't happen.

I expect it, even more now since the West Wing has just hunkered down. No one is in charge, except perhaps Rumsfeld.

Does that make you feel better?

[Buce]

van Creveld is the author of at least one admirable book. Might be fun to put him in a cage match against another author of at least one admirable book, James Q. Wilson, who has drafted the address he wishes George Bush would give. It's in Saturday's WSJ; I can't seem to produce a clean link, and I won't impose by reprinting the whole thing, but here is the flavor:
---

"My fellow Americans: We are winning, and winning decisively, in Iraq and the Middle East. We defeated Saddam Hussein's army in just a few weeks. None of the disasters that many feared would follow our invasion occurred. Our troops did not have to fight door to door to take Baghdad. The Iraqi oil fields were not set on fire. There was no civil war between the Sunnis and the Shiites. There was no grave humanitarian crisis.

Saddam Hussein was captured and is awaiting trial. His two murderous sons are dead. Most of the leading members of Saddam's regime have been captured or killed. After our easy military victory, we found ourselves inadequately prepared to defeat the terrorist insurgents, but now we are prevailing.

Iraq has held free elections in which millions of people voted. A new, democratic constitution has been adopted that contains an extensive bill of rights. Discrimination on the basis of gender, religion, or politics is banned. Soon the Iraqis will be electing their first parliament.

An independent judiciary exists, almost all public schools are open, every hospital is functioning, and oil sales have increased sharply. In most parts of the country, people move about freely and safely."

--With which parts must we disagree?

[Bruce Moomaw]

You'll notice that the "complete idiot" is described as "the only non-American on the US Army's required reading list for officers", which would seem to imply that he's not a complete idiot. Also note the recent presentation at the Army War College, which includes the statement that "Our dilemma in Iraq can be summarized by saying that we can't win, we can't stay, and we can't pull out." Within about 6 months, we will presumably know for absolute certain which of these is true; and after that, if we withdraw, it won't matter which precise withdrawal procedure we follow, will it? Whichever of these courses of action we follow, however, we will have at least one lasting accomplishment under our belts to be proud of: we will have given Iran the opportunity to acquire the Bomb.

Once again: why isn't anyone talking about us staying at least in Kurdish Iraq? Van Creveld emphasizes the multiple reasons why we need to maintain a large force in the region -- and if Iraq really does start coming apart, the Kurds would be delighted to have us stay.

[J Thomas]

"Martin van Creveld, a professor at Hebrew University, wrote one of the worst and most amateur withdrawal scenarios that I have read to date."

Then if The Bush administration gets to choose, they might very well follow it. Or try to follow it and mess it up.

[th]

There is no personal accountability left in our once great country. In fact, we went ahead and re-elected Bush and his band of merry pranksters. Why in the world does anyone expect him to change his stripes now. We all better get used to the steady drip drip body count in Iraq because it is going to go on for a long long time.

[howard]

buce, it would appear that james q. wilson thinks that we are only minutes away from declaring victory and leaving, so why would i want to disagree with that?

and bruce, attempting to talk seriously witih movie guy about iraq isn't going to get you anywhere, as i've learned through experience. anyone who doesn't agree with movie guy on iraq is, by his definition, an idiot, a list i'm proud to be on (my sin was failing to acknowledge the significant importance of the Iraq Liberation Act to...well, something, i'm sure).

[Bruce Moomaw]

Turns out I slightly misquoted that Army War College Report, although I got the meaning exactly right. Here's the passage (from Knight-Ridder on Nov. 23): " 'The long-term dilemma of the U.S. position in Iraq can perhaps best be summarized as "We can't stay, we can't leave, we can't fail,"' said the report by scholars W. Andrew Terrill and Conrad C. Crane." I'm looking for the report itself right now.

[Leftist Boddhisatva]

Thank you for linking to this. Martin van Creveld hits the nail on the head: Bush and company do deserve jail for what they have done to this country. I'll know when sanity has returned to the US when people stop looking at me funny for saying that.

[J Thomas]

"Once again: why isn't anyone talking about us staying at least in Kurdish Iraq?"

Probably, plans are well advanced to do so. And the government doesn't want us to discuss it because if we talk it over too much we might decide we don't want to.

One concern about staying in kurdistan is that it is landlocked. They are surrounded by syria, turkey, iran, and iraq. (Maybe they could keep some border with jordan?) Unless we intend to supply our kurdish bases entirely by air, over countries that may withdraw permission to violate their airspace, we must move supplies by ground through one or more of those countries. Military supply by ground through iraq is a big part of what we're withdrawing about. Military supplies for kurdistan through turkey? Maybe. Iran and syria look improbable at the moment.

It looks like an invitation to do giant airlifts just when we need the bases to do a lot. Unless the kurds can keep refineries going we'd even have to import aviation fuel from or through potentially-hostile nations.

The same geography that makes them desperate for our help leaves them a poor choice for our only friend in the middle east.

We'd do better to build some artificial islands in the gulf or the caspian. At least then we'd have decent ports.

On the other hand, if the kurds were to go to war with iran or syria and *win* some ports, and hold them....

[João Carlos]

Bruce Moomaw wrote:
"Once again: why isn't anyone talking about us staying at least in Kurdish Iraq? Van Creveld emphasizes the multiple reasons why we need to maintain a large force in the region -- and if Iraq really does start coming apart, the Kurds would be delighted to have us stay."

Because:

1- the kurds are prone to make a racial cleasing at the region and get rid from the turkmen and arabs at "Kurdistan" - US troops there making nothing to stop the racial cleasing can be a very bad PR;
2- the US-friendly Turkey country will change to a bitter enemy country if they think that US support the Kurdistan creation (for example, "withdrawing US troops to kurdistan") and no one want Turkey ally to Iran to fight off the kurds (so, again Iran will win); and
3- can be a bad idea make Turkey get out NATO (yes, they are too much sensitive about the Kurdistan issue, sensitive enough to get out NATO).... less air bases near middle-east if the Iraq civil war extend itself to the neighboor countries.

The better option if the US troops withdraw is withdraw to Kwait. withdraw to Kurdistan is not a good idea, "kurdistan" is an hot issue that can make Turkey to enter at war...allied to Iran.

sorry my bad english, my native language is priotuguese.

[gcochran]

This isn't the dumbest war in the last two thousand years - it's just dumb, probably comparable to the French installing Maximilian in Mexico. Pointless and embarrassing and expensive.
It is not up there with the great nation-breaking mistakes: it's not an Alcazarquivir or a Syracuse expedition. Similar in some ways, sure, but far less important.
The US forces in Iraq don't face any existential threat and they almost certainly never will. We're not going to see a Dunkirk or a Kut: we'll probably leave pretty soon, though, because the whole thing never had any point.

As for impeaching the fools responsible - justified, but it won't happen, unless they redouble their bets and invade another country or two. Then life would get interesting.

[Bruce Moomaw]

Still can't find the damn Terrill and Crane piece, but the one thing I did
find while looking for it was the following:
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2005/11/25/111953/25

[Roger Albin]

Buce,
I'm afraid Wilson is losing his grip. The fact is that this is essentially the stump speech that Bush has been using. He hasn't used these exact words but Wilson's sentiments (its hard to call them thoughts) are largely what Bush is trying to convey. I'll grant you that Wilson is more articulate than Bush, but this is a low standard to exceed. Statements like these are widely disparaged not merely by Van Creveld (though I don't think anyone has ever accused him of being a flaming liberal) but by intelligent commentators across the political spectrum. Just a couple of responses to specific points which expose the fatuity of these attempted arguments.
Since when are tens of thousands of civilian casulties (a significant though declining fraction caused by our military) and the further impoverishment of an already poor people not a "grave humanitarian crisis." Iraq has a very democratic constitution. Wonderful, but so did the Soviet Union and every one of its satellite states. It doesn't mean a thing without the governmental institutions and civil society necessary for a democratic state. These, however, are lacking in Iraq and our incredible incompetence in the aftermath of the invasion is a major reason why even embryonic democratic institutions are faring so poorly in Iraq.

[tjallen]

I understand we've built several large semi-permanebt to permanent bases in Iraq, and my guess is what we'll see is a combination of these five:

1. some US forces withdraw from cities and general countryside to our own prepared, defensible, suppliable bases in Iraq,
2. some US forces withdraw to our own bases in Kuwait,
3. some US forces remain in Bagdad's Green Zone to protect the newly elected Parliment,
4. some US forces redeploy to protect oil fields, pipelines, ports, and other oil-related economic targets,
5. some US forces redeploy for border-security missions.

I wonder where
6. Bring our guys and gals home
fits in??

[walons]

Augustus didn't send his troops to Germany. It was Varus, the commander, who blundered (and took his own life in shame). Augustus didn't even know about it until the news came of the slaughter of the three legions, which in any case didn't have any significant consequences for the following decades of relative Roman prosperity. Neither was it necessarily foolish. It was a tactical error. It's not like the Romans hadn't defeated the Germans before.

[J Thomas]

"Re; "The bill is much more than the American public as a whole should be willing to pay."

"Somebody was telling me just the other day that its really not my concern how the government spends money because it really wasn't my money to begin with. My response was that if it isn't my money then we are all just tools of the state. Thank you for reinforcing my point."

If you're thinking of the same discussion I am, I see I utterly failed to make my point.

I claim that guessing how much of the bill for the government goes to you, involves guessing how much more you'd have if the government wasn't spending that money. Very difficult to guess well, though it can be a pleasant pastime. When you get hot under the collar about your income tax bill, particularly if you're on salary or wages, you're being silly -- there's no way to tell how much of that money would go to you if the government didn't collect it. Remove that particular cost of doing business and why wouldn't your employer simply cut your pay to match?

But the public as a whole in theory owns the government and it's our collective choice what the government spends. Never mind how much of it comes from you and how much of it from me, we're both citizens and we're supposed to get a say.

As for being tools of the state -- yes, we are. Consider how many of us are employed by government. Be sure to include the soldiers and the convicted prisoners. Then consider how many of us live off government contracts. Then consider how much of the rest of the economy produces stuff for government employees and employees of government contractors. Do you think you're moe than three links out? The government spends. The ones who got the government money spend. The ones who got it from them spend. Are you there yet? Taking the government money, from customers who have it from the government through maybe two other hands first.

Yes, the way the system is set up now, we're all working for the government. And in theory we get to choose representatives who're responsive to us about how that spending goes.

[tjallen]

Randy said: The point; the building of "permanent" bases may very well be a political statement along the lines of, "we're here as long as necessary". "Permanent" doesn't necessarily mean permanent to the military.

Randy I was using the word "permanent" in reference to more permanent bases in places like Germany, Japan, Okinawa, outside Manilla, outside Seoul, outside Saigon, in Guantanamo, etc... permanent in the sense that only a volcano or a revolution could push us out, and sometimes not even then!

If you're right, that "we're here only as long as necessary," well I'd predict that equates to, we're here as long as oil is an issue, or we're here as long as terrorism is an issue, both of which will be what 25? 50? 100 years?

[jimBOB]

"1. some US forces withdraw from cities and general countryside to our own prepared, defensible, suppliable bases in Iraq,"

How are they suppliable? Won't supplies have to come in at ports, and then be run over long, desert roads? Won't you need garrisons at the port(s) and all along the supply routes?

"3. some US forces remain in Bagdad's Green Zone to protect the newly elected Parliment, "

Green Zone is an armed camp under constant attack. Is it still viable with fewer defenders? And if you don't reduce the number of defenders, how is it that you can say we're redeploying?

"4. some US forces redeploy to protect oil fields, pipelines, ports, and other oil-related economic targets,"

These are very large positions to defend. We don't have enough troops to do the job now; how will we do it with even fewer?

"5. some US forces redeploy for border-security missions."

Manned with whatever is left over from above missions? As in negative numbers of troops?

I don't think the permanent bases are viable without at least as many troops in country as we already have. At least that's my sense of it as a non-expert.

[tjallen]

Basically my point, jimBOB. No one's coming home anytime soon... and things could get bigger.

Is it your sense we're at 1969 or 72 already? I wonder if we are still around 1965...

[jim]

Since Murtha raised the issue and thereby brought withdrawal from Iraq into the realm of practical politics, I have been wondering what withdrawal would look like. Too many people have, I think, talked as though someone would wave a magic wand and US troops would disappear from Baghdad to reappear in Fort Hood.

We have a lot of men and a lot of equipment in Iraq. They're going to come out by the same route they went in. I don't know that Van Creveld's scenario is the only one possible, but there are a lot of people in Iraq whose interests demand that the American withdrawal, whenever it comes, *look like* a retreat.

The only good aspect is if and when we withdraw, we'll be withdrawing essentially through Shia dominated territory.

But my guess is we won't withdraw anytime soon. The only man who can order that withdrawal sits in the Oval Office. Politically, George Bush can't order withdrawal: it would be an admission of failure.

[Johnny]

I really think a deal between the Turks and the Kurds is possible, but it'd take an administration that was trustworthy and competent to broker the deal.

[kharris]

The permanent base issue has been around for some time. The first arguement regarding permanent basis in Iraq of which I am aware linked it to the withdrawal of US troops from Saudi Arabia. We had a pretty substantial forward presence in Saudi Arabia, and lost it. After going to all the trouble of occupying Iraq, it seems a waste (so the argument goes) to pull out completely. That does not mean that the decision won't untimately be a political one. If keeping troops in Iraq is a big enough political negative at home, we will eventually leave. There are probably some big fans of staying, though, among neo-cons and foreign affairs "realists", as well as among big oil importers and consumers. They will weigh heavily on the other side.

[J Thomas]

Jim, you have pointed ot a problem for GWB. If he doesn't pull out things keep looking worse and the american public is starting to notice. But if he does pull out it will look like a failure.

Could a smart man solve that problem? Could Rove?

Here's a first thought. The US military is now claimed to be mostly in sunni territory, fighting insurgents. They can afford to stay out of shia areas where things are peaceful. This may be a slight misstatement, maybe we have an agreement that shias mostly won't attack our convoys passing through their land so long as we don't slow down. The british have been wearing our their welcome in shia lands.

But still, we're mostly in sunniland and that's where most of the fighting is.

Maybe we could pull out of sunniland. That would let the sunni militias operate openly, and build up their strength. But if we settle on a reasonably-defensible border between sunniland and shia lands (and between sunniland and kurdistan) then the borders we pick are likely to become the de facto borders. There'd be a certain amount of ethnic cleansing across them. People leaving the places the local militias don't want them. But when militias try to raid across our borders they have us to answer to.

We might claim the sunni militias are iraqi government units, and offer to train them. In the short run that wouldn't matter much. Without us attacking them all the time they'd likely go into training and resupply mode. So they'd be quiet for awhile, which would look good.

Our troops would mostly be doing spotting for artillery and airstrikes, in thinly-inhabited zones. We'd have iraqi troops doing the checkpoints catching suicide bombers trying to cross the internal borders. So US casualties would be way down.

The air supply for our internal border guards could come out of kuwait. Move out a lot of supply etc stuff and that would reduce troop levels. For that matter we could replace the supply guys with civilians and turn the supply guys into combat soldiers. We might cut 60,000 troops, fight less, and keep a degree of peace.

That ought to be enough to take care of the 2006 elections. Bush's supporters won't accuse him of bugging out, and if his opponents do he can grin and say "I'm winning. What did you want me to do?"

Over time the border bases might get increasingly automated. One squad of guys sitting in a bunker flying a bunch of drones and targetting automated artillery might defend a long stretch better than ten squads of infantry. Put in 2 or 3 squads for close defense and you've got a formidatlbe firebase, especially if it has a whole lot of smart minefields. So, the more troops get pulled out, the less news there is. The more it drops out of the news, the less Bush has to admit failure. He can turn the internal border defense over to iraqis and bring the last troops home. Whether or not there's a bloodbath during or after, so long as US military deaths are low it won't get a lot of coverage. The media are already used to the idea they can't get much news because whenever they leave the protection of US soldiers they get shot by snipers or kidnapped by anonymous beheaders. Provided it's more than 3 years before a lot of news comes out, Bush is home free.

At some point he can say "We won. We case home. Anybody who disagrees is a political partisan who's lying to make me look bad."

His supporters would try to shout down anybody who disagreed. It might likely work well enough.

[Kett82]

Prediction: Saddam Hussein back in power within one year of Bush/Cheney leaving the White House.

Leaving out the cost of human lives: expensive, embarrassing, stupid, pointless don’t begin to describe this sad fiasco.

[Bruce Moomaw]

It should be noted that Terrill and Crane's motivation for saying "we can't stay" is almost certainly the same one we're hearing from a lot of military commentators right now: the Army is being seriously deprived of the forces it needs elsewhere in the world. (We are already seeing the effects of this in our utter helplessness to deal with a major military crisis anywhere else right now -- and, my God, are there a large number of possible ones.) The only other way to correct this would be a draft, which the latest polls show the voters opposed to by 70-30 -- and while I'm convinced that we'll need one in the not very distant future, who in their right minds would trust the current flock of boobies with a draft?

As for Bush being unwilling to pull out of the war: a sufficiently antiwar Congress would force his hand. In any case, we'll see. (In this connection, however, Rich Lowry recently said in "The Corner" that, while the GOP is nationally very unpopular right now, it may not make any difference because modern software has allowed the House to be gerrymandered so effectively that the Dems will have to win by an outright landslide now just to take control of the government again. A survey of the 2004 House election results -- http://www.cqpress.com/docs/2004Elections/2004_Elections_VEC.htm -- shows he's right: last time, the Dems would have had to beat the GOP nationally by TWELVE AND A HALF PERCENT just to get a narrow majority in the House! Say goodnight, Democracy. How long the people will be willing to put up with this -- especially if we get a Democratic President less sponge-spined than the last two, and willing to make noise about the need for a federal nationwide anti-gerrymandering amendment -- is an interesting question.)

[Easter Lemming Liberal News Digest]

My letter made the Houston Chronicle

>>
Chron.com | Letters: Murtha's motion to leave

President Bush and his administration are turning victory into defeat. We went to war to remove Saddam Hussein from power and he is no longer in power. We went to war because of possible weapons of mass destruction and have found there aren't any. We went to war to bring democracy to the people of Iraq, and in a few weeks they will elect their new government. We have won. It is time to declare victory and go home.

I am proud of U.S. Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., for addressing these issues. Our magnificent troops fought well; it is time they came home to their reward.

Already, 45 percent of Iraqis approve of attacks on coalition forces as occupiers. Over 80 percent have said we should leave next year; they think we are making the situation worse. I believe them. The longer we stay, the more we will be hated. By declaring victory and leaving, we show that we can go to war honorably and can leave with honor. To do otherwise is to confirm the claims that it was all about oil and control.
>>

This unnecessary incompetently managed war leaves us nowhere to go but out.

The only way to leave is to declare victory so the mass of idiots who voted for Bush don't feel too ashamed.

This also boxes in his supporters as we have achieved all the goals Bush laid out. Staying the course only confirms the anti-war activists were tight.

[Howard]

i guess easter lemming's comment makes it time to cite george aiken's famous "declare victory and leave" formulation for vietnam, in, iirc, 1966. imagine how much better off america would have been had anyone listened....

[sm]

"Prediction: Saddam Hussein back in power within one year of Bush/Cheney leaving the White House."

Either him or Moqtada al-Sadr.

[jon livesey]

I'd suggest that people stand back a bit and consider that Administrations last four or eight years, and that they inherit problems from the previous and leave then to the the following administration. It is, to say the least, unlikely that the sheer wilfullness of the Bush administration is the only or prime causative factor in the Iraq war.

Whatever you think about the conduct of the war - and I find the Bush record on prisoner abuse and erosion of civil right in the US to be atrocious - the notion that the neocons just "decided" to take on Saddam, and managed to get Blair to go along with it, without there being any real problem to solve, is, to put it mildly, a bit unconvincing.

Anyone who compares Iraq to VietNam should also reflect that no President wants to be another Johnson. No President in his right mind - spot the begged question - is going to go out of his way to lie American troops into a quagmire.

In due course we'll find out what the neocons thought they were after - bisecting the Islamic world and controlling a huge chunk of oil doesn't seem too shabby to me - but the current discussion, which depends on defending or demonizing Bush in a vacuum, doesn't seem to be going very far, very fast.

Another thought. The clock may be ticking for Bush, but it's also ticking for some very nasty regimes in the region.

[dilbert dogbert]

MG?
If what you are hearing from people in the field is more optimistic than what us homies are hearing, what has happened to the mighty wurlizur(sp?) that this pres and gop has used to such effect in past years? They have been great on staying on message and controlling the news adgenda in the past. Why are they failing at this task now? I am interested on your take on this as you have articulated some good comments on this war. My suspicious mind thinks that the "cut and run" talk is just what bush wants as it provides cover in some ways for a bush "cut and run" strategy.

[Howard]

Jon, i appreciate that administrations don't exist in a vacuum, but still: it has been a long-term strategic belief of the neo-con crowd that the road to an improved middle east ran through baghdad. in the bush administration, they found someone who agreed. it is their war, regardless of the past.

and there is one highly crucial similarity between iraq and vietnam, for all the differences: there is no outcome commensurate with the costs in american blood and treasure.

[anonymous coward]

It's cute how Americans still talk about Iraq as if they have real influence there instead of merely standing in the way.

[jon livesey]

"....but still: it has been a long-term strategic belief of the neo-con crowd that the road to an improved middle east ran through baghdad..."

I hope I'm not misrepresenting this by truncating it. I don't disagree with what you write. What I'm after is *why* they think this. If there is a long-term strategic goal, and Baghdad is on the road there, I'm all for it. I can think of several long-term goals they may be after - blowing up the multi-decade Middle-Eastern statis, controlling oil that others may covet, even changing the political make-up of Islamic states (I won't use the democracy word, because I don't think it's meaningful there yet) - but I'm not them, so I can't be sure. I just think that the current level of debate is too crude and ignores too many possibilities. At least people seem to have dropped the idea that Bush is just avenging some insult to his father, so that's progress.

I probably sound melodramatic, but I seriously think that the US is at the part of its history where it has to start asking what kind of world it wants to wake up in when the "American Century" is over. It seems possible to me that Gulf War II is part of making that world. It may fail, of course, but I can't see that it's just an irrational whim.

"......there is no outcome commensurate with the costs in american blood and treasure."

It's a lesser point, but there I just can't agree. Armies exist to be risked, and part of Money's purpose is to pay to remake the world the way you want it to be in the long run. If it were really true that some thousands of lives and some hundreds of billions of dollars were more valuable than literally any outcome, a good many truly necessary wars would not have been fought in the past.

[jon livesey]

"It's cute how Americans still talk about Iraq as if they have real influence there instead of merely standing in the way."

Lord Curzon once observed that there were so few British troops in India at any one time, that if the Indians all chose to spit at once, they could drown them. His point was that the Empire survived despite this. It survived because it was at least partly in the interests of the Indians that it should. When it ceased to be in their interests - put another way, when it became clear that a majority could support Congress - it ended.

There are plenty of interests in Iraq who don't want to wake up tomorrow morning with the insurgents, or indeed any given faction, in charge of Iraq. Until the Iraqis get their act together, the US is the only game in town.

[plaintive]

Jon: you're claiming that this all must make some sense if only we knew.

Would that it were so. It would be better than the current drift toward the falls.

[Arun Khanna]

Military Analyst Martin van Creveld, " American forces will have to fall back on Baghdad. From Baghdad they will have to make their way to the southern port city of Basra, and from there back to Kuwait, where the whole misguided adventure began...." One hoped that a military analyst would be aware of U.S. airlift capability. If and when a withdrawl does take place, it doesn't necessarily have to be through Kuwait. It could be through port of Umm Qasr. It doesn't have to be through a seaport, given the airlift capability, it could be from Baghdad.

[STS]

Jon Livesay wrote:

>I seriously think that the US is at the part of its history where it has to start asking what kind of world it wants to wake up in when the "American Century" is over

Yes! That is very much the question that we need to be debating.

>It seems possible to me that Gulf War II is part of making that world.

Hmm, "possible" that GWB sincerely thinks of it that way? "Possible" that it really is a good attempt in that direction?

I think GWII clearly *is* part of making that world. But the main outcome looks to be a hightened level of distrust and hatred directed at the post "American Century" US of the future.

[Movie Guy]

dilbert dogbert,

Thanks, man. Well, you can see that DeLong deleted most of my post.

He wiped away the comments about emails from soldiers and officers in the field in Iraq that I, my father (one of the last five WWII veterans to retire from active duty), my uncle (a 33 year Special Forces Colonel), my cousin (a Lieutentant Colonel in Army Aviation - two tours thus far in Iraq; one in Afghanistan), a number of general officers from my brother's West Point class, and a host of other senior NCOs and Officers including General Officers I know personally receive and forward among our group. These are from well respected individuals in Iraq on the ground who tell it in a straightforward manner. Good and bad. No apple polishers in this crowd. Just men and women you would want standing back-to-back with you in a hot firefight. Military people who know what the hell they are doing and would use their last gasp of air trying to keep you and others alive.

Sure, Iraq is a mess, but that wasn't my point. For those who actually read the brief piece that Martin van Creveld wrote, he conveyed a number of misleading and amateur messages. He really missed the boat on equipment provision to the Iraqi forces and doesn't have any concept of how the U.S. withdrawal will occur. NONE. Which is disappointing in more ways than one.

And, yeah, Brad DeLong, I know him. I am also familiar with his writings. But he really dropped the ball on his piece in the Forum. It's an amateur work. So much of it is pure junk that it detracts from some of the obvious statements that he conveyed which most could readily embrace based on reasoning and analysis, or direct military knowledge.

Anyone reading this blog can do a little research and find unclassified information on the equipment hand-over to the Iraqi forces. For starters, try GlobalSecurity.org then roll over to DefenseLink (DoD web site) and sift through until you find some of equipment transfer information. It's available. No big secret on most of it. Plenty of sources if you dig.

Contray to what Martin is suggesting, DoD and the military commanders in the field (CENTCOM and subordinate) do have a ongoing equipment provision and training program in place now. Some of the equipment is coming out of the East Bloc (tanks and so on). South Korea offered some of its U.S. tanks. The U.S. has an inventory of POMCUS stockage that it can float at any time. Tanks, you name it. The POMCUS stocks in Saudi Arabia and Europe were very large. I and my command supported some of those commanders over those stocks when I was on active duty. There was some equipment stored that I would have like to have had.

As an example, take this absurd statement from Martin: "Therefore, simply abandoning equipment or handing it over to the Iraqis, as was done in Vietnam, is simply not an option. And even if it were, the new Iraqi army is by all accounts much weaker, less skilled, less cohesive and less loyal to its government than even the South Vietnamese army was. For all intents and purposes, Washington might just as well hand over its weapons directly to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi."

Martin is not presenting the facts. His assertion that "Washington might just as well hand over its weapons directly to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi" is such crap. He offers no mention of what is really happening at this time or is planned in a progressive manner. It's hard to believe that he is that clueless considering his area of study. Poor judgment on his part to brush aside the facts of the situation. Part general truth (troop skills, et al) and part pure fiction (implying that the U.S. can't hand over equipment to the Iraqi forces).

And Martin didn't explain what really happened near the close of Viet Nam, but that's another story.

Again, Martin gets it wrong: "Handing over their bases or demolishing them if necessary, American forces will have to fall back on Baghdad. From Baghdad they will have to make their way to the southern port city of Basra, and from there back to Kuwait, where the whole misguided adventure began."

Is he just clowning around? Who is he kidding? This isn't how the withdrawal will occur. He demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge on projected
movements as will be phased in once the withdrawal is launched. "fall back on Bagdhad"? Oh, man. It's just such nonsense. It's downright laughable amateur thinking.

We have three major airbases in Iraq. And they are exceptionally well protected. No one gets 'inside the wire' at those facilities. A friend's son flies in from the States every week. He has never seen a single incident because of the level of protection. I won't offer further details, but it's nothing short of astonishing.

While I won't discuss what I have learned about the U.S. withdrawal plans, I will say that Martin is all wet. That's just not how it will done.

Mixing an ugly political rant with military planning and training of an incountry force and a future planned phased withdrawal makes for a lousy article. If one wants to slam the DoD, its civilian and military leadership, and its field commanders in CENTCOM and subordinate commanders on the ground in Iraq and other locations, then stick with the available facts and chastise on the merits. To just play the "I hate Bush game" and use that pretense as an overlay of the future reduced presence of the U.S. military in Iraq makes for a poor presentation. Too many facts are available to the general public for Martin's rant to have any success in distorting the truth. At least for those individuals who know how to use Google or other search engines.

I don't make phony excuses for President Bush, his cabinet, and his staffers. Nor do I make phony excuses for what I consider to be military screwups. Privately, I raised a lot of hell over some critical events and executions. But to watch someone like Martin van Creveld (who is supposed to know better) post such junk and treat such as fact or great wisdom from above when such statements are amateur crap that any college freshman could write most assuredly qualifies him as a complete idiot with regards to what he stated. And that's how I see it.

[KevinNYC]

SM, we are not going to face a Dunkirk. The US military moving en masse is not something any smart insurgent would want to face. Also considering that that no GI would want to die on our way out of Iraq, we will be using massive firepower, probably indiscrimately. We will probably be going through the desert and not the cities. IEDs may be a significant issue though.
I do agree that Moqtada al-Sadr has the ambition and militia to try to rule Iraq and is the most likely candidate.

[ajay]

An evacuation by air would no doubt be possible, but would involve either a)airlifting lots of heavy equipment out at tremendous cost or b) leaving it behind for the natives or c) destroying it. The Dunkirk analogy works here: no doubt most of the men would get out, but much of the kit would be lost. The USAF simply does not have the airlift to do it in any realistic timescale. As for going via a port: a) Kuwait would be a lot friendlier and easier to manage b) it can handle the loading much faster c) you still have to go the length of the country to get to Umm Qasr, so why not go the extra few miles to Kuwait?

As for 'going through the deserts, not the cities'; this would only be practical for the combat units. The support units are still roadbound. And in Iraq, like every other country, the roads go between cities. Could be difficult.
Also, don't assume that all of Iraq is flat desert; much of it is cultivated and irrigated land. Not quite bocage, but still plenty of places for mortar teams to hide - also irrigation channels every 200m to try to cross if you want to go cross-country.

A second point: drawdown arguments normally include a list of targets that we would continue to protect: our own heavily defended bases, Iraq's borders, the oil fields, the ports, the Green Zone (see: tjallen's post). Once you're defending all of those, what, exactly, are you giving up? Given that at the moment we are defending our own bases, not adequately defending the borders, sort of defending the oil fields, holding the ports, and being mortared in the Zone?

Movie Guy: Argument by assertion (he's wrong! he's wrong!). Argument from (claimed) authority - various anonymous generals and colonels. Well, I happen to have the revenant shade of Field-Marshal Montgomery in a matchbox in my desk drawer, and he agrees with me, not you. So does my cousin, and he's an SBS operator who's ten feet tall and shoots deadly laser beams from his ears. So there.
(More seriously, honourable and brave men can still be catastrophically wrong about war. Westmoreland was a decorated WW2 veteran.)

[Alex Marshall]

Arun Khanna:
I think Martin van Creveld's argument about a land withdrawal is as follows:
1) It would be unconscionable to leave equipment behind for use by the terrorists.
2) Current US airlift capacity to remove heavy equipment is inadequate.

Jon Livesey:
"Armies exist to be risked, and part of Money's purpose is to pay to remake the world the way you want it to be in the long run."
You may want to rethink this theorem. I'm no Aquinas but I find it leads to some morally repugnant conclusions.

[Gavin Cameron]

I've been having a competition to find the earliest date that anyone has used in a statement like

'The Iraq war was the biggest policy mistake since X'

So far, I'd only got to Munich, but the Teutoburg Forest really takes the prize. Why stop there though, what about the Trojans letting Paris go a-kidnapping in Greece? Who knows, perhaps there's something worse in Gilgamesh?

BTW - Augustus lost his legions (thanks to Quinctilius Varus) in 9 AD.

[J Thomas]

MG, what is the expert estimate for how long it would take us to withdraw by air? What's the quickest estimate for an orderly withdrawal by all means?

I could imagine our casualties might go up during an evacuation simply because of the breaks in routine. Easier to make mistakes, easier to get supply problems, etc. But it's pretty clear we wouldn't have to worry much about a retreat under fire. Even if the shia started attacking us, we have the airpower to blast our way out. Everywhere we go, we could bomb enough to make sure there were very few live people ahead of us. Say a ten-mile-wide swath of destruction, every building bombed, every stand of vegetation burned, every particularly suspicious-looking area near our route seeded with unexploded cluster bombs. (The usual load only leaves 10% unexploded, but it wouldn't be that hard to arrange them so they're 100% unexploded. Instant minefield.) We could destroy every non-US vehicle that moves anywhere near our forces, and every moving human. We wouldn't be attacked at all once we stopped worrying about civilian casualties.

We'd go through iraq like a bulldozer across somebody's lawn. We'd leave nothing behind us but bare smoky ground and a few greasy patches.

And a whole lot of US civilians would be a lot less frustrated for awhile.

[Randy]

Movie Guy,

Yeah, looks like the definition of a troll is anyone who thinks we can succeed in Iraq. My posts are gone too.

Reminds me of an incident during Gulf I, a few days before the ground attack, Dharan, a couple of scuds had just hit nearby. A busload of press came in and started interviewing everyone in the area. Many of the reporters were obviously biased against the war, trying to get us to say it was going to be too costly, didn't we think we should just pack it in and go home, etc. My comment was along the lines of, "You want us to quit!? What we are doing is succeeding!"

So I really don't care much for the opinions of the naysayers. They exist - always have and always will. They're just background noise and have no real impact on mission accomplishment.

[ajay]

J Thomas: the trouble is, as I said, that road nets tend to go through populated areas (like cities) which are quite easy to mount ambushes in.

And the US doesn't have enough ordnance to carry out such a scorched-earth withdrawal (just think about the square miles involved!) And then how are you going to stop people coming back into the ruins after you've bombed? How long do you think it would take to roll a division through a scorched area? Are you going to stop every six hours to re-cauterise? Or just saturate with persistent nerve agents and mustard and roll everyone through in NBC kit?

What happens when the muj knock down every bridge on the route out? Have you got enough bridging in the TOE?

When the withdrawal starts, every highway in Iraq is going to be mined. How fast do you think you'll go with the EOD teams probing every pile of rubble? And if you've bombed a corridor ahead, there'll be lots of piles of rubble.

Think about how bad the USAF was at finding Serb tanks. How good do you think they'll be at seeing two men in a fighting hole with an RPG?

[a different chris]

Movie Guy, Randy, why are you so sure you just didn't mess up your posts? Especially trying to quote things (a'la letters) can be tricky under this comments system.

Because I see no lack of real-estate occupied by you guys.

Randy, reporters once upon a time considered it their task to ask questions counter to the questionees belief system. Otherwise it's a best hella boring, and at worst not getting important info out.

Watch a sports reporter sit-down sometime. That's pretty much the last bastion of real journalism, sad that it's wasted on something so unimportant.

If they wanted standard "Hoo yah" stuff they'd just go to the PR tent. But nobody used to get promoted for regurgitating that stuff.

>Prediction: Saddam Hussein back in power within one year of Bush/Cheney leaving the White House

Nah. Maybe Sadr as mentioned above, but don't be surprised to see a Castro-like figure. And I mean literally to the fatigues. Same iron-fist as Saddam, but none of the ostentation. Palace living is not going to fly in a country absolutely brutalized by war.

Re the retreat argument: I'm no military guy, but J Thomas is the most compelling here. If I accept MG's propostion that we have plenty of air capability, it seems a lot easire to carry a few thousand pounds of bombs to cover a tank battalion retreat than to carry the freaking tanks.

I don't think you need a degree from West Point to figure that out.

But there's the right way, the wrong way, and the Army way so who knows.

[Randy]

A different chris,

Re; "...why are you so sure you just didn't mess up your posts?"

Because they were there last night, and gone this morning. And because this isn't the first time this has happened. The first time, one of my posts was a bit flippant - but not this time. This time it was a simple statement of a belief that we can succeed.

As for reporters challenging belief systems; perhaps that's true. But the statements these reporters made were a constant drumbeat in the press at the time, and their body language made me believe it was their belief system that was being challenged. Which is why I am posting here, by the way. What's the point of preaching to the choir? Truth is, I can accept being deleted from time to time. Its a small price to pay for getting people to think. And to be honest, many of the posts here have given me insight as well.

[dilbert dogbert]

MG,
Thanks for the response. I don't doubt your cred on sources in Iraq and what they tell you.
What I wonder about is why, in the face of what your sources are saying about Iraq, the admin seems to be loosing its grip on the adgenda. The admin spin guys are good, from the history of the last 5 years. Why the failure now?
I agree with you that the military can plan a very good phased withdrawal from Iraq. Someday we will withdraw and good plans have to be in the file cabinet.
What has also interested me is the ability of strong men, AKA Tito, Sadamm and others to hold on to fragmented multiethnic cultures for as long as they live but how quickly things fall apart when they depart. Yeah, I know the use of terror, but I don't think that explains all of it.
Any suggestions for some good reads on the subject?

[ajay]

The point about relying on sources in the military is that, as anyone who has read recent military history should know, they tend not to be fully informed about the situation. To put it mildly.

Even if MG's sources exist; and if he's accurately relaying what they say; and if they are telling him the absolute truth as they know it; they could still be utterly wrong. That's why I brought up Westie. He had no clue what was really going on in country, because his subordinates, all the way down to company level, were exaggerating the positive and concealing the negative. Result- unjustified optimism from the brass. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that the same thing could be happening in Iraq.
Also, on the retreat plan: the army would never carry out such a scorched-earth approach, because it would be illegal under US law. Excessive force, failure to avoid civilian casualties, use of indiscriminate weapons on a civilian area. All crimes under US law. So you can write that off for a start.

[vidkun]

So we won't get the million Mogadishus we wished for, as treasonous liberals. We won't get more than 50 Mogadishus, by population.

[Randy]

Ajay,

Re; "...unjustified optimism from the brass."

Good point. Then again, this is a common trait among senior management everywhere (e.g., the CEO of GM doesn't think the company will go bankrupt). Stressing the positive is good for motivating the team. Also, I think much of the criticism of the war is unjustified negativism - and this is simply the nature of the opposition. Here are the facts; the US military will carry out its assigned mission. There will be successes and failures, and there will be casualties.

[Movie Guy]

There is no mystery here. Everyone will have the opportunity to watch television, and go online to monitor any withdrawal actions. We'll find out which scenario is more accurate.

Any expectation that the U.S. will pull all forces from Iraq would be misplaced. We don't have many forces on the ground now, but it's unlikely that all will be withdrawn from country. I doubt seriously that we give our primary air bases for years.

[Movie Guy]

dilbert dogbert,

I never thought that the Administration's spin was that good. Normal promo stuff, but not much more than skin deep so to speak. Plenty of rah rah free rides, too, from the news media and general public for a long time.

As to why the Administration pr spin has come apart at the seams, well, that appears to go back to my point about 'skin deep'. The staffers and leadership really haven't done much beyond sound bites and short polish stories. I listened to the President's message yesterday on border security. Shallow BS to say the least. Just look at who is running the WH Office of Communications, for example. No serious strength in that shop. And, boy, they strength now because their screwups are bleeding through the cloth.

On your point about why failures occur after strong men are removed from power (or just die), good point. I can't think of any particular good reads off the top of my head (I'm on the road w/o my own computer reference lists), but there are some. Titles escape me. I don't personally find it surprising that there is a leadership vacuum when a heavy is brought down. The loose coalitions that heavies typically hold together do want to go their own direction thereafter. A friend of mine was married to a woman from Yugoslavia when we served together in Germany from during the 80s. Whenever they visited her hometown, he would always come back a bit unnerved. The tension in Yugoslavia was apparently pretty high. He was never comfortable on those trips.

On the future phased withdrawal from Iraq, we'll just have to see how that goes. We're not pulling off of a hot LZ (landing zone), so some of the stuff posted on this thread is a wash. But, the retro movements will have to be accomplished with normal care and caution. Timing will be the key.

Bush does appear to be adopting a 'cut and run' strategy, though I can't prove it. Sounds like it, though. But that could be a cover story, as it is unlikely that he is concerned about much more than the 06-08 elections and Repub pressures. Iraq isn't stable enough to conduct a complete withdrawal, so I don't expect that is in the cards.

The Bush Administration is a wounded dog. Down, but not out. Yet. And I don't count myself among those who wish with some sick delight that Administration flounders any more than it has. It's bad enough right now. Any further failures could lead to a few key emotional responses from the White House. And that might put us in harm's way. Anyone wishing for more of that is an idiot.

We've gpt three more years of this administration. Three long years. That's a long time to be wounded.

[James Wimberley]

Like other commenters, I'm baffled about Creveld's choice of Varus' expedition as a paradigm of a foolish war, when there are many better ones to choose from. How about the Anglo-American war of 1812, or WW I? Most wars are stupid, when you come to think of it.
Varus was a general who lost his army in one campaign against Teutonic tribes in pursuit of Augustus' forward policy on the Rhine. But you can make a plausible case for that policy: the Teutons were very bellicose, Rome's hold on Gaul was recent and shaky, and Augustus had an oversize military establishment left over from decades of civil war. Is there any reason to think he really cared about a loss of life no greater than that at Pharsalus, Philippi or Actium? A master of PR, he chose to dramatize the loss of three legions as an excuse for a policy change and create an appearance of empathy with the army, while deflecting the blame away from himself in to his general, in just four words!

[sm]

For crazy stupid military episodes of the past, how about the invasion of Russia in June 1941? Both sides were nuts!

[David Lloyd-Jones]

JimBob,

America already has permanent bases in the area. Kuwait for starters.

I think it's fair to assume that the independence of Palestine is on hold until they agree to become another.

Pesky Turks. Imagine refusing to kiss Bushlet's butt!

-dlj.

[mds]

"But you can make a plausible case for that policy: the Teutons were very bellicose, Rome's hold on Gaul was recent and shaky, and Augustus had an oversize military establishment left over from decades of civil war."

So, we don't want proof of Arminius' capability to come in the form of a wagon dustcloud; we need to fight the Cherusci there so we don't fight them here; and what good is the most powerful military force in the world if you don't use it?

Nope, no possible comparisons there. Plus, all of the reasons you gave were excuses pushed to cover a fundamental desire to wage preemptive war to "civilize" a barbaric region of the world. Which again fails to match up with the Iraq situation.

Now, sarcasm aside, were there more recent actions that closely match the current one? Certainly. When it comes to preemptive war, Bonaparte leaps irresistibly to mind. Perhaps Creveld considers Napoleonic examples to be too overused by military historians, so chose to go with the second most overused source, the Romans. Or perhaps he just thinks "Clades Variana" is cool.

[dilbert dogbert]

MG,
I guess my feelings about gop spin competence comes from the fact that the dems came apart like a cheap suit after 1994(esp dec 2000) and up to today.
I second your story about Yugo. Back in the '60s a young Stanford student told me about a trip thru the area and he had the same comment about the tension. Of course, the cold war was prety hot then too.
As CR always says: Best Regards

[Arun Khanna]

You assume that U.S. will withdraw in a hurry and hence the final phase of the withdrawl cannot take place by air. My argument for U.S. airlift capacity implicitly counts on a gradual withdrawl. Events on the ground, in my subjective view, favor a gradual withdrawl outcome in Iraq rather than a sudden withdrawl.
Nonetheless, the points on problems with airlift capacity for withdrawl are well taken.

[dearieme]

Biggest Foreign Policy mistake since....?
How about "since Germany smuggled Lenin into Russia"?

[Lee A. Arnold]

1 Mere withdrawal from several locations in Iraq. 2 Make a new rapid strike force to be deployed from outside borders. 3 Probably encourage the Kurds to secede, and beef up our presence there (there will no doubt be fights over the location of the new border.) 4 Iraqis got a constitution with help from the West, and if they don't try to run with it, or find some other rule of law that includes everyone, it's their funeral. 5 Challenge moderate Muslims to take their societies to a future beyond violence. 6 Creation of a U.S. extralegal prison system that uses torture on a regular basis, to ensure an eternal religious myth of bloody vengeance. 7 Bush Administration becomes known with hilarity by comics as most deranged in American history. 8 The world looks askance at contact with U.S. initiatives. 9 Pentagon starts secretly gaming scenarios to handle situations in which the civilian leadership of the United States jeopardizes national security. (Ans. Call Jack Murtha.) 10 U.S. foreign policy shifts its diplomacy to making the rhetorical case that democracy can avoid terrorism. 11 Rest of the world realizes if they play the U.S. economic game, they can grow so large as to make its belligerance silly and irrelevant. 12 All continue to build the tower of Babel to consecrate the monetization of God. 13 I walk around with one thumb in my mouth and the other up my ass, trying to remember my left from my right, so I don't accidentally switch them and poison myself.

[Movie Guy]

Associated Press
9:25 p.m. ET Nov. 29, 2005
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10253079/page/2/

"On Tuesday, Rumsfeld gave a preview of the administration’s argument that Iraqi security forces are improving. He said about 29 military bases have been turned over to Iraqi control; the Iraqi army has seven division and 31 brigade headquarters in operation, compared with none 16 months ago; the number of Iraqi army battalions “in the fight” is now 95, compared with five 15 months ago, and there are now over 212,000 trained and equipped security forces, compared with 96,000 last year."

True or false, Martin van Creveld?

[ajay]

Given the source? Probably false. Rumsfeld is probably lying about a) the numbers b) the implication that all or any of the named units are ready for independent operations c)the implication that all or any of the named units are effective in combat d) the difference between nominal and effective control e) the degree to which all or any of the named units respond to the Iraqi government rather than their own sectarian authorities f) the difference between police, civil defence, and army g) or all of the above. Sorry, but I don't believe anything that man says about Iraqi army strength any more.

[Ari]

Fine, since the Iraqi army is trained we can now begin to withdraw, just as John Murtha has urged. Oops, the Los Angeles Times is telling us we have been paying Iraqi journalists to write favorable articles about the progress we are making in the country.

[Bruce Moomaw]

When we hear about more Iraqi military units being "ready to fight", there's one rather important question left unmentioned: ready to fight WHO? In that connection, see Spencer Ackerman's deadly response to Sen. Lieberman's Wall Stree Journal article today: http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=3876 .

The LA Times article that Ackerman mentions, by the way, is just the latest in a long string of articles making the same point -- including former Prime Minister Allawi's own comments on the already-initiated Shiite/Sunni civil war. (After all -- contrary to Lieberman's drivel -- if the people of Iraq really DID feel unified as a nation, the insurgents would already have been stomped on decisively. The Shiites have been waiting 400 years for this particular payback moment; there's no reason to think they're going to pass on it.)

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/12885151.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/29/international/middleeast/29security.html?ei=5094&en=f18810368c98ae2c&hp=&ex=1133326800&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1133316125-Jw+yGvkt+YK8IrZNlU1lZw&pagewanted=print

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-death29nov29,0,3364549,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1651789,00.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/26/AR2005112601211.html
(as a followup to Allawi's statement)

[J Thomas]

"There is no mystery here. Everyone will have the opportunity to watch television, and go online to monitor any withdrawal actions."

I enjoy sarcasm more than the next guy, but don't you think this one was way over the top?

[J Thomas]

"He said about 29 military bases have been turned over to Iraqi control; the Iraqi army has seven division and 31 brigade headquarters in operation, compared with none 16 months ago; the number of Iraqi army battalions “in the fight” is now 95, compared with five 15 months ago, and there are now over 212,000 trained and equipped security forces, compared with 96,000 last year."

I'd feel a lot more cofident about that if he hadn't been claiming 260,000 trained security forces last year.

[ajay]

Good catch. Actually, he said there were 200,000 Iraqi security force personnel in March 2004.
So which is it? 200,000 or 96,000?
Actually, the Pentagon said later, in March 2004 there were only 114,789 fully-trained ISF, most of them security guards. If you only count police, border guards and army, there were exactly 6,114. I wonder what the real figure is now?

[ilsm]

Van Creveld, and the Israelis are demonstrating that after 38 years they could not defeat nor diminish the Palestinian "terrorists" in Gaza.

They withdrew.

Van Creveld and the Israelis are more epxerienced than we and have become realists.

There is a theory of a new kind of war; one which was won by the IRA in 1921, won by Mao in 1948, and now won by the Palestinians.

Waged by al Qaeda it is one with no armies and all terrorists. Some would apply a military solution wrongly, worse is trying to "bring the war to them".

The power of this new order of battle is it is not convewntional.

As the Viet Cong; they can lose all the battles and give up territoy all day long; the victors of each skirmish then are left holding a tar baby while the terrorists move on to other battlefields to lose on.

In the end the elephant is worn out stomping ant hills.

The worst news in the war on terror came this week in a report which showed the "terror finance networks" to be undiminished.

The solution to this kind of war is to defend the homeland and maintain our internal security, that is their target.

Iraq is a place they fight us on and we encourage their strategy each time we kill innocent Iraqis.