September 09, 2004

How to Win in Iraq

I make no claims that I know the right answer, but I think I know the wrong answer when I see it. The New York Times reported yesterday that the US/Iraqi government/puppets had ceded control over Ramadi, Falluja, Baquba and Samarra (and I would add Najaf), allowing the insurgents to govern themselves (more technically, fail to govern themselves) in those areas. In addition, notice the chart on the first page of the NYT story. Attacks against US forces have gone from 500 a month (back in March) through 1600 a month (the approximate average of April through July) to over 2600 in August alone. And, of course, the 1000th US soldier died just a few days ago.

I would not say we are losing, but I do not think we can make the case that we are winning. How do we start winning? In the long run, we need to win the "hearts and minds." This means a successful reconstruction, jobs, and democracy (at least letting them vote on what sort of government they want) at a minimum. However, none of that, NONE, can be accomplished until the security situation begins to stabilize. And we are losing that battle.

We need more soldiers on the ground. We cannot cede control of any territory to the insurgents - we at least must challenge them. The US is going to have to dig deep and find more military to send. We have three choices:

First, we can empty the arsenal here, and send more active-duty troops. This will significantly degrade (or eliminate) our ability to respond to other international crises (North Korea, Iran, Sudan, etc.) as well as degrade the US military (no rest and refit, a very long ops-tempo for the troops, etc.). The advantages are that very good soldiers will produce real results.

Second, we can reduce our control over Iraq in general, and make international concessions to entice other countries to send troops. If we invite them nicely enough (and make enough concession) they will come. They see the problems in Iraq, and recognize that a failed state there will make life worse in Europe, Asia and elsewhere. We have alienated them through our actions and demands, but self-interest will bring them back to us if we allow our own self-interest to temper our policy.

Third, we can start the draft again. Domestically, I don't think this would fly, but it is a solution to the lack of soldiers to send to Iraq. It solves the Iraqi problem while creating a huge political storm here. However, it may be necessary if #1 and #2 are unacceptable/unworkable.

That's it. The situation in Iraq, I believe, has gotten grave enough to warrant a significant change in policy. The momentum is going the wrong way, and Iraqi elections (which are crucial for the long term stability of the country) are soon. My own solution is a combination of #1 and #2. We can sustain a reduction in US readiness/response for a few months to allow time for diplomacy to get some foreign soldiers into Iraq. This is risky, in the sense that a real crisis could flair up somewhere, but we must take risks to try to find success in Iraq.

"Stay the course" is not working. The time for political solutions is in the past (we missed the opportunity) or in the future (after the security situation is stabilized), not now. We need more soldiers, its as simple as that.

Posted by baltar at September 9, 2004 12:04 PM | TrackBack | Posted to International Affairs


Comments
Post a comment









Remember personal info?