Pulling out of Iraq and the WoT

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
[I]t is unlikely that al-Qaeda is likely to prosper in Iraq should we leave. They have a lot of competition in Iraq, and I don't believe that they are really one of the stronger factions. I don't think they're even a dominant faction amongst Sunnis. If we leave it is possible that many of the factions fighting to drive us out will cease hostilities. Under such conditions al-Qaeda is unlikely to be able to maintain much of a presence in Iraq. If civil war breaks out al-Qaeda is still likely to lose, if only for the fact that they really don't have a common point with which to deal with the Shiite majority, and should they come out on top in a Sunnis dominated state in central Iraq I doubt that the neighboring Shiites would allow them to remain.

Dr. Strangelove, assuming AQ continues to provide material support for a Sunni victory (however that is defined) after we left, I would find it strange that the Sunni's would not allow AQ to set up bases in Sunni-controlled areas unless that would place them in conflict with their neighbors to an unacceptable degree. Syria would not object. Turkey would, but has no real influence. Jordan would, but again, has no influence to speak of. Saudi Arabia would. But do they have enough influence?

I also assume that AQ will continue to suppor the Sunni's after we leave because they will lable the Baghdad government a US puppet that has to be destroyed. Their continued struggle against the government will continue to generate support for AQ in the Sunni communitees across the planet.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Frozzy
Is there actually anyone here who thinks Iraq can function as a democratic, unified and functional state?

No, not without massive US support.

I blame Iran, Syria and AQ for assuring constant destabliazation of any democratic regime that remains. In the end, some strongman will rule.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Not worried. The bulk of the "readiness" issues is not equipment or training, but deployment lengths. I for one am not overly concerned with this as that what soldiers do during war, deploy. There is no clause in anyone's contact limiting how many months a year you are available for national tasking. I bet the average soldier form Korea/Vietnam spent more time in country than our current members.

Korea and Vietnam aren't particularly relevant. Draftee armies with relatively low training and far simpler operational doctrine with lower technology dependence. In the case of certain USA units in Korea, abysmal performance, and in the case of Vietnam, a high proportion of single 12 or 13 (USMC) month tours and out.

And let me ask you what having a military that is now majority combat veterans does to readiness and training?

Then why was the Commandant of the USMC testifying to Congress that the pace of deployments has adversely affected training? If you have high enough retention, and time for veteran troops to impart knowledge to recruits, then an increase of proportion of combat veterans is beneficial. If you have those things...

And then whose readiness are you talking about. Are we still not able to completely disable any country on earth with air/sea power in a few hours notice?

It depends on your concept of "disable" and what forces you're talking about, plus the political will/geopolitical consequences at stake.

We sure are, the army is not going to be much help with most other possible conflicts unless you think we will try occupying someone else after this little field trip.

I've yet to hear of any serious doctrine which holds that insurgents/terrorists/irregular fighters/*******s can be rooted out by air and sea power.

I didn't expect anything different. Some cases they are doing better than I thought they might.

You must have been among the biggest pessimists four years ago, then, because there sure was a lot of crowing from a lot of people about how the Iraqis could fund their own reconstruction from their oil revenues, and this whole "beacon of democracy" thing, etc.

The US national debt sufferers from far greater draws that the Iraq war, but that is another topic. Care to tell me what US forces are not being upgraded, especially those relevant to Iraq. I being in the Navy know a bunch of them, but I am curious if you do.

Defense budget going from ~350 to 600 billion annual doesn't help. What US forces? I know of several programs cancelled or cut back from my time in government acquisition in 2004 and 2005, or half-assed programs rushed into place (USA/USAF FLAN for one) without addressing operationally critical issues. My friends' just-returned USMC helo squadron's -46s are older than most of the flight crews, and many had excessive hours on the airframe and high hours on the engines/transmissions, for another.

And why would I be angry about a bigger budget and enlarging the military. Dream come true.

If the budget went to that. Unfortunately, with the size of the budgets, force expansion hasn't been a priority, even when Bush had a friendly Congress to work with, because Rummy decided it wasn't a priority.

[Solly]

wot WoT?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned


No, not without massive US support.

I blame Iran, Syria and AQ for assuring constant destabliazation of any democratic regime that remains. In the end, some strongman will rule.

With the history of Baathist/Saddamite actions, unequal distribution of resources and population (Sunnis get goats, swamps and sand, while Kurds and Shiites get all the oil), and general Sunni-Shiite sectarian issues, not to mention the tremendous history of respect for human rights and western democratic ideals for which the mideast is so widely reknowned, that the Iraqis would have any real ability to create a unified, stable, democratic regime in the first place?

[Frozzy]

Originally posted by Ned


No, not without massive US support.

I blame Iran, Syria and AQ for assuring constant destabliazation of any democratic regime that remains. In the end, some strongman will rule.

So maybe in that regard Vietnam is not a good example. In that case Vietnam was already split and the US was attempting to stop unification, while in Iraq we have a unified state the US essentially is trying to stop splitting.

Maybe we could look at a hypothetical situation in which NATO or the UN rock on into Yugoslavia in the late 80s/early 90s to install a democracy and stop Yugoslavia splitting on ethnic lines... would it have been a good thing in that regard? Or even look at the lack of international intervention in the Balkans during the split.

[LordShiva]

I just got semi-drunk at happy hour. this thread is fun

[Solly]

Originally posted by LordShiva
I just got semi-drunk at happy hour. this thread is fun

Got some more cans in? I've only had one sesh in five weeks

[LordShiva]

WTF is a sesh?

[Solly]

Originally posted by LordShiva
WTF is a sesh?

A session

Sorry! The administrator has specified that users can only post one message every 30 seconds.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Nylan-Nolan
And until you have been "in the sand" throwing such terms around will do naught for you.

Been there, done that. 11-Bravo, Airborne. I have a kid older than a fair number of the line animals in the sand now, so sorry if I did my time earlier than the present FUBAR, back when daddy Bush knew how to fight and win in the ME, and prior.

The lack of a result is why we must procure one. If we leave now we admit defeat and failure, when we more than have the power to make things otherwise.

We don't admit squat, other than redeployment of our forces and change in their operational posture better serves our interests.

We more than have the power? Do you think all those CNN-watching A-rabs are going to say "Well, shucks, American willpower is unshakeable, so we just shouldn't bother any more?"

It's cheap for Sunni Iraqis and foreign arab fighters to play cat and mouse games, blow up markets, plant IEDs, snipe CASEVAC missions, etc. And they're not about to run low on Arabs willing to fight for Allah or whatever any time soon. It's like going to a blackjack table in Vegas and deciding you're going to buy a casino by breaking the house. They *******s we're fighting have virtually infinite staying power, and they can vary the time, place and intensity of their operations in country pretty much as needed to adapt to the momentary situation.

So how many years, how many casualties, and how much cost to the taxpayer are you willing to throw into it?

Vietnam

Why do you assume "it doesn't affect us, so even if it sucks who gives a monkey?" It's rather self-centered. I for one actually care about the welfare of the people in both Vietnam and Iraq. Just because Vietnam doesn't threaten us doesn't mean it doesn't stink there.

Lots of places stink. Not fun if you're born in one of them, but not within the US's power or imperatives to forcibly change them, either. It's a question partly of sovereignty, and that little bit of human nature that says "even if it's a sewer, it's our sewer and don't tell us how to run it." Not to mention that when the US does act, with the rare exception (UNITAF and UNOSOM II), it does so to promote its own interests primarily, and those of the locals (and only some of the locals) to the extent their interests are aligned with ours.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Assume the answer is that it doesnt. Does that prove that staying 24 months, instead of say, 6 months, is the wrong strategy?

How much extra ependiture (in whatever form) in the 18 month differential, for what result?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
a. If we had done what you suggest, than many of the costs you attribute to the failed grand strategy would have been incurred anyway. that doesnt mean your proposed strat is wrong, but it does make it sound like youre double counting its benefits.

We would not have had a need to maintain the footprint for as long - costs would have been much higher than spent in Afghanistan so far, but lower than the combined Afghan-Iraq operations.

Do you think that GIVEN only a light footprint in Afghan, we shouldnt have gone in?

We had no choice but to respond decisively to the Taleban and AQ, regardless of the form of that response, however, there was no "given" other than the one chosen by the Bush/Rummy/neocon cabal.

b. Its still not clear to me that a heavy footprint right away wouldnt have caused a national rising among the Afghans, one which we have thus far managed to avoid.

The Soviets didn't trigger a heavy, across the board response for years. Given competing anti-Taleban interests, the willingness of lots of Taleban fighters (more mercenary/need-the-job types than real hardcore ideologues) to go away, and popular disatisfaction with the Taleban after they'd been in power for a while, we had some time to work with.

I also think you underestimate the manpower needed to seal Afghanistan.

I would look for an initial deployment building up as rapidly as possible to a higher total manpower than our combined Iraq invasion and forces in Afghanistan at the time. And reductions starting within a year, along with a lot more nation buidling/confidence building, and engagement to the extent possible (excluding intransigent and predictable *******s like Hekmatyar) from the outset.

[Solly]

Nobody's listening

Sorry! The administrator has specified that users can only post one message every 30 seconds.

[MOBIUS]

Nice to see that you're finally agreeing with me about Afghanistan and Iraq, MtG. Albeit I said all this before those conflicts, and you've finally joined the dots - but hey, better late than never, eh?