What I find so infuriating about the situation in Southern Iraq is that it was all so avoidable, and by that I do not mean by not getting involved in the first place. Clearly I was wrong to assume that just because the British government did the right thing helping with the ouster of Saddam Hussein, they would do what was needed to actually secure victory in the aftermath and focus Britain’s resources on achieving military success against the Iranian based insurgents in their area of responsibility. Silly me.
What US generals see, however, is a close ally preparing to “cut and run”, leaving behind a city in the grip of a power struggle between Shia militias that could determine the fate of the Iraqi government and the country as a whole. With signs of the surge yielding tentative progress in Baghdad, but at the cost of many American lives, there could scarcely be a worse time for a parting of the ways. Yet the US military has no doubt, despite what Gordon Brown claims, that the pullout is being driven by “the political situation at home in the UK”.
A senior US officer familiar with Gen Petraeus’s thinking said: “The short version is that the Brits have lost Basra, if indeed they ever had it. Britain is in a difficult spot because of the lack of political support at home, but for a long time – more than a year – they have not been engaged in Basra and have tried to avoid casualties.
“They did not have enough troops there even before they started cutting back. The situation is beyond their control.
It is not like Britain lacks the troops to send in order to apply the needed force to Basra and its environs. What exactly are the 23,000 British soldiers defending Rheindahlen, Saxony and Westphalia from at the moment? It is extraordinary that the standard response to things getting rough militarily these days is not to reinforce but rather to cut back in-theatre thereby increasing the pressure of those troops left behind… hardly an approach calculated to bring success.
I thought the one thing the damn state was capable of was waging wars, particularly ones of its own choosing. If it cannot even do that, what the hell use is it? Even less than I thought, and that is saying something.
“With signs of the surge yielding tentative progress in Baghdad, but at the cost of many American lives”… This is mere opinion on what the surge has and is accomplishing, not based on the facts reported on the ground. There has been substantial progress but, it is a time-consuming effort. “Tentative” is a conclusion not fully agreed upon and having doubt. And that is simply not true. This has to be understood when seeking to assess the overall state of Iraq.
Saturday’s assessment of operation Phantom Thunder reported by Wes Morgan can be found at the link below. Here’s the intro: “After they’d all put some thought into how to arrange the chairs and tables, the door from the tarmac opened and a gaggle of people came in, guarded by nonuniformed security types with M4s. At the center of the pack was Attorney General Gonzales. Petraeus brought him up to the front table, then called me over and introduced me before having everyone take their seats and beginning the briefing.”
Its too much to post here but scroll down to “Phantom Thunder’s aftermath.”
http://billroggio.com/archives/2007/08/battlefield_circulat.php
So there is indeed success- progress -and it is continuing to spread. Now we have this to deal with in Basra and the hope of containing it before it spreads. Not a small task. And, something our Democrats who have hoped for failure for their own political gain, will most likely exploit.
What the ‘surge is working’ spin ignores is that even the architects of the surge admitted that it would be useless unless there was political progress in Baghdad and reconciliation between factions. That isn’t happening. There is absolutely no evidence that it will happen anytime soon. And even though Bush is no doubt getting celestial orders from his higher father, he can’t ignore forever that the American public were never for the surge and aren’t going to favour it continuing into 2008. And if Bush ends up bombing Iran, you can forget Iraq completely. Iran will just order all its agents in Iraq to go on a full scale offensive, the pro-Iranian Iraqi government may rebel against the US, and Hamas and Hezbollah will retaliate in Israel and Lebanon. Obviously they cannot militarily defeat America, but they can easily stop America from ‘winning’ Iraq.
“That isn’t happening. There is absolutely no evidence that it will happen anytime soon. ” Prove that statement. I wanna know your hard ‘facts’ coming to your conclusion.
Its a “spin” for you Cynic, not with Petraeus and most on the ground… in the know.
Do you want it to work?
What do you want?
The Iraqi government despise Petraeus. They can’t stand the man and have asked Washington to replace him. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/28/wirq128.xml) The Iraqi government have gone on vacation while more US troops die to give the politicos ‘more time’ to deal with the political problems facing Iraq (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070805/pl_nm/iraq_gates_dc).
It doesn’t matter what I want or what you want. Wishing things is not going to do anything. If the Iraqi government don’t give a toss, then the surge is doomed, regardless of how many ‘terrorists’ get killed. The Iraqis hate the wonderboy sent to pacify Iraq, and think their vacation is their most pressing concern. These people clearly don’t seem eager to bring about the political progress Bush demands.
Cynic,
“Iraqis hate the wonderboy sent to pacify Iraq,”
Wait, because the U.S. won’t defer to everything the Shias demand, leaving the Sunnis out of their plans, all is lost? Weak article and bad political commentary. And, why are you trying to speak for the “Iraqis”? Did they use the word wonderboy or are you just being polemic? No need to answer, I already know as the proof is in the pudding. You discredit yourself.
Er, hang on. Weren’t we told at the start that the British “Hearts and Minds” way was (with a small smile on their knowing faces) “superior”?
Actually fighting the enemy works better. Who’da thunk it?
Geese Cynic I thought you were actually gonna try for some hot ‘examples’ of ongoing and/or relatively recent violence between Sunni and Shia. With all al-Qaeda has reaped cool heads with the desire for nonviolent coexistence keeps prevailing. Yeah and Maliki is not the greatest… what’s new. And the vacation looks kinda dumb at best but it not unlike our own idiots in the Senate and House.
“It doesn’t matter what I want or what you want. Wishing things is not going to do anything.” That’s right. Apply it to yourself, fraud. You can’t even answer for your own motivations. That’s all the answer needed. You want American humiliation. You want us out of there and you want failure. Don’t speak for the American soldier, almost every account I read he speaks a different language and reality. You cannot and do not speak for the increasingly majority of Iraqi people either. Your answer is cut and run or a variation thereof and your result is genocide and a bastion of terrorist bases to bring it to the West like never before.
You’re too typical. Bankrupt. Callous toward the fate of humanity in 24 million, intent to point your finger.
“Cynic” … right. Don’t flatter yourself.
Yes, we have lost Basra. It’s been an appalling cock-up. We should’ve arranged an early bath for Moqtada al Sadr and told the rest of the loonies to behave or they’d be next.
Unfortunately, this is what happens when you fight a war of dubious popularity back home and therefore compromise by deciding to do it really half-assed.
So, we now have Tony Blair as Middle-East Peace Envoy – I do wish I was making this up.
It is quite possible that an invasion/conquest was a strategically and politically a good idea that could have come off if conducted properly (as I think); or a bad idea that could nonetheless have come off if conducted properly. Neither of those is inconsistent with the view that it is now strategically and politically irretrievable, and the longer it goes on the greater will be the triumph of the Islamist barbarians when the “crusaders” are driven out.
Hang on. We’ve lost Basra? But wasn’t it not very long ago that the Beeb was telling us the softly-softly approach of the British Army was working? That the speak softly, no-helmuts-only-berets, hug-a-hoodlum approach of the infinitely-wiser-in-such-things British was so vastly superior to the shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later approach of the naive, gung-ho approach of the Americans under their intellectually sub-normal Commander In Chief?
So what happened? Could it be that Auntie’s BDS blinded her to the reality on the ground? Tell me it ain’t so.
RobtE,
Horses for courses. The Brit softly softly approach has worked elsewhere but it was absolutely bonkers to try it in Iraq.
And don’t even get me started on the fact that all the blood and treasure expended on Iraq and Afghanistan has resulted in the formation of two more Islamic Republics.
Who the hell drew up the constitutions of these places? The new Afghan one manages to contradict itself in the preamble – it mentions the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Koran. The UN bit means that changing ones religion is an inalienable right. The Koranic bit sees this as a capital offense.
And God alone knows what the Iraqi government is up to.
The surge is rather too little, and far too late. Having spent 4 years doing everything wrong, it’s nice to see them doing something more or less right, but who’s to say the next person in the army/pentagon/white house won’t screw it all up again? At this point, I see no reason to give anyone the benefit of the doubt.
An unjustified intervention, poorly executed. If the us was committing hundreds of thousands of people for years, I’d have more faith, but instead it’s always “10,000 more people and 6 months and we’ll have turned the corner”. Sure, just like all those other corners – finding Saddam, holding elections, training the army.
The British have handled things poorly. So has the US. We’ve more than done our bit as loyal allies, we can now make our own assessment of the benefits of staying, and I don’t see many. If the US is that desperate for us to stay around and play soldiers with them, maybe they could do something nice for us, like, I dunno, ratify their half of the recent extradition treaty, or let us buy shares in their airlines, or maybe not fingerprinting everyone arriving on their shores, like some common criminal. Which reminds me, must get my US passport renewed…
‘You want American humiliation. You want us out of there and you want failure. Don’t speak for the American soldier, almost every account I read he speaks a different language and reality.’
America has already humiliated itself. You don’t need naughty little scoundrels that wishing for that. You can count on the incompetence and stupidity of the American government and armed forces for that. I never wanted America to humiliate itself, which was why I never thought the Iraq War was a good idea. Getting rid of Saddam was always going to be easy, but I always thought it was inevitable that there would be a large insurgency and that ethnic conflict would break out. And I also knew that nationbuilding never works (you can’t build civil society using gunships and bureaucrats), and that introducing democracy into a country with a culture stuck firmly in the 7th century would not be a paancea.
As for the American soldier, if he wants to stay there, he can stay there permanently as far as I care. But I don’t see why anybody that is against the war should have to pay to keep him there. Those in favour of the war ought to be charged higher taxes. The persons against the war are what William Graham Sumner called the forgotten man. It has been decided that s/he will have to pay for the schemes of the neocons and the other statists to save the Iraqi people, and that s/he will have to pay regardless of his/her opinion. Volunteering for the armed forces may be voluntary, but sadly taxes are not.
‘Your answer is cut and run or a variation thereof and your result is genocide and a bastion of terrorist bases to bring it to the West like never before. You’re too typical. Bankrupt. Callous toward the fate of humanity in 24 million, intent to point your finger.’
I see your doing a great job for the Iraqi people, ranting and raving behind a computer screen. Go collect your medal. I’m not a statist, and don’t pretend to be a humanitarian.
Al Qaeda are actually safely encamped in Waziristan. Even if America stayed for 5000 years in Iraq, that won’t force Al Qaeda out of Waziristan. How does keeping 160,000 troops in Iraq stop Bin Laden et al in Waziristan planning another attack on the US?
But I don’t see why anybody that is against the war should have to pay to keep him there. Those in favour of the war ought to be charged higher taxes.
I agree. It’s a wonderful idea. Let’s extend it, though, to cover the whole of government expenditure. No taxpayer will be required to pay for any activity or service of which he disapproves. As my list of approved expenditure will be extremely short, I should be significantly quids in.
…s/he…his/her…
Such constructions are intellectually equivalent to the use of multiple exclamation points. Much to be avoided.
Of course. But, having one is is a precondition.
[Deleted. Use the link embed tool properly please, you were screwing up the comment section with the ultra-long (and irrelevant) link]
‘I agree. It’s a wonderful idea. Let’s extend it, though, to cover the whole of government expenditure. No taxpayer will be required to pay for any activity or service of which he disapproves. As my list of approved expenditure will be extremely short, I should be significantly quids in.’
I have long believed in that too. But while I have found that many ‘conservatives’ think that liberals should pay for their own schemes to save the world (Welfare State, foreign aid etc), many get pretty annoyed that the same principle should apply to ‘conservatives’ and their world-saving schemes, like spreading democracy using the Marines.
I agree. It’s a wonderful idea. Let’s extend it, though, to cover the whole of government expenditure. No taxpayer will be required to pay for any activity or service of which he disapproves. As my list of approved expenditure will be extremely short, I should be significantly quids in.
Hmmm … we could call the organizations involved private charities, and we could allow them to trade on something we’ll call … hmmm … the free market.
Then, if somebody wants to send a gang of people with guns to cure Iraq of barbarism, or convert them to Christianity, or convince them to stop killing each other, or to feed them tea and crumpets (what the hell is a crumpet?), then they can hire mercenaries, missionaries, ethics professors, or waiters, as they consider appropriate.
On the home front, people can provide all the services they like on their own dime. I might even contribute.
Nobody ever won anything by fielding an “armty”(sic)
Ok, but you have to field something. Try an army.
I am no expert, but should British Forces exit from Iraq, our political imbeciles/leaders would do well to enable our lads and lasses to give the militias, and al-Sadr in particular, a short, sharp and very bloody nose just before leaving. Get them on the canvas for all to see, then, and only then, step away. Remove any credibility or pretense at “driving out” the British Army.
IIRC this has been the practice during various colonial troubles and handovers past. It should be so again.
I was not in favour of going into Iraq in 2003, but the Cynic and Rich Paul stuff is no good.
There were plenty of AQ people in Iraq in 2003 – and, in spite of them denoucing him as not a proper Muslim, Saddam was quite happy to support them. It was not “Bush lies” that Saddam was involved in supporting terrorism around the world – he was doing exactly that. Just as he (contrary to Mr and Mrs Wilson) was trying to revive his atomic weapons program (although he had failed so far).
As for the idea that private charites could defeat Saddam in battle – I do not agree. The U.N. relief agencies were bombed out of Iraq years ago (not private charities I admit – but the same would have been done to them).
Evil is strong (as I tried to point out to Rich Paul in my last comment on the A.B.C. debate posting) understanding the power of evil is vital in this world, people who say “we will only use nice methods when dealing with evil” are really saying “we agree to be exterminated”.
Trade and other voluntary cooperation are of no use when dealing with the power of evil (i.e. thinkers like Murry Rothbard are no use in serious situations). Men of violence can only be defeated by violence – and the mass use of violence (war) can never be limited to “just hurting the guilty” (war is not like that).
Ayn Rand far from not understanding the above, understood these matters quite well.
On the Russian Civil War Ayn Rand did not attack the Whites for using violence, the lady attacked the Whites for using violence without a clear idea of what they were using it for (as well as what they were against).
“The Red fought for plunder and rule by terror, and the Whites fought for nothing – the Reds won”.
Ayn Rand had a similar view of Vietnam.
War is about violence – pittyless violence. Refusing to use such violence does not mean peace – it just means extermination or enslavement. But violence is not an end in its self – it must be used with a purpose in mind (and “we are against X” is not good enough).
Private “defence companies” may be useful on the margins, but they do not normally win wars. This is only to be expected – after all, government (the Sword of State) was born of war. Either conquest or the successful defence against conquest. The Sword of State is by its very nature evil (it can be nothing else – it operates outside the nonaggression principle based civil society), but refusual to use it simply means one is exterminated or enslaved by people who will.
The thing is to understand what the Sword of State is (pityless violence), exactly what one is using for (destoying other men of violence) and what it is utterly unsuitable for (health, education, art – and all the other things that the vast majority of government spending and regulations are about in the modern world).
Of course one can still be corrupted by using the Sword of State (as stated above it is evil – it is natural for many of those who use it to be corrupted by it), however to be in politics (i.e. to be involved with the Sword of State) without understanding what it is, makes corruption certain.
As for Iraq:
Whatever one thinks of the judgement of 2003 (and I thought it was unwise), the idea of a new Iraq was shown to be unserious by an event early on.
A senior moderate Shia cleric returned to Iraq and, fearing for his power, “Al” Sadr ordered him hacked to death.
“Al” Sadr was not arrested.
“Al” Sadr’s group (over the last few years armed and trained by the Iranians and by their “Party of God” people in Lebanon) went on to murder lots of other people – Shia, Sunni and a few Westerners (it is still doing all this today).
In response to this Sadr’s group were invited into the government of the “new Iraq” (several times).
Unlike “Cynic” I am not amused by all this – but I do not pretend it did not happen.
If the West was serious about building a “democratic Iraq” then Sadr should either be in prison or at the end of a rope.
The Iraqi courts themselves should be the people to make that judgement.
But for “political reasons” nothing is done.
The idea that the Brits have lost Basra, if they ever had it, may for all I know be quite true. But perhaps the same could be said of the US forces in Baghdad.
It seems to me that it is very difficult, in a country as volatile as Iraq, with all its tribal tensions, unstable parties, porous borders with Iran and Syria plus weapons in the hands of just about everybody – even before you take in to account the usual muslim religious splits and nutcases, that the situation is as far from any “normal” war or policing could be.
Of course there isn’t the enthusiasm in the UK for keeping troops in Iraq – and as all governments monitor public feelings to ensure they do the “best thing” to try to win the next election any disaffection is going to be felt and noted in Downing Street.
Would a more active up-and-at-’em approach be better from the British troops? I am no military expert: I have no idea how much in costs in manpower, equipment and cash. But I don’t like the idea that our troops are toothless. No soldier should be sent to a conflict anywhere unless it is to win – and so far I don’t see any obvious winning moves, though maybe I am not being told the whole story.
Victory in Iraq may well be impossible in any standard terms, but losing shouldn’t be an option. I just hope we are learning a lot from this, dealing as we are with all these people because as the world gets caught up in more and more murderous “religion of peace” squabbles we need to come out of it with something to prepare ourselves for the trials ahead.
Thundering Phantoms, Batman! We’ve lost Basra!
Quick, let’s all go home for Christmas before some bright spark asks us to find it again.
I’ve just read the article, and apart from some speculations by unnamed “senior officials”, what is the actual evidence that the UK has either “lost Basra” or is about to “cut and run”?
If the complaint is that the UK is not following the new surge strategy yet and is therefore where the US was six months ago, fair enough. But so far as I know the only talk of withdrawal is on the same basis it has ever been – when the Iraqis are ready and not a moment before – and unsubstantiated assertions that we have “lost” are nothing new – they’ve been saying that about the entire effort for three years now – so do they have anything to back that up? And if so, why don’t they say what it is?
Like I said before, there are people who would have stood around on the beaches of Dunkirk whining about how losing was inevitable and we had might as well give up now. I’m not even sure what “losing” means in this context.
Here’s another analysis. Compare and contrast this with the article referenced here. The speaker understands doctrine, gives more detailed information from named sources in a position to know about the situation on the ground, is neither relentlessly optimistic nor blindly pessimistic, and gives the reader the feeling at the end that they might have actually learnt something.
This is the sort of thing we ought to be reading if we want to comment intelligently on Iraq (fine if you want to find some that are more negative as well, so long as they are well-informed), not some vacuous sound-bite quotes-without-context following the standard media line that the sky is falling in on us.
Perry’s title was: “It takes more than just the army to win.”
Firstly, I comment that it is unlikely that Prime Ministers (especially plural) and 2-star generals (even good ones) can be relied upon to sing from the same hymn-sheet.
You may ask: on whom does this best reflect? And that would be a good question.
Secondly, I would comment (for the benefit of the USA), $10B pa (directly or indirectly) might make a material difference!
‘What for?’ might be asked: it’s to keep sweet your friend, when you impose upon him. We’ve been there before, though previously always the other way round. Still, it’s a good and long-lasting friendship.
Thirdly and finally, there are two reasons for war: survival and advantage. This war is not about survival, and the advantage looks piss poor (as it always has for both countries).
So why are we in it? Well: someone had a dream!
Best regards
The only reason the state has a reputation for being “good” at waging war is because the state is the only entity actually capable of fighting a full-scale, long-term war. It is also the only entity to ignore the actual costs of a war that they are paying for.
War takes lots of money and manpower. It takes so much money and man power that private entities can’t afford it on anything for more than the most small of scales for a very limited duration. Look at the bill for the Iraq war. Now take that number and put it next to Bill Gate’s net worth. Mr. Gates would barely be able to land his troops on the beach, let alone wage any sort of battle, on his budget.
No, to wage war you need more money than honest commerce will allow you. That is why it takes a state with the power to tax and draft. No one else is stupid enough to waste their own money on something that costs you more than it gains.
Stateless areas tend to have very little of what we would classify as “war”. Crime, yes, but not the kind of violence that destroys city blocks. Even the Somali warlords scaled back their wars by the mid 90’s when it became apparent that they were too costly compared to the gains. Apparently even drugged up, illiterate tribesmen have more sense than modern states.
b-b-b-but AQ would never ally with Saddam because they thought he was an infidel!!
I can’t believe people are still dredging this shit up. Why would AQ have any qualms forming an alliance with Saddam? The direct predecessors of AQ allied with the USA – the one and only Great Satan! – when it suited their interests to do so.
Am I the only one who detects an awfully large gap between the number of folks who – back in 2002-3 – accurately predicted the security situation of post-Saddam Iraq, and the number of folks today claiming that they accurately predicted the security situation of post-Saddam Iraq back in 2002-3?
Hindsight’s such a terribly useful thing, isn’t it?
Why do you believe a government that is incapable of running a country at home can go out and run another country well?
I do not want them to ‘run’ Iraq, I want them to wage a war effectively and then leave an acceptable (and partitioned) bunch of locals to run things.
And I am really VERY happy for my government to be incapable of running this country. In truth I wish they were even less capable than they in fact are. Fighting wars however is one of the few things I actually want the government to be good at.
There is a contradiction there Perry.
You say that you want the Iraqi people to decide – but you also say you want Iraq to be partitioned.
The Kurds may be happy with a break up (although they would want areas that are not majority Kurd anymore), but the Arabs (both Sunni and Shia) would not be a happy with a breakup – and they are the vast majority of the population.
And who is to get capital – it is an historically Sunni city with a present Shia majority.
Is it to be divided (as Berlin was), or are the Sunni going to be driven out?
I do not think Senator Brownback’s plan will work.
What we can do is to stop being nice to the Shia faction that is murdering lots of Sunni (and lots of Shia as well) – Sadr’s people.
I think you agree that he should have dealt with when he first ordered the deaths of British and American people.
Although, of course, for every Westerner he has had killed he has had a least ten locals killed.