Our Success in Iraq and What it Means

[RecoveringYuppy]

Well don't get too carried away. You still have the 2k to put into your retirement plan etc. since, to my knowledge, no one is sending out bills to all of us yet. Yes military campaigns are very expensive. We spend billions per day all over the world in areas that haven't seen a war in 50 years.

"Billions per day" ... in areas

Uhh. Assuming the plural of billions means at least two and that the plural of areas means at least two you're claiming we spend at least 1.46 trillion dollars per year on this vague expense you're claiming.

I don't you should be admonishing someone else to not get carried away.

 

[Puppycow]

Dec 2007 was the deadliest month since the occupation began.

I'm not sure that's correct. In fact, I think it's wrong. (Although 2007 was the deadliest year for American forces.)

Deadliest for who, by the way, American soldiers or Iraqis?

Let's see if I can find the answer:
Iraq Coalition Casualties
Assuming this is correct, then December 2007 was the 2nd least deadly month for US forces since we've been in Iraq (23 deaths). The least deadly month was Feb. 2004 with 20 deaths. April 2004 was the deadliest month with 135 deaths, and May 2007 was 2nd most deadly with 126. Jan. 2008 is already deadlier than December was, however, so now the trend seems to have bottomed out and may be rising again.
The site also shows that deaths among Iraqi security forces were down in December.

Iraq Body Count
And it appears that Iraqi civilian casualties were also down in December.

I am conceding all this, but my main point was that it's far from clear that this is any kind of strategic success or that remaining in Iraq will have any long-term strategic benefits.

 

[HereticHulk]

I'm not sure that's correct. In fact, I think it's wrong. (Although 2007 was the deadliest year for American forces.)

Deadliest for who, by the way, American soldiers or Iraqis?

Let's see if I can find the answer:
Iraq Coalition Casualties
Assuming this is correct, then December 2007 was the 2nd least deadly month for US forces since we've been in Iraq (23 deaths). The least deadly month was Feb. 2004 with 20 deaths. April 2004 was the deadliest month with 135 deaths, and May 2007 was 2nd most deadly with 126. Jan. 2008 is already deadlier than December was, however, so now the trend seems to have bottomed out and may be rising again.
The site also shows that deaths among Iraqi security forces were down in December.

Iraq Body Count
And it appears that Iraqi civilian casualties were also down in December.

I am conceding all this, but my main point was that it's far from clear that this is any kind of strategic success or that remaining in Iraq will have any long-term strategic benefits.

I'm sorry 2007 was deadliest year for US forces w/ 901.
http://icasualties.org/oif/

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

No I am only probing your intellectual honesty. Do you agree that the new NIE on Iran's lack of a nuclear weapons program is accurate? This is in relation to your assertion that we invaded Iraq based on false intelligence.

I don't see how it effects my intellectual honesty. And it still has nothing to do with whether we went to war based on false info.

I recall an Iraq War thread being resurrected a while back. It was really interesting in hindsight.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Surge and success.

Caution.

It took about four years to get to "crap, what we are doing sucks, try the surge."
The surge has been on for a year.

Get back to me in a year.

Then talk about the word "success" and do so at the political level.

Merely decreasing "body bags per month" strikes me as a skewed metric for using "success" rather than "reversing a trend of failure."

DR

 

[corplinx]

Surge and success.

Caution.

It took about four years to get to "crap, what we are doing sucks, try the surge."
The surge has been on for a year.

Get back to me in a year.

Then talk about the word "success" and do so at the political level.

Merely decreasing "body bags per month" strikes me as a skewed metric for using "success" rather than "reversing a trend of failure."

DR

I am sure that you of all people knows how the military learns. It learns by trial and error. I wonder how much credit the surge can truely take outside of baghdad since they have been re-writing every SOP on occupation following the success in Anbar.

Is the surge truely what's working?

 

[Puppycow]

Surge and success.

Caution.

It took about four years to get to "crap, what we are doing sucks, try the surge."
The surge has been on for a year.

Get back to me in a year.

Then talk about the word "success" and do so at the political level.

Merely decreasing "body bags per month" strikes me as a skewed metric for using "success" rather than "reversing a trend of failure."

DR

Well I agree with you there. But some folks don't want to wait another year before calling it a success.

Do Obama and Clinton and Reid now acknowledge that they were wrong? Are they willing to say the surge worked?

(Yes: Criticizing Democrats for being unwilling to admit that "the surge worked" is tantamount to a claim that "the surge worked.")

 

[pgwenthold]

Surge and success.

Caution.

It took about four years to get to "crap, what we are doing sucks, try the surge."
The surge has been on for a year.

Get back to me in a year.

Then talk about the word "success" and do so at the political level.

Darn good point.

To what extent has the surge led to an improvement in setting up an Iraqi government.

Does Iraq even have a government? Is it doing anything?

(actually, yes. Last week, for example, the Iraqi Parlaiment was debating whether to change one of the colors on the Iraqi flag to appease the Kurds - shoot, it appears they are about as effective as our government!)

Success has to be the point where the Iraqis are in control. So, how much success have we had? Given the extent we aren't hearing about it, I don't think there is much.

 

[Richard Masters]

It almost makes me want to go join the Ron Paul Revolution*.

(*Not really, but Bush is giving isolationism a good name, if you ask me.)

I have to disagree here. Bush is the isolationist. He refuses to talk to Iran, NK, Syria. When was the last time we traded with Cuba?

Bush is giving non-interventionism a good name.

 

[Furious Coder]

When was the last time we traded with Cuba?

I'm not really sure. How long will it take us to get over them parking nukes off the shores of Florida?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Darn good point.

To what extent has the surge led to an improvement in setting up an Iraqi government.

Does Iraq even have a government? Is it doing anything?

(actually, yes. Last week, for example, the Iraqi Parlaiment was debating whether to change one of the colors on the Iraqi flag to appease the Kurds - shoot, it appears they are about as effective as our government!)

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/iraq/2008/01/17/a-generals-assessment.html

Seems the man in the arena is not ready to declare victory, don his party hat, and throw confetti just yet.

Why David Petraeus Wants to Go Slowly on Troop Drawdowns​

BAGHDAD—It took 14 days to transport the two 200-ton electric generators, inching along at just 5 miles an hour, across once restive Anbar Province to the Qudas power plant north of Baghdad. They arrived safely last month, with the result that power generation will regularly exceed prewar levels for the first time since the 2003 invasion. "Nothing in Iraq is easy," says Gen. David Petraeus, citing the complex logistics of the move, which included having to provide security and reinforce bridges along the route. "Come to think of it," he adds, "that's a perfect metaphor for Iraq."

His comment may seem understated given the dramatic drop in violence and other signs of progress in recent months. But Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, knows that some of the hardest work still lies ahead if the fragile peace is to be converted into a lasting one. The political divisions in Iraq remain deep, and if they are not bridged soon, civil war could well erupt again. Further, a battle royal has begun within the U.S. administration over how quickly to draw down troops. There is pressure for an accelerated withdrawal not only because the five-year war has strained the Army but also because more troops are needed in Afghanistan and as a strategic reserve for troubles elsewhere, such as in Pakistan. The concern here is that reducing troop levels too fast, before there is progress on national reconciliation, would jeopardize the gains that have been made.

Success has to be the point where the Iraqis are in control. So, how much success have we had? Given the extent we aren't hearing about it, I don't think there is much.

What's your time horizon, and how did you derive it? The situation is not helped by a few years of getting quite a bit wrong (firing the Army, Ba'athists at levels too far down, et cetera . . . )

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

When was the last time we traded with Cuba?

Rather recently, as a matter of fact.

Look up Corpus Christi Texas, Cuba, Alimport, and a multi million dollar trade deal. (I think the original was less than 10 million.) You might be surprised. My father in law lives in Corpus Christi. He thinks the deal with Alimport is a way for Corpus Christi to get the drop on some growth. The work began in 2003 on the MOU.

http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/international-trade-law-nontariff-barriers/5822689-1.html
See more recent news out of San Antonio on the topic.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-148739512.html

.
Jul. 28--More U.S.-produced poultry and beans are set to head through Corpus Christi to Cuba starting next month.

Alimport, Cuba's food importing agency, has promised to buy nearly 17,000 tons of poultry from Arkansas-based Ozark Mountain Poultry. The meat will be shipped through the Port of Corpus Christi starting this fall.

Corpus Christi is one of about 17 U.S. ports that have been trading with Cuba since the U.S. government in 2000 eased a trade embargo put in place in the 1960s to pressure the communist Cuban government.

Richard, you might know what you think you know.

No, it's not a staggering trade volume, but it's a start.

DR

 

[Puppycow]

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/iraq/2008/01/17/a-generals-assessment.html

Seems the man in the arena is not ready to declare victory, don his party hat, and throw confetti just yet.

Why David Petraeus Wants to Go Slowly on Troop Drawdowns​

What's your time horizon, and how did you derive it? The situation is not helped by a few years of getting quite a bit wrong (firing the Army, Ba'athists at levels too far down, et cetera . . . )

DR

Does "going slow on troop drawdowns" mean extending tours of duty beyond 15 months?
It seems we could also use more troops in Afghanistan. Does "going slow on troop drawdowns" in Iraq mean skimping on troops for Afghanistan?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Does "going slow on troop drawdowns" mean extending tours of duty beyond 15 months?

Don't know. I am not General Patraeus.

It seems we could also use more troops in Afghanistan. Does "going slow on troop drawdowns" in Iraq mean skimping on troops for Afghanistan?

Last few article I read, US Sec Def pointed out to some NATO players that their force levels left somewhat to be desired.

I don't consider 3200 Marines as a plus up in Afghanistan to be a trivial matter.

DR

 

[Puppycow]

I have to disagree here. Bush is the isolationist. He refuses to talk to Iran, NK, Syria. When was the last time we traded with Cuba?

Bush is giving non-interventionism a good name.

By "isolationism" I intended to mean "non-interventionism." Maybe I'm not totally clear on exactly what the word means, but I didn't intend to mean extreme isolationism such as no diplomacy, no trade and no immigration or emigration (like pre-Meiji Japanese isolationism), but rather something like the Swiss doctrine, which has kept them out of any direct involvement in a shooting war for a long time now. Clearly most people react negatively to the word "isolationism" so I shall try to use "non-interventionism" from now on.

 

[gumboot]

I think success in Iraq would be of profound benefit to the world, and particularly to the west. So will success in Afghanistan and in dozens of African states, in Lebanon, in Palestine and Israel, and countless other troubled spots around the globe. But success will never be achieved in any of these places. Most of the western world lost the stomach to actually fight a war after WW2, and the USA lost the will after Vietnam. Sure, we play at it every now and then, but as soon as the metal hits the meat we balk.

Westerners put far too much value on lives and far too little value on freedom.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I think success in Iraq would be of profound benefit to the world, and particularly to the west. So will success in Afghanistan and in dozens of African states, in Lebanon, in Palestine and Israel, and countless other troubled spots around the globe. But success will never be achieved in any of these places. Most of the western world lost the stomach to actually fight a war after WW2, and the USA lost the will after Vietnam. Sure, we play at it every now and then, but as soon as the metal hits the meat we balk.

Westerners put far too much value on lives and far too little value on freedom.

I tend to agree, though I am keen on keeping my own skin intact.

When Mixon was the top commander in northern Iraq for a 15-month stretch that ended late last year, troops worked to secure the region's bountiful oil fields - although the general said exports could still be stifled by a single terrorist explosion - rebuilt schools, and repaired water and power facilities.

The effort included public relations work, from military commanders hosting regular radio call-in shows to arranging the telecasts of widows of suicide bombing victims receiving suitcases full of Iraqi currency in compensation.

"We're not going to win by killing everybody," the general said. "You've got to kill the right people - the leaders, the bomb makers and the people who just don't want to give up the fight.

"But you can't kill everybody. You have to win them over."

MOTO moment.

DR

 

[headscratcher4]

If we can't leave, has it worked? If we can't reduce to pre-surge levels without fear of the civil war breaking out again, has it worked?

It is a vast Chimera. Bush is playing out the clock using our soldiers lives and our national treasure to make it to the end so he can claim that he stoodfast.

That is a price too high for any American to pay.

And yet, we will be there for years and years...whether it is McCain, Hillary, Obama or any one of the major candidates. That is Bush's doing. So, in that sense, the "surge" was a complete success for Bush, because it ties the hands of the next Administration and puts off the potential disaster to someone else's watch.

Nice job, Georgie-boy! Your daddy didn't raise no fools.

 

[pgwenthold]

What's your time horizon, and how did you derive it? The situation is not helped by a few years of getting quite a bit wrong (firing the Army, Ba'athists at levels too far down, et cetera . . . )

DR

I'm still not convinced they aren't getting it wrong. Particularly, in defining "success" in terms of levels of violence, for example. Our goal in Iraq is not to reduce the level of violence (if that were the goal, we would have never invaded). The goal is to create a government.

Yet, we aren't hearing anything about that happening. The government is not making strides to becoming self-sufficient. In fact, one thing we have learned recently is that Iraqi money that was supposed to be spent in rebuilding the country was not actually spent (Patreus claimed that 24% of the money earmarked for reconstruction had been spent in the first half of 2007, which was considered acceptable progress. Turns out, it hadn't. Only 4% of it had been spent).

Remember, we will stand down as the Iraqis stand up. However, we have not given them any reason to stand up. We are trying to teach them to ride a bike by giving them training wheels, and they haven't bothered to try.

The only way they are going to stand up is if we force them to. Yes, that may lead to some problems, much like the fact that kids learning to ride a bike will fall on occasion if you take the training wheels off. But you can't expect them to learn if you constantly hold them up.

We have to start letting go. We have to MAKE THEM stand up. And if they don't, they will be the ones who pay, not us.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I'm still not convinced they aren't getting it wrong. Particularly, in defining "success" in terms of levels of violence, for example.

Indeed. If you define lack of violence as success, any act of violence is a failure for you. DOH! Terrorists and various militias are Not Stupid. They practice security denial. (See Julian Corbett and Mahan on Sea Denial for the general principle I am trying to apply to their method of using force to influence political reality.)

Our goal in Iraq is not to reduce the level of violence (if that were the goal, we would have never invaded). The goal is to create a government.

A friendly government.

They've got to be protected
All their rights respected
'Til somebody we like
Can be elected . . .
(--Tom Lehrer, a freaking genius)

Yet, we aren't hearing anything about that happening. The government is not making strides to becoming self-sufficient. In fact, one thing we have learned recently is that Iraqi money that was supposed to be spent in rebuilding the country was not actually spent (Patreus claimed that 24% of the money earmarked for reconstruction had been spent in the first half of 2007, which was considered acceptable progress. Turns out, it hadn't. Only 4% of it had been spent).

Part of the internal friction is the struggle to grasp the brass ring of "who is in charge, and thus who establishes the patronage network." Gee, politics isn't that different from one place to another, is it?

Remember, we will stand down as the Iraqis stand up. However, we have not given them any reason to stand up. We are trying to teach them to ride a bike by giving them training wheels, and they haven't bothered to try.

What do you base this glib assertion on? The idea is still in force, what has changed is the timeline, and the optimistic assumption made in Washington that such a "stand up" could happen on a short timeline. Rebuilding an institution, like an Army or a Police, force is not done overnight. Our own history teaches us that, if anyone cares to attend class. Add to that the decision to dissolve both early on, and you are left with a triple rebuilding job. Not smart for a policy that demanded short term transformation. (Gee, another Wall Street Buzzword ineptly applied to a political situation. Thanks, Rummy. )

The only way they are going to stand up is if we force them to. Yes, that may lead to some problems, much like the fact that kids learning to ride a bike will fall on occasion if you take the training wheels off. But you can't expect them to learn if you constantly hold them up.

There seems a moral reluctance to let them fall now and again, and bleed, get scabs, pick at them, and try again.

Altruism and M-1 Tanks rarely mix well.
[quote[We have to start letting go. We have to MAKE THEM stand up. And if they don't, they will be the ones who pay, not us.[/QUOTE]
While I tend to agree in a general sense, how you and I see this is colored by where we are, and our own fiscal ox being gored.

If you tried to sell this perspective to a Kurd, would he buy it?

If you tried to sell your perspective on this to a Sunni tribal elder, would be buy it?

If you tried to sell this perspective to Moqtada al Sadr, would he buy it?

DR