9 Comments

That was interesting but I don’t think another strike elsewhere is going to happen and I think more troops might be counter productive in the long term. I do like Ali though, he is very bright.

But as for Andrew Sullivan and Brent Scowcroft and the rest of them, I think they have political agendas of their own.

Scowcroft and the other realists can sit back and bitch about the neo cons all they want but it is the realists that are largely responsible for the stuff we are dealing with today, not the neo cons. After all it was realpolitik that got us involved with Saddam in the first place and realpolitik that spared him years ago. If their political instincts were half as good as they seem to think they are I doubt we would be in this position today. In fact Scowcorft appeared at some luncheon with Breschinsky this week and said the war is lost without European troops and the US should start planning withdrawal now. Carter and Bush1 people giving lectures on stabilizing Iraq.

puhleaze.

Thank God GWB did not give these jokers a job. And as for Sully, only time will tell what the outcome will be but Bush wants to succeed and he has military people there making decisions who are far more skilled and experienced in military matters than either Andrew Sullivan or myself.

Maybe more troops would help, maybe not. I remain unconvinced.

But sooner or later the Iraqis are goling to have to do this themselves.

It is good to see Ali at his own address and passing on his own cogent comments. Optimism is the natural order of the human spirit, without it we are all doomed……

Boy…. have the liberal Democrats changed. Once upon a time the most successful liberal of the century said that all we have to fear is fear itself.

You do go to war with the army you have, no matter how much such statement may horrify the leftist hypocrites.

I am far from being an expert on military matters, but wasnít our military severely cut in the 90s? I seem to remember some talk about the Peace Dividend. So, if we donít have enough troops right now perhaps we should demand explanation for such state of affairs from people who were at the time of cuts in charge of purse strings and budgets.

Still, I am not convinced that such is the case. I instinctively trust more Bushís officers on the ground, making decisions based on the immediate assessment of the situation, than retired, armchair generals mostly concerned about their next speaking assignment. IIRC, in his book ìAmerican Soldierî http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060731583/qid=1105509613/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/104-9497765-2731938?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

General Franks was not exactly impressed with the analyses of the retired brass on the subject of a real war that he was fighting. In fact, he demonstrated that they were almost always dead wrong. So if the generals in Iraq say: no more troops, why should I dismiss their opinion in preference of Scowcroftís or worse, Sullivanís?

I really think that some people came to believe that movies define reality: the wars are won in 3 hrs time, or as was the case of the Ring Trilogy, in 3X3.5hr installments. Unfortunately, we do not live in Movieland so for those inclined to take Hollywood view of the event I recommend hasty course of history with textbooks as their primary source of information.

Regarding the success of the Baathist ìinsurgenceî and the hand wringing that the war is already lost: some SS units fought for years after the official surrender of the Third Reich. Similar situation was true in the Western Ukraine/Eastern Poland: anti-Soviet guerillas were fighting for close on to 5 years after the war, right in the teeth of the mighty Red Army. Their actions did not change the general outcome of history, though many lives were tragically lost. I am also amused by some comments that Bush is irresponsibly conducting the war ìimprovising as we goî. I, for one, think that it is an excellent strategy. Recall that the Spanish Armada was beaten by the Royal Navy because the Spaniards were sticking to the preordained tactics (I believe severe punishments were reserved for any Captain who would demonstrate an initiative in battle), while the English were willing to fight to win, even if it meant going against the orders of their High Command.

One last point: it is much better for us to train the Iraqi military and Iraqi security forces than to make them dependent on us. We are paying a price for this particular bit of failed thinking in Europe right now. I hope that Iraqis will get the short term extra help that Ali thinks is necessary. But beyond that, as he says, the Iraqís future should be up to Iraqis. Unless, God forbids, they will allow themselves be taken over by another terrorist-friendly regime. Then we may have to visit them again.

Since 9-11, I’ve felt that the army in particular is too small. It seems obvious that this war will involve occupying countries. Franks demonstrated that a big army isn’t needed to conquer a country, but a lot of troops are needed to hold it.

We may not need more in Iraq, but having so many tied down there reduces our strategic options. Maybe we should invade Syria and Lebanon. Maybe North Korea will do something stupid. What if Pakistan collapses into chaos?

The fact that so many National Guard units are spending so much time deployed says that we are overly dependent on the National Guard (for foreign adventures) and the National Guardsmen will not put up with that over time. The reserves are similar, although more focused on overseas missions than the guard.

Bush is trying to do something that Johnson tried: guns and butter. This may mean too few guns.

Because the civilized world has been drastically disarming itself, we are left as the only cop on the block (with some help from Britain, which hasn’t completed disarming itself, and Australia, which has important reasons for maintaining some military power). The “peace dividend” is at least partly gone, because peace is gone.

Europe has the economic capacity to provide a lot of combat power. But it has lost the political will, and it is unlikely to regain it. Russia is not a reliable ally, has demonstrated that it is incompetent at running an army, and has adopted a policy of using nuclear weapons where it would have used its army, because that’s all it has left.

China is also of limited usefulness. It is building up forces to combat us – not help us. Unless we just give them Taiwan, we will be a strategic enemy of China, or at least a thorn in their side, for a long time. Also, given their traditional role of regional hegemon, they are as likely to cause trouble as end it. Otherwise North Korea would have been solved.

Either China’s treatment of North Korea is paralyzed by internal decision making problems (which I doubt) or they see it as to their advantage to have a rogue North Korea. The implication of the latter is not pretty.

I admit I’m somewhat breathless over the intelligence and wisdom I see coming from the brothers. Their ability to discern and deal with the differences between our Left and Right boggles my mind because this was something that eluded me (still does to a great degree in areas) for years.

They not only have to deal with the internal situation in Iraq, they must deal with the opinions, rantings, and ravings of the Americans as well. Not to mention fitting the rest of the West and the Arab world into their worldview.

And when you think that just a couple of years ago the Iraqi people were isolated from everyone else, their assimilation of all this political, economic, sociological, religious data is quite extraordinary in my mind.

To me they are truly a bridge between the West and the Arab world…no small feat.

And most of all they understand America’s motivation for what it is. It is in America’s interest to create/nurture democracy in Iraq. They accept that. It is good for them and good for America. But if it weren’t good for America we wouldn’t be doing it.

And this specific ‘proposal’ by Ali is a great example of his understanding of how this war works. After all, contrary to the Left’s view, the war in Iraq was a diversion we created for terrorists, not a diversion of our resources from al Qaeda. Afghanistan is better off because we took on Saddam. The terrorists mostly gave up on Afghanistan and turned to Iraq. When elections in Iraq are completed, then perhaps it’s a good idea to create another diversion elsewhere.

Belmont Club has a completely fascinating discussion and thread on the Troop Levels Issue. I know nothing about this. However, for John Moore, there is one fact I picked up over there: it seems that the Vietnam Experience convinced Abrams that if the American Armed Forces were to go to war again, they MUST be supported by the American public, and the best way to ensure that would be to embed necessary expertise within the NATIONAL GUARD.

Smart, eh??

I need to clarify: I remain unconvinced whether we need more troops in Iraq; regarding the need for greater military force in general I agree with John.

Not that my opinion has any expert value, I am simply persuaded by his arguments.

ìWhen elections in Iraq are completed, then perhaps it’s a good idea to create another diversion elsewhere.î

The next domino perhaps should be Syria. Bashar al-Assad seems incapable of putting a stop to the activities of the terrorists within his nationís borders. Iraq has an estimated population of around 25 million people. The daily stories of murder are horrible, but the death total impacts only a very small percentage of the overall population. The main thing, is that outside of the sunni Triangle, the economy is growing and people are living fairly regular lives. From all indications, their situation is improving. Iraq is already a modest success.