Plan B in Iraq

[mxlm]

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/0 ... b-in-iraq/

Fascinating read. Suffice it to say that if such a plan were implemented, it'd likely have a fair chance of success. But there's little likelihood such a plan will be implemented; it would need to come from the White House, and...

well, what more needs to be said?

[NickD]

Too much to read.

What happened to the "Nuke em all and let God sort them out" plan B?

[Swift]

I thought they had already tried all their plans that involved letters and were up to their "What the fuck do we do now" plan.

[Nyarlathotep]

It is a good article, definitely seems spot on with what went wrong. I’m not sure if the window of opportunity it describes is still open and unfortunately I have to agree with the assessment that there is no way Bush would ever try this, in general he is more attracted to ideas that don’t work.

[paazin]

Damn, I ought to subscribe to the SWJ. Good stuff.

But I'm already subscribed to too many which I don't end up reading.

[fluffmonster]

Plan B? This guy needs to catch up...we're at least on like Plan F already.

[Mulu]

The military "intellectual" response to Iraq has consistently been, "We could have done it, if only..." which is of course the same thing they still say about Vietnam. The lesson they should have learned from both conflicts is, "We shouldn't have done it at all." I don't think they've learned anything from Iraq. I mean, seriously, this author is blaming the media for their inability to win, same as Bush. What an idiot.

We failed in Iraq for the simple reason that our leadership is dishonorable, greedy and stupid. They would rather lie to the world and pursue hegemony and oil profits than try to truly secure the US, which of course requires domestic economic stability and jobs as much as firepower, and also includes being liked by the community of nations so they'll cooperate with us instead of with our enemies, and also includes actually pursuing Al Qaida rather than engaging in acts of aggression, and... etc, etc.

[ayergo]

You mean to get the plan B pill for my pregnant harem i have to go to Iraq?

Dang!

[mxlm]

I mean, seriously, this author is blaming the media for their inability to win, same as Bush. What an idiot.

I don't think that's an accurate summary.

[Mulu]

I mean, seriously, this author is blaming the media for their inability to win, same as Bush. What an idiot.

I don't think that's an accurate summary.

I do.

Despite attempts by the administration to portray the new plan as only one option out of many remaining, most media outlets are now describing the troop increase as a “last chance” for American and Iraqi forces to “secure the country.” As a result, insurgents and death squads can win by not losing. They understand that in a war that is being fought largely in the news, any major attack conducted during the surge discredits the US and helps mark this “last chance” as a failure. Even if the attacks occur in less defended areas outside of Baghdad and Anbar—away from where the surge is targeted—the insurgents know that the resulting 10-second news sound bites will make no distinction.

I also reject the fundamental premise of the article:

America’s military and civilian institutions, organized for Cold War conflict have grown increasingly incapable of dealing with today’s world of failing states, insurgencies, humanitarian crises, and non-state actors.

We did just fine in Bosnia/Serbia under Clinton. It's not America’s military and civilian institutions that are incapable, it's just Bush and his backwards administration. They didn't just bungle Iraq, they bungled *everything* from FEMA to NASA to the EPA. Bush and his cronies are simply incompetant. That this author doesn't see that and instead blames legacy institutions and the media shows that he's not very insightful. In fact, as apparently a member of the military that can't see the obvious, it means he's part of the problem.

No system, no set of rules, no institutions would have performed well under the Bushies pursuing PNAC policies. They don't know how to govern well, and their policies are based on a pipe dream. The best lesson to take away from this is "don't elect stupid people to important jobs, no matter how much they seem like they'd be fun at a BBQ. Elect the egghead who knows foreign policy and economics cold, and keeps his religion to himself." The world is too complex to trust to people who see it in black and white.

[Valdimir]

Excellent article, and as Nyar said, "spot on." The military opposes wholesale withdrawal because the chaos that would ensue in the vacuum would have dire secondary effects on the US. But raising troop levels is only an option for so long, even presuming Petraeus knows what to do with them. Bottom line, the 2008 election will force any wannabe presidents to take a position, most likely for withdrawal. This "Plan B" offers a viable compromise that might satisfy the general populace while not conceding to terrorists or insurgents.

BTW Mulu, the "military intellectual response" is irrelevant. In a civilian controlled military, the only opinion that matters is that of the current administration. It is fair to blame them to some degree. Obviously they have made some drastic miscalculations, but to grossly oversimplify matters by name-calling only smacks of ignorance. Clinton and his former crew have not an inch of moral high ground on which to stand. Furthermore, I would hardly call the ongoing Bosnia situation 'just fine' (oh yes, we are still there). I don't blame Clinton for that, nor even the debacle in Somalia during his tenure (remember Blackhawk Down?) or even not taking custody of Bin Laden when Yemen offered to hand him over in the late 1990's (9/11 Commission report).

These events do show that the military needs to transform, drastically, as does our bureaucracy as a whole. The football/water polo analogy is perfect! The game has definitely changed. This is where the "military intellectual response" does matter, but the problem is much larger than just the military. It involves all agencies concerned with national security. They will need more than a nudge from Congress. And I hope to God they get it right...

[mxlm]

Mulu, the reason I don't think it's a fair summary is that while, yes, the intro can easily be interpreted as 'blaming the media', in the context of the rest of the article you'd have to be as dogmatic as Danubus ( ) to conclude the media's the problem.

While you're right that we did (are doing) just fine in Bosnia, and right that stupid policies are the basic problem, it's worth noting that the military is not, at present, suited for COIN. Nor are the civilian institutions. And while the best response to 'gee, we're not good at COIN' is to avoid commiting to such operations, realistically speaking....

We've been fighting insurgencies for upwards of a century, and with the exception of the Indian wars (where the answer to insurgency was genocide--effective, but not gonna happen these days) we've never done well. If we're going to continue to prosecute asymmetric wars, we need to make ourselves capable of doing so succesfully.

Of course, the foreign policy realist would say, 'terrorism is not an existential threat, or even a major threat' and point to China, India, and Russia as the nations we need to be concerned with, and further say something to the effect of 'fuck asymmetric warfare'. And they'd be right. But try telling the American people, after eight years of "BE AFRAID!" that they've nothing to fear but fear itself.