NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link


GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



Leadership Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Getting Out Of Iraq

September 21, 2009: Iraqi insistence that the 130,000 U.S. troops, starting last July 1st, largely remain on their 300 bases, has caused many American commanders to conclude that there's not really much need for a large U.S. force in Iraq. The enemy is not completely destroyed, and the Iraqi government is as corrupt and dysfunctional. But this is a common situation in this part of the world. It's a rough neighborhood. If the Iraqis don't want the Americans to help out, and Iraqis are pro-American (by local standards), U.S. troops, and commanders, are suggesting that they all depart as soon as possible. The Kurds are still very pro-American, and nearly all Iraqis are very hostile to Islamic terrorism. Mission accomplished.

This was always the plan. It is, in fact, the standard approach to these situations. Once the enemy is defeated, and a new (friendly, or at least less hostile and warlike) government is able to defend itself, you go home. After World War II, the U.S. kept troops in Japan and Germany long after the fighting stopped, only because there was a new enemy (communist dictatorships) next door. But the Iraqis are content to depend on U.S. forces based in Kuwait next door. The Kuwaitis are glad to have the American presence, because many Iraqis still believe that Kuwait should be part of Iraq. Iran threatens all the Arab states in the Persian Gulf area, which is why all those countries are eager to have an American presence, preferably just warships and aircraft. The Iranians are a threat, but not well armed. No one is expecting an Iranian blitzkrieg, but does believe that the Iranians will continue to make threats. Having some American troops in the way is seen as the best kind of insurance. The local Arabs were quite impressed at how the Americans deal with Saddam's army, and the subsequent Islamic terror campaign. The Iranians have a long reputation as good fighters, but the Americans should be able to handle them.

Getting out of Iraq quickly is something that is already happening. Every day, trucks and combat vehicles head for ports in Kuwait and Jordan, there to be shipped home, or to Afghanistan. Little of this equipment is being given to the Iraqis, who have their oil own money, and have been told to buy what they need. Another reason for not leaving a lot of stuff for the Iraqis, is because much of it would be stolen.

While Sunni Arab terrorists make the most noise, with their continued terror bombings, the real danger is risk of civil war between Kurds and Arabs. If the U.S. decided to intervene there, it would mostly require air power, as the Kurds can outfight the Arabs on the ground.

Within the next year, all but about 50 of those 300 bases will be evacuated by American troops, and turned over to the Iraqis. There will still be a lot of thieving going on here, but it doesn't pay to haul away structures and camp infrastructure. By the end of next year, there will be 50,000 American troops in Iraq, and may less. The job is done, and there is no point lingering.

 

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article INFANTRY: Looks Matter


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

jak267       9/21/2009 6:19:35 AM
Do a half-assed job, watch your so-called "allies" turn their backs on you and kowtow to terrorists, hand de facto control of 2/3s of the country to Iran, have a current President who encouraged terrorists to murder 4,000 of your own soldiers so he could call for US withdrawal, and then leave and call it "done." This country deserved 9/11 and deserves what's coming.
 
Quote    Reply

Dave_in_Pa       9/21/2009 11:19:45 AM

Do a half-assed job, watch your so-called "allies" turn their backs on you and kowtow to terrorists, hand de facto control of 2/3s of the country to Iran, have a current President who encouraged terrorists to murder 4,000 of your own soldiers so he could call for US withdrawal, and then leave and call it "done." This country deserved 9/11 and deserves what's coming.

jak267, instead of that armchair warrior remark, complete with offensive final sentence, PLEASE tell us in detail how you would have otherwise conducted the Iraq campaign, including what different goals your plan would have had and how they would have been attained.
 
Quote    Reply

kisscatman       9/21/2009 9:08:33 PM
Obama will turn his back on the Kurds as H.W. Bush did to the Shias in 1991. 
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       9/22/2009 9:35:54 AM
As much as I hate the Democrats I gotta tell you Dave_Pa: Jak does not have that mental power.
 
He's blinded by the flare of his hatred.
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo    What Could We Have Done Differently in Iraq?   9/22/2009 11:01:53 AM
1)  We could have listened to General Garner:  win and get out. 
 
2)  We could have made the Iraqis pay for the cost of the war, in oil.  Or would that be wrong?
 
3)  We could have provided block-by-block security (martial law) in Baghdad and other cities as we moved in and took over; THAT was the time for the surge!
 
4)  We could have understood the effectiveness of the Fedayeen Saddam earlier.  That rabble of freed convicts did more damage to Coalition forces than any Iraqi tank.
 
5)  We could have used Saddam as we did Santa Anna in Mexico - as more or less a hostage.  Forced him to sign total capitulation papers, order all peace-loving Iraqis to return to their homes, stack arms, etc.

6)  On that - we could have kept the Iraqi forces penned up in laager as they already were; keep paying them, take this time to do some de-baathing, some de-corrupting, some training and indoctrination.  Get detailed files on them, psych studies, human terrain stuff I believe it is called.  Fingerprints and DNA and the names and addresses of all their relatives, who would also then be profiled. 
 
Pensions, benefits, ACORN stuff LOL.  Have them watching Disney propaganda three times a day at the chow hall with good food, medical care, no beatings, no sanctioned or uncontrolled thefts among the ranks, no orders to commit atrocities, and perhaps we could make new men of them.  Teach 'em how to vote, how not to screw your buddy, how precious life is, how super-studly are our own troops and how unwise they would be to fight us.
 
You could always execute them or use them as hostages, and meanwhile this would have kept demobbed, demoralized, penniless young men with arms training and a bad taste in their mouths, from joining terrorist forces.  Both by keeping them where they were, stable and relatively happy, and on the cheap compared to our expenses in the event.
 
 
7)  Earlier wider use of technical solutions.  In particular every convoy in Iraq ought to be able to have a little drone with sensors flying ahead of it to spot bombs, bombers, streets full of kids who suddenly disappear.
 
8)  More patrols on foot - fewer vehicles.  I do wonder if we would have had fewer IED attacks this way, but getting closer to the people is supposed to be wise - shorter range of foot patrols must lead to dispersed basing, IOW the moving-among-the-people-to-protect-them being the new surge strategy.
 
 
9)  Understanding of Blackwater, KBR, etc. type roles and some better arrangement as to their use.  These services are important and worthy of further support, as well as some housecleaning.
 
10)  Much, much more significant propaganda effort (use euphemisms of your choice, education, whatever - I mean no slight) in Iraq and at home.
 
 
 
As for my bona fides, all I can say is that I have always been a supporter of all the GWOT efforts, especially Iraq, and I always rode along (occasional teeth-gritting aside) with the Bush Administration because I felt they needed it, but certainly think that (inevitable) mistakes were made, and that these are reasonable criticisms.  I haven't said to go hang Bremer by his cowboy boots, nor that it's too bad about Abu Ghraib, nor that Rummy preferred to reorg the forces for the next generation (if I understood him correctly, I agree) rather than concentrate efforts and resources on the scutwork at hand.  I haven't said that Bush and Cheney were poopy-headed monsters, nor the US Congress, nor the generals.  I do think there were a number of things we could have done otherwise.  If a few million rabble can wear us down like this, how are we ever going to invade China and Russia? ;> ;> ;>
 
Quote    Reply

Chris       9/22/2009 4:19:56 PM
This was always the plan. It is, in fact, the standard approach to these situations. Once the enemy is defeated, and a new (friendly, or at least less hostile and warlike) government is able to defend itself, you go home.
 
According to President Bush (before the invasion), Iraq was going to become a peace-loving, liberal democracy, while the remaining countries in the middle east would see the light, become democracies, and all make peace with Isreal.
 
Or did I miss something?  No one was willing to define what "victory" meant for years - if this is it, then it seems like it was not worth $906 Billion dollars, 4000+ lives, 10's of thousands of wounded - not counting the Iraqi's, or the unpleasant after effect of Iran being left in the power brokers seat since we toppled Saddam (and angering our arab allies in the process).
 
Nor does the above include taking our eye off the ball in Afghanistan, which according to Gen. McCrystals report suffered greatly from neglect over the past 8 years, and therefore allowed Bin Laden to get away, the Taliban to recruit, train, and deploy new fighters, gain new sources of funding, and infest the countryside wherever NATO wasn't.
 
Seems like a waste to me...
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

kerravon       9/23/2009 6:37:27 AM

This was always the plan. It is, in fact, the standard approach to these situations. Once the enemy is defeated, and a new (friendly, or at least less hostile and warlike) government is able to defend itself, you go home.

 

According to President Bush (before the invasion), Iraq was going to become a peace-loving, liberal democracy, while the remaining countries in the middle east would see the light, become democracies, and all make peace with Isreal.

 

Or did I miss something?  No one was willing to define what "victory" meant for years - if this is it, then it seems like it was not worth $906 Billion dollars, 4000+ lives, 10's of thousands of wounded - not counting the Iraqi's, or the unpleasant after effect of Iran being left in the power brokers seat since we toppled Saddam (and angering our arab allies in the process).

 

Nor does the above include taking our eye off the ball in Afghanistan, which according to Gen. McCrystals report suffered greatly from neglect over the past 8 years, and therefore allowed Bin Laden to get away, the Taliban to recruit, train, and deploy new fighters, gain new sources of funding, and infest the countryside wherever NATO wasn't.

 

Seems like a waste to me...

 

 



First of all, Kudos to you and Nichevo for your thoughtful alternatives.  It's so rare to get any sensible debate on alternatives.  Short background - I'm not American, but I totally support the method Bush did.  So let's discuss.
 
Yes, it was certainly the hope that a people released from brutal oppression would embrace liberal democracy and it would be wildly successful and the rest of the Middle East would demand the same.
 
That is in fact exactly what the Baltic States longed for and got in 1991.
 
People have always said "Arabs are different".  They may or may not have been different.  Who knows what was really locked in their brains?  We only heard what they were told by their dictator to say.  If I were in their shoes, I would have done exactly the same.  The Polish commies got a big surprise election day too.
 
Now, given that in order to respond to 9/11, we need to make all those Arab Muslim countries look a lot more like Lithuania, and a lot less like Saudi Arabia (unless you've got an alternative plan?), we first of all need to scope the problem.  Unless you know what the problem is already?  Kill all Muslims?  All Arabs?  All men?  All pilots?  Only the 3rd one would have covered Timothy McVeigh, incidentally.
 
How can we scope the problem without finding out what the Iraqis REALLY thought?  How can you get that without a secret ballot?  How can you get people to turn up to a secret ballot?  How can you get a wide variety of parties and opinions to vote for, so that you can find out how many genuinely support Islamic radicals and to what extent?
 
Bush pulled off a miracle by getting 300 political parties started in Iraq, with every opinion catered for, vigorous, indeed, violent debate, and friggin 70% turnout so that we know we have good data.
 
Now that we've scoped the problem, we're in a position to respond to it.  Along the lines that Nichevo mentioned.
 
If you're prepared to literally kill everything moving in the Middle East, and ignore the terrorists emanating from Europe and America (since there's not that many), I guess you could call that a "practical alternative to Bush's method".  If you want to get just the problematic ones (regardless of whether that is 99% of the Middle East), and also have a crack at getting the local ones (regardless of that is 1% of the USA), then it's more complicated.
 
I will accept an argument of "we can't afford the risk of another 9/11, let's just wipe out the entire Middle East instead of stuffing around trying to find root cause". I don't have much of an argument to that, except to appeal to the fact that you will set up your own country for future generations if you can get root cause now.
 
 
Quote    Reply

kerravon       9/23/2009 7:23:01 AM
Nichevo, as mentioned, thanks for your thoughtful post.  It's so rare to see.
"1)  We could have listened to General Garner:  win and get out."
 
Using what definition of win?  Changing one Iraqi dictator for another?  Not changing the Middle East one iota unless you really care about slight differences in dictators?

"2)  We could have made the Iraqis pay for the cost of the war, in oil.  Or would that be wrong?"
 
Technically not wrong.  But you have no chance of befriending people with that approach.  Do you want to attempt to be friends with these people?  Are you not curious to find out how many Iraqis would befriend you if you actually behaved like a friend?  If you do the right thing, and they don't respond, isn't it important to find out why they aren't responding logically?  The failure to respond to an outstretched hand is exactly the problem in the world today.  If you are doing all the right things, and you're still getting hatred, it's time to basically start killing people. But you need to identify them first.  Some of them are indeed responding.  You saw those long lines of Iraqis joining the security forces - UNDER OCCUPATION - didn't you?  That's a small miracle, surely?  So much for every single Iraqi fighting to the death AGAINST the invading infidels.
 
"3)  We could have provided block-by-block security (martial law) in Baghdad and other cities as we moved in and took over; THAT was the time for the surge!"
 
Martial law may have caused the Iraqis to get their gander up and basically unite against an oppressive invader.  By leaving a security vacuum and watching what the Iraqis did of their own accord, brought out the ideological differences between them.  It was important to find out what the hell was there.  Iraq was an opaque country with Saddam's ugly mug on it for decades.  Not even Iraqis knew the truth about their neighbours.  They were literally stunned to find Saddam and terrorist supporters and religious bigots in their midst. Even families were split down the middle.  The same even happened in our own countries!!!
 
"4)  We could have understood the effectiveness of the Fedayeen Saddam earlier.  That rabble of freed convicts did more damage to Coalition forces than any Iraqi tank."
 
Probably easier said than done.
 
"5)  We could have used Saddam as we did Santa Anna in Mexico - as more or less a hostage.  Forced him to sign total capitulation papers, order all peace-loving Iraqis to return to their homes, stack arms, etc."
 
Which would have been ignored.  You're dealing with what are obstensibly nutcases. You may as well ask Maliki to do that now. Hell, he already is doing that now.
 
"6)  On that - we could have kept the Iraqi forces penned up in laager as they already were; keep paying them, take this time to do some de-baathing, some de-corrupting, some training and indoctrination.  Get detailed files on them, psych studies, human terrain stuff I believe it is called.  Fingerprints and DNA and the names and addresses of all their relatives, who would also then be profiled."
 
Perhaps.  Or perhaps that would have scared the Shiites, or made them suspicious that we were planning on installing another Sunni dictator, and then they would have rejected this "sham" democracy by the infidels.  Instead, almost like a miracle, we managed to get the Shiites to hold off a holy war (there was pressure on Sistani to declare a jihad and he kept refusing), get them to actually join the war on our side, get the Shiites to believe, truly believe, that after centuries of Sunni rule and oppression, this really was a change.  The security forces really were new, and not in any way associated with the past atrocities.  Get them to JOIN those security forces.  Once the belief (correct belief) was in place, it was safe to hire back some of the old army, without destroying that new belief.  We can't see how your alternative would have played out.  But a Sistani-declared jihad and 1% turnout at elections (as you saw in Sunni areas), was a possible outcome.  This was successfully avoided.

"Pensions, benefits, ACORN stuff LOL.  Have them watching Disney propaganda three times a day at the chow hall with good food, medical care, no beatings, no sanctioned or uncontrolled thefts among the ranks, no orders to commit atrocities, and perhaps we could make new men of them.  Teach 'em how to vote, how not to screw your buddy, how precious life is, how super-studly are our own troops and how unwise they would be to fight us."
 
This is certainly something that could be done on the next basket-case country that is invaded.  Do this for sure in Syria.  I don't think the propaganda will work, but you can try it.  You'll probably have as much success at that as converting them to Buddhism.
 
"You could always execute them or use them as hostages, and meanwhile this would have kept demobbed, demoralized, penniless young men with arms training and a bad taste in their mouths, from joining terrorist forces.  Both by keeping them where they were, stable and relatively happy, and on the cheap compared to our expenses in the event."
 
It was the Shiites more than us that they had issues with.  Iraq was a lot about just staying out of the way of the two of them, while realising that the Shiites needed some breathing room to build up strength.  The Sunnis knew what was coming.  Better to have a self-sustaining somewhat grateful Shiite population at the end of this.  Who know for sure that the Sunnis are their enemy more than the infidels who came, didn't harm them, then left.

"7)  Earlier wider use of technical solutions.  In particular every convoy in Iraq ought to be able to have a little drone with sensors flying ahead of it to spot bombs, bombers, streets full of kids who suddenly disappear."
 
I think this is easier said than done.  May as well say that the convoys should be driven by robots.  The technology is coming as fast as the beuracracy allows.  If you want a new paradigm in weapons acquisition, that's a separate debate.

"8)  More patrols on foot - fewer vehicles.  I do wonder if we would have had fewer IED attacks this way, but getting closer to the people is supposed to be wise - shorter range of foot patrols must lead to dispersed basing, IOW the moving-among-the-people-to-protect-them being the new surge strategy."
 
Again, it's not our fight.  This is mainly about allowing the Shiites to complete their 1991 revolution.  When there is lawlessness, and the US are more-or-less beating around the bush, what options does Sistani have other than requesting the Shiites to join the security forces?  Arranging for Al Sadr to trash Sistani's home to force him to act was a nice touch.  How much did you have to pay him to do that?
 
"9)  Understanding of Blackwater, KBR, etc. type roles and some better arrangement as to their use.  These services are important and worthy of further support, as well as some housecleaning."
 
Another low-level minor "technology" issue.  You're asking to change Army doctrine here, which is fine.  But a separate issue.  Not something you can expect Bush to do on the spur of the moment.

"10)  Much, much more significant propaganda effort (use euphemisms of your choice, education, whatever - I mean no slight) in Iraq and at home."
 
Yes, that's exactly right - IN PRINCIPLE.  However, if we were in ANY WAY suggesting a particular ideology to the Iraqis, there was a very good chance that they would have REJECTED that ideology IN PRINCIPLE so as to not be seen to be cowtowing to the infidel invaders, which would be humiliating to them in front of their Middle Eastern friends.  If anything, Bush should have been saying "Islam is the solution - vote Al Sadr".  But you get the best data just by being quiet.
 
"As for my bona fides, all I can say is that I have always been a supporter of all the GWOT efforts, especially Iraq, and I always rode along (occasional teeth-gritting aside) with the Bush Administration because I felt they needed it, but certainly think that (inevitable) mistakes were made, and that these are reasonable criticisms."
 
Yes, your arguments are very reasonable, and can be considered technically correct, depending on what your objective is.  E.g. the propaganda/education you speak of.  What *exactly* is that going to include?  Will it require them to abandon the Quran and adopt some other holy book (or atheism, or agnosticism)?  If not, why not?  What's the scope of the problem here?  Do you have that information yet?
 
"I haven't said to go hang Bremer by his cowboy boots, nor that it's too bad about Abu Ghraib"
 
Abu Ghraib wasn't ordered.  That's a natural consequence of the fact that we haven't automated soldiering.  If we had robots available, we would certainly have used them.  Instead, we need to use humans.  When you get some rogue humans, you do the same as you always do - send them to court and jail, and the entire event should be wiped off the slate as "part of life" or "technological limitations".
 
"nor that Rummy preferred to reorg the forces for the next generation (if I understood him correctly, I agree) rather than concentrate efforts and resources on the scutwork at hand."
 
Sure - this was worked into the equation too.  While treading water waiting for the Shiites to get organized, it was possible to experiment with just how few forces are required when you're only trying to liberate rather than conquer.  Fascinating.  I'm looking forward to seeing a war where only 10,000 troops (ie Northern Alliance size) are used.  Lowering the barrier to war makes it a lot easier to start new ones.  How difficult is it to get 10k troops into theater?
 
"I haven't said that Bush and Cheney were poopy-headed monsters, nor the US Congress, nor the generals.  I do think there were a number of things we could have done otherwise."
 
All with potential for severe side-effects like having to fight a general war against the Iraqi people instead of watching them turn up in huge numbers to vote.
 
"If a few million rabble can wear us down like this"
 
Who was worn down?  The military got combat experience instead of endless training exercises, with a number killed not much different from that killed in training accidents anyway.  Gear was tested and upgraded.  Just how much superior is the US military now thanks for the opportunity provided by the Sunnis?
 
"how are we ever going to invade China and Russia? ;> ;> ;>"
 
And the fact that the Russians in particular actually believe this is what the US is preparing for (basically a projection of their own desires for world conquest) is ALSO part of the problem in the world today, and the more countries you liberate and leave, the more likely it is that it will sink in to the Russians that you have a completely different ideology to them, and that it is a non-threatening ideology, and that they can in fact be friends and allies with us, just like Lithuania, Iraq, Taiwan etc are.  Wouldn't that be cool?  Russians as allies!!!  What do you think the barrier is for that happening?  Don't you think it's important to know?  Feel free to email me at mutazilah@gmail.com to continue discussion, as we're more likely to keep the topic going to logical conclusion that way.
 
 
Quote    Reply





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy