Recently a number of retired generals called on Donald Rumsfield to resign. Among their complaints was that we did not use enough troops in Iraq to put down the insurgency.
I think at its heart, this is a debate over counter-insurgency doctrine. Do you use a large force and put it down with superior numbers (the traditional approach, as was used in Vietnam), or do you use an "economized" force (a smaller, but better equipped and trained force) to hold things together long enough to assemble a viable local government (who can finish the job).
In the case of Iraq, it would have been a choice between the often mentioned 500,000 troops (a Vietnam-sized force) and ~135,000 (actual force size).
While I can certainly accept that the big force could have done more to secure the country (such as occupying Fallugah), I reject the notion that it could have prevented looting or prevented the insurgency outright. The country is so big that even 500,000 troops can't cover everything. As for the insurgency, it is staging out of (and supported by) neighboring countries (Syria & Iran). The extra troops wouldn't have done any good (unless you intended to go into those neighboring countries).
Traditional doctrine states that a 10-1 ratio of troops is enough to put down an insurgency. Even that, however, takes time and costs lives.
The Rumsfield Doctrine of counter-insurgency seems to place more emphasis on building the support of the local population (even if it means temporarily ceding areas of the country to the enemy). While I can see from a strictly military point-of-view how our forces wouldn't like it, I can also see the prudence of it in terms of winning local support. It no longer is a matter of US troops vs Iraqi troops. It becomes a matter of the Iraqi government (US supported) vs Iraqi insurgents (al Qaeda supported). In short, it gives the Iraqis a stake in putting down the insurgency.
In a strictly by-the-numbers sense, the Rumsfield doctrine is going to take longer because it requires building a local government from scratch (which can take years). Democracies don't like long wars, so it does raise the issue as to whether or not domestic support can be sustained long enough to finish the job. However, I think it has a better long-term chance of succcess. |