Going big in Iraq
If you’d like a preview of what the president may propose in early 2007 regarding the war in Iraq, here it is: “Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq.” (Link opens pdf document.)
Fred Barnes provides the backstory:
Last Monday Bush was, at last, briefed on an actual plan for victory in Iraq, one that is likely to be implemented. Retired General Jack Keane, the former vice chief of staff of the Army, gave him a thumbnail sketch of it during a meeting of five outside experts at the White House. The president’s reaction, according to a senior adviser, was “very positive.” Authored by Keane and military expert Frederick W. Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute, the plan is well thought-out and detailed, but fundamentally quite simple. It is based on the idea — all but indisputable at this point — that no political solution is possible in Iraq until security is established, starting in Baghdad. The reverse — a bid to forge reconciliation between majority Shia and minority Sunni — is a nonstarter in a political environment drenched in the blood of sectarian killings.
Why would the Keane-Kagan plan succeed where earlier efforts failed? It envisions a temporary addition of 50,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. The initial mission would be to secure and hold the mixed Baghdad neighborhoods of Shia and Sunni residents where most of the violence occurs.
Historian Victor Davis Hanson, whom the White House would do well to consult, has additional suggestions, including “Putting Iran and Syria on notice that we will bomb terrorists flocking across their borders.”
Technorati tags: War+in+Iraq
Okay: I don’t know that I’d choose this option, but, if we are going to do this, I’d feel a heck of a lot better is that was 200,000 troops. Enough troops, in other words, that we CANNOT fail.
What do you think, Paul? Do you have faith that this isn’t yet another example of the Bush administration trying to do something on the cheap?
Ben,
I don’t have the military expertise to say how many troops we should have sent to Iraq in the first place, or how many more we should send now.
But according to Keane and Kagan, both military experts, “A surge of seven Army brigades and Marine regiments to support clear-and-hold operations starting in the Spring of 2007 is necessary, possible, and will be sufficient.” [Emphasis added.]
Unsurprisingly, our forces now win every battle they fight. But after they clear an area, they move on; there aren’t enough troops to stay and hold it. Keane and Kagan are not part of the Administration and have no reason to dissemble. I’d defer to their judgment that an additional 50,000 troops would be sufficient to not merely clear, but to clear and hold.
I think the president should also heed the counsel of other experts who say the rules of engagement must change, and that Moqtadar Sadr’s militia must be given an ultimatum: disband or die.
Well, I understand what you are saying about defering to military experts, but it’s also clear that one can find experts to defend whatever policies one supports. (And that the Bush administration is very experienced at such cherry-picking of experts and reports. As we know, when this war started, at least a few military experts publically supported sending up to half a million troops to Iraq. Those experts were either ignored or retired.)
So, no, I wouldn’t accept Keane and Kagan’s recommendation on face value, but honestly I haven’t done the research to find other experts arguing for larger contingents. Perhaps that debate (the amount of troops) might gain prominence once the principle (that we are going to “surge”) is established.
I guess I am suspicious, though. Given the stakes, surely common sense dictates erring on the side of too many troops, rather than too few (or even just enough).