« Comments | Main | Lewis v. Harris »

October 25, 2006

Iraq: Time to Go(?)

Frederick W. Kagan offers an excellent column in today's Washington Post arguing that we cannot simply leave Iraq to its fate after having created the problems which have placed that country in such dire straits. Kagan makes some good points. Iraq is a disaster now because of the actions we took during and following the 2003 invasion. We removed the forces that could maintain order and failed to replace them, with predictable results. Tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead, using conservative estimates. But the casualties lost thus far will pale compared to those we'll see if the U.S. pulls out. And there will be no excuse for the U.S. We went into Iraq with every intention of tearing down the existing power structure, and with no realistic plan to replace it. The consequences of that decision, the blood that will be spilled, are on our hands.

But, as sympathetic as I am to Kagan's argument and as reluctant as I am to kick open the door separating Dante's Inferno and Iraq, Kagan's solution isn't feasible. The administration is busy arguing that its plan was never stay-the-course and looking for ways to draw down our forces currently in Iraq. Maintaining the current troop level will be a challenge, not only politically, but logistically. The Army is to the point that soldiers are getting barely a year on the ground in the U.S. before heading back to the Middle East, a recipe for disaster. We are hewing to our recruiting numbers by lowering the standards to frightening low levels and promoting everyone in sight to create 'leaders'. Barring some major changes in how we operate, we aren't going to be able to keep up this pace much longer without increasingly bad effects on our military. Increasing troop strength in Iraq is out of the question, without making the kinds of changes we've shown no inclination to make.

Do we need more troops to pacify Iraq? If we throw out all standards of decency and humanity, we could start locking cities down by shooting anyone who fails to obey our orders. That kind of imposed peace is frightfully bloody, and a lot of the people who end up dead would be innocent Iraqis, but if we imposed such a program, we could probably greatly reduce the level of violence in Iraq.

Except that our troops in Iraq are at the far end of a very long, very narrow logistical lifeline. If the entire country rose up against the occupation, our focus would immediately have to change from pacifying the country to extracting our forces before they were overwhelmed. We could accomplish that, but that would put a rapid end to any hopes of pacifying the country.

Is it possible to pacify Iraq? Sure. But it would take a huge number of troops to do it, and most of those would have to be American troops. 500,000 would be a good start, although even that might not be sufficient. We would have to take over almost all security duties in Iraq, both military and police functions. We would have to lock down entire cities, and we would have to do so with sufficient firepower that anyone who tried to fight back would be cut down almost immediately. We would have to reestablish a climate of law in Iraq, something that would require at least several months of quiet, where people became used to the idea of going out without having to fear snipers, and where those who did disturb the peace paid the price. This would also mean a lot of casualties, both ours and theirs. It would be incredibly difficult, manpower intensive, and bloody. Only then could we start training Iraqis to replace our forces. The entire process would probably require at least five years before we could start drawing down, and possibly longer, and it would cost many more billions of dollars.

And the fact is, we're not prepared to do any of that. I'm of the opinion that doing it might be better than leaving, since that will be bloody as well, as indeed the situation is right now. At least if we went in heavy and with a solid plan for locking the country down and establishing law and order before handing things over to the Iraqis, the deaths might come en route to a more peaceful Iraq. But that assumes a willingness to do things that we simply don't have. Our options in Iraq do not include using enough troops to do the job right, and they never did. At this point we can stay the course, in which case we will continue to see the kind of low-level violence that marks Iraq day after day, with a stream of American casualties in the mix, or we can leave and watch the strongmen fight it out for control of Iraq, with a lot more Iraqi casualties until some strongman or strongmen establish control and things settle down.

Sooner or later, we're going to leave Iraq. As long as we're there, U.S. soldiers are going to continue to die, and eventually the American people will announce that they're not going to put up with that any longer. If we continue as we've been going, there's little evidence to suggest that the situation is going to improve. If the situation isn't improving, and we're going to leave eventually despite that fact, then there is little reason to remain there now.

I don't make this suggestion lightly. I believe that the deaths that have occurred and that will occur in Iraq are a stain on our national honor (much like the deaths we helped to cause when we urged Iraqis to rise up in 1991, only to then ignore their pleas for help when they did). But unless there's some evidence available that we are really making progress in Iraq that will prevent a disaster when we do leave, than it makes no sense whatsoever to remain in Iraq only to forestall the inevitable. Either we step up and do what it takes to fix Iraq, or we accept that we've failed and get out.