Luck in Iraq
From the NY Times (via Drudge) comes a report that the Pentagon is working overtime to deal with what a spokesman called "the very dynamic situation" in Iraq:
The Pentagon is sending a retired four-star Army general to Iraq next week to conduct an unusual "open-ended" review of the military's entire Iraq policy, including troop levels, training programs for Iraqi security forces and the strategy for fighting the insurgency, senior Defense Department officials said Thursday.
The extraordinary leeway given to the highly regarded officer, Gen. Gary E. Luck, a former head of American forces in South Korea and currently a senior adviser to the military's Joint Forces Command, underscores the deep concern by senior Pentagon officials and top American commanders over the direction that the operation in Iraq is taking, and its broad ramifications for the military, said some members of Congress and military analysts.
In another sign that the Iraq campaign is forcing reassessments of Pentagon policies, Army officials are now considering whether to request that the temporary increase of 30,000 soldiers approved by Congress be made permanent. One senior Army official said Thursday that the increase is likely to be needed on a permanent basis if the service is to meet its global commitments - despite the additional cost of $3 billion per year.
Whole thing here.
Luck is, says the Times, "a revered figure among soldiers and a mentor to their officers."
While it seems clear that violence in Iraq is intensifying in preparation for the scheduled elections at the end of the month, it's not clear what might happen if they're postponed. Iraq's former security adviser, Muwafaq al-Roubaie, has told the BBC that to do so would create a "bloodbath." That story here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Good Luck Vietraq
Good Luck.
"While it seems clear that violence in Iraq is intensifying in preparation for the scheduled elections at the end of the month, it's not clear what might happen if they're postponed."
Has there been any indication that al-Sistani would support a postponment?
Just curious here -- what's the cutoff point for determining that what you've got is a bloodbath? Do we have a term for "almost but not quite yet a bloodbath"?
I'm just not at all clear on what would look different in Iraq during a bloodbath as opposed to Iraq during the current phase of the occupation...
Shirley Knott
Does anyone think the violence will suddenly stop after elections? Seems to me it's simply been increasing exponentially--independent of the other US "accomplishments" which were supposed to put an end to it.
No Wes Clark?
And $3 bn a year? Fine - take it out of the DEA's budget.
bloodbath
that, of course, has to be taken in context of who said it -- al-roubaie can hardly do otherwise that promote the blind all-systems-go mantra that eminates from the white house.
but that isn't to say that things couldn't get worse. all-out civil war would be worse, and especially *look* worse to americans because much of the killing wouldn't be de facto censored.
Does anyone think the violence will suddenly stop after elections?
mr ruthless, i think their timeframe is much longer than two weeks out.
I've asked this before, but have not got an answer: Is Powell's "Pottery Barn" strategy really good strategy?
Is it what motivates Dubya?
I've asked this before, but have not got an answer: Is Powell's "Pottery Barn" strategy really good strategy?
Is it what motivates Dubya?
Is Powell's "Pottery Barn" doctrine good stategy?
Is it motivating Dubya's policy in Iraq?
The election will herald a new "what the insurgents fear most" date that will explain an "uptick" in violence leading to it - probably the inauguration of the elected officials. Thereafter the convening of the constitutional convention in 2006 will inspire the next "uptick" in violence from the "desperate" insurgents. After that? The real elections in 2007, probably. And then . . . check back. We'll find out in time.
Didn't someone say the Iraqi's would greet us as liberators and the oil revenue would pay for the reconstruction?
Does anyone think the violence will suddenly stop after elections?
No, but since the primary purpose of the increase in violence is to disrupt the elections it seems likely that things will settle down a bit once they're over. Another good reason not to delay them, really.
Dan, I'm not sure anything will slow down afte the elections. At that point, they will have much better targets (elected officials) to aim at.
"Is Powell's "Pottery Barn" strategy really good strategy?"
I don't think Powell's "Pottery Barn" is strategy so much as a prediction of cause and effect.
The French broke the Ivory Coast how long ago, and they felt compelled to re-invade. Why are the British so interested in Zimbabwe? Whatever happens in Iraq will be our responsibility whether we like it or not.
It's not just world opinion that matters either, it's domestic opinion. There are more isolationists among libertarians than there are in the general population, and even here in this forum, what to do about Iraq's future is considered a valid topic for debate. It probably will be for another decade.
...whether it's in our best interest or not or whether we like it or not.
That is to say, Powell's "Pottery Barn" scenario is what the Powell Doctrine was created to avoid. If we'd stuck with the Powell Doctrine, we wouldn't be in this mess.
"No, but since the primary purpose of the increase in violence is to disrupt the elections it seems likely that things will settle down a bit once they're over. Another good reason not to delay them, really."
Hey Rocky! Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!
But that trick NEVER works!
This time for sure!
Rowr!
Dan, if you're right, the elections provide a fatal blow to the insurgency, and violence starts tapering off, I hope you use this comment to humiliate me on a future thread. Because when it doesn't, I'm sure as hell going to be cutting and pasting your comment every time you pop up.
the primary purpose of the increase in violence is to disrupt the elections
you seem to have bought that bit of propaganda hook line and sinker, mr dan. care to explain why?
gaius, they're desperate, and in their desperate desperation, they're desperately carrying out desperate acts. Desperately.
The scenario I've wondered about is the one where al-Sistani and elected Shia officials invite Iranian forces into Iraq to put down Sunni insurgents.
How does the United States react in that situation? I'm not saying that situation is likely, but I'm also not certain that it isn't.
Ken, that scenario really scares me. I wonder how the Iranian people would react. Would they rally around the flag in response to an invasion of Iraq? Or would they react in horror that their leaders, who didn't win an election (I know, Khatami did, but the real power is held by unelected Ayatollahs), are getting involved in a big stinking mess?
How they respond in that scenario will tell us just how much (if anything) the Iranians have in common with Americans.
"There are more isolationists among libertarians than there are in the general population"
Ken, thanks for answering mine, but I don't see where you got this.
How could folks who generally believe in open borders and free trade be called isolationists?
Long before 9/11, I would read libertarians argue that we shouldn't keep forces in Europe, ask why the South Koreans can't guard their own border, etc.
Perhaps I'm using the word "isolationist" improperly--I was trying to say that, proportionally, there are more libertarians who think that intervening in another country's affairs is a bad thing than what you would find in the general population.
Do you not agree?
Ruthless, in political discourse, "isolationist" vs "internationalist" generally refers to one's views about the proper behavior of the government, not individuals or private parties.
"Would they rally around the flag in response to an invasion of Iraq? Or would they react in horror that their leaders, who didn't win an election (I know, Khatami did, but the real power is held by unelected Ayatollahs), are getting involved in a big stinking mess?"
If we use Lebanon as an example, it doesn't auger well, but an Iranian takeover of the areas in Iraq where Shia are predominant isn't the worst possible outcome for the United States--it's bad, no question, but it's not the worst.
The worst outcome, I think, would be getting bogged down in the middle of a Bosnia like civil war with our only potential allies being the Kurds. Of course, at the end of the civil war, hopefully there would be an election and a democracy--we'd be back to square one.
That's one of the reasons I was against the war, by the way. It seemed to me at the time that a Shia state closely allied with Iran was the most likely outcome even if everything went according to Bush's plan and a democracy did emerge.
History is filled with popular military incursions by Dictators to protect people with close cultural ties. Hitler did it and so did Slobo. Putin does it. In all cases, I think, it was largely popular with the folks back home.
What did the Iraqui Government official say when the doctor told him he had six months to live?
I don't know, Isaac, what DID the Iraqi government official say to the doctor who told him he had six months to live?
"Whooohee, that's about four months longer than anyone else in this government."
"isolationist" vs "internationalist"
Ken, joe,
Sounds like the librarian struggle to reclaim the word, "liberal."
And shouldn't the word, "anti-interventionist" be bandied about here?
As always, Bush is gonna do what he said he was gonna do.
Bush said elections would not be postponed, so they won't be.
It doesn't matter how ugly a temper tantrum the enemy throws, how many crimes against God and man they perpetrate, nor how bitterly their Bush-hating fellow-travelers in the west long for (and even proclaim) America's defeat.
The hatred and violence of our enemy - and the anti-Bush, anti-war propaganda which assists our enemy - are, ultimately, futile in the face of American resolve.
We will have the elections on schedule, just to prove that point.
I believe Sun-Tzu called this strategy "causing your enemy to lose face by slowly and publicly rubbing the his nose in his own shameful impotence."
This explains Bush's electoral victory: he?s shown an implacably sanguine resolve which no one saw in John Kerry.
McClain,
So you're calling for impeachment?
Just gloating, actually....
;-P
I can see it now, unless this guy comes back with a report that totally supports this government's policy and proves absolutely that no mistakes were made, we'll have to read endless WSJ, NRO and Townhall articles about how he is really a secret Liberal with a huge axe to grind. I can't wait.
"As always, Bush is gonna do what he said he was gonna do."
Now, if only he could channel some of that massive integrity into the resolve to do something about bringing his bloated non-defense deficit under control, his utter betrayal of those who believe in deep cuts in marginal tax rates and his flogging of everyone who supported him because they believe in fair trade. Yeah, if only he could do something about that huge knife he stuck in my life-long Republican back, I'd be willing to spend a little time pondering the profundity of his integrity.
"...and his flogging of everyone who supported him because they believe in fair trade."
...make that free trade.
Well, I'm not a Republican and I'm not even sure what a "marginal tax rate" is, let alone how deep to cut it.
I like free trade, reckon we could stand a bit more of it, but haven't noticed any anti-free-trade "floggings," lately.
And I'm pretty sure I would notice a flogging.
But, yeah, don't waste any time "pondering the profundity of" Bush's integrity.
You can bet he doesn't.
Man of action, that one, not a ponderer.
Oh, not always the RIGHT action, to be sure....
But he'll do.
At least he's not freakin' President Hamlet, with his "native hue of resolution ... sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,"
knowh'I'msain?
Hamlet will be the Prez after Dubya is impeached.
Arnold "Hamlet" Schwarzennegger
Or the guy from Australia. What's his name.? Produced that sado-masochistic Jesus thing??
Right.
Any minute now, we're gonna start electing furriners.
On that note, I have this Nigerian friend who needs to get some money out of the country; all you have to do is send him your bank account number and....
"Or the guy from Australia. What's his name.? Produced that sado-masochistic Jesus thing??"
That's not so far-fetched, Ruthless. Mel Gibson was born in upstate New York, and as far as I know has never renounced his US citizenship.
Don't know if Mr. Gibson retains U.S. citizenship or not, but: he's Catholic.
We don't elect Catholics. (Except JFK, barely, but look what happened to him....)
Sorry.
Hang on a minute. The reason we don't vote for Catholics for president is our fear they will turn the USA into a vassal-state of Vatican City and the Pope. But Mel Gibson, being a radically traditionalist Catholic who rejects the reforms of Vatican II, is literally "more Catholic than the Pope," and therefore has no potential political ties to the Holy See. So, I think he has a chance.
Y'know, I just can't picture "more Catholic than the Pope" as a selling point.
🙂
thanks