"Rep. John Murtha Is Right"

So says Charles Pena, late of Cato and currently an adviser to the Straus Military Reform Project and senior fellow with the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy. Writing at TomPaine.com, Pena argues for US outta Iraq, concluding:

If Iraq is the central front in the war on terrorism, then the United States must be willing to let the Iraqis wage the war against the likes of Al Zarqawi and his Al Qaeda followers. And if Al Zarqawi is defeated, we must be willing to accept that the outcome will not likely be the democracy sought by the Bush administration or even a government that is friendly to the United States. But our strategic interests will have been served.

Whole thing here.

Comments

[Ruthless]

Bush has said our troops will stand down when Iraqi troops stand up. That is a version of the Alphonse and Gaston routine which, in its many forms, is the most significant impediment to human society's positive progress.

[Smappy]

In general I like the column, but I will note that his 20 troops to 1,000 civilians equals 500,000 soldiers logic is a little off. The insurgency is in the Sunni portion of the country, while the Shiites and Kurds need far less of a U.S. force to keep the peace. Sunnis make up about 20% of Iraq's 25 million citizens, which comes out to 5 million people. With a 20 to 1,000 ratio, the United States' 150,000 soldiers can cover 7.5 million people, 50% more than the segment of the Iraqi population that is up in arms.

So are 150,000 troops enough to do the job? Maybe not, but 500,000 is probably far more than would actually be necessary.

[Chuck Pena]

Smappy - The rule of thumb of 20 soldiers per 1,000 inhabitants is independent of the size of the population that is considered armed. This is the ratio the Brits deployed in Northern Ireland to combat the IRA. Yet the actual number of armed and active IRA only numbered in the 100s. So 500,000 troops in Iraq is not at all unrealistic.

[theCoach]

Smappy,
Assuming you do not mind that the Shiites are keeping the peace with Death Squads targetting Sunnis.
Some of us have problems with the Salvador model.

[fyodor]

Chuck Pena,

You make a good point that basing the ratio purely on the Sunni population is fallacious. But Smappy's larger point is well taken in the sense that if there are swaths of Iraq that are in no need of outside military control at all, the population of these sections would not need to be included in the calculation. I lack the knowledge of the situation to know if such swaths exist (and could be counted on to continue to exist were outside military removed) and if so how large they are. But I think it's clear that the violence is not strictly limited to the Sunni areas since there has been violence up north near Mosul.

[Hakluyt]

fyodor,

The Kurdish north might meet your requirements.

[Hakluyt]

Of course I think a lot of you are forgetting that insurgents may not stick to a particular area - they may move around and attack targets outside the "Sunni zone."

[fyodor]

Assuming you do not mind that the Shiites are keeping the peace with Death Squads targetting Sunnis.

Well, y'know theCoach, and this kinda goes to the heart of what this post is actually all about, we may just have to accept such circumstances as an acceptable part of our pullout regardless of whether we "mind" them as being less than what we would ideally like. And thus the foolishness of the whole dang war in general. Unless one thinks we could ever stuff our fingers in all of the leaks of instability in Iraq, which is seeming less and less likely all the time.

[fyodor]

Of course I think a lot of you are forgetting that insurgents may not stick to a particular area - they may move around and attack targets outside the "Sunni zone."

Thus:

(and [if swaths not needing outside military] could be counted on to continue to exist [as such] were outside military removed)

[fyodor]

To add to and clarify what I just posted, I would think that to truly qualify as an area not needing outside military control, that area would need to have the ability to effectively and succesfully deal with insurgents who moved into their area. Even if there are quiet areas within Iraq, I wonder if any areas qualify under this higher standard.

[Russ D]

we must be willing to accept that the outcome will not likely be the democracy sought by the Bush administration or even a government that is friendly to the United States.

The outcome that the Bush administration really wants is an Iraqi administration that is friendly to Saudia Arabia. We seem to be pissed off at OPEC and yet can't stand the thought of a world without OPEC.

[Oil]

Russ D,
The mind set that buys into protecting borders and establishing "strategic petroleum reserves" is the mind set that buys into protecting me.

I'm in the ground. I'll be just fine, thank you.

[R C Dean]

Some of us have problems with the Salvador model.

Then you must have a major problem with the US pulling out now, before a civil society has a chance to take root. Premature withdrawal from Iraq guarantees that death squads and inter-militia strife will occur.

Unless one thinks we could ever stuff our fingers in all of the leaks of instability in Iraq, which is seeming less and less likely all the time.

How so? The Shiites are increasingly coopted into the new government system, and the Sunnis seem to be following suit. The Syrian border situation is far from ideal for us, but I think it is trending our way. So what threats to Iraqi stability are actually increasing?

[gaius marius]

Premature withdrawal from Iraq guarantees that death squads and inter-militia strife will occur.

have you considered, mr dean, that our staying may also guarantee these results? that is part and parcel to murtha's point -- he's saying that our people have become the focal point and the instigator of the militia-izing of iraqi society.

The Shiites are increasingly coopted into the new government system, and the Sunnis seem to be following suit.

neither are doing any such thing, mr dean. consider that shi'a militia now patrol the streets as lawlessly as they ever did, only now in military uniforms.

[gaius marius]

coopted

does anyone really think any party can be fooled or extorted into becoming the foundation of a healthy democracy?

[Rich Ard]

moot, gaius; I'm not familiar with any particularly healthy democracies.

[gaius marius]

We seem to be pissed off at OPEC and yet can't stand the thought of a world without OPEC.

i think, mr d, that we shouldn't conflate realists with neocons.

realists have a hard time abandoning a cartel that has been quite reasonable and stable under saudi leadership.

neocon ideologues, however -- many of which inhabit dod and the veep's office -- want to burn it down, burn it all down. i watched richard perle at aei this weekend on c-span trumpet another neocon tome (this time lawrence murawiec's) calling for the annihilation of everything in the middle east and call again for the destruction of the kingdom.

[joe]

RC, "Then you must have a major problem with the US pulling out now, before a civil society has a chance to take root." If there was any reason to believe that things were actually going in a positive direction under American occupation, this argument would be a lot more credible. Violence is increasing, death squads in Interior Ministry uniforms are killing people under our watch. Why are we supposed to believe that a longer presence will bring better results? Because Bush said so? Because there's a corner to turn? Because we're so freaking great everything just has to turn out well? I've had enough of our troops dying for this faith-based initiative. Get real.

"The Shiites are increasingly coopted into the new government system." Yes, many of the militias are now wearing Interior Ministry uniforms. Yipee.

[gaius marius]

moot, gaius; I'm not familiar with any particularly healthy democracies.

indeed, mr ard -- i wonder if the global democratic revolution is really just a neocon euphemism for gotterdammerung.

[fyodor]

So what threats to Iraqi stability are actually increasing?

The continuing insurgency and its associated bombings and kidnappings suffices to satisfy my analogy of continuing leaks in the dike of stability that seems impossible to plug. I did not mean to imply that the rate of 'leaks' was increasing per se, only that it is becoming increasingly clear that their continued springing is not slowing down. I should add that the brutal methods of incarceration employed by one group of Iraqis by another also adds to my pessimism about the situation. The veneer of a proper political process is in and of itself a good thing. It may be necessary, but it's not sufficient, and I don't know how it will necessarily solve the problem of the insurgency and the anger between various groups expressing itself in violence. And thus instability.

[fyodor]

"by one group of Iraqis by another"

should read:

"by one group of Iraqis against another"

[Kahn]

The Kurdish north might meet your requirements.

Only if the Kurds don't revert to their historical norm of shooting each other once they've cast off the outsiders.

I would think that to truly qualify as an area not needing outside military control, that area would need to have the ability to effectively and succesfully deal with insurgents who moved into their area. Even if there are quiet areas within Iraq, I wonder if any areas qualify under this higher standard.

There is no effective way to "deal" with "insurgents" who are prepared to blow themselves up in order to target civilian populations.

So long as people demand this impossibility, resolution shall remain impossible.

It is true that we must be prepared to accept gov't(s) in Iraq that are not especially pro-US.

The only genuine security interest the US has in Iraq is making sure the oil doesn't fall into the hands of a Taliban-like government that will use the revenues to promote/support terrorism.

My contention is that our engagement in Iraq should be delimited strictly by this principle. For there is no justification for being in Iraq beyond our security interests.

This approach would put us as nearly as possible on the moral high ground.

But I'm just a barbarian, as so many of you already know. And if we aren't going to make (or attempt to turn) Iraq into a venture strictly limited to our security interests, then --

We ought to turn this into a war of conquest outright, and let everybody know that oil is ours now. Then, all we have to do is establish a military capacity to protect the oil fields and pipe lines.

I think this would not be so very hard to do, with modern technology, if you decided that you really wanted to do it. And if you were willing to be barbaric enough.

But my vote is for the "security interest" approach.

[fyodor]

Kahn,

Why all the preemptive self-deprecation? I think you make a lot of sense. I'm all for the "security interest" approach myself.

The only question is how to make sure the government in Iraq becomes and remains one that does not enable anti-US terrorism.

I suppose one train of thought would be to simply get the ball rolling on their new constitution and split and then let them handle it all themselves. That's what I'm leaning towards. Using that guiding philosophy, I think we could likely start pulling out after the upcoming election.

The other train of thought, which appears to be the one favored by those actually making the decisions at the moment, is to either squelch the insurgency entirely first and/or build up the Iraqi security apparatus so that they could to it themselves. Your point about the intransigence of this insurgency is a major factor behind why this would be an extremely difficult standard to meet.

BTW, the only reason I made the comments you refuted is that I was reacting to things various people said about how to calculate the one to twenty military to civilian ratio supposedly necessary to subdue the insurgency based on past experience. But you are quite correct that the efforts of suicide bombers present major problems not present in Northern Ireland or other places in which the one to twenty ratio was found to be relatively effective. This actually backs the position of the "side" I was on more than what I was saying myself! Thanks for pointing that out!

[Shem]

Well, y'know theCoach, and this kinda goes to the heart of what this post is actually all about, we may just have to accept such circumstances as an acceptable part of our pullout regardless of whether we "mind" them as being less than what we would ideally like.

Jesus. Has it really come to this? Not saying I disagree, but Jesus. What the fuck happened to this country?

[Bill Woolsey]

I think the criticism of Pena regarding the total number of troops required is well taken. My first inclination was to also use the Sunni minority as the proper population from which to calculate the required number of troops. Pena's response that the calculation was relative to the total population rather than those under arms wasn't responsive. The entire Sunni population isn't under arms either.

If the U.S. were to decide to stamp out Kurdish separatism and Shiite islamism, along with Sunni islamism and Baathist-nationalism, then we would have all of Iraq against us and the 500,000 troops might be needed.

If the U.S. instead lets the Kurds and Shiites do their own thing, and just focuses on the Sunni insurgency, then the Sunni population is a good start for the proper population. It may be that it would be increased somewhat--say, counting the entire population of mixed areas--Bagdad, Mosul, and so on.

Of course, the "decade" time line is troubling. And I think Pena is exactly correct that the entire mess is a strategic disaster.

The neo-conservative position that the goal is to make Iraq into a beacon of liberal democratic capitalism, which will cause all the Muslim Arabs to become pro-U.S., well that is ridiculous. That goal would require the 500,000 troops for decades.

How would Americans feel if the Chinese fully supressed Canada? Would we adopt the Chinese model, even if we received news reports from China and Canada that Canadian children trully respected their parents, their economy was doing better, and they were more secure and happy?

I think we wouldn't believe the positive stories and would fear and hate the Chinese. And that is what the neo-con plan for Iraq will generate in the rest of the Muslim world--greater hatred of the U.S.

[joe]

Kahn, "The only genuine security interest the US has in Iraq is making sure the oil doesn't fall into the hands of a Taliban-like government that will use the revenues to promote/support terrorism."

I think we also need to be concerned about an Iraq whose government allows (through action, inaction, or inability) its territory to be used as a base for terror groups, even if the government doesn't actively provide assistance from its oil revenues.

Our invasion, our occupation, and the terrible incompetence with which both were carried out, have considerably harmed this security interest.

[Kahn]

fyodor,

Why all the preemptive self-deprecation? I think you make a lot of sense.

Because I've so often been either ignored or blasted when suggesting this in the past. 'Cept, it suddenly seems to be coming into vogue.

You make good points.

joe,

I think we also need to be concerned about an Iraq whose government allows (through action, inaction, or inability) its territory to be used as a base for terror groups, even if the government doesn't actively provide assistance from its oil revenues.

I meant that to be included.

Geez. I have to basically agree with you on this one.

I still have to agree with RC Dean's take that the pre-invasion intelligence isn't a clear cut condemnation of Bush. I am also convinced Saddam would have restarted WMD programs at first chance. What are clear cut condemnations of Bush are:

1) Bush never convinced me that of all our options, invading Iraq was the best and most necessary

2) The planning for what we'd do once we were there was non-existent

If we dont' get smart fast, then I agree, we risk a long term security reduction out of the whole thing.

[Kahn]

fyodor,

You're right of course. The hard part is "how do I know the new Iraq won't support or advocate terrorism?"

I'm happy to see people asking this and related questions, rather than just slamming Bush.

I'll slam Bush where he's got it coming. But meanwhile, we need to be thinking about how to extract ourselves from this mess we're in.

For a long time, the response I got from this attitude was "Bush got us into it, he can get us out".

It's pretty clear that Bush can't get us out of it. If he could, he probably wouldn't have made the mistakes he did to begin with.