First Failure
As Iraq continues its descent into utter unfathomable chaos, and as Washington piruets around hopeless and ineffective Iraq Report by the morally vampiric James Baker, I am reminded of how this all started. No, a step forward from that. Not the lies and treason that got us into the war, which the new Congress will investigate. Not the invasion itself, with the fast light force that knocked out the formal Iraqi military (while that army was busy dissolving into a powerful insurgency). I'm talking about the un-planned-for aftermath.
There was not a single person outside the Junta who did not expect there to be a major rebuilding of Iraq. There is not a liberal hawk or a conservative war monger (outside of card-carrying Junta members and their media and corporate sponsors) who did not believe that it was the duty of the United States to secure a civil peace in the country we'd taken over. We believed the Powell "Pottery Barn Rule" that if you break something you've bought it and own it (even though Pottery Barn itself doesn't have a rule like that). Heck, we still believed in the "Powell Doctrine" from Poppy's Iraq war, where you use overwhelming force to achieve concrete goals. You know, back when we won wars.
But for the general's promotion from head of the Joint Chiefs to actual Secretary of State, he was actually listened to less. Rummey and Cheney knew better. Oh, neither had ever worn a uniform or faced an enemy for their country, as Powell had. They are the Dark Princes of Chickenhawkia, a place where keyboards are the greatest weapons and serve with powerful might - to make others fight and die.
The Dark Princes cooked up a war where the Army and Marines had just enough troops to beat the guys shooting back at them. But that's the conception of war that amateurs cling to. Real professional officers know better - war is about logistics. War is about holding the territory you've taken from the enemy. War is about imposing security on hostile populations. War is about handling a defeated army properly. It's about honouring the Geneva Conventions and all the other rules of combat.
Rummy and Cheney didn't know any of that. Why should they? Rummy was only Secretary of Defense, for crying out loud. Cheney, the Veep, was Defense Secretary for Poppie when Powell won the first Iraq war. How were they in a position to glean any insight from professional soldiers who had studied and practiced warfare for decades? What would a bunch like that know, anyway?
Best thing to do, then, was what they did with the boys at Itel. Fire and demote the ones who act like they know something you don't. Find the ones who agree with everything you say, and promote the hell out of them. They're the guys who will be there to tell you you're right when the chips are down.
So, armed with bad intelligence, bad planning, a skeleton force, and absolutely no reason to do it, we invaded Iraq.
We needed an international force of at least 500,000 men. We went with a 85% American force of 130,000. They were both brave and skilful, and they did us proud.
But when they won a city, they moved on without leaving a garrison. When they won an ammo dump, they pressed on - they didn't have the forces required to secure what they'd won. When they took the final prize - Baghdad - it got worse. They were not under orders to enforce civil peace, so they allowed looting and other bad acts. Unsurprisingly (now), the only building they were ordered to guard was the oil ministry.
And that was the day we lost the war.
It's because there was never security for the populace that the civil war started. When revenge killers go unpunished and there is no safety from death squads of any stripe, what do you do? Exactly what the Iraqis have done: you organize your own security. You fall back to the only groups that can protect you - in this case, your Sunni or Shia brethren. We created the civil war by failing to create security. If the proper troop levels had been there to start with, and if any member of the Junta (including Congress and the Executive) had been ever barely competent, we might have had a chance.
What was needed was total street security - marshal law for long enough to create safety. Then, at the same time, a massive Marshall Plan to rebuild right away. Yes, Nation Building. Rummy and Cheney hate the concept of "Nation Building." They prefer to just knock 'em down and leave 'em there.
As I said at the time, Toronto is a relatively peaceful city - and if there were no cops, I wouldn't leave the house. What were they to do in Baghdad? What do they do?
There are lots of people saying that it's not the lack of men and planning that lost the war, that it was a failed adventure from the get-go. I don't agree. But asking the same people who lied about the reasons they were attacking and bungled their way in to start doing smart things immediately afterward is a bit much. It's like asking the driver who gets lost and spends a week driving in circles to be the one to pitch a tent when you get there. If he didn't have the ability to read a map or pack a lunch, what makes you think he'll be able to assemble shelter?
That being said, it is, empirically, possible to defeat a nation in a war and rebuild it. We did that in WWII. How? We occupied Germany and Japan (among other countries) with a large multinational military force, and put giant dollars into rebuilding. It's a lot more complicated than that, but those are the essential realities.
So why did this deranged Junta think they could just pass on those things?
This has been a war that has benefitted only one group: the defense industry. Without a Cold War to fight, and a budget surplus fuelled by the "peace dividend" (remember that?), big defense industries needed a war. So they got their Three-plus Stooges elected and bought the war.
But the catch was that the only guys stupid enough to have rigged up a war for them were too stupid to win it.
There was not a single person outside the Junta who did not expect there to be a major rebuilding of Iraq. There is not a liberal hawk or a conservative war monger (outside of card-carrying Junta members and their media and corporate sponsors) who did not believe that it was the duty of the United States to secure a civil peace in the country we'd taken over. We believed the Powell "Pottery Barn Rule" that if you break something you've bought it and own it (even though Pottery Barn itself doesn't have a rule like that). Heck, we still believed in the "Powell Doctrine" from Poppy's Iraq war, where you use overwhelming force to achieve concrete goals. You know, back when we won wars.
But for the general's promotion from head of the Joint Chiefs to actual Secretary of State, he was actually listened to less. Rummey and Cheney knew better. Oh, neither had ever worn a uniform or faced an enemy for their country, as Powell had. They are the Dark Princes of Chickenhawkia, a place where keyboards are the greatest weapons and serve with powerful might - to make others fight and die.
The Dark Princes cooked up a war where the Army and Marines had just enough troops to beat the guys shooting back at them. But that's the conception of war that amateurs cling to. Real professional officers know better - war is about logistics. War is about holding the territory you've taken from the enemy. War is about imposing security on hostile populations. War is about handling a defeated army properly. It's about honouring the Geneva Conventions and all the other rules of combat.
Rummy and Cheney didn't know any of that. Why should they? Rummy was only Secretary of Defense, for crying out loud. Cheney, the Veep, was Defense Secretary for Poppie when Powell won the first Iraq war. How were they in a position to glean any insight from professional soldiers who had studied and practiced warfare for decades? What would a bunch like that know, anyway?
Best thing to do, then, was what they did with the boys at Itel. Fire and demote the ones who act like they know something you don't. Find the ones who agree with everything you say, and promote the hell out of them. They're the guys who will be there to tell you you're right when the chips are down.
So, armed with bad intelligence, bad planning, a skeleton force, and absolutely no reason to do it, we invaded Iraq.
We needed an international force of at least 500,000 men. We went with a 85% American force of 130,000. They were both brave and skilful, and they did us proud.
But when they won a city, they moved on without leaving a garrison. When they won an ammo dump, they pressed on - they didn't have the forces required to secure what they'd won. When they took the final prize - Baghdad - it got worse. They were not under orders to enforce civil peace, so they allowed looting and other bad acts. Unsurprisingly (now), the only building they were ordered to guard was the oil ministry.
And that was the day we lost the war.
It's because there was never security for the populace that the civil war started. When revenge killers go unpunished and there is no safety from death squads of any stripe, what do you do? Exactly what the Iraqis have done: you organize your own security. You fall back to the only groups that can protect you - in this case, your Sunni or Shia brethren. We created the civil war by failing to create security. If the proper troop levels had been there to start with, and if any member of the Junta (including Congress and the Executive) had been ever barely competent, we might have had a chance.
What was needed was total street security - marshal law for long enough to create safety. Then, at the same time, a massive Marshall Plan to rebuild right away. Yes, Nation Building. Rummy and Cheney hate the concept of "Nation Building." They prefer to just knock 'em down and leave 'em there.
As I said at the time, Toronto is a relatively peaceful city - and if there were no cops, I wouldn't leave the house. What were they to do in Baghdad? What do they do?
There are lots of people saying that it's not the lack of men and planning that lost the war, that it was a failed adventure from the get-go. I don't agree. But asking the same people who lied about the reasons they were attacking and bungled their way in to start doing smart things immediately afterward is a bit much. It's like asking the driver who gets lost and spends a week driving in circles to be the one to pitch a tent when you get there. If he didn't have the ability to read a map or pack a lunch, what makes you think he'll be able to assemble shelter?
That being said, it is, empirically, possible to defeat a nation in a war and rebuild it. We did that in WWII. How? We occupied Germany and Japan (among other countries) with a large multinational military force, and put giant dollars into rebuilding. It's a lot more complicated than that, but those are the essential realities.
So why did this deranged Junta think they could just pass on those things?
This has been a war that has benefitted only one group: the defense industry. Without a Cold War to fight, and a budget surplus fuelled by the "peace dividend" (remember that?), big defense industries needed a war. So they got their Three-plus Stooges elected and bought the war.
But the catch was that the only guys stupid enough to have rigged up a war for them were too stupid to win it.
posted by fiduciary at 1:36 PM
1 Comments:
Man, you NAILED the problems surrounding the progression of events in Iraq after the "Mission Accomplished" banner! I still feel mildly ill when I recall Colin Powell speaking to the UN about WMD's. You could see he didn't believe anything he was saying. I wish he had resigned BEFORE his UN gig. I seem to recall John McCain saying something VERY early on to the effect that the US shouldn't invade without proof of WMD's, and if it DID invade, it should use a force of over 350,000 troops. I agree with your observation about the huge problem of taking and not holding areas, and the rise of local militias because of the lack of security. I honestly expected wide-spread American outrage when the death toll of US young soldiers reached 2000. Now, it's almost 3000, but still not much outrage. Sad....
Post a Comment
<< Home