Libertarian Leanings

Credibility and the Afghan War

Credibility is the big difference.  Everybody knew, allies and enemies both, that George W. Bush was committed to winning the war in Iraq.  It's unfortunate, but hardly anybody is convinced that Barack Obama is committed to winning in Afghanistan.

Wars are contests of wills. If our efforts in Afghanistan have an increasingly ghostly quality—visible to the naked eye but incapable of achieving effects in the physical world—it has more to do with a widespread perception that we just aren't prepared to do what it takes to win than it does with the particulars of counterinsurgency strategy or its execution. Gen. Petraeus won in Iraq because George W. Bush had his back and the people of Iraq, friend as well as foe, knew it.

By contrast, the fact that we have been unable to secure the small city of Marja, much less take on the larger job of Kandahar, is because nobody—right down to the village folk whom we are so sedulously courting with good deeds and restrictive rules of engagement—believes that Barack Obama believes in his own war. The vacuum in credibility begets the vacuum in power.

You can sense Obama's disappointment.  From time to time he revisits his Afghan dilemma, hoping conditions will permit him to begin his promised troop draw down, but every time he looks he finds that he can't do it.  Back to domestic issues until Afghanistan intrudes upon him again, and again he engages with the only question that matters.  Can the troop withdrawal begin? 

It's over

It's official.  The surge if over.  President Bush said so today.  The surge of roughly 30,000 troops to Iraq that he initiated last year has achieved significant gains.  While it is clear the war on terror is not over, the battle for Iraq is going very well.

All five brigades of surge troops returned home from Iraq in July, a month which saw violence drop to "its lowest level since the spring of 2004," Mr. Bush said. Pentagon numbers indicated that the 11 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq was actually the lowest monthly toll of the entire war.

Mr. Bush also announced that starting Friday, U.S. troops deployed to Iraq will serve 12-month tours instead of extended 15-month tours.

The president said that Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, will soon make recommendations on future troop levels, which he said will include "further reductions in our combat forces as conditions permit."

Teeth in their jugular

General Petraeus has been accused of being too cautious in his testimony.  You'd never guess it from what Pete Wehner says about the General's testimony yesterday.

In response to questions from Senator Lugar, General Petraeus said this about al-Qaeda in Iraq: “We have our teeth in their jugular — and we need to keep them there.” That’s a very nice phrase, which reflects a very encouraging reality.

A will to win

Brilliant Democratic senate strategists, who have thus far failed to bring about a U.S. defeat in Iraq in spite of all their efforts, have a new plan.  More accurately it's a new talking point. 

A series of questioners put on the airs of grand strategic sophisticates to remind Petraeus that whereas his brief includes only Iraq, theirs covers the entire world--and from their viewpoint, the fight that matters is not the one that Petraeus and Crocker and their subordinates are winning in Iraq, but the one in the "Afghan-Pakistan border region," as it was so often called. Petraeus and Crocker pointed out repeatedly and accurately that al Qaeda's leaders themselves continually refer to Iraq as the central front in their war against us, but to no avail. The real fight, they were told each time, is in the Afghan-Pakistan border region against the real al Qaeda that the Intelligence Community says has only grown stronger. And, the general and the ambassador were lectured, keeping too many troops in Iraq was preventing the United States from prevailing in this more important fight.

All that Democratic bluster might lead one the think there is some will to win the fight against al Qaeda on that side of the aisle.  One would be mistaken.  In fact, there are some things the Senate can do to help in Afghanistan.  Oddly enough, the Senate would rather not help.

To the question, "Is there really nothing we can do unless we send more troops?" the answer is unequivocally that there is something we can do. Congress can do it, in fact, and very quickly. Pass the supplemental defense appropriation that would allow development money to flow reliably to our soldiers in Afghanistan as well as Iraq. The advantage of Afghanistan's poverty (for us) is that a little money goes a long way. American soldiers have increasingly been leveraging development funds to starve the insurgency of recruits in a way similar to what has worked in Iraq (but tailored appropriately to conditions in Afghanistan). They need more money. One of the problems the British face in the south of the country is that their government does not give their soldiers development money to spend. We should find ways to help them out. Congress could do all of this with one roll-call vote in each house, and the aid would start flowing to Afghanistan faster than any additional brigades could arrive. American soldiers in Iraq often say that dollars are their best bullets--the same is true in Afghanistan.

Democratic Senators prefer to delay action on the supplemental defense appropriation.  They still hope to force a withdrawal from Iraq.  There is a will to win among them.  Unfortunately, an American victory in Iraq is not a win for them.  Quite the opposite.  And Senate Democrats work towards a victory of their own.

Drawdown has begun

In his New Year's letter to the troops General David Petraeus announced that force redeployments have begun.  So far, one Army brigade combat team and one Marine Expeditionary Unit have redeployed without replacement, with four additional brigades and two Marine battalions to follow in the coming months.

This has been made possible by the success of those troops and their Iraqi and coalition partners in improving the level of security in Iraq.

While the progress in a number of areas is fragile, the security improvements have significantly changed the situation in many parts of Iraq. It is now imperative that we take advantage of these improvements by looking beyond the security arena and helping Iraqi military and political leaders as they develop solutions in other areas as well, solutions they can sustain over time. At the tactical level, this means an increasing focus on helping not just Iraqi Security Forces--with whom we must partner in all that we do--but also helping Iraqi governmental organizations as they endeavor to restore basic services, to create employment opportunities, to revitalize local markets, to refurbish schools, to spur local economic activity, and to keep locals involved in contributing to local security. We will have to do all of this, of course, while continuing to draw down our forces, thinning our presence, and gradually handing over responsibilities to our Iraqi partners. Meanwhile, at the national level, we will focus on helping the Iraqi Government integrate local volunteers into the Iraqi Security Forces and other employment, develop greater ministerial capacity and capability, aid displaced persons as they return, and, most importantly, take the all-important political and economic actions needed to exploit the opportunity provided by the gains in the security arena.

The pace of progress on important political actions to this point has been slower than Iraqi leaders had hoped. Still, there have been some important steps taken in recent months. Iraq's leaders reached agreement on the Declaration of Principles for Friendship and Cooperation with the United States, which lays the groundwork for an enduring relationship between our nations. The United Nations Security Council approved Iraq's request for a final renewal of the resolution that authorizes the Coalition to operate in Iraq. Iraq's leaders passed an important Pension Law that not only extends retirement benefits to Iraqis previously left out but also represents the first of what we hope will be additional measures fostering national reconciliation. And Iraq's leaders have debated at length a second reconciliation-related measure, the Accountability and Justice Bill (the de-Ba'athification Reform Law), as well as the 2008 National Budget, both which likely will be brought up for a vote in early 2008. Even so, all Iraqi participants recognize that much more must be done politically to put their country on an irreversible trajectory to national reconciliation and sustainable economic development. We will, needless to say, work closely with our Embassy teammates to support the Iraq Government as it strives to take advantage of the improved security environment by pursing political and economic progress.

In the 1972 election George McGovern's campaign demanded that troops be brought home from Vietnam.  All the while President Richard Nixon was steadily bringing the troops home from Vietnam.  Massachusetts was the only state that went for McGovern.  Today's Democratic contenders similarly demand that the troops be pulled out of Iraq -- as the troops begin to be pulled out of Iraq.

Maintaining the gains

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, General David Petraeus offered some insight into his thinking on troop withdrawals but said he isn't ready to make recommendations to the White House.

The commander said any future drawdown would be designed to ensure the U.S. maintained its recent security gains and could prevent insurgents from returning to areas vacated by U.S. forces.

The U.S. would seek to pull out of areas only that are free of violence or protected by capable Iraqi security forces or tribal allies, he said. U.S. forces would likely remain -- albeit, in smaller numbers than today -- in restive parts of the country or in areas that lack strong Iraqi military or police units.

"We want to maintain the gains that have been made and, in fact, to build on them," he said.

Although he described the situation as going from "bad to less bad" he remains optimistic.

Senate fails to pass timetable for defeat

The Senate failed to pass an emergency appropriations bill that the Washington Post reports would have required President Bush to begin pulling troops out of Iraq immediately.  The bill is little more than an opportunity for congressional Democrats to posture.   

In May, Bush vetoed a war spending bill for Iraq that contained Democratic withdrawal conditions, and Congress backed off. Reid and Pelosi said they will not consider a new approach to the funding request until January. In the meantime, they said, the Pentagon could draw from its $471 billion annual budget to cover war expenses...

The Democratic terms that did not win enough support yesterday are less stringent than the ones in previous measures. For example, the current bill would have set a goal, instead of a deadline, for withdrawal.

In fact, according to Rasmussen the measure hasn't much in the way of public support.  A national telephone survey found that only 40% of those polled would favor a cut off of funding to force President Bush to redeploy the troops.

Fifty-three percent (53%) of voters say they want U.S. combat troops out of Iraq by the end of 2008. However, a Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 40% want Congress to cut off funding if the President won’t go along with the plan. Fifty percent (50%) are opposed to Congress using the purse strings in this manner while 10% are not sure.

Democrats claim they want to end the war in Iraq and say their repeated attempts to force a troop pullout are aimed at achieving that goal, but a troop pullout won't end the war.  It will only increase the risk of giving back those hard won victories of the last several months.

Fortunately, the battle for Iraq has pretty much been won by an Iraqi-American alliance painstakingly built under the leadership of General David Petraeus.  The plan for sustaining that victory is laid out in the U.S. Army/Marines Counterinsurgency Field Manual.  Here is an excerpt from the section on Host-Nation Security Forces Logistics:

8-34. HN-produced materiel should be procured and used to support HN security forces whenever it can meet requirements and is reasonably and reliably available. This practice helps stimulate the HN economic base and promotes an attitude of self-sufficiency in HN forces. It reinforces the important political message that HN security forces are of the people, not agents of foreign powers. When promoting these practices, logisticians may find themselves outside the normal scope of their duties when they assess the suitability of locally available materials and advise how to make such materials suitable for self-sustainment. The most valuable lesson logisticians may give to HN security forces and those supporting them is not “what to do” but “how to think about the problem of sustainment” and its link to security effectiveness.

Building a Military: Sustainment Failure
By 1969, pressure was on for U.S. forces in Vietnam to turn the war over to the host nation in a process now known as Vietnamization. While assisting South Vietnamese military forces, the United States armed and equipped them with modern small arms, communications, and transportation equipment—all items produced by and sustained from the U.S. industrial base. This modern equipment required an equally sophisticated maintenance and supply system to sustain it. Sustaining this equipment challenged the South Vietnamese economically and culturally, despite the training of several thousand South Vietnamese in American supply and maintenance practices. In short, the American way of war was not indigenously sustainable and was incompatible with the Vietnamese material culture and economic capabilities. South Vietnam’s predominately agrarian-based economy could not sustain the high-technology equipment and computer-based systems established by U.S. forces and contractors. Consequently, the South Vietnamese military transformation was artificial and superficial. Many South Vietnamese involved in running the sustainment systems had little faith in them. Such attitudes encouraged poor administration and rampant corruption. After U.S. forces left and most U.S. support ended, the logistic shortcomings of the supposedly modern South Vietnamese military contributed to its rapid disintegration when the North Vietnamese advanced in 1975.

Lessons of Vietnam have been well learned.  Under the Petraeus strategy the Iraqi Army and Police are unlikely to disintegrate as did the South Vietnamese military in 1975.  Congressional Democrats may redouble their efforts to bring about the defeat Senator Reid famously declared has already occurred, but with each passing day the Iraqis move closer to sustainability.

Why we are winning

Frederick W. Kagan, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, explains why we are winning in Iraq.

Many politicians and pundits in Washington have ignored perhaps the most important point made by Gen. David Petraeus in his recent congressional testimony: The defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq requires a combination of conventional forces, special forces and local forces. This realization has profound implications not only for American strategy in Iraq, but also for the future of the war on terror.

As Gen. Petraeus made clear, the adoption of a true counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq in January 2007 has led to unprecedented progress in the struggle against al Qaeda in Iraq, by protecting Sunni Arabs who reject the terrorists among them from the vicious retribution of those terrorists. In his address to the United Nations General Assembly Wednesday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki also touted the effectiveness of this strategy while at the same time warning of al Qaeda in Iraq's continued threat to his government and indeed the entire region.

Yet despite the undeniable successes the new strategy has achieved against al Qaeda in Iraq, many in Congress are still pushing to change the mission of U.S. forces back to a counterterrorism role relying on special forces and precision munitions to conduct targeted attacks on terrorist leaders. This change would bring us back to the traditional, consensus strategy for dealing with cellular terrorist groups like al Qaeda--a strategy that has consistently failed in Iraq.

Methinks Mr. Kagan is much too generous toward congressional Democrats who push to change the mission in Iraq.  They have not missed the general's point.  They get it very well, and they know the counterinsurgency strategy is succeeding, but success in Iraq is not good news for the Democrats.  Anti-war Democrats want the mission in Iraq to fail.  Having bet their political fortunes on it, they use every ploy they can think of to make failure in Iraq a reality.

It's the motive, you see.

E.J. Dionne is one of those columnists who come up with remarkably idiotic ideas on a regular basis.  His lament in today's Washington Post is over the presentations given by Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus to congressional committees.  They have illustrated a dramatic improvement in security in areas of troop surge operation in Iraq.  This is apparently bad news for Dionne.

It has not won the war. It has not achieved reconciliation at the national level in Iraq. But it has bought more political time in Washington, bringing Bush closer than ever to reaching one of his main objectives: keeping large numbers of troops in Iraq beyond Election Day 2008.

Was anybody expecting the surge to win the war?  Is there anybody, anywhere who said the surge would win the war.  On the contrary, General Petraeus himself has often said the war in Iraq will not be won militarily.  It will be won when warring factions can confidently resort to politics rather than violence.  He co-wrote a book about it, as a matter of fact.  It's called the U.S. Army & Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual.  It teaches that the way to defeat an insurgency is to provide security and basic services to a population.  To win them over.  In the specific case of Iraq, the surge is intended to provide enough security for a political process to work toward reconciliation among the Shia, Sunnis, and Kurds.

Which brings us to Dionne's second complaint, that the surge has not achieved reconciliation at the national level in Iraq.  Apparently, nothing short of a miracle will satisfy him.  Since the number of troops did not reach surge levels in June of this year, I find it astonishing that Dionne can complain, without the slightest sense of embarrassment, that factions warring with each other for decades, if not centuries, have not miraculously reconciled in the space of three months.  And never mind that reconciliation has begun at the grass roots level.  It's not national so that doesn't count.

And finally we get to the nut of it:  motive.  Today we learn, through E.J. Dionne's laser-like perception, that one of President Bush's "main objectives" is to have a large number of troops in Iraq after the U.S. election in 2008.

Not even going to touch that one.  But, one might expect a journalist to be a bit slower to question the motives of others, especially while flaunting his obvious resentment of U.S. military success.

Determined to lose

Yesterday on the Sunday talk show circuit leading Democrats disputed reports due today from General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker.  With a New York Times/CBS News poll finding only a modest increase in the number of Americans who are aware that the surge has dramatically improved the situation in Iraq, leading Democrats have put all of their chips on a political strategy that seeks to fill the void with their own version of events in Iraq.

WASHINGTON, Sept. 9 — Leading Democrats today pre-emptively assailed the expected findings on Iraq due this week from Gen. David H. Petraeus as “dead, flat wrong” and said President Bush’s likely call for continued patience in the war would simply extend an “unconscionable” and “completely unacceptable” policy.

It's either a strange confidence or utter desperation, but the parade of Democrats accused the top military commander in Iraq of being unaware of what's going on within his command or of an intention to willfully deceive congress.  And all before his reports are delivered.  Republicans fired back.

Republicans laid down their own markers. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said on “Fox News Sunday” that the troop increase was “undeniably working” and that “the only way we’re going to lose this war is to have politicians in Washington undercut the surge.”

Invoking the specter of Vietnam on NBC's Meet the Press Joe Biden predicted helicopters would be evacuating Americans from the Green Zone in Baghdad within two years.  The comparison to Vietnam is oddly appropriate.  Chapter 2 of the U.S Army & Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual uses the Vietnam War as an example of effective counterinsurgency operations.

Keen attention was given to the ultimate objective of serving the needs of the local populace.  Success in meeting the basic needs of the populace led, in turn, to improved intelligence that facilitated an assault on the Viet Cong political infrastructure.  By early 1970, statistics indicated that 93 percent of South Vietnamese lived in "relatively secure" villages, an increase of almost 20 percent from the middle of 1968.  By 1972, pacification has largely uprooted the insurgency from among the South Vietnamese population and forced the communists to rely more heavily on infiltrating conventional forces from North Vietnam and employing them in irregular and conventional operations.

In 1972, South Vietnamese forces operating with significant support from U.S. air-power defeated large-scale North Vietnamese conventional attacks.  Unfortunately a North Vietnamese conventional assault succeeded in 1975, after the withdrawal of U.S. forces, ending of U.S. air support, and curtailment of funding to South Vietnam. [p 74-75]

In the Petraeus view, as described in the Counterinsurgency Field Manual, the counterinsurgency in Vietnam was a military success.  The North Vietnamese were only able to defeat South Vietnam after congress withdrew support for a country that had been an American ally by voting to cut off financial aid.  Senator Biden's predictions of a helicopter evacuation from the Green Zone will only happen if the Senator is successful in forcing a "curtailment of funding" for the war in Iraq.  He's trying.