Successful surge is small stuff

OP-ED: A War We Just Might Win, By Michael E. O’Hanlon And Kenneth M. Pollack, New York Times, July 30, 2007

As I have stated from the start of the surge: it was (finally) designed to work and it would (is finally) working. Throw enough bodies (with the contractors, we approach Shinseki's desired number) at the problem and we'll get progress with someone as smart as my favorite "monk of war."

And yet it's one thing to send just enough to settle the situation, but quite another to realize that, with the rotational strain coming to a head, there's still no question--despite the expected operational success of the surge--that the drawdown and pullback must occur, so the larger issue remains: What have we done diplomatically in the region to adjust to that inevitable pathway?

Here the news is far less sanguine: we've done little to nothing, instead teeing up Iran for air strikes that are unlikely to get us what we want in either Iran or Iraq, and with Gaza in shambles, this would likely flare too.

So yes, kudos to Petraeus in particular and CENTCOM in general for finally getting the strategy right in Iraq, but it comes so late (blame to Rummy and Cheney) that the strain on our forces dictates the drawdown unfolds no matter what, and with Bush & Co, not prepping the regional security environment at all for this outcome, our current gains are unlikely to be sustainable.

Petraeus's "victory" I can define: stabilize Iraq just enough for the drawdown/pullback to unfold with grace on our side and no bloodbath on our heels.

We can call this a "loss" or an "aborted victory" if you like, even though none of those terms apply (How do we "win" a war where we are only the biggest of many "tribes" there?). But I've always found calling it "our war" and worrying about our "victory" seemed odd and out of place.

It's Iraq's "peace" that's being fought over, and who'll get to control that.

Like I wrote in BFA, pretending this "war" is ours to win or lose is like the midwife acting like it's her baby being born.

The real question for us strategically is, What role does Iraq play for us in perpetuating and expanding the big bang? Many answers can legitimately flow from the question, and if we just get over this need to declare a "win" (however illusory) in Iraq, we can begin to strategize more clearly.

The game is still on: We committed to Iraq to trigger positive regional change (and please, hold your horses on democracy). The only "victory" in Iraq keeps that process alive enough for the next president to do something about it. The only "loss" I fear is the complete shutting down of those potential pathways prior to Bush's departure, and I think ineffective, feel-good strikes against Iran are the shortest route to that undesirable strategic cul-de-sac.

So good news to hear and excellent tactical analysis, but we're talking the small stuff here while still ineffectively debating the larger strategic issues, which neither party's candidates are effectively exploring right now, instead filling airwaves with fanciful declarations that we must "end this war now" (as if!) and "stop Iran's quest for nukes!" (ditto).

Comments

[Anonymous]

also, the political capital is long spent. guess what? you don't get four years of screwing up and deaths to get it right, and then say 'you have to let us keep going'. no, we don't.

[klasher5]

"kudos to Petraeus in particular and CENTCOM in general for finally getting the strategy right in Iraq"

"strategy" for what exactly? Iraq's government is no more functional, indeed it is in worse shape now, than it ever was. They have achieved nothing. Neither has the US military, except they have killed a lot more people for nothing.

k5

[Ajay Reddy]

"but we're talking the small stuff here while still ineffectively debating the larger strategic issues, which neither party's candidates are effectively exploring right now, instead filling airwaves with fanciful declarations that we must "end this war now" (as if!) and "stop Iran's quest for nukes!" (ditto)."

Biden is.

[michal Shapiro]

Hey K5:

Guess you haven't been reading the blog for long.And you obvously did not read the article the entry references.Do your homework before you comment.

[emjayinc]

Once again, yammering about "diplomatic surging" ignores that diplomacy, while ongoing for many months now, waits upon battlefield conditions for the moment to ripen into a public diplomatic track. Plausible that Saudi antics in the last few months (more or less contiguous with "the surge") evidence that US/Iranian diplomatic interplay has been going on long enough that some deals are in the offing-but do not meet entirely with Saudi desires (typical diplomatic outcome, no?). Suggest George Friedman/STRAFOR current analysis might offer some balancing views.

[Tom Barnett]

Ajay,

True to say, and truer than anyone else.

Klasher5,

The article speaks for itself. If the subject is non-discussable for you and only elicits responses such as that, this is the wrong blog for you. It needs to come out more mature than that.

emjayinc,

No one's unaware of the modest diplomatic maneuvering going on (STRATFOR's sources are no better than the NYT, but I'd rather not limit my analysis to either's), but arguing the surpremacy of the military equation is a big part of the neocons' problems: they believe such factors constitute the only facts on the ground that count. Unfortunately, our enemies' understanding of the playing field is a lot more sophisticated than that, and any allies whose understanding isn't at that level aren't worth having in the first place. My sense, my sources: we're being played by others far more than we're playing them. Few people more than I have spent serious time putting the best possible spin on the Bush administration's strategic choices, including two years in OSD getting paid to do it.

I spoke under a real name then, I write under the same real name today.

[mike jacobs]

Thought typekey gave you access to real names -- but find that was misunderstood. In any case, military supremacy not likely, and not what I'm talking about, nor the point made by those Brookings neocons, O'Hanlon and Pollack. Article points to battlefield stalemate, and history is that such "stalemate" (or stasis, if glass half full and spun well) at military level of discourse is minimum needed if looking to do definitive diplomacy, rather than merely surrender. And we do get played, because we're in the weaker position, for a host of intrinsic and extrinsic reasons - but weak doesn't equal beaten, yet. Yeh, I know your sources and experience at least as good as NYT and Stratfor, that's why I read you, too - my boomer perspective requires feeding while looking for my place on the shelf, along with all the other over-60's.

[HuskerInLA]

Tom. I know you've mentioned non military ways of spreading the Big Bang. But you've also mentioned that Iran and the Saudis need to have it out. (Which they seem to be doing anyway by proxy in Iraq) Could you spell that out for me? Why that is. How. Anticipated outcomes for the region.

I initially rejected Bidens partitioning /decentralized suggestion. I'm now leaning that way because it seems to have deteriorated to that point and is happening in an ugly way anyway. Thanks

[Gerry Myers]

On the first of December last year shortly after the election I wrote the following in my notebook:

Barbara Bush Takes Georgie to the Woodshed

One could almost imagine Barbara Bush saying to her son, "Georgie, if I hear 'Victory' one more time I'll give you such a slap. You've got to get past this cheerleader thing. You're the President now and you haven't done all that well at it. As leader of the free world, a job you've also kinda squandered, you're supposed to think about the effect your words have on others. How do you think those Iraqis feel when you keep talkin', 'Victory, Victory, Win, Win, Win!' They must think, 'Well, we'll show him!' even if in their heart of hearts they're glad Saddam's gone. You shoulda made clear we didn't want a big presence in the Middle East or Iraqi oil. All we want is a stable Iraq that's not a threat to its neighbors. If we even get close to that, we'll call it success and go home. But don't you rub it in. If I hear, 'Success, Success, Win, Win, Win!' you know what'll happen."

Now I'm a life long Republican and an engineer and this is not normally my type of thing. But, when I reread it I could imagine her adding, "And if Dick Cheney calls, you should say, 'What's happening, Dick? Aren't you supposed to be out opening a shopping mall, somewhere'?"



P.S. I've been reading the Blog since before you started BFA. Keep up the good work.

[Tom Barnett]

All very helpful.

Working a column right now to explore a bit more.

[Gordon Matthew]

This piece by Bill Lind explores one strategic advantage of a rapproachment with Iran, namely a stable Iraqi state that denies a haven to violent non-state actors.

I would add that it also sets up the mullahs for the soft-kill.

[Ted O'Connor]

Despite the pleas and threats from Bush's boys the parliment in Iraq decides to shut down for a few weeks. Nice move. Really sets well with the American people. Our ground troops are equally happy as they walk around in 118 degree heat with 80 lbs of gear on their backs and getting shot at to boot. Then the new British PM flies over to tell George that the "best pal" routine is finito. I don't know Tom...I think it's that point where the fans start leaving the stadium.

[Christopher Thompson]

"...but arguing the surpremacy of the military equation is a big part of the neocons' problems: they believe such factors constitute the only facts on the ground that count. Unfortunately, our enemies' understanding of the playing field is a lot more sophisticated than that, and any allies whose understanding isn't at that level aren't worth having in the first place. My sense, my sources: we're being played by others far more than we're playing them."

That is one of the clearest summations of our current situation that I have read recently. It makes the decision on how to go forward all the more critical. Thinking of the 5G warfare article, it seems we are losing this war on the intellectual level.