No strategic change, but validated COIN
Tuesday, September 11, 2007 at 10:26AM OP-ED: 'The Road To Partition,' By David Brooks, New York Times, September 11, 2007
Great piece. I agree with Brooks: the ethnic cleansing is far more consummated than left hanging, so the genocide fears seem both OBE and premature. They're largely OBE in that they either continued or were locked in by the surge. They're premature in the sense that if the fighting is destined to resume, it won't matter how long we maintain the surge, that fight can reassert itself whenever desired, being easily postponed for as long as required.
In fact, it's certainly better for the Shia to put it off for as long as feasible, given their numbers and nearby support (Iran, which has backed all horses in the Shia race to date, just to be sure).
Iraq's soft partition is thus a fait accompli to all but the most unrealistic.
Nothing changes strategically with the surge (meaning Iran is still Iran, and it ain't going anywhere), except the U.S. Military validates its new COIN and the relevant operational experienced is further stockpiled, which serves many purposes in the future.
Petraeus' successes will weigh heavily against the historical record of the Bush Administration. 85 percent of our casualties have come after the "lost year" of May 03-Mar04. A COIN effectively employed coming right on the heels of the war would have made for a very different experience. The White House found religion all right; it just took inexcusably long to do so.
But, truth be told, there was no chance that either this administration nor this military could have or would have changed absent the initial failures, so the neocons' incompetence--as willful as it was--serves an ironic historical purpose: getting us the military they never wanted but which we've desperately needed.
(Thanks: Tyler Durden)
Reader Comments (4)
I am a little confused about the comments here and elsewhere that the Republicans don't have a plan and the Democrats don't have a plan. Whether they have good plans is the question, not whether they have plans!
What we have been and are currently doing is the Presidents plan. Given that he holds the highest office in the land and is a Republican -- I'd guess that is the Republican plan. Brooks sites Joe Biden, who is not some Democratic pollster. Biden is the Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Given that about the highest position held by a Democrat regarding Iraq -- I'd guess that his could be considered the Democratic position.
I don't know who's fooling who with all this journalistic "Who has a plan?" nonsense. Guys like Bush and Biden have been pushing their plans for quite a while here. The question is -- who has the best plan.
If you follow guys like Brooks who keep moving their goal posts to follow the ball, you just might find that best plan.
I was wondering if you might talk about the time needed to pursue a successful counterinsurgency plan. I was watching John Nagl on C-Span and he noted that the Brits in Malaysia is one of the few successful counterinsurgenies. He also noted that it took about 12 years to bring the counterinsurgency to fruition and that they made many strategic errors along the way. Is there any similarities in Iraq and the Brits experience in Malaysia? I bring this up because I don't think most Americans, let alone Congress, realize the time and effort that it will take for us to succeed in a counterinsurgency effort in Iraq.
What does OBE stand for?. entries 2 and 3:
Overcome By EventsOvertaken By Events