So, obviously there would be bloggers out there who are opposed to increasing troop strength in Iraq. Apparently one of their strategies is to argue semantics.
OK, I’ll play your little game.
We need to escalate our presence in Iraq. Sooner rather than later. One of the central reasons that this is going on with seemingly no end is that we are doing too much with too little. There was some talk of using Iraqi forces to increase troop strength, while keeping the U.S. numbers at their present level. Not gonna work. The ISF are not at a level where they can pull off wide-scale operations without significant U.S. support. I worked with one of their best battalions in Al Anbar province, and they were slightly less capable than the average American rifle company.
Lest any of our readers think of me as a “blogger on the right”, let’s make this clear: I have been to the Middle East four times since this war started, twice to Iraq. My friends and I will likely be part of any escalation that the administration orders. I already have one friend who found out not long ago that his brigade will deploy to Kuwait to be the theater reserve. I have a very personal stake in any “surge” or “escalation”.
Whoa. Those were some scary commenters.
Even Kos kids can talk numbers. Do you think ROE readjustments might also be called for? Maybe in addition to doing too much with too few, we’re not trusting our soldiers enough by limiting their options under various circumstances.
“Escalate” doesn’t refer just to troop numbers. It includes how you operate, what rules you fight by, and how much force you allow. Those commenters that equate escalation with troop level surges show their military analysis is as shallow and uninformed as their political beliefs.
One thing I cannot get over is how so many people, left AND right, civilians AND military veterans AND OIF veterans, are so quick to want to give up on this mission in Iraq and even in Afghanistan. We have a military which is much, much stronger than the one we had in WWII, we have technology which is not only much more sophisticated than what we had in WWII, but much, MUCH more sophisticated than the enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan and yet, after only 3+ years of this historical effort in the heart of the Middle East, some people want to throw up their hands and say its “too little, too late” and let’s just give up and get out of there.
I don’t get it!?
I wonder if we had this much dissention among the country and even within the military back during WWI and WWII. We faced SO many setbacks and horrendous loss of life in previous wars compared to this one.
My take is that it is not a matter of whether we can succeed, but a matter of whether or not people, in the government, among the civilian population and even within the military, have the WILL to see this through. People seem to think this war against Islamism is of no consequence to us. 1979 Hostage Crisis, 1983 Beirut bombing, 1993 WTC bombing, 1996 Khobar Towers, 1998 Embassy bombings, 2000 USS Cole bombing and 2001 WTC attacks seem to not register with some people that we have been in a war with Islamism since at least 1979 and they are intent on detroying us.
I suppose I can understand the delusional partisanship of Democrats and liberals, but to read that some military members do not understand the seriousness of these battles in Afghanistan and Iraq in the overall war against Islamism is very disheartening.
I read Mudville Gazette, Blackfive, MilBlogs, Michael Yon and Op-For on a regular basis and I certainly hope that you gentlemen represent the majority of those in the military and your will to succeed will never falter.
Keep up the great work you do here at Op-For.
While I agree that “the world is watching to see if we do in Iraq what we did in Vietnam” I am also concerned about the wellbeing of our troops. A recent article cited an increasing number of Post Tramatic Disorders for troops heading for thier third or fourth tour of duty. Once is fun(?) twice is challenging, the third and fourth tour are the beginnings of “Battle Fatigue”.
It now appears that there will be a “much-needed” escalation in
Iraq. To long our forces have been asked to accomplish their mission with too few resources.
Our strategy in Iraq for the last three and a half years was executed out of necessity, not lack of commitment. When the Bush Administration took office in 2001, our military had been drawn down through multiple base closings and budget cutbacks as the Clinton administration reaped the economic benefits of the “peace Dividend.”
The war in Afghanistan, followed by the invasion of Iraq stretched our military too thin. We just didn’t have enough troops. That’s why young Americans are repeatedly asked to return to combat – over and over again.
A surge, or escalation, is not the panacea for Iraq. We need a drastic change in our strategy and a significant financial commitment to our military (troop levels must be increased and ALL of our military equipment needs to be refurbished and/or replaced).
We have run our troops and military equipment into the ground. It’s time to reinvest that “peace dividend.”
As for our strategy, it’s time to move away from a Vietnamlike “search and destroy” mentality to a 21st Century “Clear, hold and rebuild” mindset.
We need to – first – restore security to the inner cities; then help the Iraqis rebuild their neighborhoods and establish a flourishing economy.
The Iraqi people and their leaders need to help us in this endeavor. If they are not willing, we should leave immediately.
It is still not certain that we can win in Iraq, but we need to make one last effort.
Richard S. Lowry
Marines in the Garden of Eden
Michael, it’s not the technology and sophistication that wins counterinsurgencies. The insurgent has only to wait us out. Politically and economically, we’re getting our asses handed to us. Take the killing of Zarqawi for example… one man… I would guess the price tag for killing him was probably in the six figures. It didn’t make a difference… not in the number of attacks on our soldiers… not in the advancement of Iraq’s security… not in the morale of our enemies.
A few hundred dollars is all it takes to make and employ an IED. A few thousand dollars will buy you an EFP and guarantee some dead Americans. A few more dead Americans chips away at our national will. Another dead insurgent is a martyr to motivate the bad guys to fight that much harder.
We can win, but in order to do that, we first have to GET IT… to UNDERSTAND what counterinsurgency is. It ain’t about high-tech and body counts. You can kill terrorists/insurgents/Islamo-fascists (pick one) by the bushel… like cockroaches, they’ll just come back for more. They have the millions who will kill and die for a socio-politco-religious belief (and I say that because, unlike our western Protestant Christianity, Islam pervades EVERY aspect of their lives) and are too poor to have anything to lose. We don’t.
THAT is a lesson taught to us by the Vietnamese. Yeah, maybe we killed twenty times more of them than they did us… guess what. We still lost. The old adage of “we won the battles but lost the war” is stupid. Who, besides the military history buffs, give a shit for the battles? The North Vietnamese flag flew over Saigon at the end of the fight… not ours or that of South Vietnam. That’s all that matters.
I support the surge, but our leadership needs to “get it” when it comes to counterinsurgency. That goes for both our political AND military leadership.
[url="http://hometown.aol.com/hard726554141/xxx-free-stories.htm"]xxx free stories[/url]