Al-Qaida Strongest Since 9/11

[mraynrand]

mraynrand,

Your graph on West Point retention contradicts what I've heard. And the statement on graph seems to contradict the data. I am curious, do you have the article?

From USA Today, in 2005, retention rates for Navy and Air Force Academy graduates (who hit 5-year service mark) was 92%. West Point had only 62% rejoin.

It's pretty easy to get the NYT article on a search engine. And for the record, I agree with you that the Army is stretched. But I think the solution is to increase the funding so that you could raise salaries by 20% across the board and increase signing bonuses. That's what I tell my reps in rather pointed letters. If we really support the troops we ought to pony up the money so we can have more rotations out of theater.

But I also feel that overall the press is terribly negative, which also drives down recruiting. I don't think the draft should be reinstated, but a realistic assessment of what's going on in Iraq that doesn't just include IED explosions and casualties might attract more people to volunteer.

[Harlan Huckleby]

But I think the solution is to increase the funding so that you could raise salaries by 20% across the board and increase signing bonuses.

Oh man, I don't believe anybody goes into the Army at this time for the great bennies. It's an act of extreme sacrifice.

we ought to pony up the money so we can have more rotations out of theater.

if it was just a matter of money.... BTW, they ARE trying to substantially increase the size of the military. But that process takes years (according to what I heard from McCain) regardless of any recruiting issues.

But I also feel that overall the press is terribly negative, which also drives down recruiting .

I was a SOLID supporter of the war until fall of 2005 when it became obvious that the political strategy had failed. And I only came around to advocating withdrawal this month. So I've been keen to see any shred of evidence in a positive light.

In hindsight, the media coverage was not a bit too negative. To the contrary: they missed the incompetent decisions made in the first year. And they TOTALLY under-reported the depth of the insurgency later on. And lately, they missed that 4 million people have been displaced, a.k.a. ethnically cleansed, until it all accumlulated.

[mraynrand]

And they TOTALLY under-reported the depth of the insurgency later on. And lately, they missed that 4 million people have been displaced, a.k.a. ethnically cleansed, until it all accumlulated.

You make good points. I would suggest being careful about the two above. Calling it an insurgency - well, you have multiple factors - you have al quaeda working as a an 'Iago' to both Sunni and Shia, you have militias vying for power, and you have some groups specifically trying to rid the country of U.S. troops. So it's certainly more complex than an insurgency - which implies mostly an opposition

Ethnic cleansing - yikes! There's a big difference between people fleeing the country and people being killed. Yes, there's been a lot of ethnic violence - I hear estimates between 200,000 and 600,000 Iraqis have been killed since 2003. But of the 4 million you cite, most of those have fled.

I hope better security can support better political solutions, but that's the key - getting a reasonably strong central government that can stand up to the more corrupt militias (such as Sadr's) and roving criminals.

Harlan, did you ever think it was going to be a short haul? I was thinking at least a generation. I thought the extreme violence would abate sooner, but I attribute a great deal of that to the politicization of the war in the states allowing al quaeda and others in Iraq to imagine that they can eventually win through a defeat of willpower in the U.S. I imagine that had our leadership in Congress been unified and unwavering in saying that we would stay as long as it takes to stabilize the country, a lot of groups in Iraq would have thrown in the towel long ago.

[falco]

Harlan, did you ever think it was going to be a short haul? I was thinking at least a generation.

Its become obvious that it isn't going to be a short haul. But I think a lot of people went out of their way to convince the public otherwise, especially in the run up to things.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Harlan, did you ever think it was going to be a short haul? I was thinking at least a generation.

Well ya, a generation to stabilize politically.

I was for the war because of what could be gained. I trusted that they had the resources and wisdom to do the job. And it was the only way to end the mess left behind by the first Gulf War. Sanctions were not working with Hussein; he only allowed inspectors in AFTER the troops were massed in Kuwait.

I would still be for the war if I thought it could be successful. The country does not have the political will to fight long enough, and there are no guarantees that a civil war would ultimately be averted, even after thousands of U.S. lives are sacrificed. IT is not in our control.

Here's a good new article on the tense situation:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/world/middleeast/16reconcile.html?pagewanted=1&hp

[Joemailman]

Harlan, did you ever think it was going to be a short haul? I was thinking at least a generation. I thought the extreme violence would abate sooner, but I attribute a great deal of that to the politicization of the war in the states allowing al quaeda and others in Iraq to imagine that they can eventually win through a defeat of willpower in the U.S. I imagine that had our leadership in Congress been unified and unwavering in saying that we would stay as long as it takes to stabilize the country, a lot of groups in Iraq would have thrown in the towel long ago.

The fact is that there were people in the administration who suggested that a long haul would not be necessary. Rumsfeld early on suggested that he felt it would all be over within 6 months. When this did not happen, it caused many in Congress to start questioning whether the administration had a winning strategy. To expect Congress to offer an unwavering and unified front when many had lost confidence in the people making the decisions is in my opinion unrealistic.

[mraynrand]

The reason it's a long haul is that we ended up with a different war than we started with. Overthrowing Hussein was relatively simple, but forming a stable pluralistic society with competing political and religious goals, with al Quaeda in the mix to boot, has been awful. But leaving now means giving southern Iraq to Iran, allowing the Turks to ultimately 'deal with' the Kurds, and giving the Sunni up for slaughter. It may look bad right now, but it can get a whole lot worse. I don't think a simple 'balkanization' of Iraq (the dream of Joe Biden) will even be tenable - more likely it would be the battle ground for a larger regional conflict. Powell was right - we broke it, we bought it.

[Joemailman]

One of the ironies of the situation is that Winston Churchill drew the boundaries for Iraq and would later call it his greatest mistake. Bush idolizes Churchill, and some would say fancies himself a modern day Churchill, but is now stuck with a civil war in a country that Churchill created.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I don't think a simple 'balkanization' of Iraq (the dream of Joe Biden) will even be tenable

It's already happening, regardless of what we do or want. There is no momentum towards a strong central government. The Shia have already largely cleansed Bhagdhad of Sunni.

Biden was exactly on the money two years ago with his proposal, and most experts are coming around to his view. I forget the poll number, but something like 75% of Iraqis expect the country to split regionally & ethnicly, even if some central government is maintained. That figure was like 25% two years ago.

the best thing that could happen for Iraq would be to hold those friggin provincial elections. This is more important that the oil law, at this point. The U.S. is pushing hard towards local empowerment, both with military and providing services, because it is becoming clearer every day that the central government is lost cause for years to come. Central Gov resists provincial elections ( for two friggin years.)


If you got any stomach for it, here's a proposal that explains how to accomplish a managed soft partition. It requires a long term commitment of U.S. troops.

http://www3.brookings.edu/fp/saban/analysis/june2007iraq_partition.pdf

But don't sprain your brain reading that paper, because there ain't gonna be a managed partition. The country is going to be reorganized with violence, if only because it's too hard and too late for us to do it peacefully.

Here's what's going to happen:
The surge will continue until next spring. I HOPE they can build enough trust and security to bring calm to much of the country. But even they succeed, most likely the civil war is just going to build again as the U.S. troops depart. There will be many years of war, three ethnic regions. In 15 years, the regions will cooperate and federate effectively. This is the sort of timescale seen in Bosnia, Lebannon, etc.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Bush idolizes Churchill, and some would say fancies himself a modern day

There really is no difference between being resolute and being bone-headed stubborn.

If the surge produces results in the longrun, probably history will see Bush as Churchillian. I see about a 20% chance. Not good enough odds to ask an additional 2000 more soldiers to die for.

[Freak Out]

The Iraqi people and their neighbors are going to be the ones who decide what happens in Iraq...not the US. We can fund all the bases and embassies that our mercenaries can build and it will not change the fact the the majority in Iraq is going to rule the country the way THEY want not they way we want. Al Qaida will not tell the Iraqis how to run their country in the end..when they are done fighting us they will take care of Al-Qaida. As our soldiers die in Baghdad the Iraqi parliament heads for the hills to beat the heat...and the bombs. Dubya and his vision (who's vision was it anyway?) for Iraq has been a fantasy the whole time and it will remain such.
And obstinate he remains...his new mideast peace plan does not include Hamas....that's sure to work.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Exit Strategies
Would Iran Take Over Iraq? Would Al-Qaeda? The Debate About How and When to Leave Centers on What Might Happen After the U.S. Goes.
By Karen DeYoung and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers July 17, 2007; Page A01

If U.S. combat forces withdraw from Iraq in the near future, three developments would be likely to unfold. Majority Shiites would drive Sunnis out of ethnically mixed areas west to Anbar province. Southern Iraq would erupt in civil war between Shiite groups. And the Kurdish north would solidify its borders and invite a U.S. troop presence there. In short, Iraq would effectively become three separate nations.

That was the conclusion reached in recent "war games" exercises conducted for the U.S. military by retired Marine Col. Gary Anderson. "I honestly don't think it will be apocalyptic," said Anderson, who has served in Iraq and now works for a major defense contractor. But "it will be ugly."

In making the case for a continued U.S. troop presence, President Bush has offered far more dire forecasts, arguing that al-Qaeda or Iran -- or both -- would take over Iraq after a "precipitous withdrawal" of U.S. forces. Al-Qaeda, he said recently, would "be able to recruit better and raise more money from which to launch their objectives" of attacking the U.S. homeland. War opponents in Congress counter that Bush's talk about al-Qaeda is overblown fear-mongering and that nothing could be worse than the present situation.

Increasingly, the Washington debate over when U.S. forces should leave is centering on what would happen once they do. The U.S. military, aware of this political battlefield, has been quietly exploring scenarios of a reduced troop presence, performing role-playing exercises and studying historical parallels. Would the Iraqi government find its way, or would the country divide along sectarian lines? Would al-Qaeda take over? Would Iran? Would U.S. security improve or deteriorate? Does the answer depend on when, how and how many U.S. troops depart?

Some military officers contend that, regardless of whether Iraq breaks apart or outside actors seek to take over after a U.S. pullout, ever greater carnage is inevitable. "The water-cooler chat I hear most often . . . is that there is going to be an outbreak of violence when we leave that makes the [current] instability look like a church picnic," said an officer who has served in Iraq.

However, just as few envisioned the long Iraq war, now in its fifth year, or the many setbacks along the way, there are no firm conclusions regarding the consequences of a reduction in U.S. troops. A senior administration official closely involved in Iraq policy imagines a vast internecine slaughter as Iraq descends into chaos but cautions that it is impossible to know the outcome. "We've got to be very modest about our predictive capabilities," the official said.

Mistakes of the Past

In April of last year, the Army and Joint Forces Command sponsored a war game called Unified Quest 2007 at the Army War College in Pennsylvania. It assumed the partition of an "Iraq-like" country, said one player, retired Army Col. Richard Sinnreich, with U.S. troops moving quickly out of the capital to redeploy in the far north and south. "We have obligations to the Kurds and the Kuwaitis, and they also offer the most stable and secure locations from which to continue," he said.

"Even then, the end-of-game assessment wasn't very favorable" to the United States, he said.

Anderson, the retired Marine, has conducted nearly a dozen Iraq-related war games for the military over the past two years, many premised on a U.S. combat pullout by a set date -- leaving only advisers and support units -- and concluded that partition would result. The games also predicted that Iran would intervene on one side of a Shiite civil war and would become bogged down in southern Iraq.

T.X. Hammes, another retired Marine colonel, said that an extended Iranian presence in Iraq could lead to increased intervention by Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states on the other side. "If that happens," Hammes said, "I worry that the Iranians come to the conclusion they have to do something to undercut . . . the Saudis." Their best strategy, he said, "would be to stimulate insurgency among the Shiites in Saudi Arabia."

In a secret war game conducted in December at an office building near the Pentagon, more than 20 participants from the military, the CIA, the State Department and the private sector spent three days examining what might unfold if the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group were implemented.

One question involved how Syria and Iran might respond to the U.S. diplomatic outreach proposed by the bipartisan group, headed by former secretary of state James A. Baker III and former congressman Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.). The gamers concluded that Iran would be difficult to engage because its divided government is incapable of delivering on its promises. Role-players representing Syria did engage with the U.S. diplomats, but linked helping out in Baghdad to a lessening of U.S. pressure in Lebanon.

The bottom line, one participant said, was "pretty much what we are seeing" since the Bush administration began intermittent talks with Damascus and Tehran: not much progress or tangible results.

Amid political arguments in Washington over troop departures, U.S. military commanders on the ground stress the importance of developing a careful and thorough withdrawal plan. Whatever the politicians decide, "it needs to be well-thought-out and it cannot be a strategy that is based on 'Well, we need to leave,' " Army Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, a top U.S. commander in Iraq, said Friday from his base near Tikrit.

History is replete with bad withdrawal outcomes. Among the most horrific was the British departure from Afghanistan in 1842, when 16,500 active troops and civilians left Kabul thinking they had safe passage to India. Two weeks later, only one European arrived alive in Jalalabad, near the Afghan-Indian border.

The Soviet Union's withdrawal from Afghanistan, which began in May 1988 after a decade of occupation, reveals other mistakes to avoid. Like the U.S. troops who arrived in Iraq in 2003, the Soviet force in Afghanistan was overwhelmingly conventional, heavy with tanks and other armored vehicles. Once Moscow made public its plans to leave, the political and security situations unraveled much faster than anticipated. "The Soviet Army actually had to fight out of certain areas," said Army Maj. Daniel Morgan, a two-tour veteran of the Iraq war who has been studying the Soviet pullout at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., with an eye toward gleaning lessons for Iraq. "As a matter of fact, they had to airlift out of Kandahar, the fighting was so bad."

War supporters and opponents in Washington disagree on the lessons of the departure most deeply imprinted on the American psyche: the U.S. exit from Vietnam. "I saw it once before, a long time ago," Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a Vietnam veteran and presidential candidate, said last week of an early Iraq withdrawal. "I saw a defeated military, and I saw how long it took a military that was defeated to recover."

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), also a White House hopeful, finds a different message in the Vietnam retreat. Saying that Baghdad would become "Saigon revisited," he warned that "we will be lifting American personnel off the roofs of buildings in the Green Zone if we do not change policy, and pretty drastically."

The Al-Qaeda Threat

What is perhaps most striking about the military's simulations is that its post-drawdown scenarios focus on civil war and regional intervention and upheaval rather than the establishment of an al-Qaeda sanctuary in Iraq.

For Bush, however, that is the primary risk of withdrawal. "It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al-Qaeda," he said in a news conference last week. "It would mean that we'd be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we'd allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan." If U.S. troops leave too soon, Bush said, they would probably "have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous."

Withdrawal would also "confuse and frighten friends and allies in the region and embolden Syria and especially Iran, which would then exert its influence throughout the Middle East," the president said.

Bush is not alone in his description of the al-Qaeda threat should the United States leave Iraq too soon. "There's not a doubt in my mind that Osama bin Laden's one goal is to take over the Kingdom of the Two Mosques [Saudi Arabia] and reestablish the caliphate" that ended with the Ottoman Empire, said a former senior military official now at a Washington think tank. "It would be very easy for them to set up camps and run them in Anbar and Najaf" provinces in Iraq.

U.S. intelligence analysts, however, have a somewhat different view of al-Qaeda's presence in Iraq, noting that the local branch takes its inspiration but not its orders from bin Laden. Its enemies -- the overwhelming majority of whom are Iraqis -- reside in Baghdad and Shiite-majority areas of Iraq, not in Saudi Arabia or the United States. While intelligence officials have described the Sunni insurgent group calling itself al-Qaeda in Iraq as an "accelerant" for violence, they have cited domestic sectarian divisions as the main impediment to peace.

In a report released yesterday, Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies warned that al-Qaeda is "only one part" of a spectrum of Sunni extremist groups and is far from the largest or most active. Military officials have said in background briefings that al-Qaeda is responsible for about 15 percent of the attacks, Cordesman said, although the group is "highly effective" and probably does "the most damage in pushing Iraq towards civil war." But its activities "must be kept in careful perspective, and it does not dominate the Sunni insurgency," he said.

'Serious Consequences'

Moderate lawmakers such as Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) have concluded that a unified Iraqi government is not on the near horizon and have called for redeployment, change of mission and a phased drawdown of U.S. forces. Far from protecting U.S. interests, Lugar said in a recent speech, the continuation of Bush's policy poses "extreme risks for U.S. national security."

Critics of complete withdrawal often charge that "those advocating [it] just don't understand the serious consequences of doing so," said Wayne White, a former deputy director of Near East division of the State Department's Intelligence and Research Bureau. "Unfortunately, most of us old Middle East hands understand all too well some of the consequences."

White is among many Middle East experts who think that the United States should leave Iraq sooner rather than later, but differ on when, how and what would happen next. Most agree that either an al-Qaeda or Iranian takeover would be unlikely, and say that Washington should step up its regional diplomacy, putting more pressure on regional actors such as Saudi Arabia to take responsibility for what is happening in their back yards.

Many regional experts within and outside the administration note that while there is a range of truly awful possibilities, it is impossible to predict what will happen in Iraq -- with or without U.S. troops.

"Say the Shiites drive the Sunnis into Anbar," one expert said of Anderson's war-game scenario. "Well, what does that really mean? How many tens of thousands of people are going to get killed before all the surviving Sunnis are in Anbar?" He questioned whether that result would prove acceptable to a pro-withdrawal U.S. public.

White, speaking at a recent symposium on Iraq, addressed the possibility of unpalatable withdrawal consequences by paraphrasing Winston Churchill's famous statement about democracy. "I posit that withdrawal from Iraq is the worst possible option, except for all the others."