How Not to Repeat the Failures of Vietnam: Democratic Military Strategies for Success
“President Bush and his team are repeating the failure of Vietnam—failing to craft a realistic and effective policy, and in its place, simply demanding that the American people show resolve.” (General Clark)
Frustrated though the Democratic thinkers at our roundtable are, they are also all in agreement on the same point: We must not pull out too soon or too fast. Contrary to popular Republican mythology, most Democrats share this view, though their peace-activist left-wing often gets the media attention.
General Clark: “It would be a mistake now to pull out…Instead, we need a strategy to create a stable democratizing and peaceful state in Iraq—a strategy this Administration has failed to develop and articulate.” However, he adds, “Early exit means retreat or defeat.”
Senator Biden: Success in Iraq, “will require the Administration not to STAY the course, but to CHANGE course and do it now.”
As stated at the beginning of this series of posts, it is a FALSE CHOICE to say that, basically, “you are either with us or you are against us.” In other words, “stay the course,” or “cut and run.”
It may make great sound bites for a political campaign, but it has nothing to do with waging modern warfare.
However, due to the fact that we are fighting this war after a full generation, basically, of peace, at a time when there is no national draft—a war that has nowhere near the massive coalition of allied forces as that put together by the first President Bush for the Gulf War—then the same troops are having to fight the same war, over and over again.
Three deployments are routine, sometimes more, and military morale, recruitment, and reenlistment is at an all-time low. As my son said, “I could have a really great career with the Marine Corps, but man, I don’t wanna be fighting Operation Iraqi Freedom Twenty.”
He, my nephew, and thousands of other fine soldiers are getting out of the military as quickly as they legally can, because they’re exhausted, burned out, and fed up by this war. Many of them love the service, but they know that every time they step foot in that bloody desert, their odds of never coming home again are increased.
Senator Biden: “Even if more troops (to secure Iraq) made sense, we don’t have more to give. We cannot sustain what we have now beyond next spring unless we go to four or five deployments.”
I’d like to add an aside here, too, that the divorce rate in the military has sky-rocketed since the war began. Yes, our all-volunteer military is proud to serve, but they are sacrificing their families, their sanity, and sometimes their lives.
The first key to a successful strategy in Iraq is agreed to by all: “Give the Sunnis a stake in the future of their country ,” says Senator Kerry, “that drains support for the Sunni insurgency and isolates the hard-core Baathists (supporters of Saddam) and jihadists (foreign terrorists.)”
General Clark flat-out suggests that we, “offer amnesty to the insurgents who lay down their arms.”
Now, as the mother and aunt of Marines who’ve been shot at by these same insurgents, yeah, I’ll admit, that one stings a bit. But I am smart enough to know that the al Qaeda insurgency, led by the bloodthirsty Abu Musab al Zarkawi—are terrorists. Most Iraqi Sunnis are horrified at the tactics practiced by al Qaeda in Iraq, such as blowing up mosques, funeral marches, children, and emergency workers responding—as well as Sunni Muslim men who try to join the Iraqi police and Army.
This resentment is growing—and it is a different resentment felt from the standard poor Sunni young man who rages against Americans they see as occupiers and whom they blame for the raw sewage in their streets, the lack of electricity, the toxic water in their home faucets, and the 40% unemployment rate.
Offering these same young men a chance to get involved in the political process of their government if they lay down their arms worked very well with the Irish Republican Army, which had waged similar warfare on occupying British soldiers during decades of “The Troubles” in Ireland. Yasser Arafat—that old terrorist—won the Pulitzer Prize for Peace for trying to work with the hated Israel that he himself had fought against for years.
Besides, every rifle or explosive device turned over to American forces is one less that could be used against them.
Greater control of the borders is also a Democratic concern—and not just the Syrian border. General Clark suggests 20,000 troops deployed along Iraq’s porous borders, as well as four to six Brigade combat teams in an intensified effort in the Sunni triangle.
As far as training of the Iraqi Army, Senator Kerry recommends “putting the training on a six-month wartime footing.”
As Americans draw down their presence in Iraq, security will still have to be maintained. In order to prove—once and for all—that the US is not an “occupying force,” General Clark recommends transforming the military presence to a NATO operation. He points out that General Abizaid, who is the commander of the US forces in the Middle East, would still remain in charge, but he would report to a NATO council, as General Clark once did in Kosovo.
“With NATO support and UN endorsement, we can expect the Arab countries to step in. Their presence would prove that this is not an American occupation but an international regional effort to stabilize Iraq.”
Meanwhile, we could start bringing our boys and girls home.
The Democratic Party has endorsed a plan, put forth by the Center for American Progress, called Strategic Redeployment.
This would be a military realignment and a redistribution of troops more in keeping with a global war on terror, and would streamline with an American drawdown of deployments to Iraq—some 80,000 by the end of 2006 and most of the rest by the end of ’07.
Here is how the troops could be redeployed:
46,000 National Guard and Reservists to come home to the US to shore up gaps in homeland security
20,000 troops to bolster US and NATO troops in Afghanistan, and counterterrorism ops in Africa and Asia
14,000 in Kuwait, a Marine Expeditionary Force to strike at terrorist camps
Senator Biden also thinks that, for a while anyway, we should leave from 20,000 to 40,000 troops in Iraq as what he calls a Rapid Reactionary force to prevent jihadists from establishing a permanent base in Iraq and to back up the Iraqi army with technical and surveillance assistance.
And I think it only fair to point out here that Representative John Murtha, who was roundly criticized for wanting to “cut and run,” also advocated having a Rapid Reactionary Force, deployed to Kuwait and at the ready to respond quickly to any crises in Iraq.
Commenting upon how overstretched the American military is now, the Center for American Progress puts it this way: “We sent the Army to Iraq to save Iraq. Now we have to redeploy the Army to save the Army.”
All of the roundtable is in favor of expanding our Special Forces, so that they may strike more effectively at terrorist cells world-wide.
They were crucial in the war in Afghanistan, but were yanked out before they could complete their tasks, in order to be used in Iraq. Consequently, the Taliban is once again gaining a foothold in Afghanistan. We need more of these specialized troops to help us hold to our gains in the Middle East.
The Center for American Progress would like to see President Bush state, flat-out, that the US has no interest in establishing permanent military bases in Iraq—again, to lay to rest the insurgent’s fears that the US is an occupying power.
And Senator Kerry addresses the president’s constant insistence that the US will stay indefinitely: “An open-ended declaration to stay ‘as long as it takes’ lets Iraqi factions maneuver for their own political advantage by making us stay as long as they want.”
It’s not just Senator Kerry who believes this way. General George Casey, commander of the US troops in Iraq states, flat-out, that the American presence in Iraq not only fuels the insurgency’s rebellion against American occupiers, but actually, “extends the amount of time for Iraqi security forces to be self-reliant.”
In other words, as long as we’re there, why do they have to bother learning how to defend themselves?
And finally, the Center for American Progress points out that we’re not just fighting a war against IED’s and rocket-propelled grenades and small-arms fire—we’re fighting a WAR OF WORDS, of misinformation on the Arab street and hateful ideology.
They say that, if we don’t fight a more skillful battle of communication, then any American drawdown of forces will be portrayed on the Arab street and in the Arab media as a defeat.
“Don’t rely on Cold War communication in a complex world,” they say. “Short-lived listening tours of the Middle East like the one conducted by Undersecretary Karen Hughes earlier this fall do nothing to help us in the important battle of perceptions.”
The Center urges a more sophisticated approach at countering Internet attacks that gain street credibility in the Arab world. They point out that disinformation needs to be fought as quickly and effectively as the insurgency, if we want to win anything in the Middle East.
Next…Reconstruction.
“President Bush and his team are repeating the failure of Vietnam—failing to craft a realistic and effective policy, and in its place, simply demanding that the American people show resolve.” (General Clark)
Frustrated though the Democratic thinkers at our roundtable are, they are also all in agreement on the same point: We must not pull out too soon or too fast. Contrary to popular Republican mythology, most Democrats share this view, though their peace-activist left-wing often gets the media attention.
General Clark: “It would be a mistake now to pull out…Instead, we need a strategy to create a stable democratizing and peaceful state in Iraq—a strategy this Administration has failed to develop and articulate.” However, he adds, “Early exit means retreat or defeat.”
Senator Biden: Success in Iraq, “will require the Administration not to STAY the course, but to CHANGE course and do it now.”
As stated at the beginning of this series of posts, it is a FALSE CHOICE to say that, basically, “you are either with us or you are against us.” In other words, “stay the course,” or “cut and run.”
It may make great sound bites for a political campaign, but it has nothing to do with waging modern warfare.
However, due to the fact that we are fighting this war after a full generation, basically, of peace, at a time when there is no national draft—a war that has nowhere near the massive coalition of allied forces as that put together by the first President Bush for the Gulf War—then the same troops are having to fight the same war, over and over again.
Three deployments are routine, sometimes more, and military morale, recruitment, and reenlistment is at an all-time low. As my son said, “I could have a really great career with the Marine Corps, but man, I don’t wanna be fighting Operation Iraqi Freedom Twenty.”
He, my nephew, and thousands of other fine soldiers are getting out of the military as quickly as they legally can, because they’re exhausted, burned out, and fed up by this war. Many of them love the service, but they know that every time they step foot in that bloody desert, their odds of never coming home again are increased.
Senator Biden: “Even if more troops (to secure Iraq) made sense, we don’t have more to give. We cannot sustain what we have now beyond next spring unless we go to four or five deployments.”
I’d like to add an aside here, too, that the divorce rate in the military has sky-rocketed since the war began. Yes, our all-volunteer military is proud to serve, but they are sacrificing their families, their sanity, and sometimes their lives.
The first key to a successful strategy in Iraq is agreed to by all: “Give the Sunnis a stake in the future of their country ,” says Senator Kerry, “that drains support for the Sunni insurgency and isolates the hard-core Baathists (supporters of Saddam) and jihadists (foreign terrorists.)”
General Clark flat-out suggests that we, “offer amnesty to the insurgents who lay down their arms.”
Now, as the mother and aunt of Marines who’ve been shot at by these same insurgents, yeah, I’ll admit, that one stings a bit. But I am smart enough to know that the al Qaeda insurgency, led by the bloodthirsty Abu Musab al Zarkawi—are terrorists. Most Iraqi Sunnis are horrified at the tactics practiced by al Qaeda in Iraq, such as blowing up mosques, funeral marches, children, and emergency workers responding—as well as Sunni Muslim men who try to join the Iraqi police and Army.
This resentment is growing—and it is a different resentment felt from the standard poor Sunni young man who rages against Americans they see as occupiers and whom they blame for the raw sewage in their streets, the lack of electricity, the toxic water in their home faucets, and the 40% unemployment rate.
Offering these same young men a chance to get involved in the political process of their government if they lay down their arms worked very well with the Irish Republican Army, which had waged similar warfare on occupying British soldiers during decades of “The Troubles” in Ireland. Yasser Arafat—that old terrorist—won the Pulitzer Prize for Peace for trying to work with the hated Israel that he himself had fought against for years.
Besides, every rifle or explosive device turned over to American forces is one less that could be used against them.
Greater control of the borders is also a Democratic concern—and not just the Syrian border. General Clark suggests 20,000 troops deployed along Iraq’s porous borders, as well as four to six Brigade combat teams in an intensified effort in the Sunni triangle.
As far as training of the Iraqi Army, Senator Kerry recommends “putting the training on a six-month wartime footing.”
As Americans draw down their presence in Iraq, security will still have to be maintained. In order to prove—once and for all—that the US is not an “occupying force,” General Clark recommends transforming the military presence to a NATO operation. He points out that General Abizaid, who is the commander of the US forces in the Middle East, would still remain in charge, but he would report to a NATO council, as General Clark once did in Kosovo.
“With NATO support and UN endorsement, we can expect the Arab countries to step in. Their presence would prove that this is not an American occupation but an international regional effort to stabilize Iraq.”
Meanwhile, we could start bringing our boys and girls home.
The Democratic Party has endorsed a plan, put forth by the Center for American Progress, called Strategic Redeployment.
This would be a military realignment and a redistribution of troops more in keeping with a global war on terror, and would streamline with an American drawdown of deployments to Iraq—some 80,000 by the end of 2006 and most of the rest by the end of ’07.
Here is how the troops could be redeployed:
46,000 National Guard and Reservists to come home to the US to shore up gaps in homeland security
20,000 troops to bolster US and NATO troops in Afghanistan, and counterterrorism ops in Africa and Asia
14,000 in Kuwait, a Marine Expeditionary Force to strike at terrorist camps
Senator Biden also thinks that, for a while anyway, we should leave from 20,000 to 40,000 troops in Iraq as what he calls a Rapid Reactionary force to prevent jihadists from establishing a permanent base in Iraq and to back up the Iraqi army with technical and surveillance assistance.
And I think it only fair to point out here that Representative John Murtha, who was roundly criticized for wanting to “cut and run,” also advocated having a Rapid Reactionary Force, deployed to Kuwait and at the ready to respond quickly to any crises in Iraq.
Commenting upon how overstretched the American military is now, the Center for American Progress puts it this way: “We sent the Army to Iraq to save Iraq. Now we have to redeploy the Army to save the Army.”
All of the roundtable is in favor of expanding our Special Forces, so that they may strike more effectively at terrorist cells world-wide.
They were crucial in the war in Afghanistan, but were yanked out before they could complete their tasks, in order to be used in Iraq. Consequently, the Taliban is once again gaining a foothold in Afghanistan. We need more of these specialized troops to help us hold to our gains in the Middle East.
The Center for American Progress would like to see President Bush state, flat-out, that the US has no interest in establishing permanent military bases in Iraq—again, to lay to rest the insurgent’s fears that the US is an occupying power.
And Senator Kerry addresses the president’s constant insistence that the US will stay indefinitely: “An open-ended declaration to stay ‘as long as it takes’ lets Iraqi factions maneuver for their own political advantage by making us stay as long as they want.”
It’s not just Senator Kerry who believes this way. General George Casey, commander of the US troops in Iraq states, flat-out, that the American presence in Iraq not only fuels the insurgency’s rebellion against American occupiers, but actually, “extends the amount of time for Iraqi security forces to be self-reliant.”
In other words, as long as we’re there, why do they have to bother learning how to defend themselves?
And finally, the Center for American Progress points out that we’re not just fighting a war against IED’s and rocket-propelled grenades and small-arms fire—we’re fighting a WAR OF WORDS, of misinformation on the Arab street and hateful ideology.
They say that, if we don’t fight a more skillful battle of communication, then any American drawdown of forces will be portrayed on the Arab street and in the Arab media as a defeat.
“Don’t rely on Cold War communication in a complex world,” they say. “Short-lived listening tours of the Middle East like the one conducted by Undersecretary Karen Hughes earlier this fall do nothing to help us in the important battle of perceptions.”
The Center urges a more sophisticated approach at countering Internet attacks that gain street credibility in the Arab world. They point out that disinformation needs to be fought as quickly and effectively as the insurgency, if we want to win anything in the Middle East.
Next…Reconstruction.
posted by Deanie Mills at 6:54 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home