RE: Suggestion

Oh, McCain, I was wondering when you would join in the calls for a reformed approach to our Iraq strategy.

"A growing number of U.S. lawmakers and defense experts are urging a shift in U.S. military strategy in Iraq that would focus less on trying to secure the whole country and more on shoring up protection of major population centers.

The arguments for change arise from concern that U.S. and Iraqi forces lack the numbers still to combat insurgents everywhere and that enemy fighters have continued to show a disturbing ability to cause significant casualties in major Iraqi cities that by now should have become safe zones.

In the aftermath of fresh bombings yesterday in Baghdad and Tikrit, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) added his voice to those calling for a new focus. He said the emphasis up to now on rooting out insurgent strongholds through widespread, short-duration raids -- what he termed "sweeping and leaving" -- is not working.

"Rather than focusing on killing and capturing insurgents, we should emphasize protecting the local population, creating secure areas where insurgents find it difficult to operate," the senator said in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. He added that such an approach would require more troops and resources, arguing against the idea of reducing U.S. forces in Iraq next year."

And it only took you a month or three! Bravo to you guys for making this voice heard (WaPo article link). Now let's see if the top brass and Rummy pay attention...

My thoughts: (mostly in line with Krepinevich's) I understand the desire to reduce the size of our forces there; I'd love to bring them home too, as I don't really think they should have been sent there in the first place. Similarly, there is a fair amount of truth in the idea that our mere presence there is only bolstering the insurgency. However, the long-term solution is not to pull out and create a power void; that will just allow the crazy Taliban-like groups to swarm in and re-establish the capital of the caliphate in Baghdad (roughly 800 years later...) What we need to do, what should have been done from the get-go, is to build the infrastructure. Less people will join the insurgency -- and the population will have observable proof, enabling them to defend the US presence -- if we actually do some constructive things, like ensuring electricity, clean water, etc. It's a good, wise, offensive strategy, versus our current defensive search and destroy Modus Operandi. If you break it, you own it -- so instead of getting all pissy and breaking more things, let's find some glue so we can get out of there more quickly and safely. (Well, quickly, maybe not...)

The central thesis of Andrew Krepinevich's article from the September/October Foreign Affairs is posted after the 'read more' jump. Check it.

"Winning in Iraq will require a new approach.

The basic problem is that the United States and its coalition partners have never settled on a strategy for defeating the insurgency and achieving their broader objectives. On the political front, they have been working to create a democratic Iraq, but that is a goal, not a strategy. On the military front, they have sought to train Iraqi security forces and turn the war over to them. As President George W. Bush has stated, "Our strategy can be summed up this way: as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down." But the president is describing a withdrawal plan rather than a strategy.

Without a clear strategy in Iraq, moreover, there is no good way to gauge progress. ...

Instead of a timetable for withdrawal, the United States needs a real strategy built around the principles of counterinsurgency warfare. To date, U.S. forces in Iraq have largely concentrated their efforts on hunting down and killing insurgents. The idea of such operations is to erode the enemy's strength by killing fighters more quickly than replacements can be recruited. Although it is too early to tell for sure whether this approach will ultimately bring success, its current record is not good: even when an attack manages to inflict serious insurgent casualties, there is little or no enduring improvement in security once U.S. forces withdraw from the area.

Instead, U.S. and Iraqi forces should adopt an "oil-spot strategy" in Iraq, which is essentially the opposite approach. Rather than focusing on killing insurgents, they should concentrate on providing security and opportunity to the Iraqi people, thereby denying insurgents the popular support they need. Since the U.S. and Iraqi armies cannot guarantee security to all of Iraq simultaneously, they should start by focusing on certain key areas and then, over time, broadening the effort -- hence the image of an expanding oil spot. Such a strategy would have a good chance of success. But it would require a protracted commitment of U.S. resources, a willingness to risk more casualties in the short term, and an enduring U.S. presence in Iraq, albeit at far lower force levels than are engaged at present. If U.S. policymakers and the American public are unwilling to make such a commitment, they should be prepared to scale down their goals in Iraq significantly."

Posted: Friday - November 11, 2005 at 12:34 PM |