Dear Victor,
Though a virtue in interpersonal relations, agreeableness is not necessarily a good thing in an online exchange, where a clash of views is often needed to spark excitement. Yet, at the risk of putting readers to sleep, I have to confess that my reaction upon reading your initial posting was: ditto.
You write that we need not only to increase the number of troops but also to change how they operate. I agree. You stress the need to win a military victory before we can carry out sociopolitical reforms. Here too I agree—and more importantly so does David Galula, author of the classic how-to book Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice (1964). One of his primary admonitions: “Which side gives the best protection, which one threatens the most, which one is most likely to win, these are the criteria governing the population’s stand.”
Unfortunately, lack of support for the war effort on the home front makes it ever more difficult to convey the impression to Iraqis that we are the winning side. But at least we can do a better job of protecting civilians and threatening aggressors. A higher troop-to-civilian ratio is a prerequisite for this. But beyond that we need to take other important steps:
• Get troops out of their giant forward operating bases, where they have been sealed off from the population. They need to establish a 24/7 presence in embattled neighborhoods—a strategy successfully carried out in such smaller Iraqi cities as Tal Afar and Qaim.
• Conduct a census of the Iraqi population, starting with Baghdad, then issue biometric ID cards to everyone, and equip security forces with wireless data devices linked to a central registry. Most American police departments have such a setup. But we have been mysteriously remiss in bringing this basic technology to Iraq, making it difficult to identify insurgents.
• Stop the “catch and release” policy which you rightly decry. It is obvious that more violent offenders need to be incarcerated, but it’s not easy to see how to accomplish this goal given the limited resources of the Iraqi legal system and its American military counterpart. Simply arresting a lot more people (the strategy tried by some U.S. units in 2003-04) isn’t the answer, since they may be innocent. We need better intelligence to identify the bad guys; we should impose martial law in order to keep them locked up for the duration of the conflict.
• Increase support for the Iraqi army. We need to dramatically increase the number of U.S. advisers embedded in Iraqi units. (Currently the total is about 4,000; we probably need closer to 20,000.) We also need to provide more armored vehicles and heavier weapons to the Iraqi army while expanding its overall size. The police are so compromised by corruption and sectarian loyalties that it’s not clear they can be at all useful; the army at least shows some promise.
If anyone can pull off the impossible it’s David Petraeus, but we shouldn’t get our hopes up unduly. The best we can hope for in the next year is to get Baghdad to the state it was in back in 2003—hardly ideal but certainly better than today. Then we have to build on that achievement, somehow, to increase longterm stability—all the while avoiding the implosion of our overstretched armed forces and the complete collapse of support on the home front.
Yikes!
Cordially,
MB
Boot I • Hanson I • Boot II • Hanson II • Boot III • Hanson III • Boot IV • Hanson IV
Assuming Burris is capable and not implicated in what the FBI is investigating with regard to Blago, doesn’t the rejection of him and the refusal to sit him by the Senate Dems somewhat support Blago’s view that these appointments are primarily about the accumulation and spending of political capital among the pols themselves and not about finding a competent Senator?
To add to what JM said, does the Senate really have the authority to refuse to seat him? Blago hasn’t been convicted and is considered innocent until proven guilty so I don’t see how the Senate can refuse. Wouldn’t it be hilarious is Rahm is on the FBI tapes naming Burris as one of the candidates that would be acceptable to the O?
I certainly hope that Blago’s gambit fails, but I think it’s going to be very hard for Reid to exclude Burris and Obama won’t want to help him out any more than he did with today’s statement.
That statement is really very soft—the words of a man who doesn’t want to get more involved. He says basically that Burris is a fine man; the Senate should handle this; and Blago should resign and let someone else make an appointment.
There is nothing there to stop the likes of Bobby Rush in his tracks. Burris already did some TV interviews, making the case plausibly that he’s not tainted and Illinois needs two Senators. The next move will be an orchestrated effort to get Illinois Black ministers, aldermen, community leaders, rank and file Chicago Democrats to support Burris. While Rush is not going to sweep Capitol Hill before him, he’ll be able to announce the support of a series of Black members of the House (I can think of six off hand who will chime in). How the “narrative” surrounding this will develop is not yet clear. The Obama-struck media will want to cover for Obama, not Reid, so Reid may find that Obama doesn’t give him any stronger statements in the days ahead.
I’ve been commenting on this issue all along on my blog at:
http://thepurplecenter.blogspot.com/
Everyone is welcome to join in the discussion there
I certainly hope that Blago’s gambit fails, but I think it’s going to be very hard for Reid to exclude Burris and Obama won’t want to help him out any more than he did with today’s statement.
That statement is really very soft—the words of a man who doesn’t want to get more involved. He says basically that Burris is a fine man; the Senate should handle this; and Blago should resign and let someone else make an appointment.
There is nothing there to stop the likes of Bobby Rush in his tracks. Burris already did some TV interviews, making the case plausibly that he’s not tainted and Illinois needs two Senators. The next move will be an orchestrated effort to get Illinois Black ministers, aldermen, community leaders, rank and file Chicago Democrats to support Burris. While Rush is not going to sweep Capitol Hill before him, he’ll be able to announce the support of a series of Black members of the House (I can think of six off hand who will chime in). How the “narrative” surrounding this will develop is not yet clear. The Obama-struck media will want to cover for Obama, not Reid, so Reid may find that Obama doesn’t give him any stronger statements in the days ahead.
I’ve been commenting on this issue all along on my blog at:
http://thepurplecenter.blogspot.com/
Everyone is welcome to join in the discussion there