Slate's Bizbox
war stories: Military analysis.

Sorry, Mr. President, You're All Out of TroopsBut maybe France can help solve the Iraq mess.

By Fred Kaplan
Posted Wednesday, Aug. 29, 2007, at 6:31 PM ET

(Continued from page 1)

Most presidents would be doing two things right now: adjusting the rhetoric (so that expectations meet reality) and changing the policy (so that the reality isn't disastrous for U.S. interests).

One problem with Bush, judging from his Aug. 28 speech at an American Legion convention, is that he doesn't seem to grasp the reality. He told the Legionnaires:

The challenge in Iraq comes down to this: Either the forces of extremism succeed, or the forces of freedom succeed. Either our enemies advance their interests in Iraq, or we advance our interests. The most important and immediate way to counter the ambitions of al-Qaida and Iran and other forces of instability and terror is to win the fight in Iraq.

Even by his standards, this is a startlingly misguided passage. Few serious analysts would disagree that the best we can hope for in Iraq is a moderately authoritarian government that's not too terribly sectarian and not too closely aligned with Iran—that is to say, a regime that is neither extremist nor, in any Western sense, free. It would be a huge relief if "our enemies" don't see their interests advanced very far in Iraq, but few at this point anticipate U.S. interests making much headway either. It is unlikely that we or the Iraqi leaders will be able to ward off ambitions of al-Qaida and Iran and "other forces of instability and terror." At least one of those groups will come out fairly well; the key task now is to make sure that the most dangerous of them do not. And it is still unclear, after all this time, how Bush defines "win."

At one point in his speech, he came close to defining the term, but by that measure, we're not doing well. The "central objective" of his strategy in Iraq, he said, is "to aid the rise of an Iraqi government that can protect its people, deliver basic services, and be an ally in this war on terror."

The Iraqi people do not feel more protected (or, to the extent they do in certain areas, for instance in Anbar province, the relief has nothing to do with the Iraqi government). Basic services—clean water and electricity—are more lacking than they were a few months ago. And, even if the Baghdad regime gets its act together, it is unlikely to get confrontational with, say, Iran or Hezbollah.

It has always been doubtful that the U.S. military could pull off all these objectives. With the inevitable drawdown of troops, the chances are dimmer still. It's long past time to stop declaring lofty, unachievable goals and to focus on what's feasible.

Two military goals are feasible and worthwhile: defeating, or at least severely weakening, al-Qaida in Mesopotamia (with the assistance, however opportunistic, of Sunni tribesmen and insurgents); and keeping the Kurdish territories stable.

All other goals—for instance, keeping the Sunni-Shiite civil war from escalating or from expanding beyond Iraq's borders—are chiefly political in nature and can be accomplished only with the cooperation of neighboring countries.

Given America's declining influence and prestige in the region, it might be best for any accord or agreement to be—at least for public consumption—clean of Washington's fingerprints. And here, strangely, is where France might jump in.

VIEW AS SINGLE PAGE
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Fred Kaplan is Slate's "War Stories" columnist and the author of Daydream Believers: How a Few Grand Ideas Wrecked American Power. He can be reached at .
Photograph of George Bush by Paul J. Richards/AFP/Getty Images.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Remarks from the Fray:

After reading the synopsis of George W. Bush's speech to the VFW and the American Legion, both of which organizations are made up of military veterans, I am coming to the reluctant conclusion that the Commander-in-Chief is as out of touch with the objective realities of the war in Iraq today as der Fuehrer was with the military situation in Germany in 1945. He is heading very rapidly into Cloud-Cuckoo-Land, where he manipulates forces that do not exist except in his clouded little mind; forces that are not going to exist in Iraq.

Let's forget for a minute about how and why Bush got us into this war. That's old news and not relevant to what I'm trying to say. I'll ignore the hearts-and-minds issue too, a critical issue in any war against insurgents. The fact remains that in order to pacify Iraq and start rebuilding it, Bush must defeat the enemy militarily; break them to the point they give up.

To do that, he needs manpower. Lots of it. And I don't mean rear echelon types, the 'tail' that wags the line animal 'dog' in the field. He needs grunts, riflemen on the battle line. And he hasn't got them, nor can he get them.

After the end of the Cold War, the Army was reorganized to fight short, sharp hyperwars. This seemed the right way to go based on our experience in Grenada and in Gulf War I, where the duration of the fighting could be measured in hours. But that reorganization left our military without the ability to fight a sustained conflict like World War II, Korea or Vietnam. They don't have the manpower and they don't have the support structure they require to carry out that kind of mission successfully.

And because the war in Iraq does not threaten our national existence as World War II did, neither the People nor the troops are willing to stay overseas for as long as it takes to win that kind of a war. Troops will hold still for a lot if they know there is a goal to be met, but that once the goal is reached, they will be going home. I can't say that's what is going on in Iraq. They will go because they are ordered to, but they won't stay there one minute longer than they have to; and they won't re-enlist once their term of service is up. That's why Bush had to put stop-loss orders into place. No one wants to fight his war if they don't have to. The Army has shot its bolt, manpower-wise. The troops just are not available, nor will they be any time soon.

So where does that leave George W. Bush, the Decider? Sitting in the Situation Room beneath the White House with his generals, moving markers around on the situation maps, trying to find some way out of the political trap whose jaws are closing on him. Seems to me I've seen this scene somewhere before...

--Cyrano

(To reply, click here.)

What even the most benighted Bush apologists should acknowledge, if they have a shred of concern for their country, is that once it became obvious that the war in Iraq -- the supposed "war for civilization" -- was not going to be a cakewalk, Bush simply bagged the whole thing.

You don't fight a "war for civilization" while you're cutting taxes and refusing any significant increase in boots on the ground. The last time fascists blindsided this country, in 1941, we put 15 million men under arms and kept them there until the sons-of-bitches were beaten, and then kept a goodly number of those men under arms just in case anybody got the idea they it might be tried again. Compare this with what Bush has done and what you see is somebody who isn't fighting a "war for civilization." You see somebody who has an agenda that he values more than that. I say it's protecting his tax cuts, but any Bush loyalists who have an alternative vision are welcome to correct me.

--the_slasher14

(To reply, click here.)

Bush won't draw down the troops during his administration. So when President Obama begins a more thorough draw down, Bush and his supporters will be able to say they were right, no matter what happens in Iraq.

If Iraq becomes more peaceful with only 10,000 American troops, then Bush and his supporters will say that he was right to invade and "stay the course." If Iraq blows up into a full sectarian civil war after the real withdrawal, then Bush and his supporters will say that he was right in his dire predictions about what will happen when we leave. They'll say "We were stabbed in the back again!" He's making more noise about the disaster that will happen when we leave because he now thinks disaster is a more likely result. He no longer thinks we'll be "victorious," even on his terms. It's all very self-serving. Kaplan's big mistake is in believing that Bush cares about the country. All he cares about is himself. Luckily, most Americans see this now.

--Tlauf

(To reply, click here.)

Bush's unwillingness to grasp reality is less a function of his stupidity or stubbornness than his unparalleled instinct for self-preservation. It's the same game he's been playing his whole presidency--never accept blame OR responsibility when things go wrong (that's for losers); never change course (that shows weakness); always take credit for what goes right (the perogative of the privileged). Bush has played out his hand so now he's got to bluff his way through the next 6 months. As he sees it, that's his only choice-- because the ONLY thing that matters to him is retaining the tattered remains of his "legacy."

--bodack

(To reply, click here.)

(9/1)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Topic A: Obama's Speech
| Pundits and diplomats respond.
Robinson: Sunshine in BerlinToles: Obama the UniterTelnaes: Meanwhile, McCain
PLUS » Stumped: Bring Back Bill Clinton