13 Ways Not To Think About Patraeus Report

[Elphaba]

hilzoy, from the blog "Obsidian Wings," has written what I believe to be an incredibly astute characerization of the predicament that is the Iraq War. If you don't read a thing, at least listen to the YouTube of the Army Wife pleading for a draft so the military can quit disintegrating and get a break.

Rather than ramble on, I'll let you read an excerpt, and then you can continue on with the link I have provided.

`````````````````````````
Thirteen Ways Not To Think About The Petraeus Report, by hilzoy

In anticipation of the Petraeus report, I've put thirteen* ways not to think about it below the fold.

* (OK, actually only eight. But how could I not invoke Wallace Stevens?)

(1) "The surge is working; we should maintain it until we've done the job." -- This is not an option. Fred Kaplan:

"Adm. Michael Mullen, the incoming chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified at his confirmation hearings last month that the "surge" in Iraq could not be sustained at present levels past April 2008.

There are a few ways to remedy this shortfall, all of them impractical or infeasible. First, soldiers' tours of duty in Iraq, which were recently extended from 12 months to 15 months, could be stretched further to 18 months. However, Gen. Richard Cody, the Army's vice chief of staff, told me, during a recent interview for a separate story, that this idea is "off the table." As it should be: The relentless rotation cycles have already compelled many soldiers and junior officers to quit the Army; pushing duty and tolerance much further might not just exhaust the troops beyond limits but spark an exodus from the armed forces."

This means that the surge will end next April. When we ask ourselves whether or not to maintain it until then, we should recognize that the only question worth asking is: will keeping the extra troops there until April improve matters? Asking whether it would improve matters to keep them there in perpetuity, or "until we get the job done", is beside the point: we can't.

(2) Even if we can't maintain the surge, we're making progress, so we should stay. -- This is an example of what, on Obsidian Wings, I called "benefit analysis": noting that an option provides some benefit and concluding that we should adopt it. (Relatedly, "cost analysis" involves noting that an option involves some cost and concluding that we should not adopt it.) In making decisions, we need to consider the pros and the cons.

In the case of keeping our troops in Iraq, there are obvious costs. Our soldiers are dying. Iraqis are dying. We are spending enormous amounts of money. This YouTube clip of a military wife calling Bill Kristol on CSPAN will get some of them across:

Army Wife Pleading to Bill Kristol for a Draft to Give Military a Break

(3) Our army can handle it. -- Besides the deaths of our troops and of Iraqis, the injuries, the displaced people, and the immense strain on everyone -- American, Iraqi, British, you name it -- who is involved with this war, we are also breaking our army. Over two years ago, Phil Carter and Owen West reported that the Army was trying to solve its recruiting problems by letting in people with criminal records, substance abuse problems, and so forth:

"Now comes a new Army directive that attempts to alleviate the personnel crunch by retaining soldiers who are earmarked for early discharge during their first term of enlistment because of alcohol or drug abuse, unsatisfactory performance, or being overweight, among other reasons. By retaining these soldiers, the Army lowers the quality of its force and places a heavy burden on commanders who have to take the poor performers into harm's way. This is a quick fix that may create more problems than it solves."

A year and a half ago, Salon reported:

"Waivers, which are generally approved at the Pentagon, allow recruiters to sign up men and women who otherwise would be ineligible for service because of legal convictions, medical problems or other reasons preventing them from meeting minimum standards. (...)

According to statistics provided to Salon by the office of the assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, the Army said that 17 percent (21,880 new soldiers) of its 2005 recruits were admitted under waivers. Put another way, more soldiers than are in an entire infantry division entered the Army in 2005 without meeting normal standards. This use of waivers represents a 42 percent increase since the pre-Iraq year of 2000."

The Army is shedding officers at an alarming rate. Last year, 44% of the West Point class that became eligible to leave the army did so -- "the service's highest loss rate in three decades." We have already done enormous damage to our armed forces, and the longer we stay in Iraq, the worse it will get.

(5) But -- but -- look what's happening in Anbar province! It's real progress! -- Yes, it is. It's debatable whether or not it's due to the surge, but let's assume, for the sake of argument, that it is. The question remains: what is going to happen when we leave Anbar province? One possibility is that the Iraqi government will embrace all the Sunni militias who have worked with us, allow them to continue to fight al Qaeda in Iraq, and provide them with the arms and supplies they need to do so. In this case, the "Anbar Awakening" would really have accomplished something.

However, it is completely unclear whether or not that will happen. Anthony Cordesman (pdf):

"Key tribal leaders, and the main tribal confederation in the area have started to fight Al Qa’ida, have turned to US forces for help, and seem willing to strike a bargain with the Shi’ite-dominated central government if the government will give them money, a reasonable degree of de facto Sunni autonomy, and incorporate their fighters into auxiliary police forces, the regular police, and Iraqi Army. Sunnis in other areas are considering similar deals, although such Sunni support of the US and central government is uncertain and dependent on far more action from the central government than has occurred to date."

If the government does not integrate the Sunnis we are working with into the army and police, or at least continue to supply them, then once we leave, they will lose the capacity to resist al Qaeda in Iraq, and the gains in Anbar will evaporate. So how is this integration going? Not so good:

"Many Sunni leaders here contend that the Shiite-dominated government is neglecting them for sectarian reasons, and the bad feelings at times boil over into angry accusations. In interviews conducted in early August, some said that factions in the Interior Ministry were taking orders from Iran, or that the government was withholding money and support because it did not want to build up Sunni security forces that it could end up fighting after an eventual American withdrawal from Iraq.

Iraqi officials in Baghdad deny shortchanging Falluja, saying they have authorized more than enough police forces for Anbar. ''We'd like to support them, but that does not mean we can respond to their requests or demands,'' said Sadiq al-Rikabi, political adviser to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. He said the government had problems supplying the police throughout Iraq. (...)

If the Iraqi government provided a large and steady supply of men, weapons, vehicles and equipment, the police could secure the city, said Colonel Hussein, the Falluja police chief. But he complained of little support from the government except for salaries, which he doubted would be paid if the Americans were not here. He said he also needed four times more policemen. ''Without the role of the Marines, I'll fail,'' he said.

Brig. Gen. Abdul Karim Khalaf, a senior Interior Ministry spokesman, called Colonel Hussein's comments ''unprofessional.'' In an interview, he said if the Falluja police had an equipment shortage then they failed to request enough gear earlier.

He added that if Colonel Hussein is so fond of the Marines, perhaps he should apply for American citizenship."

Another story about attempts to enroll Sunnis in the Iraqi police:

"In all, [Lt. Col. Kurt] Pinkerton marshaled 2,400 men willing to become policemen, but the Interior Ministry agreed to accept 1,700 of them, at a salary of $600 a month. When it came time to enroll, Pinkerton realized that 23 percent of the names he had submitted had been changed by the Iraqi government -- raising his suspicion that officials want to disrupt his efforts. "Who are they?" he wondered. "And where'd they come from?""

Along with the Iraqi government's general ineptitude, the problem is that the Shi'a in charge of Iraq are very worried about arming the Sunnis in Anbar provice, for the understandable reason that they might end up fighting those Sunnis in a civil war. The problem is that this could be a self-fulfilling prophecy: Shi'a in the government are too fearful to integrate the Sunnis into the armed forces and police, and as a result, the Sunnis conclude that trying to work with the central government is a lost cause. If that happens, then we will have taken some AQI fighters out of action, which is good, but we will also have trained Sunnis who will fight against the Iraqi government in a civil war, which is very bad.

Moreover, they have no real incentive to let the Sunnis in:

""It's always easy to get the prospective loser in a civil war to agree to a cease-fire," said Stephen Biddle, a counterinsurgency expert at the Council on Foreign Relations who has advised military commanders in Iraq. Sunnis are a minority and far more open to switching loyalties if it ensures them a future stake in governing Iraq, he said.

"It's a lot tougher to get the prospective winner to agree to a cease-fire," Biddle said, referring to the majority Shiites. "Getting them to sign on is going to be harder because they see themselves in ascendancy.""

Or, in the words of the most recent National Intelligence Estimate:

"Such initiatives, if not fully exploited by the Iraqi Government, could over time also shift greater power to the regions, undermine efforts to impose central authority, and reinvigorate armed opposition to the Baghdad government." (Emphasis added.)
````````````````````
hilzoy has written much more that is so enlightening. Also, if you go to her site, she has links to all of her sources within her article.

Y'all know how much I love to talk, but really what more is there to say? There's no need to expound upon what has already said it all.

Elphaba

hilzoy's Thirteen Ways

[Outshined]

All I'll say is the "experts" and armchair generals who like to pontificate about Iraq should actually visit here. The Iraq I see is worth the effort.

Freedom is always more important when it's your own you're talking about.

[Elphaba]

All I'll say is the "experts" and armchair generals who like to pontificate about Iraq should actually visit here. The Iraq I see is worth the effort.

Freedom is always more important when it's your own you're talking about.
[/b]

Hi Outshined,

I don't know if you remember me, but I've told you before that YOUR experience does hold more weight to me than the "pontificators."

Here's my problem: Did you read the article? I'm not saying you have to agree with it, but what would really be helpful to me is if you could refute what it says point by point rather than dismiss it out of hand. If you don't have the specific information that's fine. I can understand that.

But do you see my problem? I really do honestly search for the truth. I find articles that specifically point out the problems. Then I hear comments like yours that say "Iraq is worth the effort," but don't give the specifics.

I do know about Anbar Province and Baquba. But I also read that once we leave, the truce between the Sunnis and Shiia is going to revert back to the ancient hatreds that will always exist between the two, only this time we will have provided the Sunnis the weapons with which to fight this civil war. Do you disagree with this?

Anyway, if you can't or would rather not respond to this, I respect your decision. I honestly have a huge amount of respect for you and your faith in your mission. If this war does succeed, it will be because of people like you and your commitment to it. And please believe me that when you say "The Iraq I see is worth the effort," I believe you, and it does give me hope.

However, in my diligent and honest searches for a true portraint of what's really happenin in Iraq, I am not hopeful. As such, I have a right to be against the war, which I obviously am. So, if you can give me specific examples to counter these pictures, I would be unbelievably grateful.

Believe me, I am not against what you are working so hard to bring about, and because you are there, I give your words far more credence than all the "pontificators" I read. Your words hold more weight to me than anyone's. So, if you can give me specifics, I am listening.

Elphaba

[Annabelli]

All I'll say is the "experts" and armchair generals who like to pontificate about Iraq should actually visit here. The Iraq I see is worth the effort.

Freedom is always more important when it's your own you're talking about.
[/b]

This is the thought of most military personnel serving in Iraq.....Freedom is worth the effort and sacrifice.

For most internet forum posters, it's just a controversial topic. IFP's are not mentally or physically involved or challenged.

Then there are the politicians who are just using it for leverage because they want to be president.

We voted for Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, each twice, and they did not run their campaigns on "hot topics". When we go to vote, we do so seriously. And we voted for FDR three times...go figure!

[Elphaba]

This is the thought of most military personnel serving in Iraq.....Freedom is worth the effort and sacrifice. [/b]

Most? Perhaps. But that number is dwindling, and its dwindling fast. Did you even read the article I posted? This is what floors me. I post information that no one bothers to read, and instead I get platitudes.

Did you listen to the wife begging Billy Kristol to get out the message that these soldiers are beyond exhausted, and to institute a draft so they can have a break? On a thread that starts with an article like mine does, if you're going to respond, etiquette requires you to actually read the article before you do so.

Soldier's Wife Plea

Or how about these soldier's Op Ed (that's an editorial) in the New York Times, explaining how things are. These are the military personnel serving on the ground that you speak of.

New York Times Op Ed written by Soldiers on the Ground in Iraq

I don't mind if you disagree with me. Obviously many people are going to. I do mind if you do without reading the information I provide. If you're not willing to read, then don't post on my thread.

For most internet forum posters, it's just a controversial topic. IFP's are not mentally or physically involved or challenged.[/b]

Pardon me? You seriously think people who take the time to read, write and post on the internet don't really care about what's going on and they just ramble on for the heck of it.

I care so much about this war that I cry every day. I look at the burned baby's and the exhausted troops who are just kids themselves and it's too much horror for me.

I want to know the truth. I want to know about the suffering and the relief. I want to know when things are going well and when they're not. I feel an obligation to know the truth, because my country is responsible for this. I read blogs from Iraqis themselve and yes many of them are still glad the Americans are there. But most of them are not. They want us gone, today! I read the blogs of the Americans who think we must stay for the next 20 years and others who are so honest about the administrative incompetence it's frightening! I read as many opinions as possible, as do thousands of people to try to draw and comprehence picture.

So who are you to say we don't really care about what's going on? What an insipid, ignorant thing to say.

So again, instead of meaningless words in a post where you are one of those you accuse others of being, show me substance or don't bother to post in my thread!

Then there are the politicians who are just using it for leverage because they want to be president.[/b]

What do you expect them to do? Not talk about one of the major issues facing the world today?

We voted for Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, each twice, and they did not run taheir campaigns on "hot topics". When we go to vote, we do so seriously. And we voted for FDR three times...go figure!
[/b]

Rather than spending time trying to figure out what you mean, I'm going to beg you to go back and watch the video, and read the soldiers Op Ed piece. Quit telling us what internet forum posters are, and start learning what they DO, because you obviously don't have a clue.

And if you want to post in a thread of mine in the future about the war, have something of substance to say. You don't have to agree with me, but you need to at least have read my post and be able to respond to it point by point.

Elphaba

[Annabelli]

Elphaba: I am a dummie, could you summarize your first post?

You are a much better author than some of the material that you post. Just make reference to it and then blow our minds with your own inspiring work.

Sorry that I offended you.

[Elphaba]

Elphaba: I am a dummie, could you summarize your first post? [/b]

No, I won't.

You are a much better author than some of the material that you post. Just make reference to it and then blow our minds with your own inspiring work. [/b]

Right.

Sorry that I offended you.[/b]

No problem. Just don't respond to my threads about the war unless you have something of substance to say

Elphaba

Edited to add: Annabelli, I just read the following on another thread:

"I sent my son beef jerky and it was a nice "warm" treat when he got it. At 110F there, the heat index is something like 140F. Boxed packages are delivered faster than large envelopes. USPS has boxes of all sizes and shapes with "Priorty Mail" emblems. You have to fill out customs declarations forms and you should get one before you seal the box shut as you have to list all items being shipped. If you enclose a gift card just write cards & letters for security sakes. You will not be charged overseas mail prices. They charge you US prices so it is the same as sending it to their US military post. "

So is your son there now? Even if he's not, what does he have to say? What he says matters to me. Why didn't you tell me you have a son who has/is serving there? I'm really interested in his opinion, his experiences, and what he thinks we should do. Would he be willing to tell me?

Elphaba

[Alaskagain]

is that the Oreck I hear?

[Palerider]

is that the Oreck I hear?
[/b]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!......it might be a Hoover............

[FrankJL]

Ok I'll bite finally...

I've been gone a few days, was at a lecture series, with some other poli sci students from PSU, at Dickinson College on the EU constitution. I was actually quite proud of going, I was the only undergrad from PSU that was invited.

On to a few points on each topic from the OP...

Before getting to the meat of his analysis, I thought liberals opposed "preemptive strikes"?? Considering the Pretraeus report isn't even out yet, would this not be a "preemptive strike" on it?

1.
Extending deployments to 18 months. - maybe feasible for active duty, but that would create a nearly 2 year deployments for reservists. I assume they are counting just time in country, not ramp up time. Reserve units usually need about 6 months of training prior to deployment. 6mo training + 18 mo in country = 2 years total deployment.

2.
Draft - horrible idea, nobody is giving any serious thought to this. In 2003 a few house Democrats (the main push though came from Rangel in NY) introduced legislation to bring back the draft, they claimed it was to spread the burden of the war to all young people regardless of their SES background. The final vote came in 2004 a month before the election, a whole 2 out of the 436 members voted in favor of it. All of the original sponsors of the bill even voted against it.
Personal opinion though, if they are going to give serious thought to this, they need to amend the selective service to include women too.
P.S...why did the video cut out before Kristol was allowed to specifically answer the draft question?

Why we don't have enough troops - Combination of two things. First reenlistment / enlistment numbers are pathetic right now, and the only real thing the military is trying to do to solve this problem is throwing out more money for bonuses. Second Clinton pretty much ruined our military, with his downsizing. If we still had the number of soldiers we had in the early 90's this wouldn't even be an issue now.

3.
Discharges - This is still a commanders discretion as to how to handle soldiers on initial entry contracts. Just kicking someone out isn't an easy choice, the military spends thousands of dollars training each soldier that comes in, to kick out people for minor infractions would be a huge waste of money and resources. Also many of the things he's listed doesn't affect job performance in most cases.

Waivers - Waivers are nothing new, the army has a lot of little things that would normally disqualify people from enlisting. I think in most cases the waivers are a good thing, if someone wants to serve they should be allowed to. From my understanding a lot of waivers are for weight, which is something that is easily correctable while they are in basic. though they may be recycled a few times. Also a lot of waivers are for people with asthma, which is also not that big of a deal if they take care of themselves.