Archives,
2007

January 4, 2007 [LINK / comment]

Tobruk and Churchill, 1942

Influenced by romanticized movie portrayals of World War II, we often forget that there was a lot of political bickering going on at the time, and even some cases of disloyalty. It is useful to compare the current situation in Washington with the political spat in Great Britain after Rommel's Afrika Korps overran the port city of Tobruk in June 1942. This came on the heels of the fall of Singapore and Hong Kong to Japanese invaders, when all seemed lost. In Great Britain, many politicians used the Tobruk debacle to submit a motion to censure Prime Minister Winston Churchill, whose popularity was never very high. As Churchill wrote of this episode in his Memoirs of the Second World War,

The debate was opened by Sir John Wardlaw-Milne in an able speech in which he posed the main issue. This motion was "not an attack upon officers in the field. It is a definite attack upon the central direction here in London..."

Where have we heard a phrase like that before? "We support the troops, but not the war." Hmmm... No doubt, Sir Wardlaw-Milne garnered broad popular acclaim at the time for his political grandstanding, but alas, his name has been forgotten in the dustbin of history. Another MP angrily denounced what he saw as Churchill's failure to take responsibility for strategic mistakes, going so far as to compare the loyalty bestowed upon Churchill to the Nazis' insistence that "The Fuehrer is always right." (Can you imagine?) Yet another MP cited the sarcastic quip "that if Rommel had been in the British Army he would have been a sergeant." Clearly, there was a strong current of defeatism, but Churchill stood his ground and eloquently rebutted all of the charges in Parliament. Ultimately, the House of Commons realized that their nation's survival depended upon national unity and voted overwhelmingly against the motion of censure, 475 to 25.

So, is the lesson for us that such political backbiting on the home front is not necessarily fatal for a country engaged in mortal combat with a dangerous foe, or that crassly opportunistic politicians generally wise up and act in defense of the national interest when the moment of truth comes? I'll leave that for you to decide...

Death toll: over 3,000

It has been reported that the number of U.S. fatalities in Iraq climbed above the 3,000 mark in the past week, and some commentators have made the irrelevant comparison to the number killed in the 9/11 attacks. Thus far, the Pentagon has released the names of 2,955 armed service personnel who gave their lives in Iraq. The difference is due to the fallen soldiers whose names have not yet been released because the next of kin have not yet been located, as explained at globalsecurity.org. Maintaining communications between military personnel and their families is not as easy as you might think, and that happens to be one of the many vital but little-known functions of the American Red Cross.

January 8, 2007 [LINK / comment]

Herb Harman: back from Iraq!

Here is some great news: I happened to catch an interview late this afternoon on WHSV TV-3 with Staff Sgt. Herb Harman, who just completed a year-long tour of duty in Iraq. He is an Army reservist who volunteered to serve in Iraq, and was assigned to a military police unit, helping train Iraqi government security forces. Herb is a resident of Augusta County and has been active with the local Republican Party; see last March 8. The strain of serving in a dangerous area (Baghdad and the Sunni Triangle) clearly shows on his face, and he said he learned a lot while he was there, but he still voiced support for carrying on the mission of helping to stabilize Iraq. For the large majority of Americans who are wimpy civilians (myself included), the sacrifices he endured to serve his country cannot even be imagined. "Hero" would be putting it mildly. But for now, the most important is returning to his family.

UPDATE: A video clip of the report on the return of 654th Military Police Company, and the "One on One" interview with Sgt. Harman conducted by anchorman Bob Corso, is now available at the WHSV TV-3 Web site.

Is our military exhausted?

Victor Davis Hanson questions the assumption (which I have expressed) that our military forces are at the brink of exhaustion. He recently paid a visit to Iraq, and found that our troops are being kept as well supplied and as comfortable as possible in a hostile environment such as that. Applying his perspective as a military historian, he recalls the enormous casualties at the Battle of the Bulge, Okinawa, and Korea, and concludes, "To say that the American military is ruined after fighting in Iraq is preposterous by both present and past standards of combat losses." He also downplays the fears of a strategic setback and hand-wringing over previous battlefield mistakes, which happen in every war. It's a good dose of sobriety at a crucial moment as President Bush ponders the surge option.

Are wars winding down?

Strategy Page surveyed the global military situation, and found that "Fighting has died down considerably, or disappeared completely, in places like Nepal, Chechnya, Congo, Indonesia and Burundi." (Hat tip to Barcepundit.)

January 9, 2007 [LINK / comment]

Changing of the Pentagon brass

As President Bush prepares to deliver another major policy address on Iraq, it is worth taking a look at the reshuffling of the military command structure in the past week, and what may have led up to it. In a press conference last June, he replied to a question on the possible withdrawal of two U.S. brigades by saying, "But in terms of our troop presence there, that decision will be made by General [George] Casey, as well as the sovereign government of Iraq, based upon conditions on the ground."

Last week, however, we learned that Gen. Casey is stepping down as commander of the multinational forces in Iraq. Is that because he resisted the "surge" in troop strength? He will be replaced by Army Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, who has experience leading the 101st Airborne Division in Iraq. Meanwhile, Navy Adm. William J. Fallon will replace Gen. John P. Abizaid as head the U.S. Central Command, which overseas all U.S. forces in the Middle East. Abizaid had likewise expressed caution about the utility of additional U.S. troops in Iraq. The Washington Post reports that "deep divisions remain between the White House on one side and the Joint Chiefs and congressional leaders on the other about whether a surge of up to 20,000 troops will turn around the deteriorating situation..."

I share the skepticism that a marginal (15%) increase in troop strength will have much impact on the "battlefield," but it all depends upon how the extra troops are used. If Bush really is serious about inflicting a decisive defeat against the Sunni militias and their al Qaeda allies, he will have to lift restrictions on the use of firepower. He will also have to confront Iran, one way or another. I heard on C-SPAN that the U.S. Navy is sending additional ships into the Persian Gulf, including minesweepers. Are we preparing to impose a naval blockade on Iran, or perhaps even seize the Kharg Island oil terminal? That would certainly put pressure on President Ahmadinejad to back down on his nuclear bluster, but it might also unleash a regional war with potentially catastrophic consequences.

On Capitol Hill, meanwhile, Sen. Ted Kennedy is threatening to submit a resolution that would bar funding for any increased troop levels. Is he nostalgic for the early 1970s? Even though the planned troop surge seems to be very unpopular, hardly anyone favors the drastic measure of a funding cutoff. This situation illustrates, once again, the bizarre circumstances in which the executive and legsilative functions related to war have been reversed in modern U.S. history. Whereas the legislative branch is constitutionally empowered with the discretion to go to war or not, in recent decades Congress has passed the buck to the president. On the other hand, tactical decisions about deployments and such are coming under increasing scrutiny by the Congress, even though the president is the commander in chief. I believe this messy, confusing situation would not have come to pass if Congress had passed a declaration of war against Iraq in 2003, rather than leaving it up to President Bush.

U.S. bombs terrorists in Somalia

American AC-130 gunships have launched air strikes against a secret al Qaeda base in Somalia, thanks to intelligence tips from Ethiopia. It is impossible to say, however, whether they killed the leader who was complicit in the bombing of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam in 1998. Special Forces units are also involved. See BBC. While this is certainly good news in the fight against terrorism, this raises the awkward question of whether the United States encouraged Ethiopia to take control of Somalia last month. There would be ample justification for such a move, but it would still put at risk our diplomatic relations with other countries in that region. Proceeding in a unilateral fashion undercuts any multilateral effort to save the people of Darfur against the marauding militias in Sudan.

January 10, 2007 [LINK / comment]

Bush ups the ante, belatedly

Most of us didn't have very high hopes for President Bush's speech on Iraq tonight, so at least he didn't disappoint us. He says he will send 21,500 more troops to Iraq, mostly to Baghdad, explaining that this time it will yield victory because we will have enough troops to keep patrolling hostile neighborhoods after they have been pacified. Thus far, the campaign against the terrorist-insurgents has been like a game of Whack-a-mole, where the bad guys keep popping up in a different location every time. There will be only about one extra U.S. soldier for every 500 residents of Baghdad, however. Will anyone notice the difference? I would expect at least some military progress in the next few months, but what about after that? This "surge" is by its very nature temporary, and the enemy can easily outlast us.

On the PBS post-speech analysis, Generals William Odom and Bernard Trainor both expressed dismay at the lack of any meaningful strategic readjustment. They noted that Bush did make a reference to Iran as the main source of the insurgency, but he didn't offer any way to counter that threat. Nor did he make much of an effort to specify who the enemy is. We are left to conclude that Bush is hoping against hope, putting the rest of his chips on the table to back up his original decision to stake his presidency on the outcome of the war in Iraq. Since we are committing what little is left of the U.S. reserve forces to Iraq, we had better hope like hell that North Korea or China don't challenge us with a precipitous military action. We wouldn't be able to do much about it, short of a nuclear retaliation.

On a political level, the President's strategy is puzzling. He knows that he lacks support in Congress and in the American public for escalating the conflict, so why is he going out on a limb? If the whole point of the war is to demonstrate America's resolve to take the battle to the enemy heartland, why would he risk national unity in this way? If things go awry, domestic divisions might become almost as bad as during the Vietnam War, even though casualties are much lower. As for as relations with the Iraqi government, telling Prime Minister Maliki at this late date that our military commitment is not unlimited is almost beside the point. That should have been made explicit at least a year or two ago. For the record, I support a continued military effort in Iraq, but I doubt that sending more troops at this time will encourage the Iraqi government to pick up the slack.

Dissent in the ranks?

Speaking of the Vietnam War, in The Nation, Marc Cooper depicts what he sees as a burgeoning movement of dissident soldiers opposed to the war in Iraq. Lt. Cmdr. Mark Dearden is leading an "Appeal for Redress," a petition for prompt withdrawal from Iraq that will be submitted to Congress later this month. There is also a Web site with a similar theme that was established by Sgt. Ronn Cantu: soldiervoices.net. There is one big difference between Iraq and Vietnam, of course: this time around, there is no draft!

January 12, 2007 [LINK / comment]

Reactions to Bush's surge speech

Since President Bush decided to cast aside the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group and plunge boldly ahead toward an uncertain victory, he has been criticized across the board. But most people aren't really surprised by his defiant stance, so the response has had the air of resigned fatalism. The partisan pundits of the Right such as Rush Limbaugh are becoming more shrill in their denunciations of war critics, as the polarizing effect of the escalation sharpens. Even they seem to have forgotten the fundamental political requirement of meaningful victory over the Islamo-fascists: that public opinion in this country be mobilized in support of the military effort. Failing that, there is not much point to launching another offensive.

In today's Washington Post, Zbigniew Brzezinski, cites "five flaws" in the President's plan. He criticizes Bush for "demagogic oversimplification" (which I think is a bit harsh) and calls the 21,500-troop surge "a political gimmick of limited tactical significance and no strategic benefit." He also calls attention to the irony of subjecting a "sovereign" government to U.S.-determined benchmarks, and concludes by bemoaning that the United States is becoming a colonial power in a post-colonial era.

Just before Bush's speech, Donald Sensing wrote: "I am, for the first time, deeply pessimistic about the future of this country." He blames the lack of leadership in both parties for the failure to respond creatively to this historical crisis point:

We can still prevail in Iraq, but that would require our president to speak straight to us about what it will take and a Congress that turn its eyes away from "the children" (meaning more big spending programs and federal control of our daily lives) and toward building the military numerically and deciding that once again, partisanship stops at the ocean's edge. But that won't happen, see above.

When one of the most reliable and sensible observers of military affairs writes words like that, you know we are in trouble.

January 17, 2007 [LINK / comment]

U.S. steps up pressure on Iran

In his speech last week, President Bush mentioned that an extra U.S. aircraft carrier and several batteries of Patriot missiles are being deployed to the Persian Gulf. Also, last week U.S. forces raided Iran's consulate in Irbil, in the Kurdish part of Iraq, and five Iranian officials were arrested on charges of supplying the Shiite insurgents. The gravest scenario, however, is a possible nuclear strike by Israel against Iran's nuclear processing plants. It would be like their spectacular knock-out blow against Iraq's nuclear facilities in 1981, except that it would probably launch World War III if the United States is complicit in it. See BBC. Taken together, those are clear indications of preparation for imminent combat, so Bush is clearly rattling his saber. I doubt, however, that even one in three Americans is aware of that very serious possibility.

So does this mean that Bush has declared "secret war" on Syria and Iran? Steve Clemons at The Washington Note seems to think so. He believes that the U.S. raid in Irbil "may have been designed to try and prompt a military response from Iran -- to generate a casus belli for further American action." (via Instapundit)

I have often argued that Iran must be confronted at some point, if Iraq is to have any chance at stability, quite aside from the nuclear proliferation threat. Prior to overt military action, however, if would be better to lay the diplomatic groundwork, showing that all peaceful alternatives had been exhausted. That is what the Iraq Study Group proposed, and even though the chances for meaningful dialogue are nil, sometimes you still have to make an effort for appearance's sake. The bottom line is that Iran's President Ahmadinejad poses an unacceptable threat to world peace, and it may not be possible to stop him short of war.

Bogus anti-war activism

So much for my effort to look at both sides of key issues. It turns out that the "Appeal for Redress" anti-war movement (which I mentioned in passing last week; scroll down) is to a large extent a concoction of a public relations firm hired by the same old left-wing crowd that we've known all along. (S.A.N.E., etc.) Also, the guy who did their Web site has had a long record of involvement in anti-war demonstrations before he joined the U.S. Navy! He was even active in organizing Louis Farrakhan's "Million Man March." See Mudville Gazette, which refers to this effort to create "fake grassroots" support as "AstroTurfing."

January 27, 2007 [LINK / comment]

More perspectives on the surge

"Hanoi Jane" Fonda and the usual crowd of America-hating defeatists gathered in an anti-war rally on the Mall in Washington today. According to the Washington Post, "The crowd, while exuberant, seemed significantly smaller than the half-million people organizers said were present and may not have matched similar protests in September 2005 and January 2003." Meanwhile, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Rep. John Murtha, and other anti-war members of Congress toured Iraq and Pakistan. What kind of message is that sending to the world? The U.S. Senate [Foreign Relations Committee approved] a resolution harshly critical of Bush's decision to increase in troop levels in Iraq, and Sen. John Hagel was the only Republican to vote "yes." The alternative resolution offered by Sen. John Warner introduced an alternative resolution expressing opposition to the "surge," but in milder terms. I tend to agree with Warner that the surge is a mistake, but there is no point in passing a resolution against it unless there is some concrete action behind it, such as a funding cut. Otherwise, it's an empty gesture. In wartime, deference is granted to the commander in chief in all but the most extreme circumstances.

So how should otherwise hawkish skeptics of the surge (like me) react? In Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer -- a hawk's hawk -- suggests "A Plausible Plan B." It is designed to put pressure on the Iraqi government by making a credible threat of a fall-back option in case they don't cooperate. We wouldn't be pulling out entirely, but we would reduce our commitment to maintain security in the streets of Baghdad if the political factions in Iraq don't begin to accommodate each other. Since the ball is largely in the court of Prime Minister Maliki's government now, that is about the best we can hope for.

After recent pessimistic comments, Donald Sensing has a more upbeat take now that Gen. David Petraeus is about to take over command in Iraq, revamping the previous hesitant strategy. Sensing writes, "In counterinsurgency, as with any other kind of fight, the main thing is killing the insurgents, for which civil assistance to Iraqis must play the supporting, not primary role."

In response to a chiding complaint from Andrew Sullivan that he was not stating his opinions on the Surge and Iraq war strategy more generally, Glenn Reynolds said he is less concerned about troop numbers than what actions they will undertake. That's a pretty reasonable statement, but not particularly bold.

Speaking of the new actions to be taken by our forces in Iraq, some people were cheered by the announcement that they will begin to aggressively pursue Iranian agents suspected of aiding insurgents in Iraq. At Belmont Club, however, the previous policy was derided as a "catch and release" program that was based on the futile desire "to send a conciliatory signal to Iran." Why does that approach sound so familiar? Oh yeah, because that has been the Bush administration policy regarding illegal crossings of the Mexican border.

Daniel Drezner issues a stern mea culpa about his early support for the war, almost reminding me of the Shiites who flagellate themselves in religious processions. Well, I too feel bad that my trust in the Bush administration turned out to be misplaced, but I am certainly not ready to concede that all is lost. In checking my own archives, I was surprised not to find any clear explanation of my reasons for supporting the war. Partly that is because I did not really begin blogging on a consistent basis until the latter months of 2004. The first time I expressed concern that things might be heading in the wrong direction was in April 2004.

China militarizes space

It would be a good idea to view the difficult strategic choices in Iraq in the context of the global situation, especially now that China has tested an anti-satellite missile. This marks a major escalation of the military space technology race, and puts the global U.S. strategic posture at serious risk. Our forces are so dependent on instantaneous communications and real-time intelligence that the mere threat of a disruption in our spy satellite network would force a complete revision of contingency war planning. See Washington Post.

S.D. soldier blogger

While browsing through my brother Dan's superb vermilliontanagers.com Web site, I came across the myspace blog of a U.S. Army medic serving in Iraq: Sgt. Kirstin "BT" Hugo. Her kind of fighting spirit should remind us that our brave, highly-trained troops in Iraq will keep up the pressure on the bad guys through thick and thin. In a long war like this one, that's what counts the most.

January 29, 2007 [LINK / comment]

War and home front sacrifice

One of the qualms expressed by many of us who supported the liberation of Iraq is that President Bush has been too reluctant to ask the American people to sacrifice for the war effort. (For example, see Aug. 7, 2006 and Jan. 28, 2005.) It suggests that this country may not have the necessary willpower to win the long struggle against Islamic extremism. In his January 16 interview on the PBS News Hour, President Bush once again let slip the opportunity, when was asked by Jim Lehrer why he hasn't called upon the American people to make sacrifices for the war effort:

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, you know, I think a lot of people are in this fight. I mean, they sacrifice peace of mind when they see the terrible images of violence on TV every night. I mean, we've got a fantastic economy here in the United States, but yet, when you think about the psychology of the country, it is somewhat down because of this war.

Now, here in Washington when I say, "What do you mean by that?," they say, "Well, why don't you raise their taxes; that'll cause there to be a sacrifice." I strongly oppose that. If that's the kind of sacrifice people are talking about, I'm not for it because raising taxes will hurt this growing economy. And one thing we want during this war on terror is for people to feel like their life's moving on, that they're able to make a living and send their kids to college and put more money on the table. And you know, I am interested and open-minded to the suggestion, but this is going to be -

Good grief. I hate to admit it, but leftist Ruben Bolling's latest Tom the Dancing Bug comic aptly mocks Bush's complacent attitude on the need to sacrifice. Do images of carnage upset you? Change the channel! Feel guilty about not serving in the military? Let poor folks volunteer! Worried about paying for the war? Borrow the money from the Chi-Coms! Cut back on driving to conserve gas? Hell, no! In all seriousness, I sure hope Bush really is "open-minded" about suggestions. He will have to make a serious attitude adjustment one of these days, and so will the country.