Strategypage has an excellent overview of the future:
Captured Baath Party documents, and interrogations, reveal a strategy that really believes in the eventual return of the Baath Party to power. Meanwhile, al Qaeda has made itself very unpopular, especially in Sunni Arab areas, because most of the terrorist attack victims were Iraqis. Kurds and Shia Arabs would prefer a more aggressive, and bloody, approach to Baath and al Qaeda resistance. That may happen in 2005, as Iraqi security forces become competent enough to deal with the experienced (these are Saddam's old enforcers) Baath Party fighters. At that point, Iraqis will take care of their own problems. But in the meantime, American troops, while not taking most of the casualties, have to inflict the bulk of the damage on Baath Party and al Qaeda forces.
How long will this last? Not much longer. Areas of Baath Party control continue to shrink. Baath Party control was allowed to expand in 2004 as the government attempted negotiations with Sunni Arab leadership. This didn't work, as the Sunni Arab leaders were terrified by Baath and al Qaeda terror. The battle of Fallujah, and offensive operations throughout Baath strongholds in central Iraq, sharply reduced the extent of "safe areas" for terrorists. The government has not given up on negotiations with Sunni Arab leaders, but has ordered a military offensive in the meantime. The Iraqis are determined to hold elections at the end of January, 2005, with, or without, Sunni Arab participation. The attitude seems to be, if the Sunni Arabs would rather fight, or cower in their homes, than vote, then so be it. Sunni Arabs have tyrannized Iraq for too long, and most Iraqis are ready for a change.
Right now, the Baathists believe they will win. Four centuries of Sunni dominance have bred into them the assumption that they will run Iraq, it seems. [JH correctly notes that the Baathists have not been around for 4 centuries. I meant to write that Sunnis have dominated Iraq for that long. Since the Baath are largely Sunni, I sometimes write as if they are the same even though I know they aren't. I added "Sunni" prior to "dominance" above to correct the sentence.]
The Baathists have an advantage in training and ruthlessness over our side. While we have the training advantage with American troops, our troops lack the ability to really read the locals. The free Iraqis can do that but don't have the training and experience of the Baathist thugs we fight. As long as we are in charge, panties on heads notwithstanding, our side will just not be as ruthless as the Baathists. But once Iraqis gain experience to take on the burden of the fight, they will also bring a matching ruthlessness to the fight. At some point between the first and second battles for Fallujah, the Iraqi government decided that negotiations alone were not going to bring the Sunnis to their senses. Now offensive action is the order of the day. If the Sunnis want to talk as our forces hunt them down, that will be fine but don't expect a let up to talk. I just hope our press is as easy going on our side's ruthlessness as they are on Baathist ruthlessness. At that point we can ease off on our operations as the free Iraqis fight the enemy. We'll still need to remain as a reserve force and to deter foreign invasion while the Iraqi military is focused inward.
Strategypage expresses more confidence than I have that the Baathists will not be able to resist much longer, but it is nice to read anyway. I think we will win but the when is too obscure for me to hazard a guess.
But at some point in the Iraq insurgency, somebody will break first and lose. This battle is now one of persistence and not shock and awe. So when people talk about imposing a sense of "sacrifice" on the American people during the war, I have to wonder just what the heck they are thinking. The object is to make the enemy feel more pain and lose heart, not increase ours! This War on Terror will last a long time and imposing additional sacrifices on our people will tend to wear us out and not inspire a sense of solidarity. Let's call our casualties, the monthly cost of war, the higher prices of gasoline, the inability to fund other priorities, the increased cost of providing security on our businesses, and the general unease that prevents us from confidently planning for a peaceful future as the sacrifices of this war. Isn't that enough?
You'd almost think that some of those calling for added sacrifice just want us to grow tired and quit defending ourselves. Kind of like the calls for a military draft that isn't necessary aren't really about fighting more effectively but about inspiring war protests. Or the calls to delay the Iraq elections when our enemy has made it clear by its choice of targets that they don't want the elections to go forward. Surely those here arguing to delay don't want to reward the enemy and get the Shia majority upset with us, too. Shoot, a delay will just give some the excuse that the elections aren't legitimate because they violate the interim law. Surely nobody here wants these things to happen. Being motivated by a desire to see us lose just isn't possible, is it?
Get the Iraqis in the fight. Hold the Iraq elections on time. And prepare for a long war beyond Iraq that does not wear us out before we win. Victory is the desired goal--not some New Age mushy shared sacrifice rot.
