Pages

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Multiple Enemies. Multiple "Wars"

Belmont Club hits on something I've returned to the last couple years on occasion: the surge was not a last ditch attempt to retrieve victory from defeat. It was only the latest adaptation to the rise of a new threat. Writes Wretchard:

The campaign in Iraq, for example, was not one conflict but several, one form succeeding the other in rapid succession.


I wrote this back in September as the surge had an effect and war opponents derided this as yet another fake turning point in the war:

The trend has been to turn back attempts by Baathists and related nationalist Sunnis, al Qaeda and domestic jihadis, and Shia Sadrists to seize power. All the while the Iraqi government and security forces got bigger and better. This is not the record of a debacle. So the surge is not a desperate measure.

The reason the surge is needed is not because past statements of success were wrong, but because we don't face one single enemy in Iraq. After each success by our forces against the primary military threat, another threat has taken the lead.

Sadr and his Shia militias were supposed to be a political problem by 2006. Unfortunately, Iran then increased their support and direct control of Shia death squads. The increased death toll by Iranian-supplied EFPs has masked the decline of our military deaths from declining enemies. And the defeated but still murderous jihadis and other Sunnis backed by Syria and Iran add to the death toll caused by the Iranian-backed Shia death squads.

So our current surge aims to cut down the al Qaeda in Iraq forces to halt their attacks on Shias, take down Sadr's death squads to keep them from killing Sunnis, cut up Iranian agents who fuel the death toll, block the movement of insurgent and terrorist weapons to Baghdad from the Baghdad Belts, and so calm things so the Sunni Arabs will in essence surrender and the Shias will accept that surrender without wiping the Sunni Arabs out in revenge.

We have gone through a number of phases in this war. Beginning in the fall we will start to draw down the surge forces and the last phase of American combat dominance will come to an end. The next phase starting in the latter half of 2008 will see us begin the transition to Iraqis. And then Iraq will fight on its own with only our combat support elements filling in gaps in Iraqi capabilites for logistics and firepower. Hopefully all the Iraqis will unite to fight and defeat the Persian invaders and solidify a single though non-unitary Iraqi state.

The gangs of Iraq will then remain to be defeated. And corruption remains to be defeated to promote a real democracy.


The popular view promoted by our press coverage is that our "enemy" in Iraq is resistant to our efforts and keeps coming back for more. This is not the case. We've in essence defeated one enemy after another in Iraq. The anti-war side doesn't see this complexity. Which is odd considering they claim the nuance gene for themselves.

UPDATE: Ralph Peters has complementary and related thoughts.