scribblings from a deist transhumanist libertarian minarchist citizen soldier

Not enough manpower in Iraq

Posted by Trevor in under other on Jun 4th, 2007 | View Comments |

The biggest problem in Iraq is lack of basic security. Fix that and everything else will become immediately more palatable to almost all of the people involved. The problem is, we don’t have enough raw manpower (humanpower for you feminists out there).

The American assessment, completed in late May, found that American and Iraqi forces were able to “protect the population” and “maintain physical influence over” only 146 of the 457 Baghdad neighborhoods.

Actually, we do have enough manpower, but only if we pulled our troops out of Europe and Japan. And why not? Were we planning on staying forever? The answer, sadly, seems to be yes. If I were in charge, and the choice was between losing military presence in Europe and Asia and losing the war in Iraq I would choose to win in Iraq. No security in Iraq means no security in the Middle East (if such a thing is possible) means no security anywhere. The U.S. should be looking for ways to speed up the achievement of stability in Iraq so we can remove ourselves from future regional interference as quickly as possible. I think this means more troops in the short run. No one has the political will or clout to make it happen though.

If we can only secure 31% of the neighborhoods in Baghdad then we are severely understaffed. Without basic security, anything good that develops in Iraq will happen at a much slower more painful pace. Of course, we’re being encourage toward that other option – throw up our hands and walk out of the room. It will be interesting to see how that one goes.

Similar Posts:

Print This Post |

Nick

I certainly agree with removing our troops from other parts of the world. However, I don't want to see them shoved into Iraq. It's way past time of the Iraqi battalions to start doing the heavy lifting so our troops can pull out of this baby-sitting job our nation-builders in the White House have them doing.

How about pulling our troops from Europe and Asia to place on the northern and southern borders of our own country.
Dale

We are not leaving Iraq but we may be leaving the occupation behind us.
Just like South Korean troop deployment, we will have Iraqi rotations of service for the next 50 years.
There simply is too much of the American economy dependent upon oil and too much oil in Iraq to leave it to others to control. In addition to the Iraqi oil, the American presence in Iraq provides us a base to control the Caspian Sea oil and to foil Iran's growth into a regional superpower. This is the Bush Doctrine like it or not. The next President has to find a way to turn Iraqis into controlling themselves and the US into controlling the region. To do less is ignoring what is at stake.
Gringo_Malo

Trevor,

Perhaps you're too young to remember the way we extricated ourselves from Vietnam. Even hawks had begun to question the war after the 1968 Tet Offensive. LBJ excluded himself from the 1968 presidential race. We left the war in the hands of the South Vietnamese armed forces and withdrew our own combat units in 1972. Some say that we simply declared victory and left.

We had taught the South Vietnamese to fight an American-style war, but didn't continue the necessary funding after our withdrawal. The Communists conquered South Vietnam in 1975. Our more well-connected South Vietnamese allies managed to escape to nearby U.S. aircraft carriers in UH-1 helicopters, which were pitched off the deck after landing. Less well-connect South Vietnamese were sent to re-education camps.

One can't help but expect a similar outcome in Iraq. Of course, the final loss will probably take less than three years, and will probably be a bit bloodier.
Trevor

Gringo -

I'm not going to re-enlist. That much is certain. January, 2008 will be it for me.

I disagree that there is no way to win in Iraq. That just depends on how you define win, and how far you are willing to go to achieve your definition of victory. You're right, we're not ready for draft. Morale may indeed be "whale shit" low, but that doesn't change the fact that the country - via its elected government - made a commitment that we are duty bound to keep, at least within reason. For me, reason is either winning (and that definition is malleable) or being asked to leave by the elected government.

We got ourselves into this collectively and the way we extricate ourselves will show the world who we are, collectively speaking. I suppose we could just leave and let the civil war rage until it consumes itself. From my way of thinking, that would be a bad move.

I would, however, like to see a shift in overall foreign policy. I'd like to see more non-interference as the general rule of thumb. We bully and bribe way too much, and it hurts us.
Gringo_Malo

The U.S. might stay in Iraq until some time in 2009. Most Americans do not feel bound by the promises made by the present neoconservative administration, and neither will the new Democratic administration. (By staying in Iraq, the Bush administration guarantees a Democratic victory in 2008.) Of course, we could run out of manpower before then.

It's reported that morale is whale shit low, even in the 82nd. Imagine what it's like in the Guard and reserves. It's difficult to imagine that any but the most dedicated careerists will re-enlist. It's even more difficult to imagine that Congress will consider a draft.

There's no way to win. There was no reason to invade Iraq in the first place. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature, Celsius, would cut his losses and get out. Unfortunately, we're stuck with Jorge Arbusto & Co.
Kitanis

Three years ago I deployed to Qatar at Al Udeid Air Base outside of their Capital city of Doha. My deployment was the Last of the Mission Support Group personnel that were to stay in the Tent City there called Camp Andy. I did not mind as I was in my own room in a Alaska style tent. The rest of the Wing stayed in trailers at Liberty City on the other side of the base.

The Wing there has Fighters, and Recon Aircraft that flew to Iraq every day and supported ground troops and provided intel for the ground troops there. That mission is still there and the USAF deploys troops there on a regular basis.

But while I was there, they were clearing ground for new Dormitories and I personally saw the plans for Base Housing for officer families. There were long range plans to have the USAF there to stay and one of the deputy base commanders there told me that Qatar was selling their fighter planes because there was a agreement with the US to provide air defense for the country for the next 60 years.. So Yes.. there is a sign that the US is there to stay.
Trevor

I think we're worrying about Baghdad because we were the ones who invaded and now we have a humanitarian responsibility to replace the strongman we deposed with something reasonable stable when it comes to government. The Iraqis are still talking about a Shia, Sunni and Kurdish split. The problem is that the oil isn't evenly divided across where the regions would be.

We are still there because we made a bunch of promises. It's in our interest to see some sort of stable government in Iraq, whatever it ends up becoming.
Gringo_Malo

I'm not sure that we can secure 31% of the neighborhoods in LA, Chicago, or Houston. Why are we worrying about Baghdad?

Actually, the fundamental problem in Iraq is our government's hypocrisy. Uncle Sugar purports to offer Wilsonian self-determination to the Iraqis, but only as long as the Iraqis remain unified under the replica of the French government that Uncle has imposed upon them. Given true self-determination, Iraq would probably divide into at least three Islamic theocracies. For some reason beyond my comprehension, our ruling class is willing to sacrifice American lives to prevent that outcome.

This puzzles me. After the dust settles, the fragments of the former Iraq will still need to sell us petroleum or return to a 7th century lifestyle. It's difficult to imagine that more than eight or ten Americans really care what sort of governments run the former Iraq, as long as we have access to Iraqi oil. We did our chore for Israel by getting rid of Saddam. Why are we still there?