US commanders admit: we face a Vietnam-style collapse

Allmusic · March 1, 2007, 10:46am

When the commanders themselves are worried, we should be as well…

US commanders admit: we face a Vietnam-style collapse
Elite officers in Iraq fear low morale, lack of troops and loss of political will 

Simon Tisdall
Thursday March 1, 2007
The Guardian 

An elite team of officers advising the US commander, General David Petraeus, in Baghdad has concluded that they have six months to win the war in Iraq - or face a Vietnam-style collapse in political and public support that could force the military into a hasty retreat.

…the next six months are make-or-break for the US military and the Iraqi government. The main obstacles confronting Gen Petraeus’s team are:

– Insufficient troops on the ground

–A “disintegrating” international coalition

–An anticipated increase in violence in the south as the British leave

–Morale problems as casualties rise

– A failure of political will in Washington and/or Baghdad.

“The scene is very tense,” the former official said. “They are working round the clock. Endless cups of tea with the Iraqis. But they’re still trying to figure out what’s the plan. The president is expecting progress. But they’re thinking, what does he mean? The plan is changing every minute, as all plans do.”

…this week’s US decision to join talks on Iraq with Iran and Syria, after previously refusing to do so, is nevertheless seen as an indication of the administration’s growing alarm at the possibility of a historic strategic failure.

<a href=“US commanders admit: we face a Vietnam-style collapse | World news | The Guardian”>US commanders admit: we face a Vietnam-style collapse | World news | The Guardian;

weenie · March 1, 2007, 11:26am

I never understand when people talk about “winning.” Winning what?

mini · March 1, 2007, 11:30am

Or another way of putting it" “make or break” what? Pacify Baghdad in order to hand it off to the pro-Iranians? Kill pro-Al-Qaeda jihadists that we are aiding in Iran? Leave Kurdistan behind so it can be invaded by Turkey?

fundingfather · March 1, 2007, 11:33am

LOL - Look at how the left is dealing with some of these issues:

<pre><code>- Insufficient troops on the ground: deny adding new troops

A failure of political will in Washington and/or Baghdad: repeated talk and efforts to pull out.
</code></pre>

So, I agree with them - if our country shows the same will that it did in Vietnam how can we expect anything other than the same result. It’s the self-fulfilling prophecy of the left.

And far as the “disintegrating” international coalition, let’s face it, the Brits and others have already dwindled to a token presence since they have already succumbed to the “failure of political will” of the left in London, etc.

Allmusic · March 1, 2007, 11:36am

The “coalition” was pathetic, even at the beginning. A few hundred troops from East Wawickistan?

And FF, quit being so disingenuous. The commanders asked for more troops at the beginning, and for most of the first year. We have documented their requests numerous times on this site.

Our Commander in Chief ignored them.

So, it isn’t the fault of “the left”. It is the fault of the CinC. Take your complaints up with him.

mini · March 1, 2007, 11:37am

Palau is still with us.

“It’s the self-fulfilling prophecy of the left.”

The left didn’t start the war, didn’t prosecute the war, didn’t fund the war, didn’t make the decisions on the ground, didn’t appoint the generals, didn’t specify the troop levels, didn’t provide the equipment, didn’t engage other nations in foreign policy, and didn’t allow the Walter Reed outpatient center to fall into ruins.

Self-fulfulling prophecy indeed.

fundingfather · March 1, 2007, 11:43am

So, you are saying that Tommy Franks asked for more troops and was denied? I’d like to see documentation for that.

But, regardless, the points you listed are current issues not past issues. The currently need more troops and the left is fighting that request. So, who is being disingenuous?

fundingfather · March 1, 2007, 11:48am

Oh, but they did. In case you forget (which is forgiveable since most who actually voted in Congress seemed to have also forgotten), the Dems did vote for the war, voted to fund it and voted to confirm the generals that ran it who in turn decided on the number of troops and the level of equipment. Now they run as fast as they can from those decisions.

mini · March 1, 2007, 11:49am

The Pres is commander-in-chief, and can send troops, as many as he has, any times he decides. But, since he radically disagrees with Petraeus, who says there is a need for 250,000 troops in Baghdad alone, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Cut-n-run is the order of the day. We’ll call it ‘victory’ - the Republicans have even allocated $20 million for the parade.

“Oh, but they did. In case you forget (which is forgiveable since most who actually voted in Congress seemed to have also forgotten), the Dems did vote for the war, voted to fund it and voted to confirm the generals that ran it who in turn decided on the number of troops and the level of equipment. Now they run as fast as they can from those decisions.”

The Dems were sold shoddy goods by Bill Clinton, so it was easy for Tenet to continue the charade. But (until 60 days ago) at NO time did they have the votes to decide whether or not to go for war or to fund it or to confirm generals, or to decide the number of troops, or the level of equipment.

I didn’t forget ANYTHING - did you?

weenie · March 1, 2007, 11:52am

FF:

But, insufficient for WHAT? Killing them all? A peaceful occupation? What exactly?

fundingfather · March 1, 2007, 12:08pm

I see that disingenuousness is the theme for this thread. First, do recall that the majority of Dems in the Senate DID vote for the things you mentioned. Then, also note that the rules of the Senate certainly did give the Dems the ability to block any of these votes during the entire Bush presidency.

sjmom2329 · March 1, 2007, 12:10pm

I think Joe Lieberman says it well…

Two months into the 110th Congress, Washington has never been more bitterly divided over our mission in Iraq. The Senate and House of Representatives are bracing for parliamentary trench warfare–trapped in an escalating dynamic of division and confrontation that will neither resolve the tough challenges we face in Iraq nor strengthen our nation against its terrorist enemies around the world.

**What is remarkable about this state of affairs in Washington is just how removed it is from what is actually happening in Iraq. **There, the battle of Baghdad is now under way. A new commander, Gen. David Petraeus, has taken command, having been confirmed by the Senate, 81-0, just a few weeks ago. And a new strategy is being put into action, with thousands of additional American soldiers streaming into the Iraqi capital.

Congress thus faces a choice in the weeks and months ahead. Will we allow our actions to be driven by the changing conditions on the ground in Iraq–or by the unchanging political and ideological positions long ago staked out in Washington? What ultimately matters more to us: the real fight over there, or the political fight over here?

If we stopped the legislative maneuvering and looked to Baghdad, we would see what the new security strategy actually entails and how dramatically it differs from previous efforts. For the first time in the Iraqi capital, the focus of the U.S. military is not just training indigenous forces or chasing down insurgents, but ensuring basic security–meaning an end, at last, to the large-scale sectarian slaughter and ethnic cleansing that has paralyzed Iraq for the past year.

Tamping down this violence is more than a moral imperative. Al Qaeda’s stated strategy in Iraq has been to provoke a Sunni-Shiite civil war, precisely because they recognize that it is their best chance to radicalize the country’s politics, derail any hope of democracy in the Middle East, and drive the U.S. to despair and retreat. It also takes advantage of what has been the single greatest American weakness in Iraq: the absence of sufficient troops to protect ordinary Iraqis from violence and terrorism.

The new strategy at last begins to tackle these problems. Where previously there weren’t enough soldiers to hold key neighborhoods after they had been cleared of extremists and militias, now more U.S. and Iraqi forces are either in place or on the way. Where previously American forces were based on the outskirts of Baghdad, unable to help secure the city, now they are living and working side-by-side with their Iraqi counterparts on small bases being set up throughout the capital.

At least four of these new joint bases have already been established in the Sunni neighborhoods in west Baghdad–the same neighborhoods where, just a few weeks ago, jihadists and death squads held sway. In the Shiite neighborhoods of east Baghdad, American troops are also moving in–and Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi army are moving out. 

We of course will not know whether this new strategy in Iraq will succeed for some time. Even under the most optimistic of scenarios, there will be more attacks and casualties in the months ahead, especially as our fanatical enemies react and attempt to thwart any perception of progress.

But the fact is that we are in a different place in Iraq today from even just a month ago–with a new strategy, a new commander, and more troops on the ground. We are now in a stronger position to ensure basic security–and with that, we are in a stronger position to marginalize the extremists and strengthen the moderates; a stronger position to foster the economic activity that will drain the insurgency and militias of public support; and a stronger position to press the Iraqi government to make the tough decisions that everyone acknowledges are necessary for progress.

Unfortunately, for many congressional opponents of the war, none of this seems to matter. As the battle of Baghdad just gets underway, they have already made up their minds about America’s cause in Iraq, declaring their intention to put an end to the mission before we have had the time to see whether our new plan will work.

There is of course a direct and straightforward way that Congress could end the war, consistent with its authority under the Constitution: by cutting off funds. Yet this option is not being proposed. Critics of the war instead are planning to constrain and squeeze the current strategy and troops by a thousand cuts and conditions. 

Among the specific ideas under consideration are to tangle up the deployment of requested reinforcements by imposing certain “readiness” standards, and to redraft the congressional authorization for the war, apparently in such a way that Congress will assume the role of commander in chief and dictate when, where and against whom U.S. troops can fight. 

I understand the frustration, anger and exhaustion so many Americans feel about Iraq, the desire to throw up our hands and simply say, “Enough.” And I am painfully aware of the enormous toll of this war in human life, and of the infuriating mistakes that have been made in the war’s conduct.

But we must not make another terrible mistake now. Many of the worst errors in Iraq arose precisely because the Bush administration best-cased what would happen after Saddam was overthrown. Now many opponents of the war are making the very same best-case mistake–assuming we can pull back in the midst of a critical battle with impunity, even arguing that our retreat will reduce the terrorism and sectarian violence in Iraq.

In fact, halting the current security operation at midpoint, as virtually all of the congressional proposals seek to do, would have devastating consequences. It would put thousands of American troops already deployed in the heart of Baghdad in even greater danger–forced to choose between trying to hold their position without the required reinforcements or, more likely, abandoning them outright. A precipitous pullout would leave a gaping security vacuum in its wake, which terrorists, insurgents, militias and Iran would rush to fill–probably resulting in a spiral of ethnic cleansing and slaughter on a scale as yet unseen in Iraq. 

I appeal to my colleagues in Congress to step back and think carefully about what to do next. Instead of undermining Gen. Petraeus before he has been in Iraq for even a month, let us give him and his troops the time and support they need to succeed. 

Gen. Petraeus says he will be able to see whether progress is occurring by the end of the summer, so let us declare a truce in the Washington political war over Iraq until then. Let us come together around a constructive legislative agenda for our security: authorizing an increase in the size of the Army and Marines, funding the equipment and protection our troops need, monitoring progress on the ground in Iraq with oversight hearings, investigating contract procedures, and guaranteeing Iraq war veterans the first-class treatment and care they deserve when they come home.
We are at a critical moment in Iraq–at the beginning of a key battle, in the midst of a war that is irretrievably bound up in an even bigger, global struggle against the totalitarian ideology of radical Islamism. However tired, however frustrated, however angry we may feel, we must remember that our forces in Iraq carry America’s cause–the cause of freedom–which we abandon at our peril.

<a href=“http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009715[/url]”>http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009715</a>

Allmusic · March 1, 2007, 12:14pm

Gen. Petraeus thinks we need 250,000 troops, just to secure Baghdad…more for the south and other dangerous areas in the country.

That miniscule little “surge” of 21,500 is a proverbial drop in the bucket.

Whether we stay, or whether we go, there will be a giant mess. However, the longer we stay the more money we throw at this horrific, illegal adventure in nationbuilding, and the more lives are lost.

Save the money. Save our troops. Bring them home.

sjmom2329 · March 1, 2007, 12:25pm

AM, do you think you understand the situation better than Joe Lieberman?

TheDad · March 1, 2007, 12:29pm

Define winning: who will control Iraq and under what circumstances.
The major power blocs in Iraq are:

SCIRI, tied to Iran, and whose Badr Corps is one of the major Shiite militias
Dawa, the other major party, tied to Muktada al-Sadr and the Mehdi army, the other major Shiite militia
Sunni insurgents, a majority of whom are probably former Baathists
Al Qaeda in Iraq, very few of whom are Iraq but who have flooded the country as they graciously accepted the environment the US has produced for their benefit.

Mesdames et messieurs, faites vos jeux.

But no, instead of addressing the issues in terms of facts on the ground, Bush suppporters bleat “support the troops” and “stay the course,” as if either were a strategy, as if either were an objective, instead of empty political slogans.

You can’t have a strategy without a defined objective.

TheDad · March 1, 2007, 12:32pm

All of Joe Lieberman’s quotes, so painstakingly highlighted by SJMom, mean this: not a damned thing. Parse it paragraph by paragraph and it’s all political hype, grandstanding, and handwringing: not a damned thing about what “victory” looks like.

No, Joe Lieberman hasn’t demonstrated that he has a better grip on reality than AM.

Those who seize upon Lieberman’s speech as evidence probably believe in the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, and other comforting fantasies.

weenie · March 1, 2007, 1:10pm

Forget Lieberman, I’d just be happy if someone on here who seems to support the continuance, or escalation, of this war can give their definition of winning.

sjmom2329 · March 1, 2007, 1:15pm

And these aren’t slogans? (apologies to AM – I don’t mean to give you a hard time!)

sjmom2329 · March 1, 2007, 1:17pm

I would ask you to consider Lieberman’s motivations. Does he have anything to gain by his continuing support of the efforts to stabilize Iraq? I don’t think so. I would suggest that he has everything to lose – in fact, it almost cost him his seat in the Senate. Is it possible that he know something that the rest of us out here in cyber la-la land don’t?

Thanks for your concern – I was able to find a big, strong man to help me, so I wouldn’t tax my feeble female brain.

mini · March 1, 2007, 1:30pm

“AM, do you think you understand the situation better than Joe Lieberman?”

Joe Lieberman bought Clinton’s lies hook, line, & sinker; so it became even easier to buy GWB’s, fed to him by the same person - George Tenet. Some of the Dems grew tired of lies (much, much too slowly); some preferred blinders.

Given Lieberman’s track record of being deceived, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if AM understood what is going on in Iraq much better than he does.

“I’d just be happy if someone on here who seems to support the continuance, or escalation, of this war can give their definition of winning.”

I don’t support it. But definition: control of the oil pipelines, and permanent military bases inside Iraq. Same as Clinton’s definition, same as Bush’s (though the neocons added "establisment of western-style democracy). The bigger question is whether “winning” is worth the price.

US commanders admit: we face a Vietnam-style collapse

CONNECT WITH US