Stalingrad on the Tigris?

Below you will find a Power Point (what else?) presentation on the recent AEI analytic meeting run by one of the Kagans.  The cast of contributers at the end reads very much like one of the great neocon "papers" done up before their return to power under Bush 41'.  I have in mind the "Clean Break" paper which contained so much of "future history.  The military men listed among the supposed authors are a mystery to me.  I know who some of them are but I question how much they really understood what was going to be said in their names.

The paper urges a "surge" of many thousands more US troops into Baghdad beginning in March, 2007 for one more grand roll of the iron dice.  The concept seems to be based on the notion that Shia militias exist because of Sunni violence against them rather than as expressions of a Shia drive to political dominance in Iraq.  Based on that belief the authors seem to believe that if the additional US and Iraqi forces to be employed in the Capital area defeat (destroy?) the Sunni insurgent groups, then the Shia militia armies will "wither away" from a lack of need.  I do not think that belief is justified.

The authors assert that contrary to General Schoomaker's appraisal below in"State of the Army," such a surge will not "break the Army."

They also assert that with an increase in recruiting the brigades that would be missing from the present rotation queue because of this "surge" could be replaced with the one year or so period of the 'surge.'  I doubt that this is a realistic appraisal of how long such a process of unit creation would take.

One of the "implied" tasks to be accomplished by the "surged" force would be to disarm the Mahdi's Army and the other Shia militias.  The authors seem unclear as to whether or not the militias will fight to avoid being disarmed.  In my judgment it will be impossible to conduct an enlarged anti-insurgent campaign in Baghdad without engaging the Mahdi militia.  They think that they "own" the place and will not be quiescent.

This concept is a recipe for a grandand climactic battle of attrition between US and Iraqi forces on one side and the some combination of Sunni and Shia forces on the other.  The Sunnis and Shia would not necessarily "ally" themselves to each other, but a general co-belligerence against our people would be bad enough.

President Bush may well accept the essence of this concept.  He wants to redeem his "freedom agenda," restore momentum to his plans and in his mind this might "clear up" Iraq so that he could move on to Iran.

The carnage implicit in this concept would be appalling.  The authors have much to say about the consequences of defeat in Iraq, but, I wonder if they have contemplated what it would be like to fail in their climactic battle and still be required by '43 to stay in Iraq.  pl

Download 200612141_choosingvictory6.pdf

Comments

[Richard Kastelein]

I have reformatted the PDF to HTML here. It's much faster and more user friendly.

http://www.chris-floyd.com/kagan/

[dan]

Wow. Endless repetition of failed strategies; these guys are either nuts or some of the most cynical political operators breathing today.

Didn't the US military already surge troops to Baghdad in Operation Together Forward these last few months in an effort to deliver security and quell the violence? Doesn't seem to have worked too well.

Back in 2004, the centre of gravity of the Sunni insurgency was, arguably, Fallujah - the USMC essentially destroyed the city and the centre of gravity dispersed. It strikes me that going after Sadr's militia will accomplish the same thing - with a further dispersal of violence elsewhere, and a further stretching of US and coalition resources.

Surging troops to Baghdad under this flawed strategy is doomed to fail unless there are simultaneous surges to Basra, Nasiriya, Diwaniya, Kut and other cities in the South where the Sadrists are strong; even if the US military could find the troops to do this, which I doubt, the strategy would likely fail anyway, as the odds are that it would result in a sustained Shia insurgency to complement the Sunni one.

There's little chance of the MoD finding more troops to rush into Basra, especially as there is a need for more troops and equipment for Afghanistan in time for the fighting season that will begin next spring; and UK public opinion won't stand for anything less than a significant reduction in forces from Iraq next year anyway. I don't see a call for thousands of extra US troops to bolster the MoD and the Danes there, or the Australians who are in Nasiriya, or the Poles who are around Karbala.

Given the ability of the Sadrists to disrupt US supply lines during the "short" insurgency of April to August 2004, I'd be surprised if they couldn't do the same thing 21/2 years later, with better tactics ( ie use of IED's along the supply chain, which is not a significant problem on the stretch between Basra and Najaf at present ), larger numbers of better-armed and better-trained fighters, with significant intelligence advantages due to their penetration of police, army and political structures.

[John Howley]

Another Stalingrad parallel?

The German High Command was misled by failing to recognize how understrength the units listed on their battlefield maps had become. A common problem in later stages of many wars.

Is that a factor here? Given equipment shortages, inadequate training and "pickup team" redeployments, by how much have our units declined in effectiveness?

[John]

Anna missed: while PL may disagree, the neocons' and their oil baron apologists' "vital national interests" in Iraq are oil and ideology-a marriage of convenience. Oil: this interest is developed in Lutz Kleveman's, "The New Great Game" and in one third of Kevin Phillip's mis-titled, "American Theocracy", and that Iraq holds the world's second largest oil reserves, was a key point in the Baker-led ISG study - it could be argued the oil interest was larger than ideology. PL and other post contributors address ideology. Regarding the oil interest; it's a new chapter on the old game of subsidizing commercial enterprises on the backs of the taxpayer and soldiers - (it's worthwhile to review the Banana Wars).

[W. Patrick Lang]

John

You are right I disagree. pl

[W. Patrick Lang]

John Howley

I share your concern about how capable these units still are. There has been a lot of "hollowing out" in the Regular Army over equipment losses, lack of training funds, etc.

In the reserve components the 24 month rule has created a lot of deployed NG and USAR units that are very much "pick up" teams. Not good.

Arbogast, I did send it to the Post. pl

[Got A Watch]

The AEI should embrace "truth-in-advertising" and change their name to American Egregious Idiots. This so called "think tank" (more like a pie plate, no depth there) has been responsible, in whole or in part, for many of the worst decisions made by America in the last 5 years.

As a comedian recently quipped, to paraphrase, "When you call yourself a think-tank but your predictions turn out to be all wrong, it's time to just shut up." Clearly, there is no thinking going on at this think-tank, just a direct line to Likud Party Headquarters to receive their talking points.

The real tragedy is the thousands on all sides who will die to prove these morons totally wrong.

[John Hammer]

Just heard Gen. Odem invoke Stalingrad on the Mcloughlan group.

[Stan Henning]

I think Walrus hit it square on the head, although I prefer to call these individuals "pro-Zionists", because I would like to think that they do not represent the American Jewish community as a whole.

[Got A Watch]

"A think tank is like an Abrams tank, except that it never runs out of gas, its only weapons are incendiaries, and its armor protection consists of several thousand miles of ocean. It is altogether the safest kind of tank in which to fight a war."

Had to post this gem, originally posted by Shiborg on DailyKOS

"Only a fool learns from his own mistakes. I prefer to learn from the mistakes of others." - attributed to Otto von Bismarck

[Dan]

Well, it aint going to happen. There was some nice wording in there about adding 32000 or so "combat troops." I presume he means actual grunts. Which implies some multiple of that number of actual new troops in country. Like, someone help me out with the math here, a minimum of 80,000 total on top of what we've got there now. Looks from my overseas perch to be political suicide in the US context.

Surely Kagan et al know this. I believe this is just part of the ongoing media strategy: Iraq didn't go bad because you listened to us in 2002, 03, 04 and 04; it's because you stopped listening to us in 06. We were on the verge of truimph when the lilly livered press and the fickle american people pulled the rug out.

[W. Patrick Lang]

Dan

Nah! You underestimate the "decider." Actually I think the existing "base" in Iraq is so elaborate that it can support a lot mor troops than are present now.

Media campaign. Nah! They really are this nuts. pl

[confusedponderer]

"Security First" - yes what a belated realisation! Securing the population is the first requirement for a successful counterinsurgency campaign, only point the author doesn't realise, or is not willing to say, is that the reason security is vital is because it opens the possibility that the locals will give themselves permission to trust you and your programs. Of course no Iraqi will ever trust America again after the violence, stupidity and downright lies and deceit practiced on the Iraqis - we blew "security and trust" when we reopened Al Ghraib.
(...)
"Continue to develop local intelligence to root out any cells that have gone to ground within cleared districts."

No local intelligence because of zero trust.

Walrus,
they already gave the solution for that. Because there is no trust, you got to use force, and lots of it, to gather local intelligence. Torture people for confessions, like the French did in Algeria. Grab fifty arbitrary suspect insurgents, torture them. There is a good chance that one of them knows something, be it only a name. Squeeze them out, make an organigram. Then got for the names, kill or capture everyone on your list, torture, interrogate, repeat. That is justified, because as they lined out: There is no surrogate for victory.

It's is very simple and logical. Only people with moral clarity can conceive such a brilliant proposal. For the neo-conservatives the problem has always been that the US have been to squeamish and insufficiently bold for their brand of foreign policy.

Just consult Victor Davis Hanson's indispensable op-eds: 'Humph ... the casualties in Iraq are a joke compared to Gettysburgh! Humph, a joke! That was when our Great Nation still had balls. Getting 60.000 men killed in a day means you got balls. The islamo-fascist hordes have to understand America got balls. Today it is 1939 and we're in Munich. I read that on Herodot. Or so. Alexander the Great-est ... bla-bla-bla'

On then to a glass of cognac in the comfy chair. Three cheers for morality.

[CSTAR]

This seems to be a "Battle of the Bulge" type offensive. Basically, this is an effort to scrape out of an overextended and depleted military, by use of accounting sleight-of-hand, more materiel and combat time. The stated belief that this will be enough to push the US over the top and onto victory

"Equipment must be borrrowed, from non-deploying active reserve and guard units."

"The President must call on young americans to volunteer to defend the nation in a time of crisis."

However, I think the goal will be to push this problem along until the next administration is forced to slog it out by more expenditure of money and troops i.e. a draft and war tax. Democrats beware.

[raincat100]

Pat, Could you please say more about why you disagree with John's comment with regard to "national interests" (oil and ideology)?

[W. Patrick Lang]

kitty

I think human behavior both in individuals and masses is too complicated to be explained on the basis of perceived economic interest. I reached the conclusion long ago that what I see in the world is not explicable on the basis of economic determinism. pl

[Green Zone Cafe]

The whole thing makes me sick.

I hope we get the Iraqis who bought into our bullshit and worked with us out before the end.

Of course, most of the same people cheerleading for war will be against letting those brave Arabs into the USA.

[walrus]

With the greatest of respect, I've mulled over Kagan's "plan" for twelve hours and reached a few tentative conclusions.

1. This plan reminds me of the sort of "strategery" I used to play at as a management consultant, I often encountered corporate recovery situations where the cause of the entire mess was sitting in the room with you and paying your bill.

I used to therefore have to studiously work around the obvious conclusion that the fathead should leave and take his dumb ideas with him, and instead focus on what might be done by fiddling about the edges of the business plan, while avoiding the critical flaw in the entire plan - usually an inadequate, or missing vision of where the company should be in three, five and ten years.

The best that might be said of Kagan's plan is that it is just such an exercise. The clue being his opening mantras about how "vital" Iraq is, how winning is possible, and all the other standard NeoCon rubbish. This is a standard tactic to appeal to Bush and his acolytes. "Your right guys! There is just a little twist or two and the problems will dissappear!"

Most of the rest of the presentation is simple blather, except for the dark heart of the presentation which resides in the following bullet point:

"Rapid, thorough clearing operations and strong leave-behind presence in each cleared district combats enemy surge attacks. Increase protection of high value targets."

The key word is "Rapid". there is no such thing as a "Rapid Thorough clearing operation". Clearing is slow, methodical and thorough. This phrase is nothing less than code for the destruction of the entire Shia neighbourhoods and the killing of every male of military age. There is no other way of conducting a "rapid thorough clearing" operation. You do it with artillery, tanks and bulldozers. Kagan and his masters know that. The poor grunts who would do it also know it.

The United States Army would conduct a massacre, perhaps starting with artillery bombardement with cluster munitions.

This is the "security" Kagan is selling - the security of the grave.

My guess is that Kagan and his handlers wish to provoke Iran into overt action, as a widespread Shia massacre, conveniently televised by Al Jazeera, might well do.

[still working it out]

The reasoning in this plan is so crap that almost anyone who reads it can see it is almost meaningless. Its almost like it was written by children. If high school kids wrote this you could justifiably give them an F.

What does it say about Washington that a document like this is given any credence at all? You can't run an Ice Cream stand with thinking this woolly. The political system in Washington is broken. Iraq is just one manisfestation of that failure. Unless there is drastic change there will be others.

[ikonoklast]

Reading this document is like being held in a chair at gunpoint at the conference table facing The Big Board in "Dr. Strangelove."

"There is no substitute for Victory!"

We lack only the Will to grasp it, apparently. Cut-rate Nietzsche, delusions virulently contagious to those with a predeliction for grandiosity and self-righteousness. Better to deny reality than to admit failure.

If the AEI and their dumba**ed Powerpoint slides had any efficacy in the real world, President Chalabi would have finished conquering Iran last year.

Confused: Did Hanson really say that?
Ok, all you neocons and chickenhawks - if we are truly a great nation, we can kill all the Shia, Sunni, and Kurds, resettle Iraq with Americans, make it the 51st state, and thus bring genuine no-imitation American style democracy to the Middle East once and for all.

Ahhh ... if we only have the Will to do it.
I'll get the slideshow ready, you guys can figure out the rest.

[W. Patrick Lang]

ikono

I am impressed with the deep immorality of what is contemplated. Ray McGovern and I are going to address it together. pl

[W. Patrick Lang]

Greeny

I remember as you do the many people who have been abandoned by the US after believing in us. Pray that this will not happen again. Pat

[Dave Schuler]

This comment is addressed to those in this thread who scoff at the notion of American interests in Iraq or in the Middle East.

We have a wide range of interests in the region and will continue to do so regardless whether we withdraw our forces from Iraq or not, win or lose.

Sure, oil is an interest. It will be for the foreseeable future. Even if we were to achieve oil independence (producing as much oil as we consume) we would still have vital interests in the Gulf. There is a world market for oil. As low cost producers the Gulf states affect prices worldwide. Their fate has consequences beyond just a few rich oil executives: it influences how much it costs you to get to work, where you can afford to buy a house, and where you send your kids to school.

Some in this thread have mentioned Israel. Israel is a significant domestic political issue—there are plenty of voters here whose votes are influenced by our policy towards Israel. Both of our major political parties have pledged support for Israel so I don't see this going away, either.

Every state in the Gulf region and in all likelihood significantly beyond will feel the effects of a failed state in Iraq. As noted above there will be millions of casualties and refugees.

Is it possible for Al-Qaeda or other “terrorists of international reach” to use a failed state in Iraq as a base of operations as they did in Afghanistan and as it looks like they may in Somalia?

We have a humanitarian interest in the Gulf.

What happens in Iraq will have repercussions on our military that will last a generation or more.

Same with our foreign policy.

Look, I didn't support our invasion of Iraq and I don't think I have much in the way of illusions about achieving the sort of victory that GWB apparently envisions but I think we need to do some quick hard thinking about securing our interests in the region. It looks to me like a lot of things are going to get a heckuva lot harder.

[DeWitt Grey]

"The political process alone has failed to stem insurgency and violence."

I think it might come as a surprise to our line infantry and marines that we had been relying on the political process "alone", or indeed even to many of armchair strategists snug and warm with their loved ones at Christmas.

If this is at all indicative of what has been passed up the food chain (and the leaked Hadley and Rumsfeld memos suggest it is), we're in even worse trouble than I feared. You have to go back to Braxton Bragg and Jefferson Davis to find incompetence this pervasive in American leadership in time of war.

Sadly, however, the most recent leaks do suggest that this is the direction we're headed -- if so, we must all tremble for our country, and indeed our souls.

[anna missed]

Sometimes I wonder if the "vital U.S. interests" that we are suppose to be fighting for in Iraq i.e. modernity, enlightenment, democracy (as a cloak for) enduring military bases, super embassy, IMF leveraged economic controls, and lucrative Production Sharing Agreements in the oil sector, etc, are not themselves transcended by a more wanting impetus.

That in fact, the military industrial complex itself may be the many headed hydra -- that empowers the civilian government with the option of neo-colonialism in the first place. That the option of projecting American military might throughout the world translates directly into an irreastable American economic/corporate soft power dominance and hegemony.

Or, it may so seem to be that this is actually the case, that all the treasure expended on this projection -- or could it be that all the treasure expended itself be the prime reason and motivation behind the projection.

So, what I'm suggesting is that the military industrial complex itself, is the animated incarnate power behind the options possible, rewarded, sustained, and addicted to its own growth hormone, that is handed to the civilian leadership on a big fat silver platter.

And themselves being so starved for the full course buffet layed out before them by the revolving door complex, they eagerly devour the whole enchalada. And so we become sick and bloated as a result, and unable to carefully integrate with the necessary subtlety of, our "interests" with the "interests" of others. Instead we become hamfisted and groping, mixing happy talk with an iron fist, one contradicting the other into a scenario bound to fail.

Yet we keep doing it. It seems there is something more fundamentally wrong than tactics or the wrongfully imagined "vital interests" or how to get them, that keeps sucking us into this vicious cycle.