Peters-- No More Troops

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Yes, it's the Post, but it's an interesting commentary. Ralph Peters has been one of the staunchest (although also the frankest) supporters of this effort in Iraq. You may not agree with what he says, but that is sort of secondary.

Buried in this is a concession that sort of shows the feeling and direction this whole effort is taking. I think even the staunchest supporters are realizing that what we see in iraq is what we will see for another two years-- "stay the course" needs more, but it won't get it.

I've personally said that I'd like to see another leader, presumably a Democrat, handle this war. But the problem with that outlook is that I can't have that for two years. A Democratic Congress doesn't ease my concerns either. A Dem. Congress will be more interested in retribution rather than actual production. We will have two years of gridlock, and a lame duck. No vision will come from that, not on Iraq anyway.

NY Post

NO MORE TROOPS
By RALPH PETERS

October 10, 2006 -- WITH 26 American troops dead in Iraq in the first nine days of October, the combination of bad news and pre-election politics has those on one bench arguing for bailing out immediately and those on the other bench frantic to pile on.

Neither position is realistic. We're not going to pull out of Iraq overnight - no matter what happens in November. The "bring the troops home now" voices always blended arch political cynicism with willful naiveté - it's always been about Bush, not Iraq.

But remaining in Baghdad requires a new sense of reality. "Stay the course" is meaningless when you don't have a course - and the truth is that the administration still doesn't have a strategy, just a jumble of programs, slogans and jittery improvisations.

Our Army and Marine Corps urgently need increases in personnel strength. They've been stripped to the strategic and tactical bone. We need more boots. But not on the ground in Iraq.

Sending more troops wouldn't help and can't be done. It's too late. We've reached the point where Iraqis must fight for their own future. If they won't, nothing we can do will bring success.

As this column stressed months ago, the test for whether we should remain in Iraq is straightforward: Will Iraqis fight in decisive numbers for their own elected, constitutional government? The insurgents, militiamen and foreign terrorists are willing to die for their causes. If "our" Iraqis won't match that strength of will, Iraq will fail.

If Iraq's leaders stop squabbling and lead, and if Iraq's soldiers and police fight resolutely for their constitutional state, we should be willing to stay "as long as it takes." But if they continue to wallow in ethnic and religious partisanship while doing as little as possible for their own country, we need to leave and let them face the consequences.

Give them one more year. And that's it.

Meanwhile, the notion of sending more U.S. troops is strategic and practical nonsense. Had the same voices demanded another 100,000-plus troops in 2003 or even 2004, it would have made a profound, positive difference. Now it's too late.

By refusing to adequately increase active-duty numbers in the early phases of this struggle, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ground down our Army and Marines - both the flesh-and-blood troops and their gear. We must not ask the understrength forces who've carried the burden of this fight to shoulder yet more weight.

Make no mistake: Were our nation directly threatened, our ground forces would surge to respond powerfully and effectively. But as far as Iraq goes, they've given their best. They're willing to die for our country. But we should never ask them to give their lives to postpone a political embarrassment.

This doesn't mean that we can't temporarily deploy additional brigades for specific missions. But it does mean that we've got to shoot dead any nonsense about adding tens of thousands more troops on a long-term basis. It won't help. All we can do now is hold open the door for the Iraqis to go through. It's their fight.

And we have to avoid letting Iraq develop a military-welfare dependency on us. While even a successful Iraqi force would need U.S. support for years to come, the issue is: Who will take the lead in combat? The Iraqis must do this themselves - and their moment of truth can no longer be delayed.

It's absurd to brag that Iraq now has 300,000 men in uniform if all most of them do is collect paychecks and duck responsibility - while backing their own ethnic and religious factions.

And, although it pains me to write it, we can't trust the judgment of our military officers as to whether Iraqi troops and police are making sufficient progress. Clientitis happens. Our trainers inevitably cling to the success stories, insisting, Yeah, those other guys poked the pooch - but Col. Mohammed's men are doing a great job.

Our advisers develop emotional bonds with their Iraqi charges and lose big-picture objectivity. When it comes to judging Iraqi progress, the only useful measure is the security situation. If the carnage continues unchallenged by the Iraqis, game over.

Iraq is not yet lost, but it's harder every day to be optimistic. It's still too soon to give up - we must have the fortitude to weather very dark days. But we also need the guts to recognize when it's time to cut our losses. In Iraq, the verdict must come in 2007.

It's up to the Iraqis to make their case.

For us, the tragic aspect isn't what would follow an American withdrawal. That would be yet another grotesque Arab tragedy. What's heartbreaking is that we did the right thing by deposing Saddam Hussein, but we did it unforgivably badly.

A Victorian-era cliché ran that the saddest words in the English language are "if only." Well, if only Secretary Rumsfeld had permitted detailed planning for an occupation, sent enough troops when it would've made a difference, allowed our commanders to enforce the rule of law when they reached Baghdad . . . and so on, for a hundred other pigheaded mistakes.

Well, you face the future with the Iraq you've got, not the Iraq you'd like to have. We owe the Iraqis one last chance, and it's up to them to take it.

But no more U.S. troops. Make the Iraqis fight for their own country. If they won't, we need to accept that a noble endeavor failed.

People get the government they earn. Those of us who believed that the situation in the Middle East required desperate measures may have to accept that the cynics were right when they insisted that Arabs can't govern themselves democratically. What if it doesn't take a village? What if it takes a Saddam?

If Iraq does fail, the cold truth is that the United States will do fine. We'll honor our dead, salve the wounds to our vanity and march on stronger than ever (with the world's most powerful and most experienced military). But the Middle East will have revealed itself as hopeless.

Ralph Peters is a retired U.S. Army officer and author.

[mburbank]

I think this article hits a whole lot of nails on the head.

Kev, I also agree, it will be next to impossible to get any foreign policy shifts if the Dems get a house or two. But I think it will be totally impossible (as opposed to next to) if they don't.

I think if the democrats get some kind of edge, they might also be able to roll back some of the tax cuts and undo a litte of the fiscal damage that's been done. And I think that in the name of 'retribution' (a fair enough assesment) they might let some much needed sunshine in on what exactly 'stay the course' has meant and how we arrived at that course. That sunlight could go a long way to making the next leadership a little more responsible, a little more truthful, a little less follhardy and insular. Pleae note by little, I mean little.

[mburbank]

Oh, also; You excoriated me about a month ago for asking you to even concider the possability that there was a line out there somewhere at which point Iraq would have been better off under Sadaam.

"Those of us who believed that the situation in the Middle East required desperate measures may have to accept that the cynics were right when they insisted that Arabs can't govern themselves democratically. What if it doesn't take a village? What if it takes a Saddam?"

Is it more palatable coming from a conservative, or do you view what he's saying differently from what I said?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I don't agree with him. You'll never see me agree with the quoted text, b/c for starters, it isn't even entirely consistent with Arab history. Freedom has always been in question, but to say that Arabs can only "handle" a totalitarian butcher isn't accurate, and in my mind, a bit racist.

Do YOU agree with that statement?

i posted this article to point out a trend. I said it at the top, and I'll say it again. It doesn't surprise me that conservatives will find a back door on all of this, because it's a liberal war.

[mburbank]

It's only a 'liberal war' if you believe statements about spreadin' democracy, which I do not. I don't believe it wa about oil, either, so don't get your panties in a knot. That's a joke. I don't think you actually wear panties.

I disagree with part of the statement. I certainly believe Arabs are capable of democracy, under the right conditions, when and if enough of them want it more than the factions want to control each other. They are even (gasp) capable of coming up with some as yet seen method of government that could be superior to Democracy. You never know. I doubt that in all human history to come, Democracy wil prove the end point of governmental evolution.

Here's what I do agree with. Sort of. I think that Iraq today is in worse shape thn it was under Sadaam Hussein. That makes me nothing but sad. I don't think that means Sadaam is what it takes to make Iraq work. But I do think with death tolls around a hundred a day, many of them tortured to death, purple fingers aside, life was better for Iraqis than it is now under Sadaam.