W chooses victory

Uncle Jimbo | 12/17/2006 8:57 pm | ...

We do want to win right? That is a question we don't have a clear answer to. I don't know what a poll would tell us, nor do I really care. We have a Commander in Chief rather than a War Council or War Plebiscite for a very good reason, war is by far the hardest thing we do as a country and we are weak.

Military command resides in an executive, elected and then tasked with doing what we would do if we the people didn't act like the sheep that we are. We at least recognize that we can't be trusted to have the resolve to fight and win a war, so we limit our ability to sway in the breeze. We rely on the CinC to manifest what we can't. All of our wars have had dark days, or years. Valley Forge anyone? Manassas? Kasserine Pass? Chosin? Tet? Well that was a media loss if not a military one, but I think the point is simple. A popular vote would probably have torpedoed all of those campaigns based on the losses incurred and our naturally un-warlike demeanor.

Yes I said un-warlike, as much garbahj as we catch for being cowboys, we have no stomach for a fight let alone conquest or empire. I'm not sure we ever really did, because relentless reporting of casualties on that debacle D Day might have severely affected Liberty Bond sales, let alone FDR's chance at his 12th term.

President Bush has listened to all kinds of advice and there were many who thought he would feel the weight of our malaise and stop the badness. I think not, you see W knows his job is to be America's juevos when all about him are sniveling. The problem with much of his advice was it ignored his number one and currently only goal, victory. The Baker report had zero of 79 suggestions that mentioned US victory, although they did admit losing was an al Qaeda victory. I am comforted that it looks like W will follow the only advice he has gotten that explicitly contemplates victory as it's goal and even it's opening word. From AEI

Victory is still an option in Iraq. America, a country of 300 million people with a GDP of $12 trillion, and more than one million soldiers and marines can regain control of Iraq, a state the size of California with a population of 25 million and a GDP under $100 billion.

Victory in Iraq is vital to America's security. Defeat will lead to regional conflict, humanitarian catastrophe, and increased global terrorism.

Iraq has reached a critical point. The strategy of relying on a political process to eliminate the insurgency has failed. Rising sectarian violence threatens to break America's will to fight. This violence will destroy the Iraqi government, armed forces, and people if it is not rapidly controlled.

Victory in Iraq is still possible at an acceptable level of effort. We must adopt a new approach to the war and implement it quickly and decisively.

So what is the plan? It is the realization that Maliki's government is not in charge and that some asses need kicked before anything else can happen. It admits that the hope that democracy would attract the Baathists to a government they did not dominate was misplaced. It belatedly understands that strength is the only position to bargain from, especially in an Arab country. That's right people, we are going to send in a couple extra pallets of whoop ass, from reports maybe 50,000 troops. Hopefully a bunch of them will have pictures of Mookie al Sadr.

The plan is classic old-school counter-insurgency, which is definitely my game. Clear and hold by swimming with the fishes, Mao would approve. There are many complaints to be made, but if we are not leaving this is the answer we should have come up with all along. We need to lay some hurt one a number of bad guys in and around Baghdad and Al Anbar, both Sunnis and Shia. Nobody in Iraq has had any appetite for actually fighting against US troops and a reminder of just how much scunion we can rain down will be helpful for the next phase, where we hooch up with the Iraqi forces and protect an area together. No more FOB mentality where we head out from our enclaves only on patrol or convoy and all the baddies do is try to bomb us or civilians. We will live with the locals and the local forces and the military will administer local construction projects.

There is a world of difference between the US troops who lumber out of their fortresses in monster vehicles and occasionally lay waste to a building they took fire from, and the US platoon living in a neighborhood, known to everyone, knowing everyone, a part of the framework. Like all bigotry, it's easier to hate an abstract group like American soldiers, than it is to hate individuals. Especially when those individuals are keeping you safe and helping you make your world a better place. So first we show every one that reports of the death of our combat power have been greatly exaggerated., and then we remind them why we are much better friends than enemies.

I'm in.

blog entry tag reference

go to ... | Digg this story | add to del.icio.us | print | email