Why I Sit on the Fence

Like the title implies, I remain on the fence regarding the General Petraeus recommendations to the President regarding the way forward. Looking around the web, it appears partisans have already made up their mind, with most making up their mind before the presentation, but I would encourage both sides to consider the consequences of what they are advocating, because as best I can tell, neither side apparently is.

There are several angles to this. First, I think the political needs to be sorted out, mostly because I think it is irrelevant to the ultimate outcome even though it drives conversation today. I've been looking for a credible summery of the political situation as it relates to Democrats, and in shock I actually found it on a blog I never, ever thought I would link to, but there it is, Juan Cole clearly said something smart today. I recommend anyone looking for political clarity on the stakes for the left to read it.

So what can the Dems do to avoid being made the fall guy this way?

They could try to legislate stronger US diplomacy aiming at ensuring peace between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran even if there is sectarian violence on a greater scale in Iraq. They could resist the temptation to demonize Iran or to push it onto a war footing with threats or even bombings.

As for Iraq itself, the best hope for the Dems may be that Gen. Petraeus actually succeeds, over the next year, in significantly reducing ethnic tensions.

OK, admittedly the "legislate stronger US diplomacy" between Saudi Arabia and Iran is silly, I'm unaware how Congress does that exactly, but the rest of it is high quality stuff from someone who rarely produces credible high quality stuff (my opinion). His post is long, but Juan Cole clearly gets it, the only move Democrats have is to pull funding, and that is political suicide.

The only reason I would actually support that course of action is because not only would it not work, but it would have the nice side effect of turning the middle against the kook fringe in the mainstream for decades. I don't think Democrats are that dumb. They will look after the kooks just like the kooks look after them, I can't imagine they would allow their organized money base, no matter how strange they are, get blown into irrelevance and sacrifice the 2008 election at the same time, which is what a funding cut 'at this time' would do.

So realistically the Democrats best political move is to be patient.

However, the reason I am looking to the Democrats is because I want to see an alternative. I don't buy that enough time has passed to fully gauge the effects of the Petraeus strategy. The charts presented tell a story of trends, and those trends are all over the map. There is certainly credible evidence that things are getting better, however there is not credible evidence that gains won't be lost as the surge winds down.

The Petraeus recommendations as presented really only resets the clock. The current plan appears designed to reduce troop levels and violence levels to levels before the sectarian violence got out of control. I agree that is progress over the current situation, but I find it difficult to justify the continued degradation of the armed forces until the summer of 2008 just to return to where we were around January 2006.

Another big problem I'm having is what will happen over the next 6 months as troops withdrawal, although I know where I am looking for signs. The 13th MEU I discussed yesterday has been doing some good things, but if the time line is right they are pulling out Anbar Province this week. Bing West had an excellent article last week about the 13th MEU activities, the article is called "The First Test of the Surge" and I quote:

Inside a hut, we met the commander of the Iraqi 2d Brigade of the 1st Iraqi Division, charged with replacing the marines when they leave in a week. A tall, imposing man, Brigadier General Ali Ghazi was a former member of the Republican Guard who had fought the Americans in Kuwait in 1991.

Ghazi explained that he could not possibly hold the area the marines had cleared. When Colonel Mundy left, he feared, his support would drop like a rock.

“In four years, the MOD [Ministry of Defense] has given my soldiers one uniform each. Last month, I got 300 boots for 600 soldiers. I’m supposed to give each soldier one boot? I drive eight hours to Baghdad to get my soldiers’ pay. Last week, I drove to Basra for gas,” he said. “We need water and food. Who gives it us? Colonel Mundy. My soldier gets killed here, it is ignored. Not like you Americans. The government doesn’t even know the 2d Brigade is out here in the desert.”

The entire article is an outstanding read. Bing West brings home information that partisans on the right may not be aware of. Starting next week, the security of Anbar where the 13th MEU was is being turned over to the 2nd Brigade, 1st Iraqi Infantry Division, and they don't expect much support from the government. In other words, the continued success of the "Anbar Awakening" that the right is basing their conclusions for a continued Petraeus plan is resting on the hope of an Iraqi Brigade, capable no doubt, but unsupported by the central government. This is going to be an early first test, and one I'm not too excited to bet on. As the surge winds down US forces will be moving out of Sunni areas as they are replaced by Iraqi forces, but those Iraqi forces have not been properly supported by the central government precisely because they are Sunni areas. Sorry, but I'm not ready to bet on the Iraqi military yet, nor the central government to support it.

On the flip side, I tend to agree with Kaplan. General Petraeus is a rare breed, and I am actually encouraged by what Andrew Sullivan posted Tuesday.

The Vietnam experience left the military leadership feeling that they should advise against involvement in counterinsurgencies unless specific, perhaps unlikely, circumstances obtain -- i.e. domestic public support, the promise of a quick campaign, and freedom to employ whatever force is necessary to achieve rapid victory. In light of such criteria, committing U.S. units to counterinsurgencies appears to be a very problematic proposition, difficult to conclude before domestic support erodes and costly enough to threaten the well-being of all America's military forces (and hence the country's national security), not just those involved in the actual counterinsurgency," - David Howell Petraeus, The American Military and the Lessons of Vietnam: A study of military influence and the use of force in the post-Vietnam era. PhD Dissertation, Princeton University, 1987. Page 305.

This has been cited in a number of books, including Fiasco by Thomas Ricks. I guess Sullivan never read the book, or forgot, because Ricks actually made the point that the perspective cited by General Petraeus in his PhD Dissertation was a very common perspective of the US Army following the Vietnam War. That he is intimately aware of the way the US Army saw counterinsurgency following Vietnam and still was able to write the US official counterinsurgency manual isn't a bad thing, in fact I'd say it is a big bonus that he understands the challenge. Ironically, that was the same conclusion Ricks came to in 2005 as he toured the TV circuit pumping Fiasco, at the time the media also found this point compelling, Chris Mathews specifically comes to mind but I can't find YouTube on it.

I don't know what to make of the recommendations, as a proud signatory of the Victory Caucus I'd like to see the Petraeus strategy continue to be successful, but as a skeptic I find it difficult to jump on the Petraeus recommendation bandwagon. All I know for sure at this point is that alternatives to the Petraeus recommendation do not exist, his strategy for Iraq isn't countered by the simple reduction numbers of soldiers the Democrats are advocating, a politically driven military tactic void of strategy isn't a viable alternative.

After reading this article from the Washington Post, I hope that one thing the Democrats do decide to do is have Admiral Fallon present a strategic level briefing outlining the regional strategic interests in the region in March when Petraeus lays out his update from Iraq. The Democrats would be wise to have him include alternatives to the Petraeus strategy if he feels necessary. Personally speaking, I'd be very curious to see what "Fox" Fallon thinks the US should do regarding our Iraq strategy from a big picture perspective, because the big picture matters.