“Winning” The War
I share Kevin Drum’s concern that good news out of Iraq is going to lead people to become over-optimistic about the prospects for counterinsurgency in general:
It’s still the case that in the entire history of the world since WWII, big power counterinsurgency has virtually no success stories. Malaysia is the famous exception, but the circumstances there were unusual, it took a very long time anyway, and it’s almost certainly not repeatable. Likewise, although Petraeus’s success in Iraq is unquestionably due partly to his adoption of superior tactics during the surge, that was only one of the Five S’s that allowed his counterinsurgency doctrine to work. Without taking anything away from him, this just isn’t an indication that COIN is any easier to pull off than it ever has been.
To go stronger here, it’s worth observing that absolutely integral to starting to achieve success in Iraq was the rolling strategic decision to abandon our main war aims. In particular, we’re now neither trying to create a strong Iraqi state, nor trying to create an Iraqi state that isn’t dominated by pro-Iranian forces, nor trying to create an Iraqi state that’s a base for American military power, nor especially trying to create a stable Iraqi democracy. I think all of those decisions were the right decisions, based in smart pragmatic thinking about Iraqi realities and American interests. But if we didn’t want to do that stuff, that we could have just not invaded in the first place. Which is exactly what we should have done!
But this is an important point. It seems that Bill Kristol is running around saying “we won the war” in Iraq. In the real world, back in 2004 when liberals were proposing that the United States radically curtail its objectives in Iraq and agree to a firm date for leaving, conservatives called that proposal “losing.” I’m glad they’re now willing to lower their horizons and accept less. But the implausible partisan spin doesn’t change the fact that the war’s been a strategic disaster. Nor does it change the fact that Iraq looks to me more like a lesson in the limits of counterinsurgency than its promise. But it doesn’t seem to me that it’s being read that way. America is a country of optimists and a country that loves the uniformed military and the idea of success, so I think folks are going to look at the very equivocal “success” of 2007-2008 in Iraq and possibly reach some very unsound conclusions about the prospects for succeeding at other ventures.
43 Responses to ““Winning” The War”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Surely people recognized this was the other defining aspect of the “SURGE” propaganda campaign, right? (The first being destroying any of the pressure that had built up in 2006 to begin the U.S. process of withdrawal, with the Democratic Congressional victories and the fatuous “Iraq Study Group” effort.)
Hell, is there any doubt that the “SURGE” line would be used for any desired intervention anywhere?
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:09 pm
In Malaya, the British defeated a communist insurgency that belonged almost entirely to the Chinese ethnic minority in that country. The insurgents never had the support of the vast majority of Malayans, but it still took a dozen years to defeat them.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:13 pm
When Americans did support the war, they did so because they thought Saddam had some role in 9/11 and we needed revenge. They never supported the war because they thought we could easily install democracy in Iraq and or could easily defeat a counterinsurgency. People like Kristol will always support war, regardless of the facts.
In short, there is nothing to worry about.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:19 pm
In Malaya, the British defeated a communist insurgency that belonged almost entirely to the Chinese ethnic minority in that country. The insurgents never had the support of the vast majority of Malayans, but it still took a dozen years to defeat them.
Yes. It’s ridiculous to think Iraq’s done, when it’s only just started.
The only reason violence isn’t bad right now is that all groups are gearing up for the next phase, which can only happen after the Americans leave.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:19 pm
The goalposts have been shifting for some time now, but I find Kristol to be particularly humorous. What they really want are those permanent bases in Iraq. If Obama can broker a meaningful peace in Iraq and with a degree of stability and prosperity, but also pull out of the permanent bases, what will Kristol say then? Wasn’t that always the goal?
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:19 pm
When a main element is dependence on a unilaterally declared temporary cease-fire by one of the key violent actors on the scene – which has not been defeated and which can rescind the cease-fire at any time – how can it be termed a “success”, nevermind a “victory”?
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:20 pm
blah: I think you’re mistaken in that a condition of many people’s support for the war were the constant reassurances they got from the propaganda drive that it would be easy and quick. The war boosters know very well the effectiveness of not telling people how long, difficult, and costly the affair would be. (And it’s true that they were lying about the ease, duration and cost even given that many of them personally believed their own nonsense.)
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:27 pm
I think there is an urgent need for more wars, so we can provoke insurgencies and then ply our new counterinsurgency skills. I propose spending billions and recruiting millions for a new Stabilization and Counterinsugency Force. Hell, why not just make the sucker a new branch of the armed services with its own secretary and chief of staff?
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Of course, the Stabilization and Counterinsurgency Force should not be permitted to divert resources from the equally vital new Failed State Fixer-upper Force.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:28 pm
El Cid:
You might be right. But in that case, I don’t thing we need to fear that people will conclude that the war was in fact easy, quick and cheap. Despite some recent success, the big picture is that that war was long, difficult and extremely expensive, and that the outcome was mixed at best. Why would this instill appetite for more of the same?
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:34 pm
I hate using the term “The Surge” to describe the adoption of a sensible counterinsurgency strategy after several years of idiocy by Bush, Rumsfeld, Bremer and others, but so be it.
The main conclusion I have drawn from its success, as well as from reading the book Fiasco, is that the catostrophic levels of violence in Iraq were preventable. In other words, I think the incompetence-in-execution explanation for why the war went so wrong is supported by the evidence. Of course, it would have been better not to go to war in the first place. But, it was by no means inevitable that the war would end up tp be such a complete disaster for the people of Iraq. That outcome required the special skills that Bush and company brought to bear.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:41 pm
I’m old enough to remember a time when most Americans did not love the military at all. Even violence itself was out of fashion – for a brief, shining moment back the mid-70s, you could not find a toy gun in toy stores. And while no soldiers were actually spat upon, members of the violent professions in general were held in minimal esteem.
It would probably not be easy to again induce such decency in the populace – the devastatingly visible defeat in Vietnam was obviously a decisive factor, and we have no such luck with Iraq – but I do miss that aspect of those days.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:45 pm
A democratic Iraq will be a good influence on neighboring undemocratic Iran and undemocratic Saudi Arabia.
The 9/11 terrorists mostly came from Saudia Arabia and Egypt, which is in the area.
I don’t see Obama starting any wars. Obama campaigned on being more hawkish on Pakistan. Will this require more counterinsurgency? The good news is that Gates, Hillary and Jones are focused on giving out more aid, instead of dropping bombs. Helping foreigners will help ourselves.
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Al: So, because we replaced an unthreatening regime with an unthreatening regime, we won? And it only cost us hundreds of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of American and Iraqi lives!
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:15 pm
I think the Iraq War provides a perfect template for not only successful counterinsurgency but also for how to invade a much weaker country. First you topple an unpopular (or popular) government for suspect reasons, then you replace it with nothing effective, causing the political structure to crumble and sending the society into a tailspin of lawlessness. Then you allow massive ethnic cleansing campaigns to take place (preexisting ethnic strife is helpful in this situation, but it can always be introduced). This will be easy enough since your occupying army is pretty much helpless to stop such things anyway.
Then after the country has brutally segregated itself and people are tired of the ongoing violence, pick a side and pay it off to fight a common enemy (which could be just about anyone). After the violence has died down (warning: this could take four to eight years, if not longer) then viola, you’ve just turned a terrible, pointless disaster into a teriible, pointless disaster that idiots can claim a success. Then use it to elect Republicans, and repeat.
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:17 pm
We replaced a somewhat threatening regime, which we incorrectly thought was quite threatening and which would have been more threatening when the sanctions regime ended, with a much less threatening regime
Would that “somewhat threatening” regime have been willing or able to cause the deaths of over 4000 Americans? How?
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Also, neither here nor there, but the phrase “installed a democracy” has a certain ironic ring to it.
(Also, in the case of Iraq, it’s still very much in doubt just how “democratic” things are really going to be. Democracy ain’t just elections.)
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:43 pm
One vital element of our success is the news blackout on events in Iraq. Things are still really horrible in Iraq, with regular bombings and attacks, but the news doesn’t cover it much so it’s not important. Last year there were bombings and attacks that were covered somewhat by the news, so we were on the brink of defeat, now we have vastly fewer bombings and attacks being covered, so we’re on the brink of victory.
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Al you install Windows Vista, Ubuntu or a puppet government. Never heard of “installing” democracy.
You sure you’re not off your meds?
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:36 pm
It wasn’t an insurgency, it was a civil war between the Shiites and the Sunnis, with the US in the middle. The Shiites win and the fighting is over, for now.
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:09 pm
This is a situation in which I think the “experts” are more bamboozled than the people. Most Americans simply want out and to forget there ever was such a country as Iraq. What we hope to erase from memory is not a “victory.”
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Another successful COIN effort was in the Dhofar region of Oman. However, like Malaysia, that also took a while to get right.
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:43 pm
A couple of other successful counter-insurgencies were El Salvador and Guatemala of the 1980s. They both took a while and a lot of people died. Then the people who helped run those wars came back in power and helped us run the Iraq war and other foreign policies. Yay!
December 5th, 2008 at 12:01 am
“Won” the war…? He’s ridiculous, just like Kagan this week in the Post. If we’re gonna’ be hearing rhetoric like Kristol’s it’s time to take a short ‘trip down memory lane’. The details will remind you of how ridiculous things really got, and help you to realize what the hell is really going on here, unlike delusional columnists… (Shaking my fist in the air and yelling) KRISTOL!!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:44 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 12th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 17th, 2009 at 2:28 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:18 am
tramadol
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:25 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:15 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 6:20 am
Thanks for the review! viagra