The Relationship Betweens Troops and Length of the Iraq War

The purpose of Operation Iraqi Freedom has always been reported as that of freeing the Iraqi people (the sole reason Bush still thinks disposing of Saddam is alone enough reason to justify the war) with most all other reasons not standing the test of truth (WMDs, terrorists, Iran, oil).

The interests of the Iraqi people have never been placed at the top of the priority list.

Invasion troop numbers were kept low to decrease losses (politically fatal US troop deaths) and reduce the calls for the draft to boost the ranks (the draft is political suicide). Bush referred the decision to send more troops to the "commanders on the ground" who remained silent of their resource needs. The number one reason for their silence? Asking for more troops would blow the rotation plan out of reason and expose the shortage of resources in the US military.

Better to just keep on getting by than to admit the military needed help.

The history of the surge explains the error in John McCain's position on reducing casualties rather than accomplishing the mission and planning our with drawl.

We went in to Iraq with too few troops to accomplish the military objectives and secure the country properly. When we transitioned from an invasion force to an occupying force we inherited the burden of law and security for the local population (a detestable mission to any combat arms soldier).

Our rules of engagement and internal processes of accountability, however small and inadequate, prevented reluctant US troops from finding and diminishing the threats against the success of our mission. We simply could not identify and kill or capture all the bad guys. They did not wear uniforms to provide positive ID and we collectively did not know enough of the local language or customs to determine the way forward on our own.

The answer to our shortcoming was in the form of creating death squads through the Interior Ministry to do the dirty work that no God fearing, subject to law and UCMJ, honorable American soldier could do without penalty of law.

The aftermath of death squads carrying out the killings and justice that Americans could not was a destabilisation of the Iraqi society. Retribution killings and sectarian violence also flourished in the situation we created that nearly brought the country to civil war.

With a large number of "bad" Iraqis dead or in prison from the death squads the stage was set for the US troop surge to bring order back to the good Iraqis that remained. US commanders finally had higher numbers of troops to provide better security to the Iraqi population. The task shifted to disbanding the death squads and militias we allowed to flourish.

Calling the surge a success is a very USA centric look at a tragic result of Iraqi efforts. Where the US could not provide security the locals formed militias for their own protection. Where the US could not route al Qaeda the Iraqis said enough is enough and stood up to the foreign mujaheddin. Where the US could not train a self sufficient national force (ING, ICDC, IA or other) locals were able to take initiative and support internal forces.

The success of the surge is due to the Sunni uprising (most notably in Al Anbar) against the lawless and counter productive al Qaeda. The success of the surge is due to the security and relative stability brought by local militias who provided the only source of security for most neighborhoods. The success of the surge is due to the fact that America as a force of occupation allowed gangs, mafias, warlords, vigilantes, militias and otherwise normal citizens of Iraq to do the dirty work of killing other Iraqis in ways we could not justify ourselves.

So US forces step in after the bloodbath and violence with the task of killing the killers and we get away with calling the surge a success.

So back to the original statement of "when has Operation Iraqi Freedom ever been about Iraq?" The surge was the result of placing the welfare of our troops above that of the country we occupied. No red blooded American will ever criticize this as wrong. But it is at the root of the issue of how long US forces will remain in Iraq.

So long as the safety of our troops is above the objective of getting Iraq on its feet the negative correlation will continue. In counter-insurgency doctrine it is said that the more protection occupying forces have the less safe they are from threats.

Placing casualty reductions above a plan to withdrawal from Iraq might win McCain some votes as it sounds like a noble intention on TV here in America. However, to the just over 1 million Americans who have actually been involved in fighting the war it sounds more like the promise of a career filled with trips back to Iraq. The only noble cause to stop the repeat tours to Iraq is to commit to actually ending the war.

So who can know the future? Americans are scared of the unknown consequences if we commit to pulling out of Iraq. The best answer I can guess is that the Kurds, Sunni and Shia will continue with their grassroots solutions to a weak central government by retreating along sectarian lines into self determined safe zones. The violence that brings them to a place of relative peace and equilibrium can be fast without a US presence or can drag out as it is now with a small, relatively ineffective US force standing on the sidelines in MRAPs wishing they could do a little more than occasionally contribute to the blood bath.

Iraq will flatten out the death curve. With US support behind the proper parties (Sadr for instance) the killing could be a lot less. There is a lot of Muslim cohesion and nationalism in Iraq that will bind the Iraqis together against the worse case scenario in their minds: permanent occupation by US forces.

Our commitment to ending the occupation as it exists today is the single catalyst that will unify Iraq and start the process of rebuilding that country. America must get past the idea that a Middle Eastern democracy will look like a little America. History tells us it will look much more like a little Iran.

Americans must also stop casting their fears of Iran onto the Iraqi condition. There is no love between the two nations. The history of their disdain for each other spans a thousand years. All relations with Iran at present are simply out of convenience and necessity. Weapons to fight the Americans must come from somewhere. So when the Americans are gone we will see the return of the adversarial relations between the Arabs and the Persians.

A greater outcome of the US withdrawal is the forced action of Iraqi neighbors to stabilize the country. Beyond the refugee crisis which already exists, other mid east countries will feel the need to support Iraq to prevent outbursts from Iran and Israel. The belief that only the US can solve the problems of the world is strictly a concoction of the US media and military-industrial complex.

So long as the reduction of US casualties is our strategic objective in the Iraq war we must then concede that the ultimate way to reduce US casualties is to remove them from the war. McCain's own position is the argument against it.