Peacegaming in California Posted by Lorelei Kelly

I'm sitting in a hotel business center in San Francisco paying 50 cents a minute--so this will be short.  Just to explain, my brand new shiny and much bragged upon powerbook with WIFI has become a horrid thing and refuses to connect in my hotel...so I've slogged up VanNess Ave and found a Holiday Inn.  Lo and behold, DC follows me everywhere. The Young Democrats of America are having their annual conference here. I'm very happy to report that they have foreign policy on the conference agenda--Middle East issues no less. 

I spent today at the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey with the 10 month old Center for Stabilization and Reconstruction Studies.  This week, they are convening their summer game entitled "Humanitarian Operations During Conflict"  in support of the recently formed Coordinator for Stabilization and Reconstruction (CRS) at the State Department.   Particular emphasis in the game is placed on examining how the military, civilian government agencies, non governmental organizations and international organizations need to coordinate and cooperate when planning and executing peace support operations.  The overall objective is to provide the required space for humanitarian activities to be successful.  With an impressive roster of humanitarian organizations, military professionals, civilian government employees and a few academics sprinkled around--the teams will go through three "moves" during the course of the week: information sharing, task divisions and joint planning.  The scenario country  is fictional, but the map today sure looked a lot like Afghanistan. 

It was apparent during the discussion sessions that the military and civilians have a medium-steep learning curve--despite some tensions there was obvious good will and interest in figuring out how to "win the peace".  It was also obvious that military professionals are very interested in handing back at least some of the responsibilities that they've been given over the past 15 years.  Every once in awhile the issue of resouces would surface. Remember, the CRS office at the State Department got its small budget whacked to pieces during this years appropriations in the House of Representatives.  So, the pile-on will continue--to the military's dismay--unless this changes.

So where are we going to find this political constituency? Since I was cranky about the DLC last week, I'm going to pick on lefty activist types tonight.  Now, I'll get grief for this, I know, despite the fact that I've been a good lefty: chained myself to fences, dressed as an MX missile for the Earth Day parade, smuggled western peace propaganda into East Germany in 1989.  But where is the political constituency for this new center at the Naval Post Grad School?  The activist left base is presently busy planning an anti-imperialism "Out Now" march on Washington for September 24th.  I went to a meeting last month where I swear we could have shot an album cover for the Doors.  Great visual, good vibes, but not great strategy for policy influence.  Another peace group is planning a huge DC fandango to lobby Congress for a Department of Peace.  I know the intentions are good--but for Heaven's sake, why don't they organize a conference on helping real live agencies that care about peace?  Like the Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute at the Army? OR the Agency for International development?  OR the United States Institute of Peace? OR the Naval Post Graduate School's new Center for Stabilization and Reconstruction?   

The conference could have a catchy standby theme--modernized for today's world How about  "Peace, Love and Understanding---and some butt kicking as a very, very last resort"

Will write more about the conference once I read through the materials.

Comments

[VJ]

OK I've really had it with this type of 'stuff. The 'Lefty's in the Democratic Party, (variously attributed to be between 10-30% of the total), are supposed to be advancing or advocating all these 'responsible things' that the ARMY, and the DoD were Supposed to be doing since, well before the war?

I've had it with you damn go-go's. So you had some good dialog with the good folks over at the Naval Post Graduate School's new Center for Stabilization and Reconstruction. This is great. AND MEANINGLESS. Indeed MORE meaningless than all the damn 'Mau-mauing' you are complaining and bitching about. Yeah, Let's all be responsible. Why not start at the top, eh? THERE IS *NO* EVIDENCE that *ANY* of this knowledge thus produced in these fine institutions as well as the War Colleges (*BEFORE* and During the war) ever makes it into the decision making process of the administration. Sure we can all advocate that BushCo. actually Listen and heed what these people have to say, but 3+ years on and forests of felled trees in report after miserable report later *THERE REMAINS *NO* EVIDENCE* of this happening on a regular or consistent basis. NONE whatsoever.

How many reports do I have to read before I'm considered MORE informed than MOST of the so called 'decision makers' calling the shots in this failing effort at war, containment, engagement or whatever you care to call it? Why does it matter? When and Where does it matter? Can you show or demonstrate how this knowledge actually WORKS *ANYWHERE* in their program?

These Peace groups are marginal affairs, but still they DO represent legitimate concerns from people who no doubt have strong opinions on the topic, and have probably studied the issues in more depth than most of the occupants in the Oval Office. Why is it that with every damn failing war effort, it's the left that gets accused of 'not doing enough of x' or 'not knowing y'. This is BS. There were plenty of people who Knew and deeply suspected that this grand strategy would be a disaster from word go. PLENTY OF MILITARY people too. And it has been a miserable debacle & failure. In spades. This is NOT the fault of ANYONE on the left. They CAN NOT make it right, or better a failing and failed strategy.

The discussions you are having with those fine folks Might be applied to the Next war, but is increasingly Unlikely to ever be seen for or during this current generation of conflicts. (Not in any significant degree where it would actually make a difference ON the ground, it's far too late for that.) And the current administration LIKES it like that. Reality NEVER needs or needed to interfere with their grand plans. You knew this right? It's been painfully all too obvious for all concerned.

Only a massive and obvious failure of their crazed neo-con designs will prevent further disasters on the world stage. That may be tough to recognize, but it's true just the same. It hurts, it will hurt, and there's presently nothing we can truly do to prevent it from happening. Like Vietnam at the moment we are just getting around to negotiating the scope of our failure.

But not to worry. People like you will seemingly be only too happy to use the next 20 years to (AGAIN!) beat the Left over the head for being 'insufficiently supportive' of the war effort (all of 'em, right?) because of this quibble ot that. Wake up and smell the damn smoking ruins people. The Left did NOT do this. The Right DID. Gleefully. Willingly. Filled with lies, bluster and a sure win mid term *election* strategy. That's what the war was all about. NOT real strategy, not national security, not real national defense. Facts are meaningless here, and certainly are wholly LOST on the principals here. It's a shame the Armed Forces will be dragged down once again by a needless, meaningless & hopeless foreign political conflict, but we'll all be paying for it for the next generation or two. Only this time, the 'Left' can be accused of NOTHING.

We can teach and suggest a different path, and yes, one of these is to leave well enough alone. Looks like a fine plan from here.

Cheers 'VJ'
[No, that's Not my email, and Yes, I DO know kids and people 'over there'].

[cal]

"Peace, Love and Understanding---and some butt kicking as a very, very last resort"

Looks like VJ took your slogan to heart, but with you as the target.

While you may bristle at his anger, he's right. For the next 3 1/2 years -- at least -- these institutions are impotent. Bush's 1st appointment to head USIP was Dan "Muslims smell" Pipes. The truth is Bush isn't interested in peace, and that's not going to change if USIP gets more funding.

BTW, I do agree that a "Department of Peace" is a stupid idea. Bush would just appoint Richard Perle to run it.

[doc]

...have been out of pocket for nearly a month; one of the places i went was to monterey where my brother-in-law had just finished a 2 year course at the naval post graduate school before heading overseas.

yes, they ARE starting some good work on how to create structure out of rubble - in theory - there. yes, VJ is right: it is far too late to make a difference in what bush and co have wrought.

and, emphaticly yes, some of us screamed to the skys that the invasion of iraq a) was immoral, b) illegal and c) all about oil and young george's daddy and d) wouldn't work out in any case, and the dems - covered by the brainless emotions immediate post 9/11 - ignored us went ahead and gave bush and co the cover it needed to waste both american lives and treasure (we'll not even get into the almost quater million iraqi dead). we continue to holler that bush and co are using the continuing occupation of iraq as a cover for paring back civil liberties beneath the guise of Patriot Act and Son of Patriot Act...and the dems keeps voting our rights away.

and you want us to have a conference?

i no longer march or conference: i organize.

[Dan Kervick]

Lorelei,

Being concerned with *pacifying* a population and *stabilizing* a region in the aftermath of war is not the same thing as being concerned with peace and stability tout court.

Similarly, the fact that oil companies have departments concerned with prettifying the landscape, hiding pipelines and tidying up the messes they make after they drill for oil and transport it does that mean that those companies have an institutional interest in environmental protection.

The military's main job is to break things - to advance the country's national interest, as seen by the country's leaders, through the application of violent force. I am glad they also have departments devoted to containing the damage they do and terminating the violence once the intended effects are achieved, and I'm glad there are thoughtful people like yourself concerned with helping them do that part of their jobs well. But lets not mistake the US Armed Services for peace organizations.

Nor should we expect much from Orwellian agencies like the Daniel Pipes-lead US Peace Institute.

In the end the military, and the many private industries and service providers that contribute to its operations, together with the US overseas interests that create the burgeoning demand for its services in the first place, form a powerful economic interest whose internal imperative is to *grow*, not shrink. This is the internally driven tendency of all economic interests. Those of us who are interested in de-militarizing the US and global economies are going to want to work outside the military.

I do think that anti-militarists of the left and right should think more globally than has been their tendency lately. The problems of gloabal violence are not going to be solved by obsessing over the actions one Evil Empire - they are much more systemic and global than that.

[fat sam]

well Miss Kelly, you sure touched some nerves on this one.

Good job.

[shev]

Interesting set of arguments. Lots of moral indignation over what this administration has gotten us into, but very little analysis of how to get out of it- which was Lorelei's point in the first place. VJ, cal, doc and dan- you're all pretty glib about how changing US strategy is IMPOSSIBLE in the current political environment. Even if that is true (a point I don't concede), the kind of simulation Lorelei is describing lays the foundation for succesful future interventions. Or would you rather have another military quagmire, just to prove Bush is an idiot? That's the kind of attitude that kept me out of the democratic party for years, and it is what keeps democrats from winning elections. And another thing; most vets and serving military I know get a little pissed off when you start talking about inevitable defeat.

[David Billington]

Lorelei,

If this is about what to do in future contingencies, assuming that a country needs to be entered and stabilized in the first place, then there is really a prior question that needs to be answered first: whether the difficulties in Afghanistan and Iraq result primarily from middle-level problems of integration between military and non-military agencies, or from higher-level problems of overall strategy.

What Afghanistan and Iraq suggest to me is that the middle level problems all proceed from a higher-level strategy of trying to be everywhere in a country as much as possible rather than ceding large areas temporarily to the enemy. In this connection, it would be useful to know what impression Kenneth Pollack made in his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on July 18. He argued that all of our efforts (military and civil) in Iraq are spinning in the air unless there is a strategy for irreversible progress on the ground, to achieve which he argued for securing selected areas in a massive way and then expanding incrementally outward.

This suggestion appears to have met with a wall of silence from NGOs, think tanks, and Hill staffers. Of course, it would have been helpful if Pollack had called for this earlier, and perhaps it is too late to be relevant to Iraq and Afghanistan. But surely it is a suggestion that ought to provoke debate about future contingencies.

Even if we assume that this question is beyond the mandate of your conference, the exercise must make assumptions about security. If you do post a follow-up, it would be interesting to know how clearly these are specified. The exercise might still be useful if the participants work effectively (or learn more about why it is difficult to do so) within a given set of constraints that are not unrealistic for countries like these.

[doc]

“If this is about what to do in future contingencies, assuming that a country needs to be entered and stabilized in the first place…”

…more importantly, by what standards will a liberal administration judge the need to enter and stabilize a country? where is this formulated? and who is championing this, working to fold it into an unassailable party plank? who’s disseminating it to the rank and file, making it part of the daily talking points so that (through sheer rush-like repetition) it becomes writ?

this will be one of the perceived cruxes for liberals– NOT what we do after we have broken everything …

[David Billington]

Doc,

"…more importantly, by what standards will a liberal administration judge the need to enter and stabilize a country?"

The need to go into a country is certainly the vital question to resolve before going in. But the question Lorelei posed is one of how to do contingency planning and I don't think it is possible for such purposes to know in advance whether a war with a country is right or wrong. The purpose of planning is to make sure that if a war occurs it will have clear objectives and a path to achieve them in a timely manner. The conference she is attending seems to be an effort to clarify at least part of this problem.

I think Lorelei's point is that Democrats need to be as comfortable with this sort of planning as Republicans. That doesn't mean Democrats can't articulate in a higher sense a way to relate the ends and means of national security that differentiates them from Republicans (and that thus determines whether certain contingencies will be more, or less, likely). Some very hard questions could also be asked of contingency plans to the extent that these are open to public debate.

[Dan Kervick]

shev wrote:

..."VJ, cal, doc and dan- you're all pretty glib about how changing US strategy is IMPOSSIBLE in the current political environment."...

Shev, I don't think I said anything one way or another about changing US strategy. I didn't think US strategy was the issue. My point was just to resist Lorelei's suggestion that peace groups have been MIA because of their failure to get involved with the peacekeeping, stabilization and reconstruction branches of the armed forces.

[Angryman]

Shev, who the hell cares if you concede that defeat is inevitable at this point? Take the blinkers off. Defeat has already happened. It's up to us now to find a way to minimize the overall harm this defeat does us, Iraq, the middle east, and the world. A start would be to begin an honest withdrawal right now.

Sometimes you break things and you can't fix them. After you've hit your hand with a hammer several times, maybe the best solution is to just stop hitting the goddamn hand.

[Angryman]

David Billington,

You'll forgive NGOs, Hill staffer, and the whole mother****ing world for not taking Kenneth Pollack seriously.

He is famous anymore for one thing: knowing exactly nothing about Iraq, and writing a book that proves it. I can't think of a guy who wishes he had a time machine more, except perhaps George Herbert Walker Bush.

[David Billington]

Angryman,

Yes, he was a huge advocate of the Iraq War. But the fact that he advocates a new strategy now doesn't necessarily make the new strategy wrong. I would like to know the arguments against a more incremental strategy if there are any.

I can only think of two objections: (1) its too late for us to do anything ourselves and (2) there won't be enough Iraqi troops even for an incremental strategy if we draw down our own forces at the same time that the Iraqis build up theirs. But I don't know that either is a foregone conclusion. What is clear is that if the strategy does NOT change, and we or the Iraqis spend the next year killing a bunch of insurgents who promptly replace their losses, failure will be much closer to a foregone conclusion. That is why the objections to a different strategy are important, at least to anyone who still thinks the next year matters.

[VJ]

WHAT damn planning?? Where is the serious thought out strategy, a coherent strategic design? WHERE is the damn Equipment necessary to DO all this? Why are Marines being blown up in damn Amtracks that should NOT be used for general purpose carriers for Years, instead of just breach & beach landings?? What is the mission This week? Can anyone explain this so it does not sound like 'Nam redux?

And if you are for the damn troops, why not support them with what they Need in the field? They are constantly under equipped and manned. We need to get the damn Basics down first before we can engage in middle range aruments about the finer points of grand strategy that have escaped the attention of Most of the civilian decision makers presently. This would be a dialog of the deaf, but then there's Still Some communication. There is presently NONE, or no effective communication between these policy shops and the operational command of the conflict.

I'm not waiting for the policy to fail, it already has. Lorelei and others may dispute this, but I take experience as my guide. How to 'fix' it might take the rest of our natural lives to figure out, but it needs to be removed from partisan politics, but it won't and can't be just yet. Bush is ALREADY using a 'pull out' trial balloon to shore up his base support for the mid term elections of next year. Why on earth should ANYONE truck with such obvious and tragic EVIL? Why would I support Bush in further covering up his failures and in needlessly killing more of our troops for a mission they can no longer comprehend, for a nebulous policy that changes with the wind, for a corrupt clique of Irainian cronies like Chalabi, and to further the establishment of a mirror Islamic 'republic' to Iran with MY damn tax dollars.

Again, wake up and smell the full extent of the debacle here. We have created the strongest Islamic nuclear threat imaginable by invading and occupying Iraq. Most of the southern part of the country is now effectively controlled by Iran. When and how are we going to extricate ourselves from this rolling disaster? I don't know, I think it'll take perhaps 100 years or so.

Why is it that I NEVER heard what was necessary to 'win' this war? Is this not the 1st responsibility of our leadership when they call and bring us to war? Do a google on it, then do a Nexis-Lexis on it. I think you can count the public statements on a 'strategy to win the war' are very few indeed. Fewer still actually spell out such a elusive plan. If they can't or won't do this, why the hell should anyone expect the Dems. to come and do it? To what end, for who's benefit? And will BushCo EVER do anything close to 'effective' or 'well thought out' in ANY policy they pursue?

No the primary purpose of this war was seemingly for domestic political advantage. This is a crime, and it's about one of the worst reasons to go to war possible. This Needs to be said, and it needs to be acknowledged. Again, this may take sometime, but hey, the GWOT will still be ongoing so you'll get another chance to 'tinker' with it all then. I'm betting the Titanic could have been raised a few decades back too, given the will and the money. We still can't save the victims or our lost troops and honor.

Cheers, 'VJ'

[Lorelei Kelly]

VJ,wow. you really make some assumptions. For the record, I opposed this war, I oppose this administration most of the time and I hope the Republican party gets exiled for a century for allowing their leadership to drown in ideological extremism. If there is one message I get from the military conferences I attend is that we have no strategy...neither in Iraq nor on the Grand Strategic level. That said, there are things I want to do and then there are things that need to be done. Assigning blame and extracting punishment feels really good, just like a conference on a Department of Peace...but there is no such thing as the word "should" in politics or, in life in general most of the time. I'm trying to do everything I can to get us out of Iraq with our heads held high. But every peace meeting I've gone to so far is rife with huge contradictions like "we want out now, but we owe the Iraqi people, so we must rebuild" Well, just who is supposed to do that rebuilding part? It's the US Army on both counts. We can't have it both ways and the longer the liberals don't get out ahead of BushCo on a serious plan for leaving Iraq...the more the conservatives will gain political advantage and then proceed to beat us over the head with it like another VietNam hangover for thirty years. If I sound overly harsh its because I don't want that to happen--more than anything, if we continue to have such imbalance on security issues--and conservatives who stay in power by cultivating fear it will spell doom for liberals AND for liberal democracy.

[Dan Kervick]

David Billington wrote:

... "What Afghanistan and Iraq suggest to me is that the middle level problems all proceed from a higher-level strategy of trying to be everywhere in a country as much as possible rather than ceding large areas temporarily to the enemy. In this connection, it would be useful to know what impression Kenneth Pollack made in his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on July 18. He argued that all of our efforts (military and civil) in Iraq are spinning in the air unless there is a strategy for irreversible progress on the ground, to achieve which he argued for securing selected areas in a massive way and then expanding incrementally outward."...

David, isn't this what was in fact initiated in Fallujah? Fallujah was evacuated, pounded mercilously and secured in a *very* massive way, and then transformed into Securitopolis - a virtual prison city. Perhaps the reason Pollack's suggestion was met with a wall of (embarrassed) silence is that the politicians who have been working on this problem know that his suggestion seemed to be an open endorsement of the Fallujah approach, and they know that while Americans hardly give Fallujah a second thought, in the rest of the world "Fallujah" is a name to conjure with - right up there with "Guantanamo" and "Abu Ghraib".

While the mental image of a seminal circle of security spreading outward is attractive, it doesn't seem to correlate with any realistic policy. The disrupters of the peace in Iraq are an insurgency that is thoroughly blended in with the rest of the population in the most affected regions. The United States does not have it within its power to secure Iraq in the fashion Pollack describes. What are we going to do? Deport all the women, children and old men from every city in Central Iraq and then kill all the young males? Go house to house and put a bullet in the back of the head of every guy who has a vaguely "terrorist-looking" demeanor? The extreme brutality that would be necessary would complete the transformation of the US into a global pariah, and undermine our power and authority everywhere on the globe, and damage US interests permanently and horribly. It would also require more troops than even the most zealous hawk is willing to commit to Iraq. Nor would the result be anything that resembles anything close to "democracy".

This is the kind of dreadful slippery slope we slide down once we embark on an ideological quest for transformation and purification. The desired outcome slips further and further away, and we think "if only we try this one last thing, and muster the will for a brutal but decisive campaign, we will achieve the hoped-for end." But the new campaign is not decisive, but actually makes things worse and pushes the desired end further away. So we try something even more dramatic, and toy with various ideas of a final solution.

The least bad of the range of very rotten outcomes with which we are now faced is to recognize that we are looking at some sort of Kurdish autonomous region or state in the north, a Shiite Islamic Republic in the south, and some more turbulent and anarchic region in Central Iraq, a region whoise people evidently agree on little other than their determination not to be rulled by the new central government that is halfheartedly attempting to impose its will on the Sunni Arab portions of the country. The United States needs to disengage from this mess - not keep trying to "fix" it. We're only making matters worse. We should keep some troops in the theater for a time, but pull them away to the periphery of the conflict, and let nature take its course. What is eventually likely to happen without the US presence is that some strong man will gather a following and achieve some sort of control in central Iraq, and then attempt to beat back the radical Islamists of the region. Hopefully, this little Saddam, lacking the military power and regional influence of the original, will rule over only a small, less dangerous state than the old Baath Iraq, and will be safely hemmed in by the Shiite/Iran power in the South and East and the peshmerga-secured Kurdish autonomous region in the north. If we are lucky, he may even be somewhat less of a bastard.

What we should be most worried about now is that the chaos we have unleashed in Sunni Arab Iraq does not spread to Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

I am so sickened by this bizarre, naive and calamitous US adventure in Iraq; and by the eagerness of so many Americans to continue to meddle with dynamic human forces which we neither understand well as a country, nor have the capacity to control.

[libertarian soldier]

I agree with Fat Sam.

[VJ]

OK so we've got some agreement here. There is no strategy, just a resource extraction plan that was in place by 2001.

I don't know from Peace conferences, I don't attend them. I agree we need to get out sooner than later, and BTW count me as thinking that I'd rather rebuild Detroit or East St. Louis than anyplace 'over there'.

Policies have causes and effects. By Constantly harping on yes, a Minuscule caucus within the Democratic Party, you're essentially letting the Repug's get away with murder. And war crimes. All in the name of 'appearing tough' or whatever. We played that game with Kerry and got taken for all our marbles. No, we need to let a diversity of opinion thrive here. We do not have better ideas, but we need them desperately.

Blame NEEDS to be assigned for Failed policies. We NEED to learn from our foreign misadventures, or else we wind up repeating them every generation or so. And by now, I'm well and truly sick of it. Yep, we need to do better. Maybe in the next decade we might just stumble upon an effective counter insurgency strategy, but the current crop of 'leaders' will need to have long left the scene by then. Until that time, this harping about the left this or the left that is Worthless tripe. It helps confuse the situation and carries us Further from a solution that might be acceptable to the majority of the American public.

So yes, we Should be doing plenty more in Iraq, and the Fact that we Can't or Won't is doubly damning of the policy, the war, and the whole foreign policy effort at extending our values and democratic world view abroad. Yes, this is not the first time we have so seriously screwed up. This just happens to be about the most consequential. Carping about the various incarnations of the 'Dept. of Peace' in any shape manner or form is Really besides the point.

Again IT'S *NOT* the job of the Left to come up with a war fighting doctrine to try and salvage Iraq. It's far too late for that. We are probably in a double bind due to the Complete and utter control of the media and any and all electronic propaganda apparatus by the forces on the right. You do understand that, right? The minute a major Dem suggests a time table for withdrawl, he'll be accused of 'encouraging terror' and giving comfort to the enemy. Bush can do it this week, fudge and then waffle the next week, because like, he owns the media. They Still do not question him on any major assertions of the war. Without an independent press actually capable of reporting on what's going on on the ground in Iraq, the administration can continue to feed us their 'sweet big& little lies'.

And yet folks still yammer about the Dept. of Peace studies! Marginalia folks, not the big picture. Not even in the damn picture actually. I've got a serious plan for leaving, I'll tell you when we elect the next Democratic President, and a Congress to go with it. Yeah, that might take awhile, but that's all the specifics I think we should offer. Because they won't and can't either. That's the bottom line here. Wake up and see the double standard. I'm sick and tired of our candidates offering detailed 10 point plans that never get read or seriously considered by the media, when the other side deals almost exclusively in base emotional appeals. Yeah, the gays are out to destroy your marriage, but before that Iran& Iraq will be able to pump oil up to over $100 a barrel, and we will remain absolutely Helpless to do much about it. Which is more of a threat to your way of life? To national security? That's a strategic vision that's lacking here. And by focusing on this BS you are giving cover to this failure.

The Dept. of Peace studies? Put it in West Point for all I care! At least their reports will get read, studied, and considered. The rest of America just rolls their eyes at this stuff, as do Most Dems.

Cheers, 'VJ'

[VJ]

Does anyone know what's happening in Fallujah today? After all the pummeling, after all the destruction, the shelling, the bombing, it's STILL insecure! We've had over a dozen troops killed in that sector since it was 'pacified'. The place is riddled with insurgent activity. Again, another demonstration of the absolute limits of our effective power. This one 'test book case' of modern 'tough' anti-insurgency done heavy duty by the book stands as a mockery of our ability to take and hold almost any territory outside of the major capitals. This goes for Both theaters of operation. Again, we are facing a debacle the likes of which I doubt few alive today can fully comprehend. We have no control of the borders, and men and material are pouring into the region on several fronts.

We can't even guess what's out there and how large the insurgency is. Recall now those wonders of yester year when Rummy would not even deign to allow anyone to describe or Name 'the insurgency'. Wars are particularly hard on fantasy and hope as an effective response or strategy. And yet here we sit, deep in la-la land. How many of your neighbors actually believe we are at war? Does it affect them on a daily, weekly or monthly basis? Have they ever had to sacrifice anything? Just wondering..

Cheers, 'VJ'

[Dan Kervick]

..."I'm trying to do everything I can to get us out of Iraq with our heads held high."...

This possibility no longer exists Lorelei. And just as in Vietnam, this futile compulsion to achieve "peace with honor" will only prolong the conflict and cost many lives on both sides that need not be lost. Let's just face it: we as a nation f..ked up. The outcome in Iraq, and the course of the war, are going to be an embarrassment to our country one way or another. We here at home who are still lucky enough to have our heads attached to the rest of our bodies should be thinking about how to save the greatest number of lives - not how we can work things so that we get to walk around with our pride intact, and those attached heads held erect.

..."Well, just who is supposed to do that rebuilding part? It's the US Army on both counts."...

I can't imagine why in heaven's name you thing the US Army has the capacity to rebuild Iraq, or is the best choice to try it. The Army is not some sort of public works foundation - it is a war-fighting machine.

..."We can't have it both ways and the longer the liberals don't get out ahead of BushCo on a serious plan for leaving Iraq...the more the conservatives will gain political advantage and then proceed to beat us over the head with it like another VietNam hangover for thirty years. If I sound overly harsh its because I don't want that to happen--more than anything, if we continue to have such imbalance on security issues--and conservatives who stay in power by cultivating fear it will spell doom for liberals AND for liberal democracy."...

First, maybe we should think a bit more about what's best for the people of Iraq, whose civil order - very imperfect though it was - we have so thoughtlessly and recklessly smashed, and whose lives we have so senselessly diminished, than about various alleged Democratic "image problems" and our domestic political challenges. Anyway "liberal democracy" is mainly under threat from decades of US policies aimed at dictating the direction of other people's lives, in a thoroughly illiberal and undemocratic manner.

But if you want us to play the political image management game, we on our side can play it well enough. Democrats actually have a golden opportunity now to position themselves as the party of strong and prudent *defense* of the republic, while the Republicans have become the party of naive and reckless foreign adventurism. Vietnam was actually even more a Democratic war as a Republican war, so we all had to eat shit equally. But this Iraq mess is mostly the Republican's doing, and should be an albatross for them to wear for a generation. When the delirium-inducing Iraq fever breaks, as it has already begun to do, and Americans look around and say "How did we get HERE?" it is Bush and his minions that should pay the price. But if you insist on dragging more Democrats into this crackpot endeavor along with the idiots who launched it, we'll all pay that price.

What I want to know is why those of us Democrats who *correctly* and *presciently* warned the country about the dangerous Pandora's box Bush was about to open in Iraq, and the sad road he was leading us down, are not getting more help from Democrats like yourself in showing the country that we were right! Instead you seem to have thrown in with those imperturable and dense fools who seek to prolong the national agony while they demean and marginalize their more prudent and far-seeing fellow citizens.

An Iraq hangover is actually greatly to be desired, and I look forward to it. A pounding hangover is the best cure for binge drinking. I for one do not think there ever was a Vietnam "syndrome". There was a Vietnam *lesson* about the limits of military power which many people inexcusably refused to learn, and which we are now forced to learn all over again.

[Lorelei Kelly]

I was talking to a friend the other day who is a Quaker--a pacifist yes--but very much in the real world as he lives and works in DC....and when I said that leaving Iraq and rebuilding it were contradictions, he disagreed by remarking that we could hand over the money spent on contractors and military activities to Iraqi civil society. He said this is what we should have done in the first place. I think this sounds reasonable, but is there enough Iraqi civil society to carry forward? Is there an inventory of capacities somewhere (not one cooked up by overly optimistic USG appraisers?)

[David Billington]

Dan,

Proper counterinsurgency was outlined by Sir Robert Thompson in his 1966 textbook on separating insurgents from civilians in the Malayan Emergency. The strategy there is what I thought Pollack meant, but of course if he meant Fallujah then the response is more understandable.

In Fallujah last fall, U.S. troops occupied the city but as far as I know the population still lives in fear of the insurgency. Only an Iraqi civil administration and police presence (both including Sunni Arabs) can separate the insurgents from the population. In proper counterinsurgency, it is not a large conventional army that the government needs but a sufficient number of local police and administrators who deliver protection and other basic government services.

If the Sunni Arabs buy into a unitary Iraq this fall and winter, it is not impossible that this process could get underway. My thought was that with limited forces it would make sense to deploy them in some areas first instead of spreading them over the whole Sunni triangle.

The problem of course is as you say that present troops and police, whether American or Iraqi, may not be not sufficient in number to pacify any of the violent areas now. Projected troop strength may still be inadequate a year from now if U.S. troops withdraw, and the whole question of how to deploy forces in Iraq may be academic. But I think the question deserves to be raised before the country is consigned to civil war.

What is untenable is the continuation of the present strategy of fighting battles for cities that are then handed back to the insurgents, or killing insurgents who promptly replace their losses. Instead of ever debating this strategy, we are now debating when to get out. But we are still making our departure conditional on Iraqi troop levels and performance.

There is no shortage of Iraqis volunteering for their army and police. What I think needs to be asked is whether the willingness of these people to stand and fight and their ability to be effective, to the extent that this is amenable to training and strategy, might not be related to training as much as to the coherence of the larger counterinsurgency strategy. But at this point I don't know whether there is time for a change of strategy to succeed.

I am more pessimistic about the outcome if a democratic unitary state fails. Turkish interference is likely in a self-governing Kurdistan and a larger Kurdish insurgency could result. If the Shias try to dominate the Sunni Arabs, other Arab states might intervene, while if the Shia and Sunni regions of Iraq coexist, their examples could inspire insurgents of both sects in Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations. It will be difficult to prevent the Arab world from acquiring nuclear weapons once Iran has them, and if radicals are ascendant the results could be explosive.

[doc]

David,

“The need to go into a country is certainly the vital question to resolve before going in. But the question Lorelei posed is one of how to do contingency planning…”

…don’t mean to get nit-picky here, but Lorelei’s central query has to do with where was the political support from a left constituency for the contingency planning going on at the naval post graduate school in Monterey, not whether said planning was a good thing or not: common sense (and Lorelei’s post) posits that, yes, we should be able to put humpty-dumpty back together again.

though Lorelei is initially foggy (other than expressing a sense of indignation/frustration with generally useless protests – who can blame her?) as to why upfront, vocal support for the monterey initiative is important for liberals, she does clear that up in a later post – DEMs will get beat about the head and shoulders for not having a serious iraqi withdrawal strategy. a valid but (IMO) nearly moot point: the administration’s move to withdraw a significant number of troops before mid term elections next year will be what the public remembers, not the liberal’s support for a (perceived) esoteric think tank plan. i’ll further guess that liberal attempts at monitoring that withdrawal, and the reconstruction attempts in iraq, will be pictured as ‘obstructionist’.

which brings me back to my original question:
by what standards will a liberal administration judge the need to enter and stabilize a country? will these standards be the same as those used to decide when to declare war? where is this formulated? and who is championing this, working to fold it into an unassailable party plank? who’s disseminating it to the rank and file, making it part of the daily talking points so that (through sheer rush-like repetition) it becomes writ?

this is what the next presidential election (barring unforeseen economic calamity) will turn on.

I mean, no one seriously believes the partys will run Hillary against Condi, right?

[Cal]

I'm trying to do everything I can to get us out of Iraq with our heads held high. -- Lorelei

Everyone wants that -- the disagreement is over whether this is possible. Many of the things you suggest are good and I would agree with them, but fully funding CSR is a little late when it comes to Iraq.

Here are some of the facts that seem to me to make a one-year withdrawal necessary, and why talk about reconstruction --by both you and the peaceniks -- is unrealistic, at least in the near future:

1) The US military is totally untrained for peacekeeping and is killing far more civilians than the insurgents. (As hard as that is for me to believe, it's been reported before.) This is a major reason why the insurgency has so much support and why reconstruction has become all but impossible.

Of course it would be a good thing if we could re-train our forces to perform peacekeeping duties, but that isn't going to happen anytime soon.

2) Like the joke about the soup being terrible and the portions too small, we have too few troops to bring even minimal stability to the country. The south and north are relatively peaceful only because of the Kurdish and Shiite militias, the latter beholden to Iran. We don’t stand a prayer of dismantling these militias, as our unsuccessful attempt to disarm Sadr last year demonstrated.

3) Contrary to what David says above, while there may be plenty of Iraqis willing to volunteer for the Iraqi army, they’re not willing to fight for it. The American officer in charge of training Iraqis has estimated that 5% of recruits were motivated to fight for their country (his aides thought this was optimistic). Slate even reported that there's a rumor in US military circles that the Iraqi gov't doesn't want the army to be trained, because they want the US to fight the Sunnis for them!

Whatever the case, with our most competent general (Patreaus) working on training Iraqis, we've made almost no progress in this area -- key to our entire strategy. It is hard to see what Dems could do differently here.

4) Bush & Co. don’t listen to advice – even when they
ask for it! In the summer of 2003, Rumsfeld asked John Hamre at CSIS to go to Iraq and make some recommendations about the post-war reconstruction. He came back and gave 7 suggestions, none of which were implemented.

Now you’re telling us that we should make some of these same recommendations -- 2 years later! – and hope that this time Bush listens. Shev thinks I'm wrong about this, that Bush can be pressured to take our advice, but frankly, where's the evidence?

Now if you agree that we don't have enough troops, that the Iraqis who are motivated to fight don't go into the army but join either the insurgents or the ethnic militias, and that we have no hope of disarming either the insurgents or the militias -- I don't see how you can call for anything other than a pullout, at least within a year of the Constitution being voted on.

Add to that the fact Bush doesn't listen to good advice -- even if we had some, which at this point we don't -- and your policy proposals seem like a fantasy, at least as regards to Iraq, tho they would be helpful at some future time, after Bush has left office.

[Dan Kervick]

David,

As I understand it, the British strategy in what is now Malaysia was based on separating the insurgents from everyone else, and isolating them. They also engaged in some rather major population transfers and resettlements, creating fortress villages in the process. And since there was a pronounced ethnic divide between the ethnic Chinese insurgents and the non-insurgent Malays, the problem was more tractable.

In Iraq, the insurgency as such is mainly confined to the Sunni Arab region, with fighting also in contested, ethnically split cities like Kirkuk and Tal Afar. Almost the entire Sunni Arab region is composed of people who are *at least* cool to the central governement and just as often violently hostile to it. They are also generally revolted by, and opposed to the US occupation, differing only in how rapidly, and by what means, to bring about its end. There is no practical way of separating the insurgents from the rest - they don't all wear the same clothes, or have the same facial features, or belong to the same clan, or live in the same jungle redoubt. The only difference between an insurgent and a non-insurgent is that an insurgent has access to weapons and uses them, while a non-insurgent has access to weapons but has not used them *yet*.

If, as you say, Fallujah is just as bad now as it was before, that shows the futility of the separation scheme - because in Fallujah they tried exactly that. They tried evacuating the "good guys", pounding the crap out of the remaining "bad guys" and then returning the good guys to a city under lock down.

So separation of insurgent Sunni Arabs from non-insurgent Sunni Arabs apparently won't work. (Nor do I see a lot of enthusiasm in the United States for the spectacle of their soldiers conducting massive population transfers, illegal under international law, or patrolling West bank-style Bantustans under lockdown.) There may, however, be a way of isolating the Sunni Arab parts of Central Iraq from the rest, and keeping the utter chaos in that region confined to that one area. The Kurds are probably well capable of protecting themselves, and the Shiites will be as well, with a combination of US and Iranian help.

The Malay Resistance Liberation Army was a national liberation movement. And that movement lost steam when Malaysia received its independence. In other words, part of its political goals were *achieved*, and it then lost support form people who weren't deeply committed to the other major goal: a revolutionary communist government. One of the main political goals of the Iraqi insurgency is the termination of the US occupation. Perhaps when that occurs, the insurgency will lose the support of people who aren't committed to some of the other conflicting goals - a neo-Baath government, an Islamist revolution, etc.

I don't want civil war either. But isn't that already pretty much what we have? Is the US really maintaining security in any fashion? *Can* it maintain security? And with a few hundred Iraqis being killed every week in this conflict, how much worse can it get? I think you sincerely do fear civil war David, and that is admirable. But my impression is that many people who say they fear civil war really seem to fear only that the evolving political outcome will be something very different from the one they envisaged and promised when the war began. They're more afraid of eating crow themselves than they are of anything that might or might not happen to the Iraqis.

[David Billington]

Cal,

"3) Contrary to what David says above, while there may be plenty of Iraqis willing to volunteer for the Iraqi army, they’re not willing to fight for it. The American officer in charge of training Iraqis has estimated that 5% of recruits were motivated to fight for their country (his aides thought this was optimistic)."

The five percent refers to the students at the Tikrit military academy, not the Iraqi army as a whole. Farther down, the article notes that desertion rates for the army as a whole have fallen from high to low and that with better leadership forty percent of Iraqi army and paramilitary battalions could fight alongside Americans right now and that another twenty-five percent could do so in six months. This estimate may be optimistic but it suggests that rank and file Iraqis are at least willing to fight.

The article goes on to point out that where sufficient American troops are deployed, and they rely on informants to pick out insurgents instead of indiscriminately arresting everyone of military age, they can take insurgents out of circulation.

[David Billington]

Dan,

"As I understand it, the British strategy in what is now Malaysia was based on separating the insurgents from everyone else, and isolating them. They also engaged in some rather major population transfers and resettlements, creating fortress villages in the process. And since there was a pronounced ethnic divide between the ethnic Chinese insurgents and the non-insurgent Malays, the problem was more tractable."

The British problem in Malaya was to separate ethnic Chinese insurgents from the ethnic Chinese as well as ethnic Malay population. The population transfers consisted mostly of relocating far flung hamlets a few kilometers closer to form more concentrated villages and also to monitor comings and goings of people and food supplies. After about two or three years, the insurgents were gone and conditions became more normal. New areas were then added in an expanding patchwork.

"If, as you say, Fallujah is just as bad now as it was before, that shows the futility of the separation scheme - because in Fallujah they tried exactly that. They tried evacuating the "good guys", pounding the crap out of the remaining "bad guys" and then returning the good guys to a city under lock down."

The separation of insurgents from the population is a police and political matter, not a military one. It is only when civilians are in their homes, and when there are police to arrest insurgents who are turned in by neighbors, that the civilian population can begin to see a choice as to which side to support. When civilians have this choice and the government earns their support, the remaining insurgents will be separated. A lot of "ifs" here to be sure. But proper counterinsurgency is not about killing insurgents. It is about giving civilians a sense of security and good government so that their choices get rid of the insurgents. Troops are needed only to force the insurgents to break down into smaller units and cells. The crucial phase is the police and political effort to protect and win over the population with the insurgency at this level.

The key to Iraq is whether Sunni Arab civilians see an isolated autonomy as their only hope or see a multi-group Iraq as an attractive alternative. I hope we can wait until the constitutional process and the elections have been completed, and a few more months have elapsed to see where the Iraqis are going in this regard.

"I don't want civil war either. But isn't that already pretty much what we have? Is the US really maintaining security in any fashion? *Can* it maintain security?"

We certainly cannot do it with our present force and strategy. How far our presence is actually fuelling the insurgency is less clear to me; the insurgents surely think so but Sunni Arab civilians have reportedly said that they prefer to be occupied by Americans than by Iraqi army troops. The truth may be that Iraqis resent us but also fear the alternatives. Success on the constitutional and electoral levels can still be undone by a poor strategy for dealing with the insurgency. Whether a more effective one is still possible I don't know. But I don't think we will be in a position to judge this until next spring.

[Cal]

Farther down, the article notes that ...with better leadership forty percent of Iraqi army and paramilitary battalions could fight alongside Americans right now and that another twenty-five percent could do so in six months.

Yes, "better leadership -- if this could only be found." Why can't it be found? There were plenty of Shiite officers in the old Iraqi army, enough to lead a few battalions at least. It's not like we have to train all of these guys from scratch.

The fact is that in over 2 years we have trained about one battallion, and the # of soldiers who can operate independently has not risen appreciably since the election.

The article goes on to point out that where sufficient American troops are deployed....

Since we don't have enough troops, I don't see how this is relevant. The 14 marines who were killed the other day were en route to retake an area that had been cleared of insurgents at least once before.

And let's not forget what they're dying for -- an Iranian puppet gov't.

[David Billington]

Cal: "The fact is that in over 2 years we have trained about one battallion, and the # of soldiers who can operate independently has not risen appreciably since the election."

We've partially trained a lot of battalions but you are right that they need to be brought fully up to speed. In May, our military introduced a monthly assessment system for Iraqi battalions, so there should be clearer standards for evaluating the process. But there isn't much time and the buildup of these forces needs to be part of a larger strategy that also emphasizes police and good government.

Me: "The article goes on to point out that where sufficient American troops are deployed...."

Cal: "Since we don't have enough troops, I don't see how this is relevant. The 14 marines who were killed the other day were en route to retake an area that had been cleared of insurgents at least once before."

It is relevant if Iraqis replace us because there is no limit to the number of troops they can raise. The question is whether they will learn from what we have done right and done wrong.

I'm not disputing your concerns. My concern is that if we get out now, conservatives will charge critics of the war with having pulled out before the political process had a chance, and they will be able thereby to dodge the question of how much military strategy contributed to the outcome. I don't think nine more months is a very long time to see if the constitutional process brings in the Sunni Arabs and if a better military strategy begins to be implemented. Democrats who think there is still a chance of pluralistic society in Iraq should emphasize both of these needs.

[David Billington]

[Tried posting below and it didn't go through - sorry if this is a repeat post.]

"And let's not forget what they're dying for -- an Iranian puppet gov't."

Iraq still has freedom of the press and other attributes of a civil society that would be anathema in Iran. Until this changes, I don't think Tehran can regard Iraq as a true puppet state. But we will know in a few days whether sharia becomes "the" source or just "a" source of law in the new constitution, and other freedoms will probably turn on that choice.

The trouble with Iran is the recent evidence that new and improved roadside bombs have been coming from Iran and not just from Syria. It looks like Iran is playing the Sunni Arabs against us and the Shias against the Sunnis.

Counterinsurgency can only succeed if the battlespace is isolated from decisive outside intervention. Until now outside interference in Iraq has not been decisive. If that changes, then a Vietnam-like situation will truly exist.

[Robert]

Managed Hosting, Colocation and Data Center Services by victoryushchenkonashpresudent ...

[yargıc]

Thank you for your sharing.! seslichat seslisohbet

[cheap coach handbags]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!

[chat]

thanks for sharing Sohbet many people are pay more attention to one's wearing than before, especially a watch. Chat .
Perhaps when you went to some place far away Chat you must borrow it from friends Sohbet you can get everything you want in this game
Chat money to invest in other industry which will return you good profit. Sohbet when you look at the surface of the watches
Egitim from the city you live in and thought you knew nobody there exsohbet

[Bankruptcy Attorney New York City]

identally discovered this forum and I am glad to be here. This is a wonderful place for discussion and share your tho

[old phone]

The scenario country is fictional, but the map today sure looked a lot like Afghanistan.

[Tour Rome Italy]

Many Private shame the Armed Forces will be dragged down once again by a needless, meaningless & hopeless foreign political conflict, but we'll all be paying for it for the next generation or two. Only this time, the 'Left' can be accused of NOTHING.

[beaded leather bracelets]

A game might begin with networking to brainstorm about how to deal with one of humanity's most intractable crises: the use of violence to solve problems and disputes.

[Amy Laurent]

The overall objective is to provide the required space for humanitarian activities to be successful.

[gatehouse academy review]

The overall objective is to provide the required space for humanitarian activities to be successful. Particular emphasis in the game is placed on examining how the military, civilian government agencies, non governmental organizations and international organizations need to coordinate and cooperate when planning and executing peace support operations.

[rokettube]

en güzel rokettube videoları,
en muhteşem sex izleme sitesi
en kral rokettube yeri
kaliteli pornoların bulunduğu tek mekan
yabancı sitelerden özenle seçilmiş muhteşem ötesi porn sitesi...

[Cindy Margott]

They're more afraid of eating crow themselves than they are of anything that might or might not happen to the Iraqis.

[porno]

en güzel porno videoları o sitede

[porno]

amdan götten en king pornoo sitesi

[Gaston Cantens]

The extreme brutality that would be necessary would complete the transformation of the US into a global pariah, and undermine our power and authority everywhere on the globe, and damage US interests permanently and horribly.

[Home Protect Home Warranty]

Well nice post..The conference could have a catchy standby theme--modernized for today's world How about"Peace, Love and Understanding---and some butt kicking as a very, very last resort"..

[水着]

お客さんもバンドメンバーも、そしてスタッフも下着全員女子というひなまつりバージョンで開催されたこのイベントは、まずはトークコーナーからスタート。普段は見ることのできない近藤夏子の一人暮らしの部屋を動画で公開し、実際にお部屋にある水着お気に入りグッズを会場で披露するというサービスっぷり。
その後、会場に集まったファンから近藤夏子へのぶっちゃ女性 水着け質問を募集し、その質問に直接答えたり、恋愛に関する悩み相談をするなど、会場中は、完全に女子会状態。女子だけということでぶっちゃけトークにも花が咲き下着 激安1時間以上にわたる大盛り上がりなトークコーナー下着 通販を経て、後半はライブへ。
2月9日にリリースとなった「うつむきスマイル」を中心に9曲を披水着　通販露した近藤夏子だったが、この日バンドメンバーには元プリンセス・プリンセスのベーシスト渡辺敦子の姿も。プリンセス・プリンセスの大ヒット曲「ダイアモンド」を、渡辺敦子のハモリとともにカバーを披露、ライブも大変な盛り上がりを見せた。
アンコールで披露された「別に。」では、いつものライブではタオルが振り回され水着　激安るところだが、今回は女子限定ということで、なんと女性用下着がぶんぶん振り回されるというビックリな光景も。事前にTwitterやブログで告知されていただけに、集まったファンも思い思いにいろいろなものを振り回し、最高のひな祭りイベントは幕を下ろした。

[pandora jewellery]

Keep working, wonderful job! This was what I needed to know.

[Web Visible]

The Democrats who think there is still a chance of pluralistic society in Iraq should emphasize both of these needs.

[sbobet]

I would like to say thanks for the time you took compiling this article. You’ve enlightening for me. I have forwarded this to a friend of mine.