Saturday, January 13, 2007

America Cannot Win the War in Iraq

Thu, 01/11/2007 - 9:07pm

America Cannot Win the War in Iraq

Introduction

On May 10th, 2003, less than two months after the first combat units rumbled across the Kuwaiti border into Iraq, President George W. Bush dawned a flight suite and delivered a speech from the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln. In this now infamous speech, later dubbed the 'Mission Accomplished' speech, the beaming Commander-in-Chief proclaimed a halt to major combat operations in Iraq. America and its peace meal coalition had succeeded in toppling the notorious Saddam regime. For the moment, the world breathed a sigh of relief, seemingly casting aside all pre-war doubts regarding flimsy intelligence and weak rationale for an invasion. Maybe preemptive war IS tolerable. After all, the world now had one less dictator to stomach.

Three and a half years after this speech, optimism has given way to pessimism. And for good reason. The situation in Iraq is deteriorating, maybe even spiraling out of control towards all out civil war. The insurgency movement in Iraq is growing, making nation building on the part of America and its allies ineffective. The U.S. military finds itself stretched excessively thin, with many members serving unprecedented two and three tours of duty in Iraq. Casualty counts, both civilian and military, are on the rise and expensive, but delicate, military hardware is grinding to a halt under the stress of combat in such a rugged environment. America has poured vast sums of its fortune into Iraq, hoping to kick-start a new nation. On the home front and throughout the world, support for the war is waning. Moreover, in Iraq itself, the very people America purports to have liberated from Saddam Hussein now clamor for liberation from what they believe is an occupation by meddling Westerners.

In the coming months, America will have to confront some difficult choices. With the results of the 2006 general election, it is clear that American voters have already voiced their opinion that efforts in Iraq are not working. It has become clear that America cannot win the war in Iraq and it is time for a change in course.

Historical Precedent

History may well be the best indicator when making predictions about the eventual outcome of the Iraq war. The United States historically has found exceptional difficulty in waging war against a foe which resorts to guerilla warfare and unconventional tactics, which is undeniably now the case in Iraq. No other conflict in American history illustrates this fact better than the 10 year “police action” in Vietnam, where American conventional forces were pitted against an earlier resourceful and determined guerilla force.

America lost the war in Vietnam but it was not because the pajama-clad communist guerilla forces American service members faced in the jungles and rice paddies of Southeast Asia held all the decisive advantages. As is true today in the Middle East, American combat troops of the 1960's and 1970's were better equipped, better trained, and enjoyed better support than the forces they opposed on the battlefield.

During the Vietnam years, America leveraged its super power status, pouring vast portions of its ground forces, air assets, and naval might into the struggle, while the communists relied on a resilient ground force equipped with little more than a Chinese AK-47 Assault Rifle, a knowledge of their own territory, some determination, the will to win, and time-tested guerilla warfare tactics. Where Iraq is concerned, this recipe has not changed. The AK-47 carrying guerilla fighter in Iraq willingly trades archaic mortars and crude explosives and booby traps for a lack of air superiority, high troop mobility, and multi-million dollar machines of war in the hopes that history will repeat, and a global super power will be defeated.

There are several other similarities when comparing the two struggles, notably on the home front. Both conflicts have generated civil strife, amassed protests, and seen waning public support as the war progressed. Political backlash, both domestic and international, are commonalities. Finally, as the body counts rise, so does the media's scrutiny.

On April 30, 1975, the South Vietnam capitol of Saigon fell to the North Vietnamese, ending a decade long struggle which claimed the lives of over 2 million Vietnamese and over 58 thousand Americans. In the end, a simple David, armed only with primitive tools of war, slew a modern day Goliath - a hulking beast built for war. If history is an indicator, Goliath is poised to fall once again.

Military Limitations

Militarily speaking, the United States has consistently won all the key battles in Iraq but one has to wonder if we are not losing the war in the meantime. Many indicators point to a grand defeat. Most notably, the Pentagon appears to be struggling, both in terms of manpower and in financing the war.

National level decision makers, hoping to avoid the backlash that accompanied the Vietnam era draft, have forgone the use of conscripts, relying instead on the nation's relatively small volunteer force. The “grunts” of the Army and Marine Corps have been been forced to endure most of the workload in Iraq, resulting in a seemingly never-ending rotation in and out of battle. Many of these troops return home physically maimed and psychologically effected for the rest of their lives after just one deployment. The odds increase with multiple deployments, and the troops know it.

The limited number of units military tacticians have available for rotation has also resulted in a heavy reliance on part-time Reserve and National Guard personnel, with many of them being called to serve up to two years at a time. This level of demand has led to sagging troop retention and poor recruitment, forcing the Pentagon to offer costly enlistment and reenlistment bonuses, further indebting the taxpayer already footing the bill for the war in Iraq to the tune of over 350 billion dollars thus far.

In spite of all the stubborn “stay the course” rhetoric coming from an Administration mired in stalemate, certain policies seem to be free to tinker with. In order to swell the ranks, higher educational standards and character requirements have been relaxed at recruiting stations throughout the country. In essence, the high standards of quality in our volunteer military are being compromised for the sake of quantity in hopes of ensuring a steady line of clean boots for the front. The long-term negative effects of this knee-jerk reaction will not be felt for years, but rest assured; America will have to rebuild a diluted military one day.

In another feeble attempt at plugging the holes, thousands of service members are subjected to a mandatory stop-loss program, keeping them in uniform far beyond their enlistment contract. Many view this as a “back door draft” which hurts morale, forcing many to vote with their feet once the stop-loss order is lifted. Ironically, several Congress members have begun calling for a draft in recent months, hoping this tool of last resort will somehow prevent a complete depletion of the volunteer force.

The signs of desperation in our war machine are easy to detect. The brass in the Pentagon has been busy trying to ensure a victory in Iraq with limited options. The quick fixes and temporary bandages will hurt America's military branches in the end while simultaneously draining the nation's coffers. Perhaps preservation of individual careers and the influence of the politics of war are more powerful forces than the realities of war, especially for civilian and high-ranking chess players in the Pentagon who carry on their days without fear of being killed by a roadside bomb. Whatever the case, the course the Pentagon is on now will only result in prolonging the inevitable - that America cannot win militarily, in Iraq.

Qualified Opinions

One does not have to look very hard to find qualified personalities who concede that a victory in Iraq is untenable. Henry Kissinger, former U.S. Secretary of State under President Richard Nixon, recently stated during a televised interview that a military win in Iraq is impossible (Panja, 2006):

"If you mean by 'military victory' an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don't believe that is possible," he told the British Broadcasting Corp.

It should be noted that Kissinger's tenure as Secretary of State spanned the last two years of the Vietnam Conflict, which raged from 1965 to 1975. Given his historical perspective, the point can be argued that perhaps no other living human being is more qualified to draw the conclusion that an American military solution in Iraq will not succeed.

Former foreign relations gurus are not the only ones sounding alarm bells. The current UN envoy to Iraq, Special Representative Ashraf Qazi, fears all-out civil war (Herald Sun, 2006). Citing the devastation caused by recent tandem car bombings in the Baghdad burrow of Sadr City which killed approximately 200 Iraqi civilians, he warns, “Iraq would continue to descend into a civil war situation and people would become the victims of an unprecedented human rights catastrophe.”

None of these warnings have been wasted on our service members. In fact, history will likely show that some of the first rumblings regarding America's dire consequences in Iraq have originated from those experiencing it first-hand. While deployed to Iraq in 2004, one “old and seasoned Non-Commissioned Officer with nearly 20 years under [his] belt” (Lorents, 2004) offered his belief in an essay that America's preference for politics and wholesale refusal to accept the reality of the guerrilla war in Iraq runs parallel with Vietnam, and will ultimately cost us another victory.

Conclusion

As of Sunday, November 26, 2006, America's military involvement in the small Middle East country of Iraq has carried on longer than the U.S. engagement in World War II (Forbes, 2006), a war that spanned the entire globe. The only other war that America lost lasting longer than our WWII involvement was Vietnam -a localized guerilla war, just like Iraq. If history is an indicator, America cannot win in Iraq.

Vic Blazier, Iraq War Veteran and Proud IVAW Member
"Bullies kick butt. A leader can take a whooping every now and then."

No comments: