"Progress with look and sound like silence"
By "Tom L" via Bill
Posted On January 11, 2007
Because I am junkie, yesterday afternoon I sent an email to some friends, in anticipation of last night's speech by the Prez, listing a few questions I had for the President. What follows are the responses offered by "Tom L.," whom I've asked repeatedly to blog at this site but who politely declines, which is unfortunate because his responses yesterday were as good explanation as I've heard lately for what we are doing in Iraq and why. They also strike me as worth sharing so, with his permission, Tom L.'s email is reproduced below.
1. What is the goal of continued U.S. presence?
2. What is the new plan to achieve this goal?
3. What is the evidence this new plan will work? What specific problems does a troop surge address?
4. Who agrees with this plan? Who doesn’t, and why?
5. Was this strategy previously considered? If so, why wasn’t it put in place? Why now?
6. If this plan is put into effect, when can we look for progress? What does progress look like? Will the number of GI deaths actually increase for a time?
7. What is the planned duration of the troop surge? What is the timetable for determining its success?
1. What is the goal of continued U.S. presence?
The stated case is to defend Iraq's fledgling democracy and the Iraqi people from those that would turn Iraq into an al-Qaeda state (see pre-2002 Taliban Afghanistan). Unstated is the desire to kill every single jihadi that travels to Iraq in the hopes of killing an American. Unfortunately, the desire to do what needs to be done sometimes seemingly comes up short. The way you win a war is by breaking the will of your enemies and killing those whom you are unable to convince that killing Americans, implementing an Islamic state, etc. is a bad idea. Mookie al Sadr's continuing undeceased status speaks to this seeming failure to follow thru. For all the talk of "You will turn (name jihadi here) into a martyr!" it never seemingly comes to fruition. Dead jihadis are dead jihadis. They influence no one any longer after they are feeding worms.
2. What is the new plan to achieve this goal?
Don't know. I don't say that to be sly. I genuinely don't know. War is so unpredictable. The only goal that there should be for sure is to again, break the will of our enemies and kill those we fail to convince with all possible force.
3. What is the evidence this new plan will work? What specific problems does a troop surge address?
See No. 2. Perhaps the surge allows one to essentially control geographical areas such as Baghdad, however, unless we kill the bad guys, they will just float on to another town to fight again.
4. Who agrees with this plan? Who doesn’t, and why?
I'm agnostic. Numbers make little difference if they aren't coupled with strategy (see "break will, kill, etc." above.) If you are going to use the 20K boots to corner and kill jihadis, then the plan is brilliant. If you are going to use the 20K to roam the roads and highways of Iraq with no more purpose other than showing the flag, then it will not work.
5. Was this strategy previously considered? If so, why wasn’t it put in place? Why now?
I don't know. Why wasn't it put in place earlier? Again, I don't know. Why now? Well, that's an easier question to answer. Because Iraq really is just one battle in the GWOT. We truly cannot afford to lose. To do so will empower and embolden our enemies, in much the same way US abandonment of South Vietnam in the 70s led to Soviet expansion across the globe (until the Gipper arrived), in much the same way the withdrawal of US troops from Beirut and Somalia has been pointed at by Islamists as examples of the US being unwilling to stand its ground or react when struck by Islamists. We leave Iraq, we embolden nations such as Iran to strike Israel, Saudi, and Jordan, and we encourage Islamists who see their terror acts having an effect in bringing the fall of "The Great Satan."
6. If this plan is put into effect, when can we look for progress? What does progress look like? Will the number of GI deaths actually increase for a time?
Progress will look and sound like silence. Hear much reporting from the Kurd portion of Iraq? No you don't. This isn't WWII and the 1940s. US victories and successes do not garner press coverage in this day and age. If we are implementing the "kill & break the will" strategy, yes, GI deaths will increase as there is a greater effort to engage and destroy the enemy. The US suffered its highest casualties in Europe and Pacific at the end of the war because we were actively engaged in destroying our enemies.
7. What is the planned duration of the troop surge? What is the timetable for determining its success?
Again, don't now the duration. However, although not politically clear, we should have every intention of having US troops based in Iraq for the next 20+ years, and perhaps longer. The timetable for success will be the 2008 election for all intents and purposes. The less heard in the press about Iraq at that time (see No. 6) will mean that the US has largely been successful in calming Sunni/Shiite conflict and eliminating safe havens for al Qaeda in Iraq. If that is not the case in 2008, we may have a Democrat president in '09, withdrawal of US forces, chaos in Iraq and an emboldened Iran on the loose in the region.
Can Bush communicate the above?
Well, if he can make this point clear to the general public, he can. Radical Islam's desire isn't peaceful co-existence/tolerance with Western Civilization. In fact, there is not a place on the globe where Islam is a significant religion/culture that it is not engaged in some degree of bloody conflict with Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Animists, etc. They have the desire to kill ever man, woman, and child that believes differently than they do, all they lack is means to do so. However, with time, that too will come. Again, we are looking at the beginnings of a far wider and bloodier conflict. We can choose to fight now, or wait to fight later at a much greater cost in lives and treasure. People our age would scoff at those in the '30s who allowed Hitler to come to power and go unchecked until 1939 - afterall, he stated his intentions from the very beginning. However, I believe we face a similar choice. Our enemies have made it clear what their desires are. They are not points for negotiation. They are wishes backed up by the will for those wishes to come true. Of course, in order to break our enemies' will to fight, we must have the will to fight for ourselves. The question is, do we choose to fight?
E-mail this article to a friend.
