Bush's Iraq Escalation Speech

[erik_kosberg]

Well, the speech has come and gone. Does anyone here think it was anything other than a complete waste of time?

Gosh, that Maliki guy better straighten up or there will be consequences. Not that we'll actually spell out those consequences or anything, so I guess that if he doesn't straighten up, we better be prepared to tell him that he better straighten up.

"George W. Bush spoke with all the confidence of a perp in a police lineup."

[frazzledspice]

I tried to find out how large the Iraqi Army is.

According to Wikipedia, the Iraqi Army, in toto, has 129,760 soldiers.

Even though those considered "fit for military service" (I thought the age parameters were a little high) are:

males 18-49: 4,930,074
females 18-49: 4,771,10

And so, at the moment, we have the same amount of manpower invested in the stability of Iraq as Iraq does. (And we will soon have 20,000 more.)

New Iraqi Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But it was another article picked up by Google that really scared me--a column by an Egyptian journalist who speculated that America had a vested interest in keeping the size of the Iraqi Army small in order to protect Israel--the assumption being that, if there were too many Iraqi soldiers, they would join with Syria to destroy Israel.

Al-Ahram Center for Political & Strategic Studies

Quote:
Thirdly, much of the US vision for rebuilding the Iraqi army is motivated by pro-Israeli considerations. Keeping the Iraqi army limited in size and weaponry ensures that Iraq will remain out of the Arab-Israeli conflict, for it will not have the potential to participate in any future war, say a Syrian-Israeli one.

And so we have a conundrum. Iraq needs to establish and maintain domestic stability ASAP, with the help of its armed forces. But they can't get restless and decide to attack Israel.....

Under any normal circumstances, the Israelis have proven to be more than capable of defending themselves....but they are a nuclear power, and, if pushed to the wall, given their precarious situation surrounded by enemies, they might use it.

Much of our diplomacy with Israel, even before the Gulf War, has involved trying to persuade them not to retaliate too harshly against their enemies....

But will we have to deal with a weakened Iraqi Army indefinitely to help protect Israel (and keep it from using its nuclear power against its enemies?)

[erik_kosberg]

The Egyptian speculation ignores another potential Iraqi adversary -- Iran. There, American interests would seem to favor a rather vigorous Iraqi military. That other adversary is a big part of why we supported Saddam for so long.

[Stokes Pennwalt]

When comparing the number of US and Iraqi troops, keep in mind that the ratio of trigger-pullers to support troops is higher in the US military than any other military in the world, but especially the Iraqis. Basically, the more technologically advanced a fighting force becomes, the more support personnel you need to keep it running. With us it tends to be something like 9:1. It would be reasonable to expect that the Iraqi Army's ratio is a lot less than that. Support personnel are trained to fire a weapon and basic infantry tactics but do not undergo the same rigorous combat training pre-deployment that soldiers do who normally operate outside the wire.

In order for the Iraqi Army to pose a direct threat to Israel they need some sort of deep strike weapon, which they do not have. We destroyed all of their SCUDs, and the Iraqi air force's aircraft that didn't flee to Iran in 1991 fell into disrepair since then. I'm not sure if there are plans to rebuild Iraq's air forces but you can be damn sure they won't get any TBMs by our hands, as they're the biggest proliferation threat to security and American interests in the world. Also, there is no hostile air force in the middle east that could go toe to toe with the Israelis and last more than a day or two.

Other than the counterinsurgency work they've been conducting over the past several years, I think Erik is correct to suggest that a deterrent to Iran is likely a long-term desire.

[erik_kosberg]

"...the Post-ABC News poll found that 53 percent of Americans support Democrats' efforts to cut off funds for additional troops..."

Wow.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

frazzledspice said

But it was another article picked up by Google that really scared me--a column by an Egyptian journalist who speculated that America had a vested interest in keeping the size of the Iraqi Army small in order to protect Israel ....

Anti-Israel conspiracy theories are a dime a dozen in the Egyptian press. I would take them with a humungous grain of salt.

Much of our diplomacy with Israel, even before the Gulf War, has involved trying to persuade them not to retaliate too harshly against their enemies....

?? Where did you hear that? I don't think there's any truth to that at all.

------------

IMO, the problem with the U.S. relying on the Iraqi army and police forces (is the slogan "We'll stand down while they stand up" still being used?) to provide "security" is that the Iraqi police, and to a lesser extent the Iraqi army, are themselves apparently often an arm of the enemy (Shiite militias) we are supposed to be fighting.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

SF Chronicle said

'The kidnappers had an office'

Dhia Hussein, a 20-year-old Sunni, fled to Khadra from his home in the Shiite-held Hurriya neighborhood in mid-December, moving into a property vacated by a Shiite family running in the opposite direction....

"The situation is worsening," he said. "An old woman was shot in the shoulder by a sniper the other day. Each night between 9 p.m. and 2 a.m., the Iraqi army or police come driving through here, but they're working with the militias....

"Our next-door neighbor was arrested by the police, and he turned up dead in the street," Hussein said. "There's no difference between the security services and the militias. We only trust them if they come with the American army, because then we know nothing will happen to us." ...

U.S. soldiers of the 1st Cavalry Division, from Fort Hood, Texas, are deployed in Khadra, trying to stem the sectarian bloodshed. In the four neighborhoods they cover -- with a population of about 100,000 -- up to 60 corpses a week are recovered. ...

Rivera said the locally based Iraqi army battalion had proved itself capable and competent. But the Americans acknowledge that local residents have no faith in the Iraqi police force, which is dominated by Shiites. "If we (were to) hand them over, we'll be picking up their bodies 48 hours later," said one U.S. soldier after detaining four Sunni men suspected of planting a bomb...

'The kidnappers had an office' / Violence stalks Sunni enclave in Baghdad

[AuntieEmma[$]]

erik_kosberg said

"...the Post-ABC News poll found that 53 percent of Americans support Democrats' efforts to cut off funds for additional troops..."

Wow.

And another poll found that 70% (!) of Americans opposed sending more troops to Iraq:

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/...ap3322082.html

[erik_kosberg]

Lest we forget, Great moments in Bush’s Iraq speeches.

ABC News: Shock Waves Spread After Bush Speech

"Well I heard the sabers rattling on that," retired Maj. Gen. William Nash, an ABC News consultant, said in an interview after the president's address. "This may be what we're talking about six months from now far more than we're talking about the security sit (sic) in Baghdad. This portends a confrontation that could significantly broaden military operations in the region."

[erik_kosberg]

My, my. How times have changed.

Odd silence at Fort Benning — during and after Bush’s speech

So, let’s review:

– Reporters are told they can talk to the troops.

– Reporters are told they’re forbidden from talking to the troops.

– Shortly before leaving, reporters are told they can talk to a hand-picked, small group of troops, but no one else.

“So this is it? The grand strategy is to repeat a strategy they weren’t able to execute the first time they tried it?” -- Peggy Noonan

[erik_kosberg]

Hmmmm.....this does seem to dovetail with AuntieEmma's theory about a coup of some type.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

erik_kosberg said

Hmmmm.....this does seem to dovetail with AuntieEmma's theory about a coup of some type.

See!!

Seriously, I do still believe in my theory. And speaking of John Burns (as Andrew Sullivan was, in your linked post), I saw him last night on Charlie Rose, and he was saying something about a supporter of al-Sistani (he had a specific name, which I forgot) being the likely successor to Maliki. He was talking about how, of the two Shiite factions, Sistani's was much stronger than Maliki's, and that it was only Sadr's support that had put, and kept, Maliki in power.

[erik_kosberg]

"Only this President, only in this time, only with this dangerous, even Messianic certitude, could answer a country demanding an exit strategy from Iraq, by offering an entrance strategy for Iran."

[AuntieEmma[$]]

even Messianic certitude

I don't know if he really is intending to take on Iran, but the speech did, IMO, have a whiff of the notion of a "holy war" which bothered me. It was in the parts about how this is an ideological struggle, a fight between the forces fo freedom and the forces of hatred, and about how God is the architect of freedom. It seems to me that the administration has been getting in closer contact with concrete reality lately. But to the extent that Bush is still casting our role as being as broad, and as abstract, as fighting all evil, then the mandate he is claiming is limitless.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

By the way, in support of Andrew Sullivan's notion that Maliki is being set up to fail, there's this (from an article linked on another thread):

AP said

... The president also said the United States will hold the Iraqi government to its pledge to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November, pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis and spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction that will create new jobs.

"The Iraqi government knows that it must meet them, or lose the support of the Iraqi and the American people," Bush said.

My Way News - Bush Challenges Iraq Strategy Skeptics

I think it's easy to read that as a specific threat.

And the strategy of setting up someone to fail is hardly new. That's exactly what the adminstration did with the Taliban, and then with Saddam. They set conditions that they knew couldn't be met, and then when they weren't met, claimed that as justification for war.

In this case, though, it's not a new war that is at stake, but a changing of leadership that I think could take place without violence. I wouldn't be surprised if Maliki voluntarily stepped aside once he saw the writing on the wall.

[erik_kosberg]

Two sadly funny headlines, from differently edited versions of the same WaPo story:

"Bush's advisers are crying over spilled strategy"

"Opposition to plan surprises Bush team"

[erik_kosberg]

Today's must read from McClatchy

[erik_kosberg]

"...he has the quavering look of a degenerate gambler begging his wife, half cockily half desperately, for one more chance. "

Ouch.

[Stokes Pennwalt]

AuntieEmma said

?? Where did you hear that? I don't think there's any truth to that at all.

Friendly Restraint: U.S.-Israel Relations During the Gulf War Crisis of 1990-199 - Council on Foreign Relations

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Stokes Pennwalt said

Friendly Restraint: U.S.-Israel Relations During the Gulf War Crisis of 1990-199 - Council on Foreign Relations

Ok, that's true, as far as the specific instance when Iraq was firing missiles into Israel, and the U.S. did ask Israel not to retaliate. I think I remember that from when it happened. But what I was objecting to was Frazz's statement, which seemed to be much more general. And in general, I think the U.S. has not been involved in "trying to persuade [Israel] not to retaliate too harshly against their enemies." There wasn't a single other time, other than Gulf War I, that I'm aware of, that the U.S. did that. It's more often the opposite -- and I think at this point it's very much the opposite -- where the U.S. hopes that Israel will take military action that will advance U.S. interests. Many people think that Israel was acting, in part, as a proxy for the U.S. in Lebanon last summer. More recently, according to the Israeli press, the U.S. has been pressuring Israel NOT to hold peace talks with Syria (which could be why the Israeli government is denying this week's reports of ongoing secret talks).

Also, saying that the U.S. has been "trying to persuade [Israel] not to retaliate too harshly against their enemies" implies that Israel HAS been retaliating too harshly, which, in general, I disagree with.

[erik_kosberg]

"Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki says Bush admininstration criticisms of him only embolden the terrorists."

What goes around, comes around.