Bush's Lost Year - Strategic Failure in the GWOT

[devil39]

The following is the latest article by James Fallows discussing his view that the war in Iraq is undermining the Global War on Terror.

Fallows criticizes the Bush administration for the committing a strategic error in the war on terror by invading Iraq.  

http://www.cpe-sf.com/ruthgroup/downloads/FallowsAtlantic.htm


This article is not unlike a simplified and more commercial version of the Jeffery Record article from the US Army War College, "Bounding the Global War on Terror".  

http://www.iwar.org.uk/cyberterror/resources/gwot/bounding.pdf

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I can't fathom why Bush would leave the war on Alqueda (sp) in Afganistan before the job was done.

 

[devil39]

CFL,

Agreed.  

I also think it is absolutely crucial that the US significantly improve the situation of citizens in those countries in which they intervene.   If the US fails to follow through on reconstruction they will merely garner ill will in the regions where they intervene.   Fallows launches some fairly stiff criticism wrt the US policy in Afghanistan.  

Obviously the US intervention in Afghanistan was very strongly supported around the world.   However the US failure to follow through with meaningful reconstruction, and the failure to provide stability and order throughout the country is undermining their long term strategic efforts elsewhere I'm afraid.   In the case of Afghanistan, the US did not need to provide the troops to police the outlying provinces, the international community likely would have committed troops to assist.   Fallows argues that during the reconstruction period in Afghanistan, the US shifted focus to Iraq, and was loathe to provide strategic lift and other logistical support to countries willing to police the outlying provinces, to the point of disallowing international forces outside of the Kabul area.

A rather interesting article.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Saddam would have still been there a few years later and had the US committed the same amount of troops in Afganistan vs Iraq they surely would have made more progress in find Bin Laden, maintained the worlds continued support, and the uprise in terrorism may have been kept to a minimum.

 

[Infanteer]

I am of two minds on the subject.   Although I agree with some of the critics that the US is doing itself no good by getting involved in the civil conflict in Iraq.   Its (what I feel) main reason for being there is to influence regional behavioural patterns by other states.

1)   The way I see it, the US could give a fat rats ass about the development of Afghanistan.   It is a shithole rocky desert full of tribal men who fight for a living.   They've been doing it since Alexander marched in and I'm sure they'll keep it up for the next few centuries.   As such, I think they are inclined to sit in the south, root through all the nooks and crannies they can, and kill any terrorists they can find.   When they're done, I think they'll pull out and let the factions in Afghanistan pick up where the left off.

This could be good; perhaps the US recognized that it could do itself harm if it attempted to impose order on another militant society that is set in its ways and is extremely xenophobic (like they tried in Vietnam).   However, leaving the place as is could lead us back to square one in another 5-10 years.   Tough call.

2)   Afghanistan is sort of on the periphery.   The tribal version of Wahabism that arose there was a result of a social militarization in the madrassas of Pakistan during the '80's, kind of a Cold War anomaly.   We are now dealing with the consequences (or blowback, as one author termed it) of doing this.   Honestly, I think the Americans could influence events in Afghanistan through properly managing its historically up-and-down relationship with Pakistan more then they could by putting a Division in Herat (think winning on the Moral level as opposed to the Physical).

3)   Being that Afghanistan is on the periphery of Dar-al-Islam, I can see the justification for moving the war to Iraq, which is smack dab in the middle of things.   Control in some form over Iraq gives the US direct access to Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran; perps #1, 2, and 3 in the global terrorism game.   As well, your closer to Egypt, Libya, and Lebanon; who are also players in some form.   Perhaps the US was wise in believing that if it loaded down alot of troops in every piss-pot little mud-hut village in Afghanistan, they'd be away from the center stage action happening in the seedy allies of Riyadh, Damascus, Cairo, etc.

However, they've really stuck their hands in the hornet's nest, especially by going after guys like Moqtada, who were two-bit players in the local power games in Iraq that had no real bearing over on the War of Terror, they were just trying to pick up Saddam's leftovers.

Anyways, just some random thoughts from the peanut gallery.

Cheers,
Infanteer

PS: Here is a great cartoon I scanned from the March issue of Foreign Affairs reflecting on Afghanistan "democracy".

 

[jrhume]

Iraq had to go and now is as good a time as any.  As for Afghanistan, what more would we want to be doing?  The transition from old ways to new will take a long time, no matter what happens.  These things don't happen overnight.

In Iraq, the terrorists are coming from Baathist leftovers, religious fanatics, Syria and Iran, with others coming in from oddball places.  It seems to me a better strategy to let them come to us instead of trying to hunt them down all over the Middle East.  And if we weren't in Iraq, how would be strike at those in Iran?  Syria? Lebanon?  Even worse, they'd be might be coming at us in Afghanistan.  I'd rather fight them in Iraq.

Afghainistan is on the periphery.  Iraq is square in the middle of everything.  It is the best place to draw terrorists to and it is the best place to try and institute new ways.

I think most critics are too short sighted.

Just my nickels worth.

 

[dutchie]

Some feel that the War in Iraq is kinda like one of those mosquito zappers - it draws in terrorists from all over the Arab world to be dealt with en mass, making it easier (if you can call Iraq 'easier') and more efficient than going after them nation by nation (lets ignore the moral implications of that, shall we?). This theory assumes that the terrorists being fought in Iraq right now were terrorists to begin with.
I feel that the War in Iraq is actually creating terrorists. I don't see (unless the current situation changes) that the supply of 'terror converts' will dry up anytime soon. I hope it does, but I just don't see the US' policies and actions in Iraq allowing for a pacified populace. I am afraid that this war is only just beginning, and our friends to the south (the troops that is) are in for a long, tough road, from which I don't see an exit without a lot more bloodshed. As a soldier, this bothers me quite a bit, as I don't like to see my fellow soldiers die unnecessarily.

ps-As well, I really don't want to debate my views on the Iraq war specifically, as I have beaten that dead horse like no other.
http://army.ca/forums/threads/18280.0.html

I am merely trying to put forth this view that terrorists are increasing in number, not decreasing, due to the War.

 

[Infanteer]

Some feel that the War in Iraq is kinda like one of those mosquito zappers - it draws in terrorists from all over the Arab world to be dealt with en mass, making it easier (if you can call Iraq 'easier') and more efficient than going after them nation by nation (lets ignore the moral implications of that, shall we?). This theory assumes that the terrorists being fought in Iraq right now were terrorists to begin with.
I feel that the War in Iraq is actually creating terrorists. I don't see (unless the current situation changes) that the supply of 'terror converts' will dry up anytime soon. I hope it does, but I just don't see the US' policies and actions in Iraq allowing for a pacified populace. I am afraid that this war is only just beginning, and our friends to the south (the troops that is) are in for a long, tough road, from which I don't see an exit without a lot more bloodshed. As a soldier, this bothers me quite a bit, as I don't like to see my fellow soldiers die unnecessarily.

I agree with you for the most part here Caesar.

I don't buy the flypaper theory; the terrorists, as part of a 4GW force that I've been mentioning in other forums, are smart.  They aren't going to change their strategy and suddenly come out of the woodwork to fight US troop formations, meeting the Americans where they are strongest.  They will simply move away and adapt, preparing for another series of asymmetrical attack somewhere which hurts us most.

I don't feel that Iraq is necessarily creating more terrorists in the sense that Al Qaeda is having a big recruiting bonanza.  Rather, I think involvement in Iraq's civil conflict, which for the most part is largely unrelated to the GWOT, has earned the American ire of many more substate factions, thus making the job even more difficult.

Case in point: Moqtada al-Sadr was a minor chump in the overall hate-the-West game.  Even the Grand Ayatollah Al-Sistani thought he was a bump in the road.  Now, after the whole Fallujah thing, the guy has become a major player.  From some of the material I have read, this Shi'ite uprising has really gained the attention of Iran, who seemed to be toning down for the last few years as moderates were gaining ground.  Now, I think, they have given Moqtada a firm backing and he presents a whole new set of strategic problems in Iraq and SouthWest Asia in general.

I think a loose analogy could be considered akin to going into Northern Ireland to root out IRA terrorists and instead pissing off the Protestant Ulster Leagues.

I guess I would disagree with the statement that "Terrorists are increasing in number"; I don't think terrorism is as monolithic a force as we would like to believe.  However, I do think that the current way of going about things has brought new guys into the picture that weren't their before and who can make the game alot tougher.

Cheers,
Infanteer

 

[dutchie]

Exactly Infanteer. The US isn't exactly CREATING terrorists, but are aggravating the moderate and 'somewhat moderate' citizens (I won't call them Islamics, because they are not all Islamics) of the Middle East. I suspect a lot of these folks would otherwise not take up arms against the US, but perhaps just limit their disdain to pontification over kava (or whatever they call coffee) with their buddies at some Bagdad/Damascus/Tripoli/Gaza brewhouse.

(I merely used my choice of words for clarity's sake.)

 

[Infanteer]

As a point of contention, I don't think the US invasion in Iraq is the underlying factor in this, in my opinion it is US involvement in the cities of the Tigris and Eurphrates River Valley.  I think the American's may have been better off taking down Saddam and maintaining a very neutral presence in the background; maybe just hang out in the desert and wait for the next bush war.  None of this "Let Freedom Reign" crap, let the locals sort out their own affairs.

 

[dutchie]

None of this "Let Freedom Reign" crap, let the locals sort out their own affairs.

bingo!

(someone sees this except me?!?!?!)

 

[dutchie]

As far as Afghanistan is concerned, or Iraq for that matter, I feel they should be making a real effort to rebuild some basic infrastructure ('Ghanistan) and give the contracts to locals (Iraqi's). I realize that the labourer type positions are being filled by Iraqis (in some cases but not all), but that's not good enough. The Iraqi's are not stupid people, and are very highly educated. A rebuilding process funded by the Intl community, but run by Iraqis would go a long way in quelling dissent among the moderates.The US is already spending billions in rebuilding costs, not to mention the extra troop costs (in $ and lives), so the argument that the work being done by US companies is a benefit is outweighed by the negative consequences......

Afghanistan is a 'shithole rocky desert full of tribal men who fight for a living' according to Infanteer (and I don't necessarily disagree), so maybe less $ and effort should be spent rebuilding - a couple of 100 tankers of diesel and a match should put the place back to where the coalition found it. Iraq, is a whole new ball o' wax, and a real opportunity for unbelievable success or failure of the US's position in the middle east.....right now, they are setting themselves up for a huge fall.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Caeser, I've heard what I think you are referring to as the "Flypaperâ ? theory: essentially a poker strategy.  Bush would draw terrorists (and soon-to-be) terrorists into battle on the streets of  Fallujah to be crucified by the American military, rather than allow them to "fightâ ? American civilians on the streets of New York.  He isn't "creatingâ ? terrorists so much as accelerating their development (and demise), while preoccupying them so they aren't killing the defenseless.

More to the point of the thread, Afghanistan was an important target, purely for the sake that it had (apparently) become the base of Al-Queda operations.  In the strictest sense, it was not as important of a strategic target in the geographical sense (as I will argue below), as it was in the political and tactical sense.  The UN, in it's infinite moral superiority, has deemed the Afghanistan invasion permissible and thus has a shared obligation (with the US) to ensure it's ultimate success.  The lack of willpower to 'clean-up' (for lack of a better way of putting it) is more clearly shared by the International Community in Afghanistan than it is in Iraq, ergo, it is MORE in the (pure self-)interest of the US to 'clean-up' Iraq than Afghanistan.  I'm not really trying to lay or deflect blame, just to explain the way I see things.

Iraq is a very different story: the Middle East in general has long been a hotbed of terrorist activity (duh!), with Iran and Iraq the two most dangerous states (in terms of both capability and, um, political disposition).  The US (actually, the non-Islamofascist world) needed any excuse necessary to neutralize these regimes: as changing the political disposition of Iraq was probably all but impossible, destroying it's capability was a necessity.  Now that Saddam has been booted, Iran is still to be dealt with.  As an aside, I am not saying that Syria (for example) is not capable of (or doesn't already) supporting terrorism with WMD; I am suggesting that they are seen to be more responsive to political and economic pressure than either Iraq or Iran.

As with the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) aimed at isolating North Korea, with Iraq 'out of the way' Caspian Guard (US, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan) aims to do the same with Iran (which aims to eventually include several other bordering states and puts the US in a very tough position vis-à-vis Turkmenistan).  And who knows, (partially contradicting what I said above) maybe Afghanistan was seen as a launching pad for this. A quick glance at any map of the Middle East reveals that once established, how important it is to maintain a pro-American presence in Iraq for this strategy to succeed.  I suspect that the Caspian Guard strategy goes far beyond non-proliferation and could more rightly be seen as containment at the least, or more likely, the beginnings of a regime change strategy, which on the basis of recent history might well be effected without the need for direct invasion.

As Dennis Miller says, "That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.â ?

Not sure how relevant it might be to this particular discussion, but I've just been reading the "Canada At Warâ ? Maclean's collection and interestingly, one of the articles refers to the reluctance of the Iraqi's (of course they weren't called that at the time) to outwardly accept a new regime/government that they actually favoured until they were certain of the new government's ability to outlast counter-invasions by their former oppressors (for fear of retaliation by same).

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Sorry guys, I fell a couple of posts behind formulating mine: my bad!  :-[

 

[Infanteer]

I feel they should be making a real effort to rebuild some basic infrastructure ('Ghanistan) and give the contracts to locals (Iraqi's). I realize that the labourer type positions are being filled by Iraqis (in some cases but not all), but that's not good enough. The Iraqi's are not stupid people, and are very highly educated. A rebuilding process funded by the Intl community, but run by Iraqis would go a long way in quelling dissent among the moderates.The US is already spending billions in rebuilding costs, not to mention the extra troop costs (in $ and lives), so the argument that the work being done by US companies is a benefit is outweighed by the negative consequences.

I agree to an extent.  Although I generally think we should be involved more in overseas development, especially in strategic areas like Iraq, it requires certain preconditions to be successful.  Trying to do it now in an Iraqi civil war is silly; it would be akin to try and build a strip mall in Sarajevo in 1994.  In order to allow the contractors to perform their duties, you have to house them in a "Green Zone" and protect them with troops.  What happens?  Four contractors are strung from a bridge in Fallujah and we get the situation we've been talking about in this and other threads.  In this case, two factors are detrimental to the American strategy:

1) The presence in Iraqi society of large numbers of armed troops of an occupying power.  This just blares "occupation" to an average Iraqi.  The fact that they take sides (many times are forced to) only serves to further exacerbate the problem.  Even in societies that are relatively accomadating to the US (ie: Korea, Japan) has instances were large amounts of troops cause political problems.

2) The fact that these troops are isolated in large, well protected bases in the middle of these communities from the average Iraqi community further increase this notion of "occupier"; how would you feel if you were some Iraqi who watched Saddam get kicked out only to have some new untouchable figures move into his palace and run the show.  Perhaps, in this case, the presence of formations of armed troops, while adding strength on the physical level, only hands strategic initiative over to our opponents on the moral level (see my thread on Fourth Generation Warfare).

Let the Iraqi's sort their new political climate out, and offer whoever comes out on top the opportunity to join the international community and receive help from other states.  Any political problems can be addressed through other means; we can use our aid as an attempt to induce change through civil society rather then attempting to export democracy on a bayonet.  If they insist on being belligerent, remind them of the fate of the last Iraqi head of state who didn't want to play ball.

 

[dutchie]

Bush would draw terrorists (and soon-to-be) terrorists into battle on the streets of  Fallujah to be crucified by the American military, rather than allow them to â Å“fightâ ? American civilians on the streets of New York.  He isn't â Å“creatingâ ? terrorists so much as accelerating their development (and demise), while preoccupying them so they aren't killing the defenseless.

First, it's not terrorists they are fighting in Iraq, it's insurgents. Terrorists don't attack soldiers, they attack civilians.
Second, the insurgents aren't the only ones being 'crucified', so are US soldiers. And I object to that term 'crucified' by the way, as it is loaded with religious implications that would best be left out of the argument.
Third, the US, in my opinion, is in more danger of a terror attack now than before the war.
Further, the terrorists seem to be a tough nut to crack, and it's a little optimistic to even suggest that as a group, they are meeting their 'demise'.
Finally, the terrorists don't seem to be too occupied to bomb trains in Madrid or Aussie embasies in Indonesia....maybe it's the US that is becoming increasingly 'pre-occupied'.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Finish one job. Start new job.

 

[Infanteer]

I don't think you can really look at it like that though.

Sure, you spend all your resources into fixing up Afghanistan.  Meanwhile, things in Pakistan have gotten so out of control that, when you move on to Iraq, Afghanistan quickly relapses into anarchy and the Taliban regain power.

Afghanistan and Iraq are all portions of a much bigger job; staying focused on that job is the key.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I'm not neccesarily saying to fix Afganistan but to finish the job of eradicating the Al Quida (SP) and neutering Bin Laden to the best of your ability then move on.  Sure its nice to fix the place but they should have turned that figured head into pink mist before leaving and keeping a fraction of their forces there.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

You can't really insure a secure and safe environment for the locals to rebuild if you only hold the one major city and have a severly reduced role in the hills where Al Q can regrow and flourish.  The US had cart blanche to do whatever they wanted there until they were done.  Now they have 3 fronts (home, Afgan, Iraq).