Excellent Friedman Column Today

[Pangloss]

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has an interesting editorial today about the current state of affairs in Iraq. His opinion stands somewhat in contrast with what I said in this thread (that we can finish the job with the troops we have). I don't agree with him, and I think he actually disproves his own point in this editorial when he talks about how we need to focus more on Iraqi police/troop morale than on "training" per se. But he makes some other interesting points, and he's always a good read.

 

I've always felt that we sent more than enough troops to capture Iraq (and topple Hussein), but that time has shown us that it wasn't enough troops for the occupation. I think this is a valid criticism. Where that critism breaks down is when you pin those proponents down on how many troops would have been sufficient. Double? Triple? Quadruple? Is it even conveivable that there IS a "sufficient number"? I don't know, but I suspect the answer to that last question is "no".

 

So this is why I think Friedman's opinion is important, even though I disagree with him in a key respect. As Friedman puts it, "I still don't know if a self-sustaining, united and democratizing Iraq is possible. I still believe it is a vital U.S. interest to find out."

 

Anyway, his column is here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/15/opinion/15friedman.html?ex=1276488000&en=ea26178049434900&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

 

A couple of interesting quotes:

 

Well, we need to talk about Iraq. This is no time to give up - this is still winnable - but it is time to ask: What is our strategy? This question is urgent because Iraq is inching toward a dangerous tipping point - the point where the key communities begin to invest more energy in preparing their own militias for a scramble for power - when everything falls apart, rather than investing their energies in making the hard compromises within and between their communities to build a unified, democratizing Iraq.

 

Yes, yes, I know we are training Iraqi soldiers by the battalions, but I don't think this is the key. Who is training the insurgent-fascists? Nobody. And yet they are doing daily damage to U.S. and Iraqi forces. Training is overrated, in my book. Where you have motivated officers and soldiers, you have an army punching above its weight. Where you don't have motivated officers and soldiers, you have an army punching a clock.

 

Where do you get motivated officers and soldiers? That can come only from an Iraqi leader and government that are seen as representing all the country's main factions. So far the Iraqi political class has been a disappointment. The Kurds have been great. But the Sunni leaders have been shortsighted at best and malicious at worst, fantasizing that they are going to make a comeback to power through terror. As for the Shiites, their spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, has been a positive force on the religious side, but he has no political analog. No Shiite Hamid Karzai has emerged. '

[JWerner]

As Friedman puts it, "I still don't know if a self-sustaining, united and democratizing Iraq is possible. I still believe it is a vital U.S. interest to find out."

 

If you consider US interests to be pro-Israel and pro-intervention in the middle east, a democratic Iraq is not going to be much of a help to our policy. A democratic Iraq would almost certainly oppose US support for Israel and oppose US foreign policy in the middle east generally.

[Pangloss]

Well in that case I guess it's fortunate for me that I don't consider US interests to be "pro-Israel and pro-intervention in the middle east".

 

Israel needs to withdraw from the occupied territories, and the US needs to avoid intervention in the middle east except when called upon in joint, UN-approved cases.

 

Just my two bits, of course.

[revprez]

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has an interesting editorial today about the current state of affairs in Iraq.

 

Friedman pens a "we need more troops" column at least once a month.

 

We are talking about a guy who admits he knows nothing about warplanning and then attempts to pass off as astute observation his view that we need two more divisions--all in the same paragraph.

 

I've always felt that we sent more than enough troops to capture Iraq (and topple Hussein), but that time has shown us that it wasn't enough troops for the occupation.

 

Do you even know why you feel that to be the case? I mean, do you even know how to calculate the amount of force needed to accomplish a given set of tasks? There are three ways of looking at this problem. One is the RAND way, which is to forget everything you know about force allocation and do a simple analysis of a very select group of occupations in one dimension. Two is the DOD way, which is where commanders from the battalion level up devise their missions according to guidance from above and then stipulate what they perceive to be their manpower and equipment needs. Three is the responsible third party observer way (also an error check of means two), which is to stipulate a very concrete but broad set of objectives and determine the amount of force and mix of capability needed to achieve it.

 

Means two and three are difficult to assess for outsiders, so I won't challenge you on that. But understand that your view, in the end, requires you to believe one or two absurd things. One, thousands of warplanners in the states, in theater and amongst our Coalition partners collectively and simultaneously screwed up basic maths that a sparse set of third party, non-specialist observers--including Tom Friedman--were able to figure out. Two, they did the math right, but were subsequently overruled and silenced to a man by the political leadership. If you believe the former at all, then we've got a problem. If you believe the latter, then maybe you can explain why out of thousands of people attached to simply planning and preparing for Iraqi Freedom we only have one outgoing Army Chief of Staff and enough anonymous complaints to barely fill up a single article in The Atlantic coming forward? And why haven't we heard a single concrete example of how additional troops would improve even force protection, let alone mission capability?

 

I think this is a valid criticism.

 

Its an empty one, almost as empty as somebody ranting about whether we have enough air wings in Afghanistan.

 

Where that critism breaks down is when you pin those proponents down on how many troops would have been sufficient. Double? Triple? Quadruple? Is it even conveivable that there IS a "sufficient number"? I don't know, but I suspect the answer to that last question is "no".

 

The answer is we probably have the right amount of force in their for the Army we presently have. General Abizaid knows what he has to achieve and what he needs to achieve it. He knows this because the dozens of warplanners at his disposal have pretty objective metrics to determine force requirements for given tasks. They know this because the US airland forces have vast, successful institutional and operational experience and doctrine in small wars. That is to say just about everything that can be militarily done concerning Iraq's security problem at any given time is met with all force available at that time. Like I said before, we could have a long, very rich discussion about empirical basis for USCENTCOM's order of battle, but that probably deserves its own thread.

 

So this is why I think Friedman's opinion is important, even though I disagree with him in a key respect. As Friedman puts it, "I still don't know if a self-sustaining, united and democratizing Iraq is possible. I still believe it is a vital U.S. interest to find out."

 

Friedman might be more respectable if he restricted his analysis to elements of the Iraq war that are readily if not easily quantifiable; he's horrible with numbers.

 

Rev Prez

[revprez]

If you consider US interests to be pro-Israel and pro-intervention in the middle east, a democratic Iraq is not going to be much of a help to our policy.

 

Why not? We support a democratic Turkey.

 

Rev Prez

[revprez]

Israel needs to withdraw from the occupied territories...

 

Israel doesn't need to, Israel does so in the calculated best interests of all involved.

 

...and the US needs to avoid intervention in the middle east except when called upon in joint, UN-approved cases.

 

The United States has a vital strategic interest in what happens in the Middle East. Exactly what is there to gain from surrendering the will to act in that interest to an international body that is decidedly anti-American?

 

Rev Prez

[JWerner]

Israel needs to withdraw from the occupied territories, and the US needs to avoid intervention in the middle east except when called upon in joint, UN-approved cases.

 

Fair enough, but that is not US foreign policy (and I don't care what the official line is, the US is pro-Israel all the way no matter what) and I don't think that's what Friedman's getting at. I think Friedman thinks that terror will decrease if the middle-east is democratic and that Iraq is a good way to start the spread of democracy. Both prongs are problematic and naive.

[JWerner]

Why not? We support a democratic Turkey.

 

Rev Prez

 

Turkey's democracy isn't very sturdy. The US supported Turkey long before it showed any real interest in democracy because of its strategic location and because of Turkey's secular, western aspects. The US supported Turkey during the cold war and still today to the extent Turkey's interests were in line with US interests and it did as the US said. Democracy has nothing to do with it.

[revprez]

Turkey's democracy isn't very sturdy.

 

It's as sturdy as Spain's or Bolivia's, but I don't see you complaining about that.

 

The US supported Turkey long before it showed any real interest in democracy...

 

And when did the US start showing "real interest" in the spread of republican forms of government?

 

Rev Prez