Should we double the number of troops in Iraq?

Great Debates
1

Okay, first, the extent to which going to Iraq or not is completely off the table in his thread. I think most of us generally agree that in heinsight it was a bad move of rather epic proportions, but what is done is done and cannot be undone.

What I would like to focus upon is where the United States should go from here in Iraq. We could simply pull out, but I think that fair-minded observers will agree that allowing Iraq to simply follow its own trajectory will lead to a major victory for terrorists such as al-Qaeda on logistical, progrpoganda, and strategic fronts. Not only does it look bad, it provides a nation-state in which we can safely presume they’ll be able to operate with relative impunity for at least another decade.

Three and a half odd years of our current force strength has apparently been unable to quell Iraq and make it into a semblance of a functioning state.

Recently, Senator John McCain suggested that the number of troops should be increased in Iraq from ~140,000 to ~160,000.

http://www.nysun.com/article/42493

Furthermore, troop strength does indeed seem to have the ability to pactify the nation to some extent. Several observers from NPR, Fox, and beyond has suggested the problem the armed forces are facing right now is equivalent to a giant Whack-a-Mole game. Although troop strength is capable of pacifying an individual city of neighborhood, the city invariably declines into chaos as US troops leave.

For example, in early October, Baghdad was identified as a target for stabilization. Troop numbers, patrols, and checkpoints increased dramatically. As a result, Baghdad seems better off than it was before the campaign to concentrate force in Baghdad.

http://www.albawaba.com/en/countries/Iraq/204999

Unfortunately, the situation in the Anbar province has deteriorated since, perhaps in response to shifting troops to Baghdad.

Anyway, long story short, if we really want to win in Iraq, why don’t we increase our troop levels there? Beyond the obvious political suicide, etc., what are the chances of such a plan being implemented.

Frankly, I feel that we should either go big or go home. Our current troop levels will not be able to stabilize the country, perhaps more should. As it is, the Iraq war is simply proving incredibly expensive with no clear dividend.

2

Well, it seems the ball is really in the Iraqi’s court.

  1. If we pull out abruptly, the place will probably erupt into civil war, with (and because of) outside factions (Iran, Al-queda) backing one group or another. (IIRC, the polling of the Iraqi citizen shows poor popularity ratings of the current PM…) Lots of folks die. Eventually, some strongman takes charge, and we have accomplished nada as far as “regional stability” goals are concerned.

  2. If we send in enough troops in an attempt to establish a firm enough grip on Iraq so that gunfights, car bombing, and market place bombing stop, it will still cost both American and Iraqi lives until this level of control is reached. Then, the US Army will be painted as a force standing on the throat of the Iraqi’s with an iron boot. (Because I am assuming it will take severe level of martial law imposed to reach that level of control.) I also assume that this level of occupation may push even more moderate Iraqi’s to sympathise with the “freedom fighters”.

Then what? How to we get out? We pushed our foot deeper into the pit with the punji sticks in it…

  1. Keep the same force levels. Hope the Iraqi’s work out their issues without all out civil war. Hope that eventually, the various “moderate” folks get tired of fighting, and make true strides towards getting along.

Tough call. Seems like Bush is picking #3.

3

I will go out on a limb, and predict George Bush will either raise troop levels to over 200,000, or cut them to 50,000 or less. This will occur before he leaves office.

4

How could be “go big” without a draft? If the answer to that is “we couldn’t”, then forget it, doubling the troops in Iraq not an option anyway, not without gutting our forces worldwide. That would be especially problematic if some of those troops came from Afghanistan, which has already been egregiously neglected due to the Iraq debacle.

5

Well, I’d think he’d lack the authority to do it after he leaves office, yes?

What we probablyought to do is make coalition with regional powers (including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, etc) and other major nationals (including China) and, while continuing to provide troops to the occupation, put them under coalition authority.

The part of “us” that we need to get out of there is the US name. We have no moral or political authority and have, at this point, no possibility of accomplishing anything in our own name. That the resulting state will probably not be as we’d wish it to be is something we ought to have thought of before…hindsight 20/20 and all that…better a fundamentalist Islamic state established peacefully than one established via violence and further embarrassing the shit out of the US.

We have to keep bankrolling and suppying personnel in the name of “you broke it, you have to pay for it”

6

Umm, my first sentence in post #5 was supposed to quote this.

7

Exactimundo. And (a) that is the answer, and (b) a mere doubling of troop strength won’t suffice; we need a half-million or more troops on the ground in Iraq.

Krugman, from behind the Times Select curtain:

Bush could have probably convinced America to ‘go big’ in that fashion back in 2003 when it might have made a difference. Now? Norfolk’n way. We’re not going to ‘go big’ like that, so it’s time to get out NOW, and beef up our troop strength in Afghanistan while that country might still be saved. Or Bush will lose two wars in the time it took most Presidents to lose just one.

But that won’t happen. Bush will refuse to admit defeat in Iraq and cut his losses in time to save Afghanistan from being retaken by the Taliban.

As Brad DeLong says:

And Cheney. Simulpeachment, dammit. :mad:

8

Well, I suppose we could convert the Coast Guard into infantry.

9

Why not? We’ve already done that with the Navy and the Air Force. Why should the Coast Guard miss out on the fun?

10

Well, I do keep hearing about Sailors being given combat courses and sent to iraq help with thelack of soldiers, so I would not be suprised at all.

11

I find myself wondering about this aspect of things. The military would probably say it needs a draft in order to significantly increase the troop presence in Iraq. But at the same time, the military is maintaining hundreds of thousands of people elsewhere – stateside, Germany, Japan, Korea. The military probably doesn’t need to keep all those garrison soldiers, even though it thinks it does. To me, it looks you could meet the increased troop targets in Iraq simply be redeploying.

But of course that’s only one end of things. The other is that as you deploy more people, your costs, and likely your casualties, go up. Politically, given how unpopular this war already is, those things might be difficult to stomach. And anyway, where’s the light at the end of the rainbow, to mangle a phrase? Even if you tamp down civil violence for a year or two or three, how do you repair Iraqi society enough so you can ultimately get out?

And I will say, by the way, that nothing is more Vietnam-like than this flailing about for a winning formula: Do we increase the troops? Decrease the troops? Let Iraqis provide security? Let Americans provide security? Support Maliki? Dump Maliki and get someone else? Talk to the insurgents? Talk to Iran? Talk to Syria? Partition the country? Nobody has any freaking idea what to do, and given how meager our accomplishments have been so far, I have to think that increasing troop strength is just another of those fads that will end up leaving a bad taste in our mouth.

12

Hell, I thought I was joking! What a world, what a world…

13

I’d propose recruiting from the ranks of college-aged Republicans who back the war but refuse to serve, but that would doubtlessly net maybe another dozen grunts, at best… :wink: