The Generals begin to talk about Iraq withdrawal

[Sevastopol]

This may be the opportune moment to reflect on what are the responsibilities of the occupying power.

An occupying power has a duty to ensure public order and safety in the territory under its authority. Under customary international law, this duty begins once a stable regime of occupation has been established. But under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the duty attaches as soon as the occupying force exercises control or authority over civilians of that territory – that is, at the soonest possible moment (a principle reflected in U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10).

Nothing there about turning tail and running after satisfying the bloodlust of your domestic constituency and they start to add up the costs.

[David_Simmons]

@Sevastopol

Nothing there about turning tail and running after satisfying the bloodlust of your domestic constituency and they start to add up the costs.

Of course we are faced with the situation that Gen. McCaffrey talked about. The military is at war but the rest of the country isn’t. It is politically impossible right now to get the rest of the country in the war by things like a draft, war bonds, tax increases and all the other trappings of a country at war.

So the whole load falls on the regular military and the national guard who have been at this for what - three years? And this without gearing up the procurement process to replace the equipment, both RA and NG, that is being worn out. Equipment wise we seem to be eating our seed corn.

Yes, the occupying country is responsible for security in the occupied areas. However we really don’t have sufficient forces in Iraq to police all of the occupied areas and what forces we do have there are straining the limited resources we are willing to provide and pay for. If we increased the force level the breakdown point would come just that much earlier.

Irrespective of what any treaty says about security, you can’t just wave your hand and say that alone will provide the means necessary to actually insure it.

[Sevastopol]

The job’s too tough for “the most powerful military in the world?” Sounds right.

The reason why the object of security will not be achieved is that it was never the intention.

While sufficient numbers of Americans are able to delude themselves that the invasion was well-intentioned in some form, that fact in no wise requires the Iraqis to operate on a similar level of delusion.

The objectives of the invasion were destructive and it is the volume of destructiveness that meets with grassroots approval in the US. There is no concern that there be a positive outcome for Iraqis. And the Iraqis know it. The US is their enemy.

In this context defeat and withdrawl is the only probable outcome for the invasion forces.

[David_Simmons]

@Sevastopol

The job’s too tough for “the most powerful military in the world?” Sounds right.

The phrase “the most powerful military in the world” sounds awfully impressive but it is a comparative and not an absolute term. It could be like saying the tallest of Snow White’s seven little friends. The power of the US military must be compared to its world wide commitments of which Iraq is only one. And the power of the US military is only that which the country is willing to commit to and support for a specific job. It has been determined in the political and military stratosphere that about 150000 total personnel is it. Since it takes roughly 4 or so logistic support troops for one combat troop we have a total of about 30000 combat troops to provide the security that is needed.

The political leaders seem to know that the public will not support the effort needed to actually occupy Iraq to the level needed for adequate security. I don’t care how many “Support Our Troops” or US flags appear on autos people don’t want to give up their goodies. Or maybe they would be willing, but our political leaders have never asked it.

The reason why the object of security will not be achieved is that it was never the intention.

While sufficient numbers of Americans are able to delude themselves that the invasion was well-intentioned in some form, that fact in no wise requires the Iraqis to operate on a similar level of delusion.

The objectives of the invasion were destructive and it is the volume of destructiveness that meets with grassroots approval in the US. There is no concern that there be a positive outcome for Iraqis. And the Iraqis know it. The US is their enemy.

In this context defeat and withdrawl is the only probable outcome for the invasion forces.

I certainly can’t argue with most of this. The whole mess is a bad job, ill thought through, and badly managed in the political and diplomatic areas. As I has said before, for George W. Bush it is just another SNAFU.