Col. Reese on a Quick Withdrawal
The NYT on Friday published a memo from Col. Timothy R. Reese, Chief, Baghdad Operations Command Advisory Team, MND-B, Baghdad, Iraq, in which he argued for a more or less immediate departure of US troops from Iraq.
AP notes that most US officers in Iraq do not agree with Reese. Some believe he is being defeatist, others are not as sure as he is that the new Iraqi military is able to go it alone. And the Obama administration has decided that the timetable for withdrawal into which the Mahdi Army and the Iraqi parliament forced W. is good enough for them, and is moreover politically safe. They have their eye on 2012, and want to be able to campaign on a successful withdrawal from Iraq that did not damage US security. A slower withdrawal might suit them. The last thing they want is for the US military to draw down quickly, for all hell to break loose at the head of the Persian Gulf, and for them to be drawn right back into Iraq on the eve of the election.
While AP makes some fair points, they are clustered at two ends of the argument, on whether US officers on patrol with Iraqi troops think they could go it alone, and on what the White House is possibly thinking.
I think the opposition to Reese's argument will mainly come from command officers on strategic grounds. Reese is arguing tactically.
What Reese says is:
1. The new Iraqi army, despite its extensive deficiencies including massive corruption, sloth, Soviet-style rigidity, etc., can now nevertheless patrol on its own and can face down Sunni guerrillas and Shiite militias. It is just all right for internal security. The US military can now leave that task to the Iraqis.
2. The main US military mission now appears to be further training of the Iraqi army, which is not necessary, at least on the scale contemplated, because that army is already just all right and is unlikely to get much better than that, despite further training, any time soon.
3. Because of an aggressive interpretation of the Status of Forces Agreement by the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, US troops are now increasingly sitting ducks. There is a significant danger of them being attacked in a way aimed at ruining US-Iraqi relations if they are kept as sitting ducks, and which might force an ignominious US withdrawal harmful to US prestige.
4. There is little political progress in Iraq, which is extremely corrupt and factious, and there is not likely to be any political progress any time soon, so if that is why the US military is remaining on this scale, it may as well leave now.
5. The very US military presence is generating the terrorist attacks that the Americans are attempting to curb. Such terrorism against the US military in Iraq is now instrumental and a way for local forces to jockey with one another for relative power.
Although Col. Reese at one point portrays his memo as concerned with strategy rather than tactics, for the most part it remains tactical. The question for him is, what is the military mission and how (tactically) to accomplish it?
He examines the possible missions and lists them as 1. further training of the Iraqi Army to make it self-sufficient, and 2. helping the Iraqi government resolve ethno-sectarian disputes. He concludes that neither of those goals is necessary or realistic.
On the negative side, US troops are now, he implies, somewhat in the same position they were in Lebanon in fall of 1983, when the Marine barracks was bombed by Islamic Amal.
But what if there are other strategic goals to which the commanding officers in Iraq are attached? Foremost among them appears to be having the sort of presence and influence through the January parliamentary elections to forestall a big surge of Iranian influence through manipulation of the elections. That appears to be what is on the mind of Gen. Ray Odierno.
It could be replied that the US military is not actually any longer in a position to block Iran, either. As for Odierno's worry that Iran-trained guerrillas are becoming disruptive again, it should be remembered that the Iraqi army is probably only as good as Reese says it is because al-Maliki inducted large numbers of Badr Corps Shiite paramilitary elements into it. They in turn had been trained by, and continue to have favorable views of, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps. That is, the cow of Iranian influence is already out of the barn.
But if the high officers and the NSC think there is some chance of blocking Iran in Iraq through 2011, and possibly of helping broker an Arab-Kurdish accord within the country, that might be enough impetus for them to risk the Reese scenario, of a big attack on the dwindling US troops that weakened the US posture for decades, as Beirut 1983 did.
It is Iran strategy and possibly to some extent Kurdistan strategy that will drive US military presence in Iraq for the next year and a half. And maybe, as AP says, just general nervousness in Washington about a rush for the door.
In Reese's favor is the Iraqi security forces' attack on Camp Ashraf of the Iranian "Islamic Marxist" dissident movement, the Mojahedin-e Khalq (People's Holy Warriors or MEK). The Iraqi government knew that the US did not want them to enter the camp in this way, but they did it anyway, and during the visit of Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates. The assault left between 8 and 11 Iranians dead and hundreds wounded, as well as some 17 members of the Iraqi security forces dead. If the Iraqi state is willing to act so brutally against persons designated as refugees by the United Nations when it is clear that the US wants them protected, then it is not trustworthy on a whole host of other issues, including putting pressure on Iran.
Apparently against Reese is Friday's frightful harvest of 28 dead in bombings targeting 5 Shiite mosques in Baghdad and other targets elsewhere.
But, such bombings routinely occurred when US troops were able to patrol the streets, and it is too early to tell if anything really has changed. Likely the Sunni Arab guerrillas wil go on engaging in protest terrorism for some time to come.
Aljazeera English reports on Friday's mosque bombings:
End/ (Not Continued)
posted by Juan Cole @ 8/01/2009 12:52:00 AM
|
Facebook
17 Comments:
Reese's memo sounds pretty good news to me.
Nevertheless it continues the theme, eternal among Americans in Iraq, of complete contempt for Iraqis. This is what has brought US policy to the kind of negativity that Col. Reese depicts today.
About the PMOI/MEK, I'm a bit surprised by all the "concern".... but shouldn't be surprised. Not only is the group deeply and widely reviled inside Iran (even over 20 years later for having fought with Saddam against Iran), but they are also bitterly resented across Iraq -- for having been willing to carry out Saddam's dirtiest deeds against Iraqi dissenters (as is buried near end of the WaPo story)....
Of course, the Mooj have had their share of "advocates" ("stooges") in Congress -- hundreds of them -- and at one time were the darlings of Israel & top neocons. (including Clawson, Perle, Pipes, Ledeen, & Dennis Ross)
Now we hear of crocodile tears for the rights of the PMOI as "refugees." Yes, it's a tragic mess -- with legitimate legal concerns here.
But Clinton et. al. are being disingenuous in their tears. If the Mooj remnants are not to be sent back to Iran (where many have gone already), then why should they remain a flaming irritant to the Iraqis -- who despise them even more?
If Iraq indeed is "sovereign" now, shouldn't they have some say?
Obviously, the US officers in Iraq do not want their reputation as professional fighters tainted.
The British military openly talk about their mission in Iraq as a failure, having spent the final year and a half as unwanted and unwilling useless partners. The US is heading the same way.
Therefore we must not treat them as Iraq experts with important and useful opinions about what should be done.
the usa can try to Occupy Iraq ( and Afghanistan ) for as long as the $$$ holds out but that is looking increasingly shaky.
The staggering costs of maintaining a global empire is eating away at the innards of this country.
The $106 Billion the US insists on throwing at Iraq and Afghanistan each year because George W. Bush and Richard Bruce 'Dick' Cheney had visions of a "New American Century" dancing in their heads has, from the start, been a draining expense the nation could ill afford.
Three Good Reasons For The USA To Liquidate Its Empire
And Ten Steps to Take to Do So
The 44th president of the US was elected amid hopes that he would roll back his country’s global dominance. Today, he is commander-in-chief of an unprecedented network of military bases that is still expanding.
Rease is a Colonel advisor to the BOC (Baghdad Operations Command), an IA lead Corps HQs that commands 50 K IA, 50 K IP, 50 K Sons of Iraq.
Rease's working relationship with the BOC has broken down. BOC doesn't seem to like or respect him. Part of the reason is that the BOC is full of flag officers (Generals) who outrank Rease. As a result they don't respect Rease. The problems Rease mentions relate to the BOC, not the IA and IP elsewhere in Iraq. June 30, 2009, only had an affect in Baghdad and to a lesser degree Mosul. The rest of Iraq didn't see a significant shift.
Rease's view that the IA and IP can no longer be improved in quality by advisers and trainers is not widely held. It is possible that Rease can no longer improve the BOC, since apparently they no longer like him. If he is ineffective, then he should be replaced with a BGen that the BOC respects.
I don't agree with Rease that the US should unilaterally cut off all advisers and trainers for the IA and IP. The IA, IP, and GoI would be very angry if Obama followed Reases' advise.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/world/middleeast/30settlers.html
July 30, 2009
West Bank Settlers Scorn Obama’s Push for a Freeze
By ETHAN BRONNER
Several thousand Jewish settlers inaugurated outposts in a show of defiance as emissaries from the U.S. visited the region.
July 30, 2009
West Bank Settlers Scorn Obama’s Push for a Freeze
By ETHAN BRONNER
NERIA, West Bank — In this land of endless history and ethereal beauty, several thousand Jewish settlers gathered on a dozen West Bank hills with makeshift huts and Israeli flags over several days this week to mark an invented anniversary and defy the American president, conveying to his aides visiting Jerusalem what they thought of his demand for a settlement freeze.
Eleven tiny settler outposts were inaugurated, including one next to this settlement in the rugged Samarian hills. A clearing that includes a generator and a hut with a corrugated metal roof and a ritual mezuza on its doorpost now bears the name Givat Egoz. This is how nearby Neria, with 180 families, got its start 18 years ago.
“We are rebuilding the land of Israel,” Rabbi Yigael Shandorfi, leader of a religious academy at the neighboring settlement outpost of Nahliel, said during the ceremony. “Our hope is that there will be roads, electricity and water.” The message to President Obama, he said, is that this is Jewish land. He did not use the president’s name, but an insulting Hebrew slang for a black man and also “that Arab they call a president.”
None of the hundreds gathered — mostly couples with large families, but also armed young men and teenagers from other outposts — objected. Yitzhak Shadmi, leader of the regional council of settlements, said Mr. Obama was a racist and anti-Semite for his assertion that Jews should not build here, but Arabs could....
The antagonistic comments I am hearing about Obama and Israel and Palestine, are shocking and dismaying. American policy is wildly slanted to Israel, but seemingly a fair number of Israelis and American supporters demand more in antagonism to Palestinians and are making awful comments about Obama.
"The assault left between 8 and 11 Iranians dead and hundred wounded, as well as some 17 members of the Iraqi security forces dead. If the Iraqi state is willing to act so brutally......".
Prof Cole,
Who was more brutal and well trained ? MEK or Iraqi Armi ? Number of deaths tell MEK !
Why was MEK unwilling to establish police post inside the camp? What did they have to hide? If it is Iraqi territory then Iraqi's are right to "re"claim it !
Why are you so sympathetic to MEK? Aren't they terrorrists according to US laws ? If they are not terrorists then why Obama has not taken them out of the terrorist's list ?
Anonymous 12:03 sounds very similar to an entry posted here some months ago.
Re US trainers mission to make GOI/ISF self sufficient, that's pretty disengenious. We have built in dependencies, over and above their traditional 3C shortcomings, in logistics, transport, artillery and air power. Maliki's Basra gamble ran out of steam in 48 hours.
Regional support for the Sunni 'insurgency' hasn't gone away, and may not remain 'on hold' if US forces aren't in a position to guarantee the balance of terror between the militias.
What's needed is the grand bargain between the US and the regional powers that were enabling the sectarian warfare in Baghdad
"US trainers mission to make GOI/ISF self sufficient, that's pretty disengenious. We have built in dependencies, over and above their traditional 3C shortcomings, in logistics, transport, artillery and air power."
Wrong. The Iraqi Assembly chose to save money by not funding ISF combat enablers. Trainers and advisers didn't tell them to do that. The IA has considerable logistics and transport capability; just not adequate for the size of the ISF. Iraq has 60 mm, 81mm and 120 mm mortars; and an unknown quantity of Howitzers D30 122mm.
https://publish.comcast.net/dpath/-jM0tCiwStrcLSmjIiiJG5lZiKZ55CSIQiadmtIMHsGNauYwvGpYcPXsohlNSXoQmh6vjmMl7ITWYmj_6HK9aSXVfC5ZQj8gXbO0JAooKw6eqLg-HH5X0yM_PmLM3dbS/
"Maliki's Basra gamble ran out of steam in 48 hours." Prove it. Only IA 52-14 broke. The rest of the IA and surprisingly the Basrah INP performed well or better than expected.
Regardless whether Anand 3:18 is correct--that Reese is on the outs with BOC--Anon at 2:21's clue that US officers in Iraq do not want their reputation as professional fighters tainted beyond Obama (BO) is also true, and more important. A lot of Americans, military as well as civilian--have seen the writing on the Iraq wall for a very long time, unlike politicians who must move (and therefore come to think) in ultra slow motion as to not outdistance their carefully cultivated 8th grade level constituents. Unlike the British, who "openly talk about their mission in Iraq as a failure", Americans "on a mission" in Iraq must in their statements either toe a line to the US mliitary hierarchy, or to the MIC (squared) that stands at the spigot controlling all dollars for all militarist future income/retirement wet dreams. What is most economical? Get out. What is most likely, given the near total dis-involvement of American consumer addicts, and the near-continental weight of American greed, is more of the same.
JamesL, how many Iraq vets have you talked to?
In 2006 there use to be 1200 to 1800 violent incidents a week. For 8 months there have been 70 to 105 violent incidents a week. The primary mission was to train and equip a capable self reliant IA and IP. Haven't the GIs done well at that score. Reese' own memo argued that the IA and IP are good enough to handle all internal security inside Iraq without foreign assistance right now. He said the mission had been accomplished, so might as well leave.
If that isn't success, then what is?
Marines boast about the 1st and 7th IADs that they trained, and understandably so, they really are that good quality. The Marines are openly promising to train ANA the MoD sends them; and convert them into "commandos." Would you really bet your money against the Marines succeeding?
JamesL, take your time to think about this. How many times in modern history has an army as capable as the IA been trained from scratch this quickly? This is a remarkable accomplishment (albeit they had many educated Iraqis and officer corp from the former IA to work with); and is what McChrystal is trying to replicate with the ANA and ANP.
Someone who can teach others to fish is far better than someone who can fish on their own. The training of the IA and now the former INP (now federal police) is a much bigger success than the reduction in Iraqi violence.
Iran, despite continued attacks from the US, will be a stabilizing force for Iraq. If that is a concern to US security interests, it would have been wise not to orchestrate that outcome in the first place.
Despite any reports from JINSA on Iran's perceived threat to the US, I think that our security and energy concerns are much better handled than helping to kill a million people with a two trillion dollar war.
"Such terrorism against the US military ..."
The meaning of the word terrorism keeps slipping. He means guerilla attacks.
"In Reese's favor is the Iraqi security forces' attack on Camp Ashraf of the Iranian "Islamic Marxist" dissident movement, the Mojahedin-e Khalq". I think the opposite is true. The aforementioned attack only proves the dangerously growing influence of the Iranian regime in Iraq and further substantiates Odierno's concerns. Given our existing problems with Iran, can we really afford to allow its current regime to gain control of another strategic country in the gulf?
Anand: "JamesL, how many Iraq vets have you talked to?"
None. The ones I know don't want to talk, don't want to have to say aloud what they saw and had to do. But I do know many vets, and they aren't gung ho about what we've done to Iraq. Not at all. I assume you mean American Iraq vet, as if inteviewing an American might tell us something about where Iraq is heading. I don't assume that. American vets can't speak the language, don't talk freely to Iraqis (Those damned sun glasses get in the way) and after 8 years of floundering the US military still doesn't have enough translators or political or religious understanding. The US military can plan all the tactics they want to, but they have willfully disempowered the existing Iraqi authority structures over time and what's left are tribal, religious, opportunistic, and criminal elements. The ones we call friends right now are the opportunistic ones, just as we would be if some huge power invaded hometown USA and made 50 million Americans with enough bucks to get out of Dodge refugees in Mexico, Canada, Jamaica, Cuba, and anywhere else that would take them. America did that to Iraq and I don't think Iraqis will soon forget, no matter what they say to our face or the tv cameras now. Asking an American vet is like asking a Napoleanic commander how the Egyptians are doing. Like asking a Nam vet (at the time) what was in the minds of the Viets. Like asking a Roman how the Celt barbarians are coming along on their bumpy road toward instituting Roman methodology. Some people do realize this, no matter how well elements of Iraqi forces currently appear to align with US short term intentions.
JamesL, you are a naive one. Talk to one of the advisers who have worked with the Iraqi Army. You know, the people who eat, sleep and stay with the Iraqi Army for a year or a year and a half at a time. They know the Iraqi Army much better than almost anyone else. Do you really think that they lack "political or religious understanding?" {The Iraqi Army is different from most Iraqis. The US military understand Iraqi civilians less well than they understand the Iraqi Army. For that matter, you can argue that the Iraqi Army also has a less than optimal understanding of Iraqi civilians.}
Let me ask you a direct question: what is the worst thing you can say about the 1st Iraqi Army Division, the 7th Iraqi Army Division and the Iraqi Special Operations Forces? Do you deny that they are good quality fighters? Do you deny that you are a little jealous of them? Perhaps the thought of them make you feel inadequate in yourself. If this is the case, then don't feel jealous of these Iraqi soldiers. Realize that you too can scale the heights that they have scaled.
I take it you are an ethnocentric America obsessed American who observes the world through your American goggles and Western ideology . . . an ideology that is a little out of touch with richer traditions, cultures and perspectives in the East. So these next words might hurt your feelings. America isn't that important. The rest of the world doesn't obsess about America the way Americans do; or think that America is the cause of all that is good and bad in the world, the way arrogant Americans do.
Iraqis are not as obsessed with America as you seem to be. Iraqis don't see everything that is happening through the prism of an "ALL POWERFUL" America. They know better. Iraqis are focused on Iraqi challenges rather than America or you. America isn't responsible for a lot of the good and bad that is happening in Iraq. Once you begin to realize this; this will be the beginning of wisdom for you.
Please don't start slandering Iraqi government structures as a generic whole. If you have any concerns about a specific GoI ministry, please specifically discuss that ministry and your specific suggestions for how it could be improved.
On refugees, are you talking about the 4 to 5 million Iraqis who fled from Saddam Hussein? Are you talking about the 1 to 2 million Iraqi Shia who have returned to Iraq since 2003?
Or are you talking about the hundreds of thousands of Baa3thists who have moved to Jordan and Syria? I know that Iraqis are mistreating Baa3thists terribly, and that this is wrong. But please remember that Saddam buried 400,000 Iraqis in mass graves; and that millions of Iraqis remain very emotional about it.
Post a Comment
<< Home