January 28, 2008
Troops Watch: No Answers Until Summer
When Gen. David Petraeus returns to Washington in March, he will brief Defense Secretary Robert Gates on the progress of the U.S. troop drawdown. He'll be asked how units are faring in Iraq as more of them leave, and whether the targeted reduction -- from about 160,000 to the pre-surge 130,000 by this summer -- should progress as planned.
What he won't be asked is whether troop levels can be brought down further.
On the one hand, that isn't surprising. The answer is clearly no, although the Pentagon hasn't publicly confirmed that. Violence against U.S. troops is back down to 2005 levels -- which isn't great, but it beats the carnage of 2006 and 2007.
The main U.S. objective moving forward is to help Iraq rebuild its military and security forces. In an interview with the New York Times published Jan. 15, Iraqi Defense Minister Abdul Qadir forecast that Iraq's military forces would not be able to fend off internal and external threats independently until at least 2018.
That lines up with many U.S. commanders' assessments that significant assistance from their own country will be required in Iraq for at least a decade. Right now, the presidential candidates are bickering over whether the surge is working. A better debating point would be whether the U.S. has a responsibility to help Iraq become a fully sovereign nation or whether Washington can live with the very real possibility that all the gains made last year could be undone if American politicians oppose commanders' recommendations.
First, no one should ignore the positive news in Iraq. The changes on the ground are "night and day," retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey said in testimony before the House Armed Services subcommittee on Jan. 16.
Most everyone agrees the lion's share of the credit belongs to Gates, Petraeus and Amb. Ryan Crocker. (President Bush isn't eligible, apparently, because he adopted the surge strategy later than everyone would have liked.) What may come as a surprise to some Americans is that the new counterinsurgency (or COIN) strategy has been even more effective than reported.
"This is a strong statement, and one the military is not willing to make: U.S. Special Operations Forces... have tactically defeated AQI in Baghdad and Anbar Province. They are killing them faster than they can generate leadership. This is the first time in the history of warfare I have seen that happen," McCaffrey said, referring to al-Qaida in Iraq fighters. Because of the disappointments and failures of his predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld, Gates has been largely unwilling to speak in exuberant tones about DOD's progress in Iraq.
But the tripwires awaiting U.S. and Iraqi forces as troop reductions progress are abundant. Political reconciliation remains elusive, military funding is still a problem, and the American public has stopped paying attention to what's happening on the ground in its impatience for an end to U.S. involvement.
Politically speaking, Bush has taken the war this far -- to the detriment of his polling numbers, popularity on the Hill and around the world, and quite possibly his legacy. He won't be in any rush to adopt a political approach to the war before he leaves office. Because the situation in Iraq remains tenuous, analysts expect he won't order further reductions this summer, despite previous hints that it might be possible.
According to an Army Times report, Gates has instructed Petraeus to keep his focus on the current situation and not make any recommendations regarding tours of duty or other issues plaguing the military.
That means soldiers and their families will still be subjected to the extended 15-month tours and abbreviated rotation schedule. The Joint Chiefs chairman is under intense pressure to deliver a sign one way or another to the military community. That is not expected to happen until this summer.
"The U.S. Army can't sustain its current strategy. Our manpower is inadequate," McCaffrey said, before reminding Congress of its constitutional duty to "raise and support" U.S. military forces.
"The quality of recruiting and retention is a huge challenge to us. I think 10 percent of the soldiers coming into the Army shouldn't be in uniform. We do that too long, we'll regret it," McCaffrey said, delivering the starkest indictment to date of the U.S. military's lax wartime recruiting standards from a general affiliated with the Bush administration. (McCaffrey delivered his report at the request of Petraeus.)
Not only is the military facing record numbers of severely wounded veterans, veterans with mental problems and a quick depletion of high-ranking officers, but intransigence on Capital Hill is also an obstacle. Analysts agree that a sharp uptick in funding is badly needed [PDF] in order for the military to build up its ranks and maintain quality levels it enjoyed before the Iraq war began repelling recruits and officers. (Slate's Fred Kaplan has been sounding alarms about the state of the military for some time.)
Lawmakers who oppose the war have been digging in their heels on additional funding because of political differences with this administration. A very small number on the Hill want an actual funding cutoff while troops are still on the ground, but the tug-of-wars continue.
The Republican presidential candidates have been paying some lip service to these longer-term problems. All the front-runners are on board with increasing the Pentagon's budget to address them. Ditto Democratic front-runners Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, although both are promising to start bringing the war to a close as soon as they take office.
We could examine their various promises about Iraq, but everyone agrees that Iraq platforms get tossed out the window on Day One in office, because not even America's top commanders can predict the future there. "The national security debate must move on to an analysis of why this new political and security situation exists -- not whether it exists," McCaffrey said of the COIN strategy's gains.
A fundamental philosophical question needs to be answered. Can the next commander in chief live with allowing Iraq to fall apart, so long as no U.S. troops are involved? Both Clinton and Obama have been answering this question by changing the topic to Bush's failures. Bush may be responsible for the agonizing position his successor will find himself or herself in. But that doesn't answer the question.
Posted at 6:18 PM
Posted to:
Barack Obama, Bush Administration, Campaigns, Congress, David Petraeus, Democrats, Donald Rumsfeld, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Iraq, Middle East, Military, President Bush, Republicans, Robert Gates, WH 2008
Share via
