Petraeus Confident
Lt. General David Petraeus admitted that the situation in Iraq is grim but he also expressed confidence that the mission can be accomplished. He also was very frank with the Senators and told them that he did not think their passing resolutions against the troop surge was a particularly good idea. I like him already.
Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, President Bush's nominee to become the new top commander in Iraq, painted a grim picture today of the military challenge ahead but expressed confidence in a new strategy based on pushing tens of thousands of additional U.S. and Iraqi troops deep into Baghdad neighborhoods.
Petraeus said the escalation of sectarian violence in 2006 created the prospect of a failed state in Iraq, justifying the surge of 21,500 U.S. troops, which he said should be in place in Baghdad by May, providing a new "critical mass" to clear and hold districts of the city of six million people……..
……."The way ahead will be neither quick nor easy, and undoubtedly there will be tough days. We face a determined, adaptable, barbaric enemy. He will try to wait us out," Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services committee at a nomination hearing.
He stressed the primary focus of the U.S. military effort will shift — to "controlling" terrain and protecting the population rather than handing over responsibility to Iraqi forces — but acknowledged this would also lead to heightened risks for U.S. troops. In contrast, a rapid U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq, as favored by many congressional Democrats, would lead to intensified ethnic cleansing and a "bloodbath" in Baghdad, he said.
In a move that is unusual for an active-duty officer, Petraeus also spoke against pending Senate resolutions disapproving of the new Bush strategy. Asked whether those resolutions would give encouragement to the enemy by exposing divisions among the American people, he replied: "That's correct."
Longtime readers will recognize that I have been saying the same thing for a long time. The more internal disarray we show to the world, the less secure we all are - regardless of party affiliation. That is not a partisan statement, either. A loss in Iraq - and a withdrawal is a loss, no matter how it is painted - will result in enormous carnage. It will also damage this entire nation, very, very badly.
By cfaller96, Tuesday, 23 January , 2007 @ 5:35 pm
I’m wondering what General Petraeus thinks of the prospect of success of the 15% escalation, given that General Petraeus already coauthored the Counterinsurgency Field Manual that called for 20 combat soldiers for every 1000 civilians. In Iraq, that would amount to about 500,000 combat soldiers. And on top of combat soldiers, there would have to be a large amount of troops in support and administrative functions. Considering there are already 60,000 support & admin troops for a combat force of 70,000 now, we’d probably be looking at another 100,000 support and admin troops for that 500k force. Total troop requirement to defeat the insurgency in Iraq, according to General Petraeus himself: 600-650,000 troops.
And that’s the minimum required, right now. We don’t have those troops, and I don’t see any way to get those troops except through a draft. So if you’re really serious about winning this war, and you really believe this war is extremely crucial to our national security, then I expect you to call for not 21,000 troops but 600,000 troops, and openly suggest the draft as an option to obtain that troop level.
Now, maybe you dispute my calculations (which means of course you dispute General Petraeus’s calculations), but I’d love to hear some frank talk amongst war supporters about how many troops it will take to stabilize and secure a country of 25 million already engulfed in violence.
But none of you war supporters will do that, will you? Hmmm, I wonder why.
By Gaius, Tuesday, 23 January , 2007 @ 5:59 pm
No, it means I dispute your calculations. Because you’re applying them across the country. Most of the violence is in Baghdad, and even in isolated pockets within Baghdad. If he says it can be done, who are you to second guess him?
By cfaller96, Tuesday, 23 January , 2007 @ 6:16 pm
“Most of the violence is in Baghdad”?!? You base that on what? Where’s your evidence of that assertion? Anbar province doesn’t count, I guess?
But let’s accept your premise, because I don’t want to quibble- I want to work through this logically. Baghdad has a population of about 6 million people. That means according to General Petraeus we need approximately 120,000 combat troops, and a significant number of support and admin troops on top of that.
So why aren’t you calling for 120,000+ troops? This war is extremely important in your mind, so why would you want to jeopardize success by skimping on troop levels? Wouldn’t it be better to be safe than sorry?
(And for the record, I’m not second-guessing him, I’m using his own logic for crying out loud! He wrote the manual that called for that ratio, and I’m simply applying his tactics to the Iraqi theater.)
By Gaius, Tuesday, 23 January , 2007 @ 7:13 pm
No, I think it’s time for you who oppose to start admitting you are in favor of the bloodbath that you are actively seeking. Because it will happen and the blood will be on your hands. Offer a reasonable alternative that does not destroy the United States and cause a genocide in the process then we’ll talk. There is a general who believes it can work. It is a chance to stabilize the country. You offer nothing.
By Donna, Wednesday, 24 January , 2007 @ 12:48 pm
Gaius, the commenter above offered some common sense logic, which you avoided addressing, and then you ended the exchange with illogic and attack.
…. Sort of like a husband and wife arguing about the household budget, with the wife overdrawing the account, and the husband pointing out the reality of how much money has to go into the account to make it work. But the wife, wanting have the last word, says, “You just don’t care!”
BTW, I pray that this general can pull this off, but it really is not logical that he can do so with so few troops.
By Gaius, Wednesday, 24 January , 2007 @ 12:55 pm
No, Donna, the commenter above purposely avoided counting the Iraqi forces that are part and parcel of the tactics. If you read his testimony, you saw that.
By cfaller96, Wednesday, 24 January , 2007 @ 4:51 pm
Well, Gaius, I’d love to hear about these Iraqi forces. You’re right- I didn’t talk about them, for three reasons. First, because I’m just plain skeptical of these Iraqi units ever reaching a capability level to where they can fight on their own; second, because no one else really talked about them, yourself included (we’ve had two exchanges without you mentioning them); and third, and perhaps most importantly, I don’t think we have the luxury of the time it will take to train up, supply, and support hundreds of thousands of Iraqi soldiers- after all, we’ve been trying to do that for years (”as they stand up, we’ll stand down”) with little success.
But let’s work on it. We need at least 120,000 combat soldiers in Baghdad, and at least 500,000 in Iraq. 17,500 American soldiers will go to Baghdad, and 4,000 Americans will go to Anbar province. That leaves a deficit of about 100,000 combat soldiers that need to be deployed to Baghdad, and another 376,000 combat soldiers to be deployed throughout the rest of Iraq (wow). How long will that take?
Well, during General Petraeus’ tour as Commander, Multi-National Security Transition Command (MNSTC-1), which had the mission of training up Iraqi forces, he took a little over a year (from June 04 to September 05) to get 115 battalions “in the fight,” and got 1 battalion “fully independent.” That’s a year to get about 35,000 Iraqis in the fight, and another 300 fully independent and capable. And while this was happening, the violence increased.
So, according to that rate, General Petraeus will need possibly 10 years to train up the required force size of Iraqi soldiers “in the fight,” and God knows how long to get enough soldiers fully independent and capable. And that’s assuming the violence doesn’t get any worse and the insurgency doesn’t strengthen.
I don’t think we have that kind of time. If we are to secure and stabilize the country, we have to secure and stabilize the entire country at roughly the same time (like throwing a blanket over Iraq). Otherwise, the insurgents will retreat to areas where we do not have the requisite forces, and will simply wait us out. Remember, they live there- they can afford to stalemate, they don’t have to achieve victory. We don’t have that luxury.
Also, for every year we spend in Iraq, we lose approximately 750 American soldiers, and many thousand wounded. Granted, the casualty rate would go down if the number of Iraqi fighting units would continue to go up, but I think it’s safe to say that if we’re relying on the Iraqis to contribute to the freestanding army to secure Iraq and take over from US forces, then it will require from us:
1. Between another 5-10 years of occupation.
2. Approximately another 3500-5600 dead American soldiers, and tens of thousands more wounded.
3. At least another $500 billion, and most likely more in long term costs.
Alternatively, if we had our own US forces ready to go, then we wouldn’t have to wait for the Iraqis- we could stabilize the country ourselves, in a (presumably) much shorter time frame. But the only problem with that is that it would require some sort of conscription (i.e. a draft) to get enough American soldiers. Ah, well, no free lunch there either.
So, Gaius, what is your opinion on this? Should we rely on the Iraqis, who have disappointed us so far and will probably suck another 5-10 years of blood and treasure from us? Or should we do it ourselves, in which case we’ll need a draft to get the 500,000 soldiers we need to do the job right?
Remember, if this war is ever so important to win and losing would be catastrophic (according to you), then why be so cautious about calling for what we (might) need in order to win? Why would we want to risk such an important victory by being stingy?
By Gaius, Wednesday, 24 January , 2007 @ 5:29 pm
Do you ever actually think for yourself or read the actual material? Or do you simply regurgitate whatever you are told to? Just curious. Because there is no fixed number, despite what you are parroting back. Don’t waste my time.
1-67. The movement leaders provide the organizational and managerial skills needed to transform mobilized
individuals and communities into an effective force for armed political action. The result is a contest
of resource mobilization and force deployment. No force level guarantees victory for either side. During
previous conflicts, planners assumed that combatants required a 10 or 15 to 1 advantage over insurgents
to win. However, no predetermined, fixed ratio of friendly troops to enemy combatants ensures success in
COIN. The conditions of the operational environment and the approaches insurgents use vary too widely.
A better force requirement gauge is troop density, the ratio of security forces (including the host nation’s
military and police forces as well as foreign counterinsurgents) to inhabitants. Most density recommendations
fall within a range of 20 to 25 counterinsurgents for every 1000 residents in an AO. Twenty counterinsurgents
per 1000 residents is often considered the minimum troop density required for effective COIN
operations; however as with any fixed ratio, such calculations remain very dependent upon the situation.