McCain risks White House ambition with call for more troops

Senator John McCain - it is reported - is imperilling his presidential ambitions (New York Times and Arizona Republic) by continuing to suggest that defeat in Iraq is unthinkable and that a 'surge' in troop numbers of at least 20,000 is needed if that defeat is to be avoided.  McCain believes that a genuine civil war will make the current terrible sectarian violence look like a tea party and he fears that international terrorist groups will be able to base themselves unchallenged in a Talibanised Iraq.  The consequences of British retreat from Iraq were recently noted in a Heritage paper by Nile Gardiner.

Senator McCain has won friends amongst David Cameron's Tory leadership team for his support for action against global warming but his hawkish approach to Iraq finds no echo within the current Tory team and that team's increasing openness to voices from the foreign affairs establishment that includes Douglas Hurd and Chris Patten.

On the face of it an increase in troop numbers appears unlikely to command the support of the new Democrat-led Congress - which partly rode to victory on the back of voter dissatisfaction with the course of the war.  A recommendation of greater troop numbers may be one of four key recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group led by former US Secretary of State James Baker, however.  The Democrats would find it difficult to reject such a recommendation given that there are as many Democrats as Republicans on the ten person Group.  If Bush wants agreement from the Democrats he needs to be bridge-building now and offering the Democrats support for other parts of their 'New Direction' agenda - including a higher minimum wage and a comprehensive immigration reform package.

George W Bush will need to summon communication skills that have been in short supply in recent months.  Only 17% of Americans told mid-term exit polls that they supported more troops.  55% wanted some or all troops brought home now.  The President needs to convince the American people that 'one last try' is worth it and that extra troops may not only pacify Iraq but actually  have the potential to reduce US casualties.  Professor William J Stuntz of Harvard Business School, writing for the neoconservative Weekly Standard, notes that higher troop numbers have reduced violence and loss of American life during previous deployments:

"Between November 2004 and February 2005, according to the Brookings Institution's Iraq Index, the number of coalition soldiers in Iraq rose by 18,000. In that time, the number of Iraqi civilians killed fell by two-thirds, and the number of American troops wounded fell by three-fourths. The soldiers were soon pulled out; by the summer of 2005, American and Iraqi casualties rose again. Later that year, the same thing happened again. Between September and November of 2005, another 23,000 soldiers were deployed in Iraq; once again, both Iraqi and American casualties fell. In the early months of 2006, the number of soldiers fell again, and casualties spiraled up."

For Stuntz the enemy needs to be overwhelmed by an American determination to win.  For most of the post-invasion period the Rumsfeld doctrine and American public opinion have simultaneously communicated a hesitancy on that all important front.  Stuntz calls for a return to what military historian Russell Weigley has called 'the American way of war':

"Overwhelm the enemy--instead of investing just enough, invest far too much. Make sure the other side knows that our capacity to give and take punishment immeasurably exceeds their capacity to absorb and inflict it... Counterinsurgency warfare is more about protecting than killing - like a nationwide exercise in community policing. And the lesson of the 1990s in American cities is that the best way to reduce the level of criminal violence is to put more cops on the street. The lesson of the past three years in Iraq is the same: If the goal is to cut our losses, the best move is not to pull back, but to dive in - flood the zone, put as many boots as possible on the most violent ground. Do that, and before long, the ground in question will be a good deal less violent."

Frederick Kagan and William Kristol of The Standard agree with the Stuntz analysis but believe that a 50,000 troop surge is probably necessary and that will require extended tours, redployment of troops from other theatres and call-ups from the National Guard and Reserves.  They dismiss General John Abizaid's fear that extra troops will create a 'dependency effect' whereby Iraqis feel excused from stepping up their own policing and military capabilities.  For Kagan and Kristol extra troops are essential for the 'clear and control' operations that, in 2004 and 2005, rescued Tal Afar, Mosul, Falluja, Sadr City and Najaf from terrible violence.

The other leading Republican presidential hopeful - the hawkish Rudy Giuliani - is unlikely to question a McCain-Bush challenge to the Democrats to give the White House the tools it needs.  The Democrats would then have a very big decision.  They can give Bush his one last chance or they can risk being painted as the block on that one last throw of the dice.  It will be a big decision for Hillary Clinton, in particular, who voted for the war.  Will Bush have the guts to make the challenge?  Probably not.

Comments

[Yet Another Anon]

It's simple, the Rumsfeld strategy failed to commit enough troops to hold territory and in his smugness, Donald Rumsfeld never seems to have accepted that in both Afghanistan and Iraq that if he had committed more forces earlier then things would have gone more smoothly and that where there are still problems more troops focused in the areas where the respective countries Security Forces are weak will speed on getting things right.

[stephan shakespeare]

Losing in Iraq - that is, suffering higher losses and withdrawing without having achieved stability - would be a massive blow to American prestige abroad, and would severely reduce any possibility of engaging in foreign campaigns in the future even when they may be necessary. America would be severely hampered and unable to promote its interests when the next crisis arises. This is stating the obvious, but one must remember the huge liability of failure and withdrawal. "Cutting one's losses" in the short term would only pile up losses in the long term.

[KBall]

The Al Qaedas of the world learned a valuable lesson in the 1980's and 1990's about America's unwillingness to fight and choked us on our own dust. Withdrawal hands Jihadists and Talibanists a motivational tool for like-minded 7th century progressives with computers to attack what appears to be a whimpering, fat, self-loathing nation.

For those who are constantly decrying the war and praising the troops, it squanders and mocks the purpose for which U.S.lives were sacrificed. To withdraw troops now would be similar in effect to 9/11. We would lose another 3000 people to terrorism.

I don't think the current problem is the result of not having enough troops at the outset. I think supply lines were compromised by fearful Turks resulting in lost time and opportunity. The immediate release of Iraqi prisoners was a serious mistake. The more recent failure to commit sufficient forces has compounded the earlier errors.

But now, the best solution is to saturate the area with troops and "settle" the insurgent issue. It's the old "broken window" theory applied to a combat zone. If we don't fix it, things are going to get a hell of a lot worse for all of us.