Neocon Max Boot: Current Bush Strategy in Iraq Isn't Working
Whoa! Not quite on the level of Francis Fukuyama's showy disavowal of neoconsersavative groupthink, but not far off: Max Boot (a neoconservative who has long pushed for more US troops in Iraq and who recently argued that we should "let Israel take off the gloves" -- what gloves?) has this to say in the Los Angeles Times:
But there's another course short of withdrawal: reducing U.S. forces from today's level of 130,000 to under 50,000 and changing their focus from conducting combat operations to assisting Iraqi forces. The money saved from downsizing the U.S. presence could be used to better train and equip more Iraqi units. A smaller U.S. commitment also would be more sustainable over the long term. This is the option favored within the U.S. Special Forces community, in which the dominant view is that most American soldiers in Iraq, with their scant knowledge of the local language and customs, are more of a hindrance than a help to the counterinsurgency effort.
Make no mistake: This is a high-risk strategy. The drawdown of U.S. troops could catalyze the Iraqis into getting their own house in order, or it could lead to a more rapid and violent disintegration of the rickety structure that now exists.
Which path should we take? My preference remains deploying more soldiers, not fewer. A couple of divisions in Baghdad, if skillfully led, might be able to replicate the success that Col. H.R. McMaster's 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment had in pacifying the western city of Tall Afar, where the troops-to-civilians ratio was 10 times higher than in Baghdad today. But at this point, I am also open to a substantial reduction in troop numbers because the current strategy just isn't working.
Next up...?
Posted by Julian Brookes
But there's another course short of withdrawal: reducing U.S. forces from today's level of 130,000 to under 50,000 and changing their focus from conducting combat operations to assisting Iraqi forces. The money saved from downsizing the U.S. presence could be used to better train and equip more Iraqi units. A smaller U.S. commitment also would be more sustainable over the long term. This is the option favored within the U.S. Special Forces community, in which the dominant view is that most American soldiers in Iraq, with their scant knowledge of the local language and customs, are more of a hindrance than a help to the counterinsurgency effort.
Make no mistake: This is a high-risk strategy. The drawdown of U.S. troops could catalyze the Iraqis into getting their own house in order, or it could lead to a more rapid and violent disintegration of the rickety structure that now exists.
Which path should we take? My preference remains deploying more soldiers, not fewer. A couple of divisions in Baghdad, if skillfully led, might be able to replicate the success that Col. H.R. McMaster's 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment had in pacifying the western city of Tall Afar, where the troops-to-civilians ratio was 10 times higher than in Baghdad today. But at this point, I am also open to a substantial reduction in troop numbers because the current strategy just isn't working.
Next up...?
Posted by Julian Brookes
posted by Kangaroo Brisbane Australia at 7:33 PM
1 Comments:
Israel Takes Boy George to School
Thank heaven Israel knows what it is doing in the Middle East. By entering into a ceasefire at this point they are acting in their own best interests, instead of the interest of Bush and his neocon-artists.
The Israeli government knows it lives in a tough neighborhood. Despite repeated attempts by Boy George to enlist them in his "War on Terror," and expand the war in the Middle East, the Israelis refused.
Recognizing that their initial strategy of waging an air war and limited strikes into southern Lebanon was a failure, they used the threat of full-scale invasion to force an end to hostilities.
Unlike what Bush is doing in Iraq they adapted deftly to the surpise of Hezbollah's strength, and have put off a final showdown for a later day. The next time, and there will be a next time, they will have had time to assess this operation and see what changes need to be made.
While Bush flounders by "staying the course" in Iraq, the more experienced Israelis knew when to stop. Withdrawal from southern Lebanon will not be considered "cutting and running" in Israel. It is a tactical manuever.
Certainly, implementation of the ceasefire can go haywire, but Israel has conducted its foreign policy in a much more sophisticated way than Bush has conducted ours.
Post a Comment
<< Home