How to Win the War in Iraq

“One ought never to turn one’s back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it.  If you do that, you will double the danger.  But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half.”

- Winston Churchill

"The quickest way to end a war is to lose it."

- George Orwell

(1) In the last few days a growing number of American politicians - led by Bill Clinton - have formed a louder and louder chorus arguing for an early exit from Iraq.  Senator John McCain, a leading Republican candidate to be America's next President, has refused to join that chorus.  He knows that an exit strategy is a euphemism for retreat.  He has argued that the consequences of cutting and running from Iraq are unacceptable.  He has also said that the current Bush-Rumsfeld policy is inadequate for the securing of victory.  This Ten Point Briefing is based on a speech that Senator McCain recently gave to the American Enterprise Institute, entitled Winning The War In Iraq.

(2) McCain believes that progress in Iraq has been considerable.  Saddam has been put on trial and other dictators have been put on notice.  A nation with few democratic traditions has braved extraordinary threats and elected an interim government and adopted a landmark constitution that, while imperfect, has enshrined rights and freedoms that can act as a beacon for the rest of the region.  Outside of Iraq other democratic movements have been inspired and Libya has unilaterally declared and dismantled its WMD programme.  Pakistan's clandestine nuclear secrets exchange was exposed and stopped.  Global Muslim opinion is turning against terrorism.  Other advances for the Iraqi people include greater press freedom and economic improvement. 

(3) McCain, a distinguished veteran of the Vietnam war, dismisses comparisons with that difficult period in American history (although then, as now, America lost the battle with public opinion as it was making progress on the frontline).  When America left Vietnam there was no danger that Ho Chi Minh and his followers would "come after us".  McCain: "I think if we lose here, you're going to see a factionalization of Iraq and the kind of training and place where Muslim extremism flourishes. And I think if you look at bin Laden's statements and Zarqawi's and others that they will be coming after us."  Iain Duncan Smith has issued similar warnings:

"A terrorist victory will feed the monster of Islamic extremism worldwide - opening every city from New York to Berlin and from London to Paris to a rejuvenated terrorist onslaught.  The terrorists don’t want to win in Iraq in order to begin a happy retirement.  They want to win in Iraq as a stepping stone to America and other free nations around the globe."

(4) Not only will Iraq's victorious/terrorists come after us - they'll terrorise Iraq.  Iraq's President, Jalal Talabani, has warned: "While the problem of some of our neighbours supporting terrorism is bad enough, we can only imagine what our neighbours might have done if American troops had not been present.”  “Most likely,” he warned, “Iraq would have been transformed into a regional battlefield with disastrous consequences for Middle Eastern and global security.”  He should know.  McCain: "Withdrawing before there is a stable and legitimate Iraqi authority would turn Iraq into a failed state, in the heart of the Middle East. We have seen a failed state emerge after U.S. disengagement once before, and it cost us terribly. In pre-9/11 Afghanistan, terrorists found sanctuary to train and plan attacks with impunity... We cannot make this fatal mistake twice."

(5) IDS has encouraged the world to stop debating the question of whether the US-UK coalition should have invaded Iraq and focus on the much more pertinent question of "Are we right to continue in Iraq?"  The answer to that question must be an emphatic 'yes' but, McCain argues, we must change our strategy in Iraq if we are to continue towards victory over the terrorists.

(6) McCain calls for the abandonment of the "sweeping and leaving" approach to counter insurgency.  Such an approach only temporarily rids a city of insurgent activity.  He advocates an "oil spot" or "safe haven strategy" where troops create long-term secure areas where terrorists would find it increasingly difficult to operate:

"In this newly secure environment, many of the things critical to winning in Iraq can take place – things that are not happening today. Massive reconstruction can go forward without fear of attack and sabotage. Political meetings and campaigning can take place in the open. Civil society can emerge. Intelligence improves, as it becomes increasingly safe for the population to provide tips to the security forces, knowing that they can do so without being threatened."

(7) The American Senator for Arizona says that "safe haven" approaches - and better border security - will require more troops and he criticises the Bush administration's plans to effect a partial drawdown of US troops in 2006.  Bill Kristol has previously argued against the  Bush-Cheney "as Iraqi forces stand up, American forces will stand down" policy.  Instead there should be a "as Iraqis stand up, we will stand with them" policy.  Kristol: "We could sweep areas and hold them, instead of sweeping and leaving. We could patrol areas we control - and still launch attacks in areas we don't. We could address problems on the Syrian border - and still concentrate troops in Baghdad. We could do a better job of protecting Iraq's oil infrastructure, and could provide a better security shield behind which real and lasting economic reconstruction could take place."  McCain also recommends reduced rotation of America's top military brass in Iraq: "Generals and other senior officers build, in their time in Iraq, the on-the-ground and institutional knowledge necessary to approach this conflict with wisdom. They know, for example, the difference between a battle in Falluja and one in Tal Afar, or what kind of patrols are most effective in Shia areas of Baghdad. We need these commanders – and their hard-won experience – to stay in place."

(8) One of the most unsettling features of the current situation in Iraq is the way militias have infiltrated the security services.  That problem exploded in Basra in September and has been documented by The Business.  McCain believes that the Afghan model should be adopted in Iraq.  In Afghanistan each new military unit was carefully calibrated to include Pashtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks and others.  In Iraq there has been an unhealthy rush to produce units of any kind and , contrary to policy, militia members have often been recruited as units, not as individuals.   

(9) Other actions, recommended by McCain, include (a) pressure on Syria to crackdown on the terrorists operating from within its borders and (b) a larger standing size in the American army. 

(10) When IDS addressed this subject in September he called for truth to be put back on the frontline: "We need a relentless and truthful focus on the permanent nature of the threat if we are to win public support for future stages of the war on terror."  By permanent threat he meant the deadly alliance of evil men with portable weaponry.  McCain ended his speech with a call for "avoiding rosy aspirations for near term improvements in Iraq’s politics or security situation, and more accurately portraying events on the ground, even if they are negative":

"The American people have heard many times that the violence in Iraq will subside soon – when there is a transitional government in place, when Saddam is captured, when there are elections, when there is a constitution. Better, I believe, would be to describe the situation as it is – difficult right now, but not without progress and hope, and with a long, hard road ahead – and to announce that things have improved only when they in fact have.  Above all, winning the homefront means reiterating our commitment to victory and laying out a realistic game plan that will take America there. I believe that the vast majority of Americans, even those who did not support our initial invasion, wish to see us prevail. They are prepared to pay the human and financial costs of this war if – but only if – they believe our government is on a measurable path to victory. That we must give them. In this war as in all others, there are two fronts, the battlefield and the homefront, and we must tend to each."

Comments

[malcolm thomas]

Good to see IDS getting a hearing.

He has a lot of experience of fighting terrorists at ground level. Only a military man can really explain military matters.

I tend to agree with him about the Iraqi terror will spread if it is allowed to win, and the only issue that matters is whether we stay there or not. The Iraqis don't want the coalition to leave. We must stay the course, and look beyond the current state of mayhem to one where the coalition wins the intelligence war and finally puts the terrorists out of business.

It will take a geenration to face down Islamic terror worldwide, and we might a swell get set for the ride.

[Samuel Coates]

This weeks cover story of The Economist was about how America is starting to ask if it should continue, and it advocating staying until the Iraqi government ask them to leave.