A Formula For Victory In Iraq

The Weekly Standard: The Bush Administration's New Strategy Will Likely Succeed

(Weekly Standard)  This was written by Frederick W. Kagan and Kimberly Kagan.

---

The new strategy for Iraq has entered its second phase. Now that all of the additional combat forces have arrived in theater, Generals David Petraeus and Ray Odierno have begun Operation Phantom Thunder, a vast and complex effort to disrupt al Qaeda and Shiite militia bases all around Baghdad in advance of the major clear-and-hold operations that will follow. The deployment of forces and preparations for this operation have gone better than expected, and Phantom Thunder is so far proceeding very well. All aspects of the current strategy have been built upon the lessons of previous successful and unsuccessful Coalition efforts to establish security in Iraq, and there is every reason to be optimistic about its outcome.

The first phase of the new strategy unfolded over five months — between the president's announcement of the "surge" on January 10 and the arrival of the last of the five additional Army brigades and Marine elements in early June (though critical enablers for those combat forces have only just arrived). As the new units entered Iraq, commanders began pushing forces already in the theater forward from their operating bases into outposts in key neighborhoods of Baghdad and elsewhere. The purpose of these movements was to establish positions within those key neighborhoods and to develop intelligence about the enemy and relationships of trust with the local communities.

Also during this first phase, additional Iraqi security forces were deployed to Baghdad in accordance with a plan developed jointly by the U.S. and Iraqi military commands. All of the requested units were provided. The Iraqi military has just completed its second rotation of units into Baghdad; as before, all of the designated units arrived, and they were generally closer to being fully manned than in the first rotation.

The new U.S. troops have increased the available combat power in Iraq by about 40 percent, from 15 brigades to the equivalent of 21 brigades. Generals Petraeus and Odierno allocated only two of the additional Army brigades to the capital. The other three Army brigades and the equivalent of a Marine regiment they deployed in the surrounding areas, known as the "Baghdad belt." There, under the guise of Operation Phantom Thunder, they are now working to disrupt the car-bomb and suicide-bomb networks that have been supporting al Qaeda's counter-surge since January.

But this second phase is designed primarily to support the clearing and holding operations in Baghdad itself, which will continue for many months. It is those operations that are meant to bring lasting security to Iraq's capital and thus create the space for political progress.

The United States has not undertaken a multiphased operation on such a large scale since the invasion, so it is unsurprising that many commentators are confused about how to report and evaluate what is going on. Indeed, the current effort differs profoundly from anything U.S. forces have tried before in Iraq. As Coalition forces begin the attempt to establish sustainable security in Baghdad and its environs, it is worth reviewing past major combat operations in Iraq, since their clear lessons have informed planning for the current, much larger campaign.

Falluja, 2004

The U.S. Marines fought two big battles in Falluja, the easternmost major city in Anbar province not far from Baghdad, in the spring and fall of 2004. The enemy was a dense network of al Qaeda fighters and Sunni Arab insurgents who had prepared defensive positions throughout the city and had considerable support from the local population. The initial assault was ordered on short notice after the kidnapping and execution of several American contractors, whose bodies were prominently displayed from a bridge.

The Marines were not given adequate time to prepare for the attack. They could not establish forward outposts in the city, develop adequate intelligence about the enemy, or gain the trust of the population. The American command did not fully prepare the Iraqi government for the intensity of the battle or the controversy it was bound to generate. As a result, the Marines' initial assaults resulted in heavy casualties and collateral damage. The Iraqi government was shaken, and the Marines were ordered to abandon the effort and rely instead on local forces to restore order in the city. Lacking troops, training, and support, the local allies were quickly either turned or slaughtered, and al Qaeda and the insurgents strengthened their hold on Falluja and Anbar generally.

The second Marine attack, in the fall, was much more successful. The local units were reinforced and given time to develop a much clearer intelligence picture, as well as to obtain local allies, although those were still few and unreliable. The much better-planned attack cleared the city, although with considerable collateral damage resulting largely from the sophistication of the defenses the enemy had been able to establish during the pause between the two attacks.

The Marines were not allowed to follow up on their success in Falluja, however. No effort was made to clear and hold Ramadi or the Upper Euphrates Valley for more than a year. In the meantime, the area between Falluja and Baghdad, including the Abu Ghraib neighborhood on the western outskirts of the capital, was left largely devoid of American forces and remained a major Sunni Arab insurgent and al Qaeda base. Nevertheless, Falluja was fairly stable for many months after the Marine attack, only slowly sinking back into chaos and enemy control.

Najak and Sadr City, 2004

The summer of 2004 also saw the only major combat between Coalition forces and Moktada al-Sadr's Mahdi army, or Jaysh al-Mahdi. This took place in the Shia holy cities of Najaf and Karbala and the Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City. The Sadrist uprising followed close on the heels of the first Battle of Falluja, and it seemed briefly that the Coalition might be defeated simultaneously by Sunni insurgents and Shia militias across Iraq. But U.S. forces rapidly regained control of the situation in Sadr City, where Major General Chiarelli's 1st Cavalry Division restored order. Fighting in Najaf was greatly complicated by the fact that the Sadrists took up positions in and near the Imam Ali Mosque, one of Shia Islam's most sacred sites. Skillful Coalition military operations dislodged the Sadrists from those positions without significant damage to the shrine, and killed many Sadrist fighters in the process.

The battles of Sadr City and Najaf continue to influence the situation in Iraq today. Sadr appears to have learned from these battles that his militia cannot stand up to American forces in pitched battles. He has avoided situations that might lead to such fights, preferring hit-and-run attacks, the use of IEDs (and now EFPs, explosively formed projectiles), and death-squad attacks on Sunni Arabs after the bombing of the Samarra Mosque in February 2006. The successes in Najaf and Sadr City were fleeting in another respect, however. U.S. forces left both areas quickly, and the Sadrist militias retook control of them within months. The Sadrists remain largely in control of Najaf and were long uncontested in Sadr City, although recent events have greatly complicated their situation there.

Tal Afar And The Upper Euphrates, 2005

After the uprisings of 2004, the United States focused its efforts on moving the political process forward in Iraq and on training the Iraqi army and National Police. It was widely expected in the government and especially in the military leadership that political progress would translate directly into improved security. It was also believed that the onus for conducting what military operations were necessary should fall on the nascent Iraqi military to the maximum extent possible.

Nevertheless, the Coalition command understood that only U.S. forces could provide the short-term security necessary for elections. The command requested and received significant reinforcements to this end in late 2005. The most dramatic battle before the elections came in September 2005, when Colonel H.R. McMaster's 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment cleared Tal Afar, a city in Nineveh Province between Mosul and the Syrian border.

[sjc_1]

The original plan for the surge was to secure Baghdad and now they are out in the hinter lands busting down doors, claiming to get the bomb making factories. Which is it? Is this a search and destroy mission or a secure the city surge?

Iraq is an area the size of Texas and you are trying to secure it using 140,000 troops that would just about fill two football stadiums on a Sunday. There is NO way you are going to secure the country and NO way you are even going to come close to getting all the bad guys!

[bluestardad]

IRAQI CONGRESS GOES INTO A MONTH RECESS DURIN AUGUST! THIS IS JULY FOR YOU KOOL AID DRINKING BUSHITS!

HERE IS A GENERALS ASSESMENT FOR YOU DUEL PASSPORT HOLDING PIMPS!

I would love to see the AIPAC powered dead-brains at the Weekly Standard address this analysis:

"Gen. William Odom discusses the %u201Cworst strategic disaster in American history,%u201D the war in Iraq: the view of most generals that the war is wrong, the failure of the politicians to see the consequences of their actions, the centrality of the neoconservatives and the Israel lobby in pushing for the Iraq invasion, the %u201Csurge,%u201D

www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/05

/10/gen-william-odom
Posted by FeelFree1 at 04:50 PM : May 11, 2007


GENERALS DID NOT COME UP WITH THE SURGE PLAN THE AEI DID! ITS A PRO-ISRAELI THINK TANK IN WASHINGTON!

Contact Information Reuel Marc Gerecht

American Enterprise Institute
1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Assistant: 202-862-5926
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]


Why not send this chickenhawk an email? Tell him how impressed we all are by his "analysis".

This is a guy who worships Kristol, Perle, Wolfowitz, et al. the neocons who contributed to this Bushit War.

Israeli supporters Masquerading as Americans!

CONTACT YOUR ELECTED OFFICIAL and CONFRONT them http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ REALY DO SOMETHING TO SUPPORT THE TROOPS!

[harp1963]

NEVER NEVER EVER VOTE REPUBLICAN AGAIN!!!!!!

[SIDNEYWILLIAMSMD]

If this works, and lets keep our fingers crossed, it will be due to a new military genius General Petraeus, who will be on parr with McArthur or Ike. Then the democrats and republicans can start tearing him up out of fear he will gain the imagination and loyalty of the American people.

[down-ndirty]

Well, if this is successful then it will be a 180 degree turn-around and a friggin' miracle for Bush. So far, in his entire life, he has not succeeded at anything worthwhile.

Everything he has touched has been a complete disaster and there's no reason to believe that this won't be just another one. Plus, considering that he shirked his military duties, there's no reason to believe that he is a "military tactician." LOL!!!

[wogerwabbit]

You neocons are so pitiful you don't even know what you're saying anymore. Bush is a loser... you guys are all losers... so, get over it. Six years of in your face liberal bashing has come back to haunt you. You backed a *** and won't ever admit it... more testimony to your stupidity. Losers... I puke on you!

[gkc99]

The Marines were not allowed to follow up on their success in Falluja, however. No effort was made to clear and hold Ramadi or the Upper Euphrates Valley for more than a year."

So Kagan's already starting the neocon loser whine about how the military was supposedly "not allowed" to win, ala Vietnam.

So who stopped them? Surely not a supine Republiscum Congress. Surely not the President or his handler, the sociopathic Darth "Chickenshit" Cheney. Surely not a packed Supreme Court. Surely not the marginalized Dems. Surely not the "cut and run liberals" who have been totally ignored by the power structure.

So who stopped them, Kagans? Tell us, we want to know.

[dogsoul]

"Sad. Very, very sad. And for the record, we have already failed in Iraq. Its over. Stick a fork in it, its done."

...the only thing missing from that statement was Allah Akbar!

[xzavierbrown]

The DNC and the liberals' formula is easy...

appease and surrender..then hope that allah's will would spare thier liberal lifestyle..I wonder how they deal with homosexuals in middle east..make sure they wear thier "i am about to get stonned to death" outfit when that time comes

[xzavierbrown]

Posted by marcodele at 04:22 PM : Jul 10, 2007
+ report abuse

******

for the record, for the left-winged liberals..any effort is a failure because it fails to satisfy the demands of your masters.

Rush Limbaugh??Fox news??

have you seen the motley crue of liberal sources of garbage?? hell even Al Franken, a c-rated comedian, is preaching politics now..comedy central has a new cartoon motivating the liberal base with CARTOONS..yes CARTOONS!! how else can you get enough attention span from these liberals without the use of cartoons and hand puppets.

btw...since when did you start believing in God?

[marcodele]

My God how much Rush Limbaugh and Fox News does one little neocon brain have to absorb to be able to make this statement:

"the American left has formed an alliance with Al Queda"

Sad. Very, very sad. And for the record, we have already failed in Iraq. Its over. Stick a fork in it, its done.

[dogsoul]

It's true, the American left has formed an alliance with Al Queda to defeat their common foes, George Bush & the Republican party. Like Al Queda & other Islamic radical groups, the American left desperately wants the mission in Iraq to fail albeit for slightly different reasons. For Al Queda, it would represent a demoralizing defeat for America, the prevention of a potentially viral dose of democracy in the heart of the middle east, and an opportunity to establish a radical Islamic gov't in its place. For the American left, it would represent a demoralizing defeat for Bush & the Republican party, boosting their chances for greater political power. Like most such alliances, the cooperative efforts of the 'enemy of my enemy' are short lived. If the Al Queda & American Left coalition succeeds. Radical Islam will have emboldened its cause & broadened it's influence throughout the middle east while restructuring, reviving, & creating better & more bases of operation from which to launch more attacks against western targets. And the American Left will have gained the Presidency & perhaps a majority in the House & Senate while touting the 'Blame Bush' mantra as attacks against America & her allies come to fruition in spite of their efforts at withdrawl, appeasement, diplomacy & isolationism. In this scenerio, the long range advantage clearly favors Al Queda & other radical Islamic groups over the American Left... and well over the American Middle & Right.

[tejasdemo]

Yes, and they overwhelmingly support the President. They continue by saying that surrendering in Iraq would besmirch the sacrifice of their loved ones. Harry 'I surrender" Reid and Nancy 'Dog Face' Pelosi are our greatest enemies.
Posted by mbcsmith at 11:01 AM : Jul 10, 2007

Complete lie ! Show me this poll.

[delfmast]

www.editorialstaff.net Franklin D. Lomax The misguided US decision to disarm Iraqi families is still, now, preventing the common Iraqi from killing a few of the various murder squads that Saudi, Iranian, Syrian, Jordanian et al despots and their citizens are financing, with our petro dollars. We disarmed the law-abiding family people, and served them up, as raw red meat, just as we do, in England, Canada, Australia, and Washington DC, to the criminals, including the organized criminal gangs/militias free to rape and ruin their neighbors in no go zones. Freed Iraqis must be allowed to choose, to "Live free, or die", just like New Hampshire's citizens. Free, and safe cell phone and internet coverage, and rearming the people will eliminate the insurgency, and allow the Iraqi people to turn in IED setters, bomb factories, and militia raids, without being killed, instantly, by their own government's rogue elements. Cash rewards are useless to the dead. Make it safe to talk to Pax American Coalition forces, and we can buy the heads of every insurgent in Iraq, and every Iranian IED supplier as well. Pay secret, and safe rewards, arranged on safe, and easy internet capable, video capable cell phones, and we can buy our way out of this mess in six months. Their blood is on our hands, until they are enabled to choose freedom, and are safe to turn in the bad guys.

[sjc_1]

The Weakly Slander has got to be kidding, there is NO such thing as victory in Iraq. Imagine what you think the word victory means. Ticker tape parades after WWII, or maybe the boys coming home to their families.

Please people, the word victory is a trigger to get people to perk up and say "one for the gipper" and let's all do our part for the boys over there. You are being manipulated YET again. Do not fall for this. There is NO such thing as victory in Iraq.

Iraq was and is an illegal and immoral war based on lies. You can no more have a "victory" on this mess anymore than you could turn a sow's ear into a silk purse. It was corrupt from day 1 and always will be. There is no victory and never will be for such in immoral shame such as this.

[andor3]

"Victory" doesn't have any meaning in a civil war, which is the situation in Iraq. You might create some temporary suppression of violence in a tiny area by massive security presence, but it isn't sustainable security or peace.

And we don't know if we are on the side of "the good guys" unless you are foolish enough to believe whatever side we support is the good guys.

The real failure is the narcissistic leaders who label everything as black or white, victory or surrender. The real world is shades of gray and a conflict can end with no victor or defeated.

When you are going down a path that leads nowhere, the best choice is to stop and turn around.

[tucano2]

What was that being smoked while this blog was being written?

[kevboom]

"You win hearts and minds. Unfortunatley the left in this country has formed an alliance with Al queda. They both continualy root for the death of american soldiers and the failure of the United states."

Get over yourself. Your president is a traitor who started an illegal war for the benefit of his military contractor buddies, unseated a dictator in fragile control of a third world country with warring factions, creating chaos and civil war that will last for decades, resulting in the deaths of thousands of U.S. soldiers, tens of thousands of innocent civilians, and unending damage to the U.S. economy and world perspective on Americans, no doubt leading to future terrorist actions. No one on the left is rooting for al qaeda or the demise of the United States. Quite the opposite you dolt. We're rooting for the impeachment of a lying, corrupt thief, so the real patriots can start repairing the massive damage done by an idiot from Texas. You really think this war is about winning people's "hearts and minds"? Please. A fourth grader could reason through that propaganda better than you. http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/12/iraq.contractors/index.html

[antoniof123]

I just don't understand how these neo cons can continue to breath the air they are too stupid to know how.

[Syndicate]

Anyone hear about the Iraqis who have had enough of Al queda? The ones who saw some terrorist planting a road side IED and violently detained them. The ones who tell us were the ammo is stored. The ones who point out bad guys. The Iraqis are sick of being blown up and have realized they have to fight for a better future. Thats how you win in Iraq. You win hearts and minds. Unfortunatley the left in this country has formed an alliance with Al queda. They both continualy root for the death of american soldiers and the failure of the United states. I will never forgive the Left for this outrage.