A Formula For Victory In Iraq

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

(Weekly Standard)  Throughout this period, American armed forces tried to stay in the background, keeping their "footprint" minimal and pushing the nascent Iraqi Security Forces into the lead. Violence steadily increased. Sunni insurgents and al Qaeda terrorists dug into cities that U.S. forces left open, and Shia militias took control of abandoned Shia lands.

When local American commanders took the initiative to clear insurgent hotbeds, they were generally successful. These operations produced measurable improvements in important areas that decayed only slowly, despite the absence of follow-up or adequate continued presence. U.S. forces honed their skills in such operations, allowing them finally to clear insurgent-held cities without destroying them or excessively alienating the local population. Political progress and political solutions are essential to ultimate success in counterinsurgency, but they must often be complemented by major military operations sustained over a long time.

Second, all American efforts to establish local security in Iraq have been hindered by the paucity of U.S. troops there, yet some have succeeded even so. Colonel McMaster could muster nearly one Coalition soldier (American or Iraqi) for every 45 people in Tal Afar, which helps explain the speed and success of the clearing in that city. But General Chiarelli restored order in Sadr City in 2004 with fewer than one soldier per 100 inhabitants, and the Marines and Army units in Anbar cleared Ramadi slowly with similarly poor ratios. More soldiers and Marines, to say nothing of more trained and reliable Iraqi troops, would have made every operation proceed more rapidly and smoothly, but the evidence suggests that critical clearing operations can succeed even at these lower ratios. There are now well over 350,000 Coalition forces, including Iraqis, in the country, whose population is around 25 million — an overall ratio significantly better than what sufficed to restore order in Sadr City and Ramadi.

Third, rapid reductions in Coalition forces after clearing operations undermined the success of almost all past operations. In Sadr City and Najaf, the withdrawal led to the complete if quiet restoration of the militias that had been driven out. In Falluja and Tal Afar, rapid reductions in Coalition forces led to slow deterioration, although not to previous levels of insurgent and terrorist predominance. Turning control of cleared areas over to Iraqi forces prematurely — as in Falluja after the first battle and in Baghdad after Operations Together Forward — generally led to rapid failure. The Coalition must plan to maintain a significant presence in direct and indirect support of Iraqi forces after clearing operations are complete in order to sustain success. The model is Ramadi, where Coalition forces have remained in strength even as the situation has improved, helping to deepen the positive trends underway there. The capabilities of the Iraqi Security Forces have improved steadily, but it is highly unlikely that Coalition forces can leave areas as soon as they have been cleared without seeing security deteriorate.

Fourth, every successful operation was preceded by commanders' taking the time to develop a good intelligence picture of the situation. To do this, they moved forces into the area and made contact with the local population. Advance forces help shape the environment by occupying bases from which subsequent operations can proceed and by establishing relationships with local leaders that will be exploited in subsequent phases. This also helps commanders and planners refine their estimates of the forces required in the clearing operation. Especially operations on a large scale, involving the physical movement of many forces, require significant preparation.

Fifth, Coalition casualties generally increase at the start of major clearing operations, when Coalition troops move into areas previously held by the enemy, especially where the enemy has prepared sophisticated defensive positions. As the enemy realizes that a major attack is underway, he often launches counterattacks, in an attempt to blunt the offensive and/or weaken the will of leaders in Baghdad and Washington. Depending on the scale of operations and the resilience of the enemy defenses, this period of increased violence can last for days or weeks. As clearing proceeds to its conclusion, however, violence generally drops and Coalition casualties begin to fall. This pattern has occurred in almost every successful clearing operation, including Sadr City, Najaf, the second Battle of Falluja, Tal Afar, and Ramadi. Higher force ratios combined with solid preparation can reduce the intensity and duration of this spike in violence and casualties, but cannot eliminate it.

Operation Phantom Thunder In Context

The new strategy for securing Baghdad was designed with all these lessons in mind, as well as lessons from other successful and unsuccessful counterinsurgency operations elsewhere. So far, the campaign has the hallmarks of past successful operations; and it has a number of promising new elements. One of these new elements is Operation Phantom Thunder itself.

Many advocates of the new strategy — and many critics — bemoaned the staggered arrival over five months of the additional combat forces, which delayed the start of major clearing operations and seemed to threaten a ragged and uneven launch. But Generals Petraeus and Odierno put the time to good use. They immediately began to push U.S. forces that were already in Iraq off of their forward operating bases and into the neighborhoods to be cleared. In some areas that were sufficiently stable to begin with, the mere movement of forces into permanent positions in the neighborhoods had the effect of a rapid clearing operation, even though the aim was only to gather intelligence and set the conditions for the clearing to follow.

More important, previous clearing operations in Iraq were not part of a coherent plan to establish security in a wide area, but rather reactions to violence in particular places. Thus, U.S. commanders made no extensive efforts to contain the accelerants to violence — vehicle-bomb factories, insurgent safe houses, training grounds, smuggling routes, and weapons caches — located outside the cities being cleared. By contrast, the current strategy aims to establish security across greater Baghdad, and Petraeus and Odierno have added a phase between the preparation phase and the major clearing. This is Operation Phantom Thunder, which aims to disrupt enemy networks for many miles beyond the capital, as far away as Baquba and Falluja. What's more, Phantom Thunder is striking the enemy in almost all of its major bases at once — something Coalition forces have never before attempted in Iraq.

Al Qaeda's operations in Baghdad — its bombings, kidnappings, resupply activities, movement of foreign fighters, and financing — depend on its ability to move people and goods around the rural outskirts of the capital as well as in the city. Petraeus and Odierno, therefore, are conducting simultaneous operations in many places in the Baghdad belt: Falluja and Baquba, Mahmudiya, Arab Jabour, Salman Pak, the southern shores of Lake Tharthar, Karma, Tarmiya, and so on. By attacking all of these bases at once, Coalition forces will gravely complicate the enemy's movement from place to place, as well as his ability to establish new bases and safe havens. At the same time, U.S. and Iraqi forces have already disrupted al Qaeda's major bases and are working to prevent the enemy from taking refuge in the city. U.S. forces are also aggressively targeting Shia death-squad leaders and helping Iraqi forces operating against Shia militias.

Still ahead, of course, is the challenge of completing the clearing and holding of a city of 6 million. The establishment of security, moreover, is a precondition for further political progress, not a guarantee of it. The enemy may find a way to disrupt the current operations, or to derail or defeat the subsequent clear-and-hold operations. It is possible that Iraqi Security Forces will prove unable to develop the numbers and capabilities required to maintain security once it has been established. And unpredictable disasters can always drive a well-designed strategy off course.

But there is every reason to believe at this stage that the current operation and its likely successor will dramatically reduce the level of violence in Baghdad, and do so in a way that will prove sustainable. That accomplishment in itself will be a major contribution to American security, in that it will entail a major defeat for al Qaeda and its allies, now surging in response to our stepped-up operations. And it will create an unprecedented situation in postwar Iraq: one in which Iraq's elected government can meet and discuss policies in relative security in a capital returning to normal; in which Sunni and Shia can afford to compromise without fear of an imminent sectarian explosion; and in which Iraqi forces can become increasingly responsible for maintaining the security that they have helped to establish. The current strategy is on track to produce that outcome — which is why it deserves to be given every chance to succeed.

[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.