May 20, 2003

Wow. Phillip Carter Is Very, Very Grumpy

Phillip Carter is very very grumpy: he sees the Bush administration as in the middle of turning an operational victory in Iraq into a strategic defeat for both the United States and for the people of Afghanistan. I tend to view everything through the lens provided by the details of Bush administration economic policy--where, to put it broadly, the people who are any good at it are not listened to, and the people who are listened to are really horrible at it. Carter appears to believe that the same thing is true of security policy as well:

"Faux Pax Americana" by Phillip Carter: The generals' argument had never been just about what forces it would take to decapitate Saddam's regime. It was also about being ready for the long, grinding challenge after the shooting stopped. By that measure they have been proven dizzyingly correct. April and May brought daily news reports from Baghdad quoting U.S. military officers saying they lacked the manpower to do their jobs. As the doubters predicted, we may have had enough troops to win the war--but not nearly enough to win the peace.

When victory arrived, we lacked the troops on the ground to prevent Baghdad--and most of the rest of the country--from collapsing into anarchy. We had tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles galore in the capital, but not nearly enough soldiers to guard such facilities as the key ministries, hospitals, and the National Museum. Ministries torched and looted during the first days are now unavailable to house the planned interim government. The plunder of hospitals set the stage for a still very possible humanitarian crisis. Looters who ransacked the National Museum stole many of the priceless historic artifacts that connected contemporary Iraq with its ancient roots, inflicting a mammoth public relations disaster upon the United States.

Things have not gotten much better over the following weeks. Lawlessness and chaos continue to reign. Women are raped, law-abiding citizens have their property stolen, those who have anything left don't go to work so they can guard what they still have. The prize the United States sacrificed so much to gain--freeing Iraq from Saddam and clearing the way for its democratic rebirth--is being squandered on the ground as ordinary Iraqis come to equate the American presence with violent lawlessness and immorality, and grasping mullahs rush into the vacuum created by our lack of troops. Mass grave sites, with no troops to secure them, have been unearthed by Iraqis desperate to find remnants of relatives killed by Saddam Hussein's regime, but those same Iraqis, digging quickly and roughly, may have inadvertently destroyed valuable evidence of human rights violations and crippled the ability of prosecutors to bring war criminals to justice. Perhaps worst of all, the prime objective of the entire invasion--to secure and eliminate Saddam's weapons of mass destruction capacity--has been dealt a serious blow. Even Iraq's publicly known nuclear sites had been thoroughly looted before American inspectors arrived, because, once more, not enough troops had been available to secure them. Radioactive material, perhaps enough to make several "dirty bombs," has now disappeared into anonymous Iraqi homes, perhaps awaiting purchase by terrorists. Critical records detailing the history and scope of the WMD program have themselves been looted from suspected weapons sites because too few soldiers were available to guard those places. "There aren't enough troops in the whole Army," said Col. Tim Madere, the officer overseeing the WMD effort in Iraq, in a recent interview with Newsweek. Farce vied with disaster when the inspectors' own headquarters were looted for lack of adequate security. Triumph on the battlefield has yielded to tragedy in the streets.

Belatedly recognizing their horrendous miscalculation, the Bush administration last month replaced the retired general in charge of Iraq's reconstruction, Jay Garner, with former diplomat L. Paul Bremer, who immediately called for 15,000 more troops to keep order. Even if he gets that many, however, Bremer will still be woefully short of the manpower he'll need to turn Iraq from anarchy to stable democracy.

The architects of the war might be forgiven for misgauging the number of troops required had the war come a dozen years ago, when the United States had little experience in modern nation-building. But over the course of the 1990s America gained some hard understanding, at no small cost. From Port-au-Prince to Mogadishu, every recent engagement taught the lesson we're now learning again in Iraq: America's high-tech, highly mobile military can scatter enemies which many times outnumber them, in ways beyond the wildest dreams of commanders just a generation ago. But it's not so easy to win the peace.

Consider the lessons of Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan. In Bosnia, America won its war with a combination of muscular diplomacy, air power, and covertly armed Bosnian-Muslim and Croat proxy armies on the ground. That mix of tools brought about the Dayton Accords in the fall of 1995. But when it came to making that treaty work, America had to send in its heaviest armor divisions, putting a Bradley fighting vehicle on nearly every street corner to enforce the peace. NATO initially sent 60,000 soldiers into Bosnia, and almost eight years after Dayton, America still has several thousand soldiers on the ground in Bosnia, as part of a 13,000-soldier NATO force. Winning hearts and minds took a backseat to overawing malcontent factions with an overwhelming and, for all intents and purposes, enduring show of force.

Like Bosnia, Kosovo was taken without any American ground commitment. There the United States won its war by unifying air power with what now-retired Gen. Wesley Clark calls "coercive diplomacy." But to win the peace America had to send in substantial ground forces. NATO quickly deployed a force of nearly 50,000 troops to the tiny province that is roughly 1/40 the size of Iraq. Truly pacifying Kosovo--a process that has really only just begun--means leeching it of its toxic ethnic hatreds and endemic violence. Most indicators hint that NATO will have to maintain its mission in Kosovo for at least a generation.

In Afghanistan, the pattern was much the same. It took only 300 U.S. special forces on foot and horseback--supported by 21st-century aircraft, GPS-guided bombs, and a force of Northern Alliance fighters--to bring down the Taliban. But once the government in Kabul had fallen, thousands of U.S. and allied troops had to come in to secure the country. Today, 15,000 American and allied soldiers remain there, 50 times more than it took to win the war.

Even the failures of these previous missions demonstrate that manpower is less important to the achievement of military victory than to coping with victory's aftermath. In Kosovo, according to retired Gen. Montgomery Meigs, then commander of the Balkan stabilization force, we were forced to "do less" because the Pentagon claimed it could not send more peacekeeping troops. As a result, says Meigs, "we were unable to run operations inside Kosovo to interdict the internal movement of arms and Albanian-Kosovar fighters to [neighboring] Macedonia." Those armed separatists set off a civil war in Macedonia--stopped only by the timely deployment of more Western troops, including Americans, into that country.

Something very similar happened in Afghanistan. Our biggest failure there occurred in the mop-up stage, following the flight of the Taliban government. Because we had so few troops on the ground, we failed to cut off and destroy the remnants of al Qaeda--including, most likely, Osama bin Laden himself--as they fled into the lawless mountain regions of the Afghan and Pakistani frontier. Our subsequent efforts at nation-building on the cheap have yielded similar results. Our unwillingness to put many troops on the ground has made a mockery of the president's promise for a "Marshall Plan" for Afghanistan. The Western-oriented, U.S.-installed president, Hamid Karzai, controls little more than Kabul, and the rest of the country has already drifted back into warlordism...

Posted by DeLong at May 20, 2003 09:20 AM | TrackBack

Comments

This is perhaps the best argument yet for why America is not equiped/ready/willing to be a colonial power. I don't believe that average Americans have thought too far beyond 'Liberation Day,' nor do they much care. Frankly I think much the same can be said of those in power.

A colonial power would see invasion and the steps that follow as being intimately linked to their success as a nation. Whether the goal be to outmanouver France/England/Russia, or aquire resources, the goals would be of great interest to the populace of a colonial nation. The US Government does not present these things as its stated goals, and most Americans don't connect with these goals either. (The reason we used fear or idealism as our basis for invasion.)

Until US society becomes less insular, or until we see the fate of the world as intimately linked to our own, there will be little to no concern about the actual affect of US policy. A wiser president would behave differently, but would be behaving alone.

(My English roommate pointed out that Al-Qaeda was foolish to target Riyhad since most Americans don't pay attention to international affairs.)

Posted by: Saam Barrager on May 20, 2003 05:52 PM

Well, al Qaeda's goal is probably to control Saudi Arabia, so targetting Riyadh makes sense. What Saam said made sense otherwise.

Isn't this the place for someone to come in and explain that the American people support President Bush and that the whiners here have been left behind by history?


Posted by: zizka on May 20, 2003 07:18 PM

Isn't liberation day when the movie ends with our hero getting the girl and going home?

Senator Lugar still doesn't know what the Iraq plan is after asking the question for almost a year. If the basic philosophy is that government is just a hinderence to business and the economy, why should dismantling a government beaurocracy in Iraq be any different from dismantling a beaurocracty in the US? The dismantling of the Iraqi government went farther and faster than anyone in the administration imagined and far faster than they can dismantle the US government. Now they are forced to build up a government when their whole mindset has been downsizing government.

Iraq is a picture of what any country can look like that does not have adequate government infrastructure. Is there is a lesson here for conservatives who prattle about getting government off our backs?

Posted by: bakho on May 21, 2003 08:19 AM

From the American Heritage on line dictionary:

bu·reauc·ra·cy
NOUN:Inflected forms: pl. bu·reauc·ra·cies
1a. Administration of a government chiefly through bureaus or departments staffed with nonelected officials. b. The departments and their officials as a group: promised to reorganize the federal bureaucracy. 2a. Management or administration marked by hierarchical authority among numerous offices and by fixed procedures: The new department head did not know much about bureaucracy. b. The administrative structure of a large or complex organization: a midlevel manager in a corporate bureaucracy. 3. An administrative system in which the need or inclination to follow rigid or complex procedures impedes effective action: innovative ideas that get bogged down in red tape and bureaucracy. ETYMOLOGY:French bureaucratie : bureau, office; see bureau + -cratie, rule (from Old French; see –cracy).

a beau-ro-cracy would be the government of handsone/pretty "ro", whatever that may be...

And quite a few times I have seen hypocracy used in place of hypocrisy, hypocracy would be a correct spelling for a neologism meaning "insufficient government"

DSW

Posted by: Antoni Jaume on May 21, 2003 08:48 AM

Ha. I scared them off.

Posted by: zizka on May 22, 2003 08:50 AM

Scared who off what?

DSW

Posted by: Antoni Jaume on May 22, 2003 01:33 PM
Post a comment