Discussion on Merits of War In Iraq

The following is a discussion with professor Steven Metz Chairman:Regional Strategy and Planning Strategic Studies Institute of U.S. Army War College, and Con George-Kotzabasis held on Small Wars Journal blog on June 8, 2007

Dr. Metz said,

I’m no Obama fan, but I’m uncomfortable with logic of this essay. Iraq–like all counterinsurgency–is not a two-way game which pits the United States against the insurgents. While I personally disagree with the set-a-time-definite-for-withdrawal crowd, I can understand their argument (even while I do not accept it): the Iraqi government is not fully motivated to do what it needs to do to resolve the conflict as long as the American presence remains what it is. Moreover, every conflict forces the participants to decide whether the costs of persisting outweigh the costs of disengagement.

Certainly an American withdrawal from Iraqi would be trumpeted by AQ as a victory, but the question is whether that is worse than the costs of persistence (in terms of blood, money, the erosion of the military, political prestige, etc.)Not sure if you wrote the essay or someone else did, but I also take great issue with the contention that Petraeus can or should defeat the insurgency in Iraq. Primary responsibility lies with the Iraqis; secondarily with the U.S. embassy. Petraeus, in military jargon, is the “supporting” participant, not the “supported.”

Kotzabasis said,

Dr. Metz, I would agree with you entirely that one has to count the costs of withdrawal with the costs of persistence if the Iraq war was an isolated one disengaged from the war against global terror. The fact however is that the war in Iraq now-whether it was so or not in the past is no longer the question-is an essential part of global terror. We see this not only in the pull that it has on the true believers of Islam from all over the world who fervently enter the ranks of the insurgency, but also in the imitation of the techniques of the latter, since they appear to be so successful against the coalition forces, by other jihadists, who are also waging war against the infidels in other parts of the world. Hence, America is involved in a long global war and not an isolated one, and must therefore count its costs on a mega-scale as they issue from its long term strategic interests, prestige, and indeed, its existence as the sole superpower that is the sine qua non of the stability of the world in these most dangerous times.

Taking a cue from our other confrere John Fishel, the coalition forces are engaged in continuous major military operations against the insurgents with the goal to create the necessary security that is vital for the stabilization of the Iraqi government which is the linchpin of its ability to govern the country without American props. It seems to me therefore following this logic, that your question whether GEN Petraeus is the “supporting” or ” supported”, can be answered that he is both. Supporting the Iraqi government to stand on its own feet and supported by the political establishment (Ambassador Crocker) to do exactly that.

Hence, it seems to me to be obvious, that the paramountcy of resolving the conflict in Iraq, lies with the military and not with diplomacy. Especially when this conflict is drenched so heavily with religious fervour that is not open to the rational discourse of diplomacy, as we have witnessed lately of Hamas.

To your question whether I wrote the original essay, the answer is yes.

Dr. Metz said,

Important points but to me the President’s logic seems somewhat like the “domino theory” as applied to Vietnam. That turned out to not be true.In terms of Iraq, we’re damned if we do, damned if we don’t. Disengagement will bolster the morale of Islamic extremists and reinforce the point that they can defeat the U.S.; persisting will erode the morale of the American public and do damage to the U.S. military. Which is the lesser evil? I myself am not sure. I am worried, though, that Iraq becomes a pyrrhic victory–the costs of success there so weaken us that we have failures elsewhere. To take one illustration, I think a case can made that if American morale and prestige had not been so weakened by Vietnam, we would have been able to act more effectively in Iran in the last 1970s. I’m concerned by that by so devoting ourselves to Iraq, we allow other, perhaps bigger, problems to fester and grow worse.

While an argument can be made that the foreign fighters in Iraq are not amenable to any sort of political resolution and simply need to be killed, if their support network among Iraqi Sunni Arabs is taken apart, killing them becomes much easier. Plus, I don’t think AQI can, on its own, attain anything like “strategic success” without its allies in the Iraqi Sunni Arab community.Personally, I’m just hard pressed to imagine a military outcome that totally prevents suicide bombers. You can’t guard everything and everyone all the time (unless we want to reinstate the draft and deploy a few million forces).

Kotzabasis said,

It’s certainly true that the U.S. is in the unenviable position of being damned if she does and damned if she does not. But I would still argue, in the face of the great and ominous dangers that the West is facing and America being the only power that can defeat global terror, it’s better to be damned for doing something than for doing nothing. (“Nothing comes out of nothing” King Lear.) This despite all the errors that inevitably are committed in all wars as a result of human limitations. And before the daunting huge scale operations involved in war, it’s nigh impossible to probe and foresee all the unknowns embedded in them.

~ by kotzabasis on November 26, 2007.

2 Responses to “Discussion on Merits of War In Iraq”

  1. My comment is to Dr. Metz. As a Soldier who served in the Iraqi theater just under a year ago, I must say that there is not one solution that solves this issue. Diplomacy alone and Military action alone will not “Win” this battle. My observation on the ground is that local leaders and decision makers very much want a resolution to the issues that plague Iraq. There were signs of both military and political solutions going on in the Mosul area. Progress was being made and life was getting better. One by itself will not win the day.
    I also must say, I do not agree with your reference to the Vietnam conflict. The two military actions do not compare other than the spin the American people and anti-war factions place on it. Vietnam is brought up because it is a scar the American people still feel when it is talked about. No one ever wants such a time in our Nations history to ever show itself again. Most are not proud of that time and it truly was an example of what not to do, politically and militarily. I must point out though, the objective of the Vietcong was to overthrow the South and make Vietnam one nation. They had no interest in pushing beyond their boarders, they only wanted one Communist Vietnam. The War on Terror, very much a part of Iraq intended or not, has greater implications with failure. Not only does Iraq fall into an all out free for all, the conflict will push beyond the boarders of Iraq and spark new conflict where ever there is a US presence with even greater implications of back here in the United States. The goal of the jihadists is to eliminate all “Western” culture where ever it exists, not to free Iraq from the “American Occupation”. If we leave Iraq in its current state and allow the AQ to chalk this up as a victory, this fight will follow us home and then we can really talk about low morale and a strain on our military.

  2. Proud to have on this blog an American Soldier from the battleground of Iraq. Your comrades in-arms are about to deliver victory under your capable leader General Petraeus–as I always believed they would–in Iraq, and we will see whether Iraqi politicians will be able to consolidate this military victory for the sake of their country.

    Moreover, this victory will not only presage the defeat of the jihadists on a global scale, but also erase the shameful stain of Vietnam that lies like a curse on the American psyche, which the yellow press and yellow politicians in Washington continue to inject without shame into the public.

    Your historically savvy response shows that the American soldier can wield the pen with the same consummate skill that he wields the sword. I salute you young man.

    PS You can go to: http://kotzabasis1.wordpress.com
    which is dedicated to people like you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: