I tend to agree. Whoever wins - Shia or Sunni, will then turn on al-Qa'eda in Iraq and annhialate them.

To hell with Iraq - just leave.

The one that's a problem is Afghanistan - the Taliban and al-Qa'eda are practically the same thing now and if we lose Afghanistan and withdraw they could have an entire country behind them. If it were up to me I'd take those troops out of Iraq and drop at least half of them down in Afghanistan almost immediately, with the rest back to the US for refit and repair prior to being cycled into Afghanistan. Iraq's lost, in theory we might still be able to pull Afghanistan out.

We need to get out, sincerely apologize and somehow redirect some of that cash to help get the basic infrastructure up and running again, let the Iraqis do it them selfs, the way the U.S. tried to do it failed, so give the Iraqis a chance.

The mainline ruling class folks that have control in D.C. right now are not going to leave behind all those bases, fat theft of services contracts etc etc.
With the the U.S. pulling out to some degree, or should I say entrenchment into the 14 or so permanent Enduing Freedom Bases and strategic overwatch bases in Kuwait, leaves the supply lines into those sequestered American Life Style Bases vulnerable to Laurence Of Arabia style tactics. Those tactics are in use now, but the problem of defending the supply routes will take on a larger dimension and still take 1 or 2 American lives a day. Bigger attacks and such can be amassed by the Iraqis, due to diminished aggressive patrols that are currently taking place. This leaves larger areas untouched by U.S. patrols and actions.

As for Afghanistan, I can't see the U.S. doing much there. It's my view that the U.S. citizens are tired of the conflict and such and want the U.S. to stop deployments. That is always the problem, people get tired of endless hot lead occupations without any headway.

On a cynical note, certain powers want Afghanistan to be a total narco state. All that Heroin.........nuff said

"Takes a bucket of blood for a barrel of oil"

Steven Bruton

I do think the US citizens are tired of Iraq but not Afghanistan. At least in Afghanistan there was always a clear goal. The goal got hijacked and short changed by Iraq/Bush but I do think Americans differentiate between the two conflicts.

...enough winner in Iraq that al-Qa`eda in Iraq is going to end up getting eradicated. I think that they are going to have their hands full enough with the near enemy (i.e., the Shia and Kurd statelets) that taking us on effectively is going to be beyond their capacity. I think what we're likely to see in terms of threats to the homeland is most likely to be the type of thing that we've seen of late - primarily low technical skill home-growns. They could get lucky, but they're not nearly so accomplished at making their own luck. There's speculation that al-Qa`eda in Iraq has significant European capabilities, but I think that the evidence for this is far from clear, and we've got a decent handle on it.

In Afghanistan, I'm not exactly sure that things are as simple as al-Qa`eda and the Taliban being joined at the hip. There is more than one flavour of Taliban and it's far from clear to me that some flavours can't be induced to divest themselves from al-Qa`eda in return for power sharing - there's a boatload of historical tensions between the Muj and al-Qa`eda that could be effectively exploited. Quite apart from that, there are tantalizing indicators of a possible split between Zawahiri and ObL that could potentially be exploited - something that's potentially really interesting given their historical positions on the relative importance of the near and far enemies. There's a lot there that can be exploited by making distinctions between al-Qa`eda and Taliban.

Regardless of what the true nature of the oppo is in Afghanistan, I've become quite convinced that significant additional American troops are going to be a hindrance rather than a help. The solution to this is not firepower based, and the thing that they bring to the table over and above everything else is firepower - even when they try for civil over military approaches the level of firepower applied causes huge problems. What we need more than anything is greater effectiveness on the civil side -- some of that is going to involve more really high quality troops who are really, really focussed in their use of firepower, but a lot of it comes down more to money and astute politics - my personal view is that we (and by we I mean the Canadian government) should count on writing a billion dollar cheque every year for about the next 20, over and above the military contribution.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

I don't think a billion's enough, and the other NATO nations aren't showing a lot of interest in sending us high quality troops. But in general I agree.

Stilll, I wouldn't mind some green berets.

...back in the day I'd agree, but the cult of direct action seems to have taken over. Everybody in SOCOM seems to be thinking SOF, not SF like they once did. The guys in the old days, coercive interrogation was an anathema - captured enemy were turned, not tortured. I just finished reading Nagl's book on institutional learning in Malaya and Vietnam and the passing references to the British success in turning CTs and its centrality to the campaign were glaring in comparison - particularly given the cultural norms predominant in Afghanistan.

I also don't think that a billion's enough, but it's what we can afford and sustain over a long enough period that it'll amount to something - and it'll allow us to shame the other players into coughing up cash, even if they won't cough up troops. The feeling of the guys on the ground seems to be that more troops would be nice, and while they're important, all hope isn't immediately lost if we don't get them - the job's harder and longer, but not impossible if the civil side picks up. The most important single element, near as I can see, is getting the ANA and the police working more effectively than they have thusfar. That may well be less of an issue of getting more NATO troops down south than the media consensus would suggest - better training (ANP training has been particularly dismal), more support/equipment and more money would all help. Afghani national forces need be trained by the best and brightest and it's pretty clear that that's not been universal. Much of that improvement could actually be based up in the North.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

We need to be able to protect people who sympathize with us. It seems like we don't have enough men on the ground to do that. While I agree that the best way for that to work is indig police or militias, until they're competent and reliable enough to do the job, we have to do it. And unfortunately, that kind of work requires a lot of boots on the ground. I agree, now that you mention it, that most US troops would be bad for that - fire discipline is rule 1, and rule 2 is building relationships with the locals, and if it puts you at more risk, so be it - kill or humiliate too many innocents and you're screwed.

Sorry to hear about US SF's. What I know about them in Vietnam is that they mostly did their job very well - and their job wasn't mostly direct action.

I enjoy your posts but I'm not always convinced they're in English.

_{"If you can’t trust a Methodist with absolute power to arrest people and
not have to say why, then whom can you trust?" - Garrison Keillor}

Lexicon follows:

ANA: Afghan National Army
ANP: Afghan National Police
CT: Communist Terrorist (British Term for their opposition in Malaya)
SF: Special Forces (specifically US Army when dealing with US forces, when dealing with British or other forces a generic equivalent to SOF below)
SOCOM: Special Operations Command (US command of equivalent rank to regional commands like PACOM [Pacific Command])
SOF: Special Operations Forces (generic term referring to all US forces with a primarily Special Operations role - includes US Army Special Forces as well as other forces like US Air Force Combat Controllers or Naval Special Warfare)

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

..."immunization" - sterilization smacks too much of the US scorching earth and then withdrawing to its fortress across the seas. Neither of those options is on the table. With intellect and nuance, at least a partial immunization of the region against the influence of radical Salafi thought might be possible.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

I'm not wedded to the word, more the concept behind it which you all have elucidated and debated most kindly for me.

^{We have lost international support not because foreigners hate our values but because they believe we are repudiating them and behaving contrary to them.}

but another part of my question about 'sterilization' is how to keep Iraq from turning into a regional war. That's a big part of my considerations.


^{We have lost international support not because foreigners hate our values but because they believe we are repudiating them and behaving contrary to them.}

More seriously, I don't know how it is that the US firewalls this one should it become necessary. As Col. Lang has quite correctly observed, the US has an awful lot less influence on things than it thinks it does.

That said, I don't tend to think that it'll turn into a regional conflict, unless the bordering states do a series of really stupid things. The major potential for bleed over that's dangerous in terms of regional conflicts seems to be in two main areas - the Kurds and Iran. The Iraqi parties to the conflict seem to be achieving their objectives without spreading things beyond the immediate confines of Iraq and they know that doing so risks alot, so I think they'll try to keep a lid on things. The Salafists would probably like to escalate things, but I don't think that the guys that are aligned with them have much of a stomach for that type of play, though time will tell.

In addition to regional conflict dangers there are likely to be internal security issues in Syria and Jordan (among others - and the Salafists will be prominent problems here), but I rather suspect that their internal security apparatuses are up to the job of suppressing these problems, though that's hardly a guaranteed long term solution. One of the major challenges is going to be keeping our mouths shut if the pictures get ugly. Would that we had other options, but when one has dealt oneself such a crap hand all options tend to be bad. Would that everyone had realized that democratization is a generational task not amenable to ideological formulaics.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.