2007-01-07
War Strategy
My previous post was probably too glum.
There was an interesting discussion about the strategy in Iraq here. Unfortunately I entered the discussion too late so there are no responses to my suggestions, even though I emailed the main protagonists. But it is the only serious strategy analysis I have read, unless you call ridiculous things like the "Iraq Surrender Group" a "strategy". I've got to wonder about such groups. Is this all part of an elaborate deception by the US government? Pretending to surrender so that the terrorists don't give up, so that we can draw as many of them out to hit hard targets in foreign land instead of having them hit soft targets in the free world? If so, it seems to be working. Those trained jihadists were loose cannons. We had no way to hit them. After 9/11 there was no-one to attack. It was too late, the jihadists had already been trained and dispersed. The fact that we have managed to get them to hone in on Iraq is pure genius. I'm not sure it was planned that way though.
Anyway, in light of the treacherous Democrats wanting to leave Iraq, I should point out that there are some advantages in that. I would like some feedback of what actually happens if the US reduces its force to 20k troops. 20k is enough to protect the Iraqi government from being overthrown, even if it means relocating them to Basrah or somewhere in Iraqi Kurdistan. The nature of the war would change. Territory would probably need to be abandoned while the Iraqi Army gains strength, so it can retake that territory. This is a gap in military knowledge. It would be great to have such feedback. The only way to prove that 20k troops is enough is to try it. Quite apart from the fact that the troops are now needed in Iran. Having such feedback would potentially allow us to have more liberations, and is thus the least worst option. If people think we need to keep 130k troops there for eternity, they're going to baulk at liberations. We need to show that the only reason to keep 130k troops there is to make it EASIER for the Iraqi government to enforce Iraqi law, and to shorten the war. It is not NECESSARY. Many people won't believe it until you actually do it. If it's not actually done, it's not the end of the world either. We're sort of demonstrating a small number of troops in Afghanistan, and Iran will hopefully be demonstrated with 0 troops left after the initial war of liberation. But the more feedback we get, the better position we will be in to deal with the remaining threats in the world.
|
There was an interesting discussion about the strategy in Iraq here. Unfortunately I entered the discussion too late so there are no responses to my suggestions, even though I emailed the main protagonists. But it is the only serious strategy analysis I have read, unless you call ridiculous things like the "Iraq Surrender Group" a "strategy". I've got to wonder about such groups. Is this all part of an elaborate deception by the US government? Pretending to surrender so that the terrorists don't give up, so that we can draw as many of them out to hit hard targets in foreign land instead of having them hit soft targets in the free world? If so, it seems to be working. Those trained jihadists were loose cannons. We had no way to hit them. After 9/11 there was no-one to attack. It was too late, the jihadists had already been trained and dispersed. The fact that we have managed to get them to hone in on Iraq is pure genius. I'm not sure it was planned that way though.
Anyway, in light of the treacherous Democrats wanting to leave Iraq, I should point out that there are some advantages in that. I would like some feedback of what actually happens if the US reduces its force to 20k troops. 20k is enough to protect the Iraqi government from being overthrown, even if it means relocating them to Basrah or somewhere in Iraqi Kurdistan. The nature of the war would change. Territory would probably need to be abandoned while the Iraqi Army gains strength, so it can retake that territory. This is a gap in military knowledge. It would be great to have such feedback. The only way to prove that 20k troops is enough is to try it. Quite apart from the fact that the troops are now needed in Iran. Having such feedback would potentially allow us to have more liberations, and is thus the least worst option. If people think we need to keep 130k troops there for eternity, they're going to baulk at liberations. We need to show that the only reason to keep 130k troops there is to make it EASIER for the Iraqi government to enforce Iraqi law, and to shorten the war. It is not NECESSARY. Many people won't believe it until you actually do it. If it's not actually done, it's not the end of the world either. We're sort of demonstrating a small number of troops in Afghanistan, and Iran will hopefully be demonstrated with 0 troops left after the initial war of liberation. But the more feedback we get, the better position we will be in to deal with the remaining threats in the world.
# posted by Paul Edwards @ 15:47 
