Balkinization: Go Big or Go Home

Go Big or Go Home

If President Bush is convinced that leaving Iraq, even in stages, would be disastrous for American interests, he should stick to his plans. He should pay attention to popular sentiments only to the extent that lack of popular support limits what a commander-in-chief can do in wartime. Presidents are elected to act in the national interest as best they see it. Indeed, if Bush agreed to withdraw American forces because of popular opposition when he honestly believed that doing so would lead to terrible consequences for American interests, he would be betraying his oath of office.

The problem with last night's speech is that few people believe that Bush's proposed remedy of 20,000 additional troops will do any good. The limited nature of the remedy leads people to think that Bush is not entirely serious or that he is once again hiding something: that he is trying to punt the problem to his successor without admitting-- either to us or to himself-- that he has already lost the war.

Several commentators have suggested that the proposed surge is a last-ditch effort, a sort of Hail Mary pass. But it is a pretty strange sort of Hail Mary pass: Bush is on his own 10 yard line with seconds to play and he is throwing not a long bomb but a short toss to the sideline.

That is why (pardon the pun) people are so up in arms about what the President proposes to do. When Bush claims that we are at risk of seriously injuring American interests if we leave, fewer and fewer people believe him. They well know that withdrawal will harm our interests, but they have calculated the relative costs and benefits for themselves and decided that we should cut our losses. Bush's half measures-- given the paltry number of troops, they are not even half measures-- seem to confirm their assessments.

If Bush announced that a very significant escalation (and significant sacrifice to increase the army) was necessary-- say a doubling of our armed forces in Iraq, he would actually gain more support among the population, because more people would believe that their cost-benefit calculations were wrong and that we truly were at a crisis point. He would be signaling that losing this war would be every bit as serious for America as he claims it is, and that we had to give the battle everything we have as a nation. After all, if America's most vital interests are genuinely threatened, we are a country of 300 million people with vast resources; there is far more we could do, even if it would take many months to build up our forces. If this war cannot be lost, then we should be prepared to surrender far more blood and treasure to ensure victory.

Bush has become the victim of his previous incompetence and his history of inflated rhetoric. He has been so wrong so often before-- about weapons of mass destruction, about how to prepare for the war, about how to prepare for the occupation, about the costs of the war and the occupation, about the progress of events-- that his claims today are far less credible. He has repeatedly misstated reality-- if not lied-- and engaged in wishful thinking over and over again where this war is concerned, so why should people start believing his assessments and his predictions now? He has repeatedly stressed that if we do not win in Iraq, terrible things will happen to us. But he has not been willing to ask the country to sacrifice in proportion to the threat he says we face. He has been sending a mixed message, particularly in the remedy he proposed last night. All this adds to the suspicion that instead of resoluteness we are seeing more duplicity and more bad judgment.

Like many Americans, I believe that it is time to cut our losses, and stage a gradual withdrawal of forces. This war was a mistake from its inception, and the costs (and dangers) to the nation have only increased because of the Administration's incompetence in executing its plans. I recognize that I may be wrong in my assessments of the relative costs and benefits of ending the war. Perhaps President Bush, with access to far greater information, correctly sees something that the rest of us do not see about what will happen if we leave. If we are truly at risk of a terrible disaster, then Bush should not back down, no matter how much the public disagrees with him. But then he should act as if we truly faced such a disaster. He has yet to do so, four years into this war, and *that* is the great failure of his leadership.

Posted 6:50 AM by JB [link]

Comments:

JB: very well put. After building up the threat to the American nation itself, this is all he can propose? If he really believes his own rhetoric, then he is betraying the country by not mobilizing the nation. If he doesn't, then he is betraying the nation by his lies.

# posted by

Anonymous : 8:41 AM

Posting is powerful enough without henry's qualifications. Great post prof. Balkin.

# posted by

Anne : 9:26 AM

The sub rosa agenda of Bush's speech is what he plans to do to affect regime change in Iran. That is how he intends to compensate for his failure in Iraq (i.e., the unintended, although foreseeable, consequence of Iranian hegemony in the region).

# posted by

Anonymous : 9:35 AM

Professor Balkin:

Allow me to suggest why the US is sending 20,000 rather than 140,000 additional troops to Iraq:

1) The geography of the battlefield has significantly decreased over the past two years.

Initially, the Baathist and al Qaeda violence occurred primarily in the 20% of the country known as the Sunni Triangle, made up mostly of the Anbar province between Syria and Baghdad as well as some Arab areas in Kurdistan to the north. The Shia Mahdi Army militia also attempted to take over some holy areas in the center of the country.

In 2004, US and Iraqi troops routed out the Mahdi Army militia from Najaf and its leader Sadr joined the government. The central Iraq holy cities have since been turned over to the Iraqis and are largely pacified.

In 2005, the Coalition forces with support from the newly trained Iraqi Army cleared out most of Anbar province in a series of offensives and then turned much of it over to the Iraqis. Hotbeds like Fallujah were and remain largely pacified.

al Qaeda actually helped this effort in Anbar by its mass murder of local Sunnis who joined the government. These attacks on their Iraqi Sunni hosts played straight into our hands, enabling us to convince a number of Sunni tribes to join the local police and to declare war against the foreign al Qaeda. This effort accelerated when we hunted down and killed al Qaeda's leader, Zarqawi, showing the Iraqis that al Qaeda could be defeated. al Qaeda has since fled Anbar for Baghdad and areas closer to Iran, where recent captured Iranian documents indicate al Qaeda is receiving Iranian support.

There are still hot spots in Anbar like Ramadi, but 80% of the violence has now been rounded up into the small fraction of the country made up of the Baghdad region.

In sum, while the violence has risen, its geographic boundaries have shrunken enormously.

2) The Iraqis are shifting troops into Baghdad and will take the lead in a pacification operation which they planned.

The Iraqis (probably with a great deal of help from USA commanders) came up with a plan to divide the remaining battlefield in Baghdad into 9 sectors, clear and then permanently occupy each sector with troops rather than outgunned police.

In the past, we cleared areas and then left them to be reoccupied by the enemy in what some Army wag derisively named the "whack a mole" strategy. Now, we are returning to more classic counterinsurgency strategy of clear and occupy. It is easier to fulfill this strategy in 2007 than it was in 2004 because there are 200,000 more Iraqi troops to do the occupying.

After what I imagine was a great deal of arm twisting by the US, the Iraqis also moved in 3 more brigades of troops from the peaceful sectors of Iraq into Baghdad so they will end up with 2 brigades in each of the 9 sectors. These Iraqi troops with US embeds will take the lead in the offensive operations to clear each sector. These offensives started near the Green Zone 3 -4 days ago.

My understanding is that the US plans to back up each Iraqi sector in Baghdad with one of its brigades for a total of nine.

I have no doubt that 18 Iraqi and 9 US Brigades can clear Baghdad. Three brigades did the job in Fallujah.

Additionally, General Petraeus has plenty of experience in this sort of pacification having successfully pacified Mosul when he commanded the 101st Airborne in Iraq.

I am more concerned that the surviving enemy in Baghdad might try to move back to Anbar and set up shop again. Apparently, generals with far more experience than this former platoon leader thought of that and are sending another brigade of Marines into Anbar to head the enemy off at the pass.

As a side note, instead of the President giving his very generalized speech, I would much rather have had General Petraeus show the American people in detail on a map what the plans are for Baghdad. I think you and other citizens would have understood the plan better and the plans would have been separated from the venomous politics which surround the lame duck Bush.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:38 AM

john hartigan: We may be entering into the worst situation the US has ever created.

And such is the nature of our electorate that in 4 years most minds will "know" as "an established fact" that it's the fault of the Democrats. That's what this delaying tactic is about: ...he is trying to punt the problem to his successor without admitting-- either to us or to himself-- that he has already lost the war. A few thousand more of our children in harm's way is a small price to pay for the political gains of making it look like someone else's fault. It's not like those kids come from any family _he_ knows.

PNAC made this mess, and they announced their intent 9 years ago: We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership. (Hegemony is too big a word for most of the Fox News crowd.) It will be up to *loyal* citizens to clean up this mess, if ever we get the chance.

# posted by

Robert Link : 10:38 AM

Bart: ...I think you and other citizens would have understood the plan better...

As well as we understood "Shock and Awe" or "Surgical Strikes" or "Rise up in the streets to welcome us" or "Mission Accomplished"?

# posted by

Robert Link : 10:42 AM

Interesting note about only half-trying to win as a way to pass the problem onto a successor. This doesn't seem likely, though, as he doesn't know that his successor will be a democrat. More likely he's too far disconnected from the reality on the ground, having never himself, as his political opponents have, put his boots on enemy soil in defense of his country even when presented with the choice to do so.

He may only be making a political decision purely, likely unaware that a commitment of genuine proportions would show real determination in keeping with his rhetoric. He may also have actually felt barbs about how many have died in Iraq, and is reluctant to make so decisive a move for fear of even greater criticism. This doesn't seem likely, as he seems to ignore both advice and criticism alike.

Or, as he probably hears over and over again, the more we do there, the more dependent Iraq becomes on us, and is cutting a middle ground between that and the need for short-term relief in the form of some news about dead terrorists, which this move may get him.

# posted by

John : 10:53 AM

This may be a little off the topic, but at what point is the general public going to recognize that the issues raised by the Iraq War are those of the institution of the Presidency itself, not just of Bush. Granted that Bush is an incompetent idiot, but the Presidency as it is now has arrogated to itself almost total, absolute power to do whatever it wants in foreign affairs and warmaking, and as such Bush's incompetence is only amplified and imposed on all of us. Unless there is a fundamental change in how our government is organized, this is going to happen again...and again.

GYL

# posted by

Anonymous : 10:57 AM

@GYL: Prof. Levinson will love you forever, for your comment ;)

# posted by

Anne : 11:34 AM

john hartigan: We may be entering into the worst situation the US has ever created

My my, the hyperbole is running thick here.

I believe that you will have a hard time finding more than a handful of battles in any of our previous wars which turned out better with fewer casualties than the prospective battle to clear Baghdad. Indeed, there are dozens of past single battles with higher casualties and far worse out comes than the entire Iraq War.

We have not lost a single battle in Iraq down to platoon level. We have lost far fewer casualties in Iraq than in any previous war of this length.

The term "catastrophe" has been bandied about frequently by those who oppose this war. However, there is nothing remotely catastrophic about this war.

The British nearly destroying Washington's Army in New York was a catastrophe.

The British burning down Washington DC was a catastrophe.

The Confederacy routing the Union Army in the First Battle of Bull Run was a catastrophe.

The surrender of an entire army to the Japanese in the Philippines was a catastrophe.

The routing and near destruction of our army in North Korea by the Chinese was a catastrophe.

Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were a catastrophes.

In comparison, Iraq and Afghanistan have been wildly successful walks in the park.

bin Laden has often argued to his followers that the United States citizenry is a "weak horse" which no longer has the stomach for war. Bin Laden claims that you can force the American military to withdraw and surrender the battlefield if you simply spill enough blood, even if that blood is spilled by murdered civilians and the jihadis themselves. When I read statements like the one posted above, I fear that bin Laden may be more right than we are willing to admit to ourselves.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 11:55 AM

Bart writes:
My my, the hyperbole is running thick here.

I believe that you will have a hard time finding more than a handful of battles in any of our previous wars which turned out better with fewer casualties than the prospective battle to clear Baghdad.

Pseudo self-satisfying rhetoric aside, compare how many years it took to clear France of Nazi troops to how long it will have taken to 'clear Baghdad', should that ever occur.

# posted by

John : 12:10 PM

"Bart" said:

In 2004, US and Iraqi troops routed out the Mahdi Army militia from Najaf and its leader Sadr joined the government....

Yeah. Saw that in the news:

"Despite the central Baghdad crackdown, 50 bodies were found in a neighborhood near Haifa Street. Ten more corpses were discovered across the Tigris River in the Rusafa neighborhood. All appeared to have been shot execution-style, Iraqi officials said."

How's Tall Afar doing, you ask?:

"In the north, a suicide car bomber detonated his explosives close to a convoy carrying the mayor of Tall Afar, killing one person and injuring three police officers, Iraqi officials said. The mayor survived.

"In downtown Tall Afar, a suicide bomber wearing a vest packed with explosives killed four people and injured a dozen. In Mosul, police recovered three bodies from various neighborhoods."

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 12:53 PM

"Bart" DePalma:

In sum, while the violence has risen, its geographic boundaries have shrunken enormously....

"I believe. I believe" -- "Stalag 17"

We're winning!, dontcha get it? That's why we need a troop "surge" to finish 'em off once and for all....

I note that "Bart" doesn't address Prof. Balkin's point here: "Go Big or Go Home"....

*****

Here's one to contemplate, from our illustrious 'strategic' thinker "Bart":

In the past, we cleared areas and then left them to be reoccupied by the enemy in what some Army wag derisively named the "whack a mole" strategy....
...
After what I imagine was a great deal of arm twisting by the US, the Iraqis also moved in 3 more brigades of troops from the peaceful sectors of Iraq into Baghdad so they will end up with 2 brigades in each of the 9 sectors.

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 1:01 PM

bitswapper said...

Pseudo self-satisfying rhetoric aside, compare how many years it took to clear France of Nazi troops to how long it will have taken to 'clear Baghdad', should that ever occur.

It took a couple weeks to clear Falljah at the cost of maybe a couple dozen US KIA.

I would expect a similar clearing operation in Baghdad with the same tempo to take a couple months with a few dozen US KIA.

In comparison, it took nearly a year for the Allies to liberate France with the cost of over 100,000 KIA, if memory serves.

No comparison at all.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 1:11 PM

"Bart" DePalma needs a spell-check:

It took a couple weeks to clear Falljah at the cost of maybe a couple dozen US KIA.

He misspelled "flatten".

Anne commented on the 'new strategy' here.

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 1:40 PM

"Bart" DePalma remains under the delusion that all we're fighting in Iraq is "al Qaeada" [sic]:

"Now, when I support our soldiers fighting terrorists who are aligned with the al Qaeada gang who murdered 3000 of our citizens and who think nothing of murdering thousands more Iraqis, I still feel pride on our troops and what they are doing."

He's sadly mistaken. As is Dubya.

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 1:51 PM

arne:

You make your first valid point concerning my posts - I am an awful typist who does not spend time editing his posts squeezed in at work.

I often wince after re-reading the typos in my posts.

For those of you who similarly wince at my typos, you have my sincere apologies.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 2:41 PM

bitswapper: half-trying to win as a way to pass the problem onto a successor.

Perhaps that states it too literally. Things are lined up for the Democratic party to take the blame. This assumes Rove et al have predicted the Dems to keep a sufficient showing in Congress to use them as scapegoats (which is arguably the primary function of the party in the reality of today's socio-economic hierarchy.) With the full weight of the Rupert Murdoch noise machine behind such an effort the Dems wouldn't even need to maintain a majority to be splayed thusly on the altar of public opinion. So I'm not suggesting 43 is setting up for the next President to take the blame, but rather for this current batch of Democrats in Congress.

Anyway, it's just this notion I have, which was echoed in Professor Balkin's post...

# posted by

Robert Link : 3:05 PM

"Bart" is innumerate:

arne:

You make your first valid point concerning my posts - I am an awful typist who does not spend time editing his posts squeezed in at work.

There's the problem. "Bart" refuses to address any substantive rebuttals. You'd think, though, at the very least, he would acknowledge that he was wrong about Brown II, and that he wouldn't trot out for a second time that a majority of the Supreme Court "held" that the N.Y. Times could be prosecuted post-publication for the Pentagon Papers (particularly since I corrected him once, and he did graciously acknowledge his error there the first time).

Cheers,

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 4:22 PM