Subscribe to our free daily newsletters
. Military Space News .




Subscribe to our free daily newsletters



More Troops In Iraq Will Make Little Difference

File photo of US marine in Iraq
by William S. Lind
UPI Commentator
Washington (UPI) Nov 30, 2006
The latest serpent at which a drowning Washington Establishment is grasping is the idea of sending more American troops to Iraq. Would more troops turn the war there in America's favor? No.

Why not? First, because nothing can. The war in Iraq is irredeemably lost. Neither we nor, at present, anyone else can create a new Iraqi state to replace the one our invasion destroyed. Maybe that will happen after the Iraqi civil was is resolved, maybe not. It is in any case out of our hands.

Nor could more American troops control the forces driving Iraq's intensifying civil war. The passions of ethnic and religious hatred unleashed by the disintegration of the Iraqi state will not cool because a few more American patrols pass through the streets. Iraqi's are quite capable of fighting us and each other at the same time.

A second reason more troops would make no difference is that the troops we have there now don't know what to do, or at least their leaders don't know what they should do. For the most part, American troops in Iraq sit on their Forward Operating Bases; in effect, we are besieging ourselves. Troops under siege are seldom effective at controlling the surrounding countryside, regardless of their number.

When American troops do leave their FOBs, it is almost always to run convoys, which is to say to provide targets; to engage in meaningless patrols, again providing targets; or to do raids, which are downright counterproductive, because they turn the people even more strongly against us, where that is possible. Doing more of any of these things would help us not at all.

More troops might make a difference if they were sent as part of a change in strategy, away from raids and "killing bad guys" and toward something like the Vietnam war's CAP program, where American troops defended villages instead of attacking them. But there is no sign of any such change of strategy on the horizon, so there would be nothing useful for more troops to do.

Even a CAP program would be likely to fail at this stage of the Iraq war, which points to the third reason more troops would not help us: more troops cannot turn back the clock. For the CAP or "ink blot" strategy to work, there has to be some level of acceptance of the foreign troops by the local people. When we first invaded Iraq, that was present in much of the country.

But we squandered that good will with blunder upon blunder. How many troops would it take to undo all those errors? The answer is either zero or an infinite number, because no quantity of troops can erase history. The argument that more troops in the beginning, combined with an ink blot strategy, might have made the Iraq venture a success does not mean that more troops could do the same thing now.

The clinching argument against more troops also relates to time: sending more troops would mean nothing to our opponents on the ground, because those opponents know we could not sustain a significantly larger occupation force for any length of time. So what if a few tens of thousands more Americans come for a few months? The U.S. military is strained to the breaking point to sustain the force there now. Where is the rotation base for a much larger deployment to come from?

The fact that Washington is seriously considering sending more American troops to Iraq illustrates a common phenomenon in war. As the certainty of defeat looms ever more clearly, the scrabbling about for a miracle cure, a deus ex machina, becomes ever more desperate -- and more silly. Cavalry charges, Zeppelins, V-2 missiles, kamikazes, the list is endless. In the end, someone finally has to face facts and admit defeat. The sooner someone in Washington is willing to do that, the sooner the troops we already have in Iraq will come home -- alive.

William S. Lind, expressing his own personal opinion, is Director for the Center for Cultural Conservatism for the Free Congress Foundation.

Source: United Press International

Related Links
-

Can Iraq Be Successfully Torn Apart
Washington (UPI) Dec 01, 2006
Washington is abuzz with theories offering a potential way out of Iraq, one risk expert poses a new option: split Iraq in two. "We need radical thinking. The military situation (in Iraq) cries out for political experimentation," David Apgar, a risk and development strategist and author of the book "Risk Intelligence."







  • Shock And Awe About-Face
  • China, US To Hold First Strategic Economic Dialogue
  • Breaking Taboo, Japan Votes To Create Defense Ministry
  • US Power Stays In Middle East

  • Blair Faces Backlash Over Nuclear Deterrent Replacement
  • US Urges North Korea To Close Nuke Facilities Before Talks
  • Japan Pledges To IAEA To Shun Nukes
  • North Korean Options

  • Raytheon Awarded Contract For Missile Launcher Production
  • Pakistan Test Fires Nuclear-Capable Missile
  • Raytheon HARM Variant Hits Target Without Radar Guidance
  • Missiles, Missiles Everywhere

  • A Giant Leap Forward For Indian Missile Defense
  • India Joins BMD Club
  • India Says First Missile Intercept Test A Success
  • Aegis Missile Defense Fleet Tops 80 Ships

  • Boeing Business Jets Delivers Its 100th Green Airplane
  • A380 Wraps Up Technical Route Proving After a Final Trip Over Both Poles
  • DLR And EUROCONTROL Create Joint Total Airport Management Concept
  • Aviation Industry Alarmed At New EU Emission Rules

  • Goodrich Awarded Contract From USAF To Develop Shortwave Infrared Sensor For UAVs
  • Beale AFB Gets New Global Hawk
  • QinetiQ World First Flight Demo Of Multiple UAV System
  • Boeing Demonstrates UAV Automated Aerial Refueling Capability

  • More Troops In Iraq Will Make Little Difference
  • Can Iraq Be Successfully Torn Apart
  • Can Syria And Iran Help The US And UK Leave Iraq
  • US May Boost Troops In Iraq

  • Pimp My Tank Cuba Remakes Weapons With US Foe In Mind
  • QinetiQ Awarded DARPA Contract To Explore 'First-Of-Their-Kind' Sensors
  • Raytheon's Paveway Precision Guided Bomb Kit Wins US Air Force Contract Competition
  • US Army To Deploy Lockheed Martin Persistent Threat Detection Systems

  • The content herein, unless otherwise known to be public domain, are Copyright 1995-2006 - SpaceDaily.AFP and UPI Wire Stories are copyright Agence France-Presse and United Press International. ESA PortalReports are copyright European Space Agency. All NASA sourced material is public domain. Additionalcopyrights may apply in whole or part to other bona fide parties. Advertising does not imply endorsement,agreement or approval of any opinions, statements or information provided by SpaceDaily on any Web page published or hosted by SpaceDaily. Privacy Statement