Top Military Strategist: Time to Cut and Run from Iraq

Jeez, it's really noteworthy when someone as accomplished and smart as Martin Van Creveld--one of this generation's top military strategists--says it's time to get the hell out of Iraq:

the thing to do is to forget about face-saving and conduct a classic withdrawal.

Handing over their bases or demolishing them if necessary, American forces will have to fall back on Baghdad. From Baghdad they will have to make their way to the southern port city of Basra, and from there back to Kuwait, where the whole misguided adventure began. When Prime Minister Ehud Barak pulled Israel out of Lebanon in 2000, the military was able to carry out the operation in a single night without incurring any casualties. That, however, is not how things will happen in Iraq.

Not only are American forces perhaps 30 times larger, but so is the country they have to traverse. A withdrawal probably will require several months and incur a sizable number of casualties. As the pullout proceeds, Iraq almost certainly will sink into an all-out civil war from which it will take the country a long time to emerge — if, indeed, it can do so at all. All this is inevitable and will take place whether George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice like it or not.

Man, I thought I was a pessimist.  However, Creveld falls into a really common fallacy in the next graf:

Yet a complete American withdrawal is not an option; the region, with its vast oil reserves, is simply too important for that. A continued military presence, made up of air, sea and a moderate number of ground forces, will be needed.

What Creveld fails to acknowledge here is that the region, with its vast oil reserves, has every reason (and the means) to develop their own military forces in order to deter their neighbors.  Absent a U.S. presence, a potential Iranian charge into Saudi Arabia would be met by a coalition of states that could even range far north into Turkey and as far east as Pakistan.  It's also tough to imagine that the Saudis couldn't do some rather quick defense acquisitions with the gazillions that are pouring into their coffers from the high oil prices.  Better they buy planes and tanks from us than fund madrassas, no?

But perhaps Creveld means that Iraq would be unable to do so--which is why a lot of smart people would favor a security guarantee to Iraq for several years in order to deter a conventional invasion.  All you'd have to do is make a clear, say five year commitment--anybody invades Iraq, we send in JDAMs and stealth bombers.  Deterrence still works.  But the notion that the United States must have U.S. forces in the region in order to "ensure stability" (how's that gone, anyway, historically?) is entirely unfounded.  But Creveld sees other problems:

A continued American military presence will be needed also, because a divided, chaotic, government-less Iraq is very likely to become a hornets' nest. From it, a hundred mini-Zarqawis will spread all over the Middle East, conducting acts of sabotage and seeking to overthrow governments in Allah's name.

The Gulf States apart, the most vulnerable country is Jordan, as evidenced by the recent attacks in Amman. However, Turkey, Egypt and, to a lesser extent, Israel are also likely to feel the impact. Some of these countries, Jordan in particular, are going to require American assistance.

Maintaining an American security presence in the region, not to mention withdrawing forces from Iraq, will involve many complicated problems, military as well as political. Such an endeavor, one would hope, will be handled by a team different from — and more competent than — the one presently in charge of the White House and Pentagon.

For misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C sent his legions into Germany and lost them, Bush deserves to be impeached and, once he has been removed from office, put on trial along with the rest of the president's men. If convicted, they'll have plenty of time to mull over their sins.

That first graf above gets at something I've been harping on for some time--the most effective way to fight Zarqawi and his folks is not by putting 320,000 boots on the ground doing civil policing in Iraq.  Yes, we're going to have to continue the war on terrorism once we leave Iraq.  Yes, Iraq is going to remain at the center of the GWOT for the foreseeable future.  But an acknowledgement of that reality does not have to--and indeed should not--equal supporting "staying the course" of the Iraq war.

And damn, that last graf is just devastating.  When somebody as well-respected as Creveld is unraveled like that, it's time to raise your eyebrows.

Hat tip: Brad DeLong.

Comments

[Spencer]

For anyone who's read "The Transformation of War" or van Creveld's other works, this is really striking. He has a tendency to render judgment in geologic time, but when he does, he tends to account for every nuance, complication, and contingency. Wow.