At A Dangerous Crossroads, But A Needed One

There are reports that the US military wants to declare victory against Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). It would seem that our surge, coupled with a new strategy has been successful. Despite the fact that people still die there daily, the number and ferocity of attacks has diminished. Marines in Ramadi don’t wear body armor. Tribal leaders and everyday folks in Iraq have decided that enough is enough and have taken back their towns and villages. AQI has been run out of virtually every stronghold they once controlled. When was the last time you heard of Fallujah?

The intelligence community is expressing the opinion that it is too early to make this declaration. They think, and rightly so, that AQ has been remarkably focused and has recovered time and time again from defeats. The declaration, or non declaration, will have political consequences far beyond tomorrow’s headlines. This is a situation that we must think through carefully in the context of the global war on terror (GWOT) and the situation in Iraq for our warriors and for the governments of Iraq and the US.

First we must acknowledge that all organizations have institutional bias. For those that have been around my place a while, you know I worked for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for five years, and a year ago accepted a corporate position as a Director of Security. Before either of those I was in local law enforcement. I say all of that to give you this personal example of this bias.

Leaving law enforcement for DHS was a bit of a change going from carrying a gun and kicking in doors to a management/operations/intelligence focus. I always had in the back of my mind how the guys who were to kick in doors would approach things and see the situation as it developed. When I left to accept my current position, I had to reload and think about internal things such a logistics and internal thefts. I had to think about how to keep things IN, instead of keeping things OUT. It took a couple of months to fully refocus my thinking.

The military is the same. Don’t misunderstand me here, I am not bashing the military or implying that they are incapable of broad thinking. I am saying that there is a definition of victory in the military that does not mean, contrary to the critics of “mission Accomplished”, that every single last possibility of death has been removed. Military victory means that a situation exists where the enemy is incapable of mounting a substantive and effective offensive. It means that the enemy has been decimated to the point that they are not a serious threat to our forces and our objectives.

The military may be correct, and this is a fantastic situation report (SITREP) from our warriors and for our nation. We must ask what the consequences would be to a declaration of victory.

The Negatives –

1) It means that the left would have us remove troops immediately.
Not a good thing. In warfare there are stages to even a victory. A “breakthrough” is what happens when you punch a hole in the enemy’s defenses. It must be followed by a “breakout” which is the continuity of action that takes advantage of the breakthrough. Sometimes it is further military action that expands the military operation. Sometimes it might be more political and establishing a solid defensive posture. It can be argued that General Robert E. Lee could have actually won the battle of Gettysburg and broken the Union Army, but in a rare tactical mistake did not plan a breakout.

2) It could backfire if AQI has simply shifted their focus to another theater, such as Afghanistan or Pakistan.

3) It would have deep political consequences if we declare victory and AQI regroups and launches an offensive, resulting in the need to deploy more forces back to Iraq after many have returned home.

4) It would further erode the public awareness of what the GWOT means.

The Positives –

1) It would increase the public support of our forces and the next battle if we have defeated one enemy.

2) It would raise President Bush’s approval, and increase the power of the incumbent party for 2008.

3) It would make the dems look like a bunch of bed-wetting pacifists that are scared to fight the wars. It would also show that they truly had no plan and no concept of what needed done. Basically, it would show that they were wrong all along and the public made a terrible decision giving them the power of Congress.

It would warm my heart to accomplish # 3 immediately above, but I can’t consider that. I think we should NOT declare victory at this time. I think that we should issue report after report on the specifics of this SITREP. We should inundate the public with the good news. We should continue the breakout phase and push (HARD) the Iraqi government to make things happen. We should take advantage of this situation, yet continue to work hard to make it better.

Your thoughts?