Thursday, May 15, 2008
On the Stretching of Resources
I happen to think that's bunk. First of all, it's a hypothesis. Fine. No problem. But there is no evidence to suggest it's correct. It should therefore not be accepted as gospel. And we won't in fact know until years from now.
Let me posit a counter-hypothesis. Being in Iraq and Afghanistan makes our effort against Al Qaeda more effective, not less. It does so because we have superior resources than our enemy does, and it forces Al Qaeda to stretch its resources. Furthermore, since General Petraeus mounted a new counterinsurgency strategy, we have imposed a far greater cost on all of our regional enemies, including Al Qaeda, Iranian proxies led by Sadrist Shiite militias, and even Iranian forces directly committed to Iraq.
This is one war comprised of several theaters. Our presence surrounds Iran and breaks Al Qaeda into several pieces, where they cannot consolidate. Our resources are in fact superior than that of our enemy, and by working closely with the leadership and military of Iraq and Afghanistan, we multiply our strength. Finally, where necessary, Israeli military force has been brought to bear upon Syria and Hezbollah, further stretching and costing enemy resources.
And we still have most of our ground forces and entire air and naval capability in reserve. So please spare me the "we are stretched" argument. It doesn't hold water to me. Is this demanding and does it impose sacrifice upon our men and women overseas? Of course. Is it dangerous? Yes indeed. But this is what the military does, and they are absolutely amazing in their capacity to deliver. Certainly better than our brilliant legislators.
11 Comments:
By 
, at
Thu May 15, 02:54:00 PM:
A quick check of any map will show that Afghanistan is a mountainous country with no seaports. The US is a sea power with the capacity to move large armor units by sea. Simply put, many of the forces fighting in Iraq cannot be directly deployed to Afghanistan, unless they leave their armor (tanks and stuff) behind.
Too many activists, politicians and leftists failed their military history classes.
By , at
Thu May 15, 04:16:00 PM:
I think you're correct, although we do face a shortage of something Al Qaeda does not in a sustained war lacking clearcut victories: the (political, in our case) will to fight. I also think most strategists would agree we are not in a position to invade a country of 165 million (Pakistan) or even a mere 65 million (Iran) without first freeing up our armed forces in Iraq.
By , at
Thu May 15, 05:27:00 PM:
At any given moment, the armed forces on the ground (Army or Marines) face certain "tactical" shortcomings; i.e., not enough men, material, etc at any given moment or location. That is a given in the unpredictable nature of war. By taking the intitiative, or what soldiers call "offense", we can mitigate those problem by forcing our adversaries (sometimes call "the enemy") to be in the reactive mode, i.e., they have trouble getting their resources to the point of attack ("gettin' there fustest with the mostest!").
What CP is seeing is the STRATEGIC view of war. Double-plus ungood from the view of the armchair generals at the NY Times, etc.
-David
By , at
Thu May 15, 05:31:00 PM:
Or to put it more prosaically, quoting John Wayne from "The Searchers":
"Injun will chase a thing till he thinks he's chased it enough. Then he quits. Same way when he runs. Seems like he never learns there's such a thing as a critter that'll just keep comin' on. So we'll find 'em in the end, I promise you. We'll find 'em. Just as sure as the turnin' of the earth."
As long as we don't quit and walk off the battlefield, we will win, in the end. But that's a big "if".
-David
By 
Georg Felis, at
Thu May 15, 06:48:00 PM:
Whenever you hear the canard “stretched thin” from the Dems, you know they are watching the flow of money away from their hands. How much better life would be if that cash were to be spent on things they want, inner-city youth poverty programs, bridges, roads, needle exchanges, foundation grants, studies, and papers, instead of being spent to defeat people who want to kill us and destroy our nation.
*sigh* The only thing more expensive than winning a war, is losing one.
By , at
Thu May 15, 08:03:00 PM:
How true, Georgfelis, how true.
Squealer:
Suppose Iran makes good on their promise to destroy Israel. Assuming the next President wants to retaliate, he or she might be pleasantly surprised to find out that we have them surrounded.
We don't call this "The Long War" for nothing.
By Neil Sinhababu, at
Fri May 16, 02:39:00 AM:
All estimates I've seen put the number of foreign jihadis in Iraq at a pretty low level -- not more than 2000.
Even if that level got to 0, you'd still have a huge problem in Iraq -- not al-Qaeda, but Sunnis and Shiites acting on old wounds that have just had the scabs ripped off. That, as I understand it, is the real impediment to setting up a functioning democracy. The kinds of government that Shiites and Sunnis (and Kurds) will regard as legitimate don't overlap. Everybody's afraid of their enemies having too much power, so you can't constitute a government that the people will regard as legitimate.
So I don't think that leaving Iraq would cause some great flow of al-Qaeda types into Afghanistan. There's not many in Iraq in the first place, and looking at our Iraq problem as an al-Qaeda problem is a confusion. The real problem in Iraq -- the interethnic mistrust -- is something that no foreign military can really fix.
By Neil Sinhababu, at
Fri May 16, 02:48:00 AM:
This is the most recent thing I can find on # of foreign jihadis:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0107/p02s01-usmi.html
US military officials note that they don't know precisely how many foreign fighters are in Iraq; even this report does not indicate one way or another. Some accounts have suggested that the number is no more than a few hundred at any one time.
By Georg Felis, at
Fri May 16, 09:29:00 AM:
You mean "living, non-imprisoned foreign jihadis" right Neil? I understand they're having a bit of problem with work-related accidents, lack of safety equipment in the workplace, and a generally hostile workplace that is keeping their numbers in check. Not to mention the pay sucks, and the retirement plan is underfunded and underutilized.
Which is a good thing.
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri May 16, 10:54:00 AM:
"The real problem in Iraq -- the interethnic mistrust -- is something that no foreign military can really fix."
This is relatively insightful.
The biggest contributor to Iraqi inter-ethnic cooperation has been common hatred of and opposition to the Islamists. One of the remarkable things about the latest anti-JAM effort has been that EVERYONE has been onboard. The Kurds, the Sunnis, the Shi'i, everyone.
But once there are no more common threats like that, whether the Iraqis can maintain their quasi-balanced little democratic state depends on their willingness to compromise and (moreso) the inability of paramilitary groups to develop and influence life there. (see: Hezb Allah)
This is one of the more sophisticated arguments for a long term American military presence in Iraq; not just to keep the lid on Iran, but to act as a sort of 'coup insurance' to make sure that the ruling government cannot be compromised by some armed group interested in power only for themselves. Thereby even if the Iraqi military is coopted somehow, there is still a powerful force of men and guns available to prop up the state for a while.
By Consul-At-Arms, at
Mon May 19, 12:52:00 AM:
I've quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2008/05/re-on-stretching-of-resources.html
