Unqualified Offerings

Looking Sideways at Your World Since October 2001
« « A Century Gone in the Teeth | Main | Back » »

August 29, 2005

Dys-Krep-ancies

Further quick thoughts on the Krepinevich article reviewed last night.

1. Krepinevich’s end aim is - enduring bases! He slips in a mention that the grand coalition of Iraqis he envisions forging would be glad to keep about “20,000″ US troops around on a permanent basis after the insurgency is throttled to help defend the place from aggression by Iran and Syria. In the real world what this means is, among other things, the US would attempt to build its coalition out of Iraqi elements amenable to a permanent US presence - that becomes a requirement for membership.

2. As Col. Lang notes in his favorable gloss on the record of the oil spot strategy in Vietnam, it would entail mobilizing the civilian bureaucracy to a degree that Krepinevich downplays - massive USAID presence; probably other agencies as well. You can’t stop-loss those people or threaten them with an IRR callup. Simple careerism might get you a decent number of volunteers if the security in the “spots” were genuine security, but Lang makes it clear that oil-spottery is a massive combined military-civilian undertaking.

3. Krepinevich betrays no indication of having looked at the other side of the chess board. If he has asked himself, If I were one of the insurgent factions and wanted to thwart this plan, how would I do it? he or his editors kept it out of the article.

4. Finally, oil-spottery seems to be simply one of a class of approaches that Ayatollah Sistani preempted when he insisted on early direct elections and the US agreed. Krepinevich suggests that only secure regions would have elections during the course of his war, and only for local offices for most of that time. It amounts to direct colonial rule.

If you were determined to “win,” or at least keep at it, the Krepinevich plan may be inferior to the Administration’s own “stay-the-courseism.” There is a very narrow window opening for a sort of not as bad as it could be outcome to the existing process. In the rosy scenario, the Sunni leadership throws its energy into blocking the draft constitution at the ballot box and wins. New, reasonably secure elections in December lead to a parliament with reasonable Sunni representation and an understanding that the Kurds and Shiites need to take greater account of Sunni wishes if they want to get on with looting the treasury and veiling their women. The foreign jihadis become a distraction to the Sunni leadership’s real priority of getting a place at the feed trough. Everybody goes home happy, except for the barbers, the girls and people who like to have a good time on Saturday night.

For a little while. Odds: low. Odds compared to the oil-spot strategy. Not so bad.

Posted by Jim Henley @ 7:14 am, Filed under: Main

« « A Century Gone in the Teeth | Main | Back » »

7 Responses to “Dys-Krep-ancies”

  1. Comment by Hesiod
    August 29, 2005 @ 8:07 am

    I came up with a strategy on how to win in Iraq, and then get the hell out.

  2. Comment by Madeline
    August 29, 2005 @ 6:01 pm

    I’m sick of your linkspam, Hesiod.

  3. Comment by Jim Henley
    August 29, 2005 @ 6:44 pm

    Hi Madeline. Good to see you!
    .
    I’ll defend my colleague from charges of link-spammery on the following grounds: posting links to things he’s written is not all he does here. He’s a regular thread contributor on numerous topics and stays on-topic. In this particular case, frustration that I hadn’t gotten to specifically considering his proposal yet may have inspired him to overdo (linking to the same piece in three different threads), but I think of a true “link-spammer” as someone who drops into a site just long enough to advertise himself and pop out again without ever engaging the actual material (author and commenter-driven) in his way.
    .
    Maybe I really AM a liberal! ;)

  4. Comment by Hesiod
    August 29, 2005 @ 8:15 pm

    Sorry, Jim.
    I want other people to read what I wroite as well. The places I posted the link were relevant toi the topic. Rather than rehash it all in a post, I linked to what I wrote elsewhere.
    In any event, I’d like some comment about my idea.

  5. Comment by Gary Farber
    August 30, 2005 @ 2:07 pm

    Speaking of link-spam, I could have sworn I posted a link to this here yesterday, but apparently not.

  6. Comment by Madeline
    August 30, 2005 @ 4:39 pm

    Hey, Jim! I’m here every day or so; I just don’t comment often. (I don’t feel it makes any difference what I say about Iraq.) I was meaning to comment on the Bangladesh thing with my Bengali friend’s take, but since the move I only have internet at work.
    .
    Anyway, since it’s kosher with you, my apologies, Hesiod.

  7. Comment by Barry
    September 1, 2005 @ 10:16 pm

    BTW, I and a couple of other discerning individuals mentioned this thread over on Obsidian Wings, in discussions of the ‘oil spot’ tactic. I take full credit for any intelligent commenters; the problem children are all due to those other guys over on Obsidian Wings.