Energy News  
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

Community
Email This Article
Comment On This Article

Related Links
- Iraq: The first technology war of the 21st century



Memory Foam Mattress Review
Newsletters :: SpaceDaily :: SpaceWar :: TerraDaily :: Energy Daily
XML Feeds :: Space News :: Earth News :: War News :: Solar Energy News


US May Boost Troops In Iraq
Washington (UPI) Nov 30, 2006
There is a 16,000-soldier "gap" in Baghdad, according to a secret White House memo leaked to the New York Times. The memo, from National Security Adviser Steve Hadley, lays out a way ahead for U.S. policy in Iraq that suggests the number of U.S. forces there could increase, rather than decrease. The White House memo was leaked as Democrats prepare to take over Congress.







  • Producers Strain To Supply Growing Wind Power Market
  • Isolated Armenia Leads The Way In Using Cleaner Car Fuel
  • China Prioritizes Hydropower In The West
  • Russian, Ukrainian Scientists To Collaborate In Solar Research

  • Thorium Poised To Meet World's Energy Needs
  • Bulgaria Signs Contract With Atomstroyexport To Build Nuclear Plant
  • Dwindling Forests And Resources Force Africa To Mull Nuclear Energy
  • Iran Offers To Share Nuclear Know-How With Algeria

  • Steering Clear Of Icy Skies
  • Increase In Carbon Dioxide Emissions Accelerating
  • Researchers Gaze At Cloud Formations
  • France To Create Coal Tax, Tighten Pollution Measures

  • Report Outlines Funding To Conserve Half Of Massachusetts's Land
  • Trees Reversing Skinhead Earth May Aid Global Climate
  • Danish Christmas Tree Shortage Threatens Prices Across Europe
  • Ancestor of Modern Trees Preserves Record Of Ancient Climate Change

  • Indonesia And Australia Seek Regional Action On Dwindling Fish Stocks
  • ASEAN Endorses Major Initiatives To Boost Regional Rice Production
  • Japan Ready For Cut In Indian Ocean Tuna Catch
  • Wheat Gene May Boost Foods' Nutrient Content

  • 'Hummernator' Schwarzenegger Wants Greener Cars
  • GM Shifts Gears, Makes Push For Electric Cars, More Hybrids
  • EPRI, Argonne To Assess Commercial Viability Of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles
  • London Blazes Anti-Pollution Trail With Vehicle Congestion Charge

  • 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

  • Could NASA Get To Pluto Faster? Space Expert Says Yes - By Thinking Nuclear
  • NASA plans to send new robot to Jupiter
  • Los Alamos Hopes To Lead New Era Of Nuclear Space Tranportion With Jovian Mission
  • Boeing Selects Leader for Nuclear Space Systems Program

  • 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