We've done about all we can in Iraq; Now it is US election politics

Larry Johnson points out that we have never had enough troops in Iraq to conduct Counterinsurgency actions, so that all we can do is conduct Counterterrorism attacks. Along with that our training of Iraq troops has had the effect of creating an Iraqi Shia army that the Shia's are using and will continue to use in their internal civil war with the Sunnis. There is no Iraqi army, and will be none.

"Counterterrorism" according to Larry Johnson is that set of offensive actions involving using military forces to "identify, locate, and kill or capture terrorist operatives. It is an offensive rather than defensive tactic."

"Counterinsurgency" is a much broader set of actions that are designed to eliminate the insurgency, not just go after terrorists. The Army defines it:

"Counterinsurgency is those military, paramilitary, political, economic, psychological, and civic actions taken by a government to defeat insurgency (JP 1-02). It is an offensive approach involving all elements of national power; it can take place across the range of operations and spectrum of conflict. It supports and influences an HN’s IDAD program. It includes strategic and operational planning; intelligence development and analysis; training; materiel, technical, and organizational assistance; advice; infrastructure development; tactical-level operations; and many elements of PSYOP. Generally, the preferred methods of support are through assistance and development programs. Leaders must consider the roles of military, intelligence, diplomatic, law enforcement, information, finance, and economic elements (MIDLIFE) in counterinsurgency."

So let's go back to what Larry Johnson says"

"Without a draft or a substantial increase in coalition forces on the ground in Iraq, we do not have the resources to conduct a counterinsurgency campaign. If we decided to go this route we must be ready to accept that the process will endure several years and that casualty rates for coalition forces would, at least over the short run, increase dramatically. Talking about this is pure fantasy. No political leader in the United States has the stomach or courage go down this road.

It is becoming clearer everyday that the Iraqi Shia are consolidating their power and the fight with the Sunnis will continue for several years. The United States has succeeded in creating a Shia religious state in Iraq; an accomplishment that has horrified Iraq's Sunni neighbors."

So because we didn't have the resources, for years Rumsfeld and the Bush administration have refused to admit that we are in a situation in Iraq where the only way to win is a counterinsurgency campaign. No Draft means no counterinsurgency campaign. But a draft is politically impossible for the Republicans, because they sold the war in Iraq as a quick in-and-out operation that would leave behind a budding free market democracy that would become a beacon for the rest of the Middle East. Passing a draft would be admitting that Bush/Cheney screwed up when they invaded Iraq.

So now they are stuck with overseeing a war in which there is no way to win. But as long as we don't pull out and leave the Civil War as the main thing happening, they haven't LOST. So the Republicans can continue to fight the war and use their dominance of the media narrative to paint the Democrats as "Weak" because they want to give up the war.

This media narrative control runs on a two year cycle, dependent on the timing of the American Congressional elections. The main purpose of Iraq to the Republicans today is to not appear to have lost it, and to use it to win each election as it comes up.

The recent events leave me suspicious. Bush's surprise trip to Iraq was very probably mpre than just a publicity stunt to show his interest. Is it a concidence that Bush met with the Prime Minister of Iraq who then, within a week, requested that the U.S. provide a schedule for withdrawal of American troops? General Casey, commander of troops in Iraq also announced a schedule of American withdrawal.

This is all timed very nicely to allow the withdrawal of many American troops prior to the November election, something I have predicted since Summer of 2005. Bush can then announce the withdrawal as a success for the Republican strategy (unknown to anyone but Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rove) in Iraq. The timing of all favorable events has to be in the Summer and Fall before the bienniel elections. The timing of announcements for all bad things has to be the Spring and Summer after each election. With the Republican ability to control the media narrative and with the Sunni insurgent inability to win the Civil War in Iraq (they also are in contention to avoid admitting losing), this becomes possible to maintain over each two year American election cycle.

The Democrats this last week tried to throw a wrentch into the process by forcing a discussion of how to win or get out of Iraq. The Republican were able to use House rules to deflect it into a meaningless discussion on a House Resolution in the House, and since the minority party has no executive responsibility or way to achieve a unanimous decision (and sense there are members of the Senate who want to differentiate themselves for a run for the Presidency in 2008) the Senate Democrats were not able to present a unified position. This was countered by the Republicans with a media narrative that the Democrats are disorganized and disunited with no party plan for Iraq. This media narrative is expected also to allow the Republicans to start pulling troops out of Iraq in August and take credit for it for the November election. If the Democrats keep demanding a pull-out between now and then, the Democrats will get credit for forcing the pull-out (but in the short run for the election will be blamed for the increase in violence and more obvious Civil War that will occur in Iraq in either case. Either choice gives the Republicans the appearance of strength and the Democrats the appearance of wealness in Iraq.

So this is the way I see the next four months going nationally. The Democrats will win many of the House elections from Republicans, but the Republicans are likely to maintain the majority.

That's my bet, anyway.