May 04, 2006
Lime Kool Aid
Decoding the McCaffrey Memo
If this is the cost of victory in Iraq, is America willing to pay it?
By Fred Kaplan
Updated Wednesday, May 3, 2006, at 6:12 PM ET
Good news and bad news on the war in Iraq: The good news is that victory is possible, our troops are the best ever, the Iraqi army is getting bigger and better, and most Iraqi people want a pluralistic government. The bad news is that it will take 10 more years to accomplish these successes—at least three years just to get the Iraqi military into shape.This is the prognosis of a private seven-page memo that retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey wrote to the heads of the social science department at West Point, where he now teaches international relations. He wrote the memo—which has started to circulate on the Internet—after a weeklong fact-finding tour of Iraq and Kuwait, where he talked with more than a dozen top generals and received two dozen briefings at all levels, from ambassadors and commanders to grunts.
McCaffrey has criticized the way the Bush administration has waged this war (last fall, he decried the Pentagon's "childish assumptions" of how many troops would be necessary), but he has not joined the ranks of retired generals calling for Rumsfeld's scalp. He supports the war and thinks our troops need to stay till the job's done, whatever the price.
The significance of this memo is that it reveals—from an optimistic but realistic insider's perspective—the magnitude of the price, and it's probably way higher than what the vast majority of Americans are willing to pay.
McCaffrey begins his memo with praise for how much progress has been made: "The morale, fighting effectiveness, and confidence of U.S. combat forces continue to be simply awe-inspiring. … They are the toughest soldiers we have ever fielded. … The Iraqi Army is real, growing, and willing to fight. … The Iraqi police are beginning to show marked improvement in capability." A few "are on a par with the best U.S. SWAT units."
Then comes the far more extensive downside.
The Iraqi army battalions, he writes, "are very badly equipped with only a few light vehicles [and] small arms. … They have almost no mortars, heavy machine guns, decent communications equipment, artillery, armor, or … air transport, helicopter, and strike support."
The bottom line: "We need at least two-to-five more years of U.S. partnership and combat backup to get the Iraqi Army ready to stand on its own." (Emphasis added.)
The political-administrative apparatus is in worse shape still: The "corruption and lack of capability of the ministries [of defense and interior] will require several years of patient coaching and officer education in values as well as the required competence." (Emphasis added.)
And this is nothing compared with problems in the police force. "The crux of the war hangs on the ability to create urban and rural local police with the ability to survive on the streets of this increasingly dangerous and lethal environment," McCaffrey writes. It is "a prerequisite to the Iraqis winning the counter-insurgency struggle they will face in the coming decade." And yet:
The police are heavily infiltrated by both [foreign jihadists] and Shia militias. They are incapable of confronting local armed groups. They inherited a culture of inaction, passivity, human rights abuses, and deep corruption. This will be a 10-year project requiring patience, significant resources, and an international public face. (Emphasis added.)We also, he says, need to pour in a lot more money. The Iraqi army is underfunded by "an order of magnitude or more." As for civil reconstruction, "we will fail to achieve our politico-military objectives in the coming 24 months if we do not continue economic support on the order of $5-10 billion a year." (Meanwhile, only $1.6 billion remains in the pipeline from the $18 billion allocated three years ago, and White House officials have said that no more will be sent until Iraq is physically secure.)
Finally, there are the broader political worries. The "incompetence and corruption" of the various interim Iraqi governments resulted in a "total lack of trust among the families, the tribes, and the sectarian factions." The violence and chaos also produced a "brain drain" and, with it, "a loss of the potential leadership to solve the mess that is Iraq today." If the new prime minister, Jawad al-Maliki, doesn't form an inclusive government in his first 120 days in power, McCaffrey notes, "there will be a significant chance of the country breaking apart in warring factions," regardless of our efforts.
He concludes his memo by urging perseverance but conceding some doubt. He asks, "Do we have the political will, do we have the military power, will we spend the resources required to achieve our aims?"
McCaffery has drunk the Kool Aid. You can't win a Fourth Generation war using Second Generation strategy and the General Staff is out of tricks. I'm old enough to remember the helicopters lifting of the roof of the US embassy in Saigon. I hope that very expensive palace/embassy we've built in Baghdad has helipad.
Posted by Melanie at May 4, 2006 12:07 PM | TrackBackThis guy had two tours of duty in Vietnam. You'd think he'd know better than to believe we can win anything in Eye-rack. Of course he was also the "Drug Czar" and we all know how well that "war" went under his command. Yet another, perhaps unintended, Bu$hCo rimjobber.
So, General, what is the Upside/Downside ratio? It seems that the denominator is the larger number.
Fourth generation war? This is a cute term that implies the policy hegemony of the new Special Operations command whose role it is to consolidate all the insane counter-terror, counter-insurgency, psyops, civil affairs, public safety, and information operations of the past century. it is a recipe for madness, and its success will be measured as the death squads and P2OG fake terrorists go berzerk on the civilians of an Iraq violently partitioned into 3 convulsing rump states, sowing instability for all its neighbors. this is the only possible meaning of success in this arena.
Peter,
Since you clearly haven't yet read B.H. Liddell Hart, please tell me why the hell I should pay any attention at all to what you say.
If you haven't read Hart, you can't possibly absorb Boyd, and you clearly don't have a clue about what is going on right now.
Peter, you're revving your fingers into high gear without engaging your mind.
Spend some serious quality time doing some background reading and you'll find your remarks enjoying some credibility.
Go into "rant" mode about modern military history on a blog salted with military history students? Complete with run-on nonsense sentences? That'll get you invited to a roast. Yours.
BTW. This is the sort of rant that gives lefties a bad name. Because the centrists we need to reach are going to see things like this and just tune the message right out. Not good.
Charles,
Let me be a little more harsh. Peter hasn't done an ounce of homework and he is like most americans, open to sway because of ignorance. Let's call him "patient zero." For want of a better term, ignorance spreads like infectious disease.


