CBS News reports:

Insurgents shot down a U.S. military helicopter south of Baghdad, and the two pilots were rescued with minor injuries, the military said Tuesday.

The OH-58D Kiowa Attack helicopter was brought down by ground fire on Monday. After an Apache helicopter rescued the two pilots, a U.S. warplane dropped two 500-pound, laser-guided bombs on the downed craft to destroy it, the military said in a statement.

This incident reveals that our military is clearly not in control of the situation in Iraq. First, one of our attack helicopters is shot down by ground fire. Second, our military felt it was necessary to destroy the chopper from the air rather than put forces on the ground to secure it. Third, nothing is said about dropping 500-pound LGBs on the insurgents that shot it down. More than four years into a war against a backward country the size of California our military has to take desperate actions to rescue downed pilots and keep an aircraft from falling into enemy hands. And they’re not even certain who the enemy is.

Most likely, the reason they didn’t drop bombs on the insurgents is that by the time help arrived on the scene the insurgents had disappeared — into the civilian population. This underscores the problem with the situation in Iraq: We don’t have the conviction or courage to do what has to be done to control the country, and the principal reason we don’t is that we shouldn’t be there attempting to control the country in the first place.

Taking control of Iraq will require extreme measures like we used in World War II. In Germany we devastated entire cities with our bombing campaigns, killing most of the civilian men, women and children living there. In Japan we destroyed two cities with atomic bombs. Then it was generally believed that without those measures the loss of our freedom and independence as a nation, if not most of our lives, was both likely and imminent. This is not the case with Iraq at this point in time. If Iraq ever becomes a direct threat to our country we can attack them then with the conviction and courage to do what is necessary to neutralize that threat.

There is no ‘War in Iraq.’ There hasn’t been since Baghdad and the Saddam regime fell in 2003. Our operations in Iraq since then have been just policing actions. I’ve written about the ‘Iraq War’ myself. This blog even has an ‘Iraq War’ category. But, if you consider the difference between what we’re doing in Iraq and the way wars are usually conducted, you have to admit that what’s going on in Iraq is not a war.

The ‘War in Iraq’ is a lot like our ‘War on Drugs.’ Our government insists that we’ve been at war with the purveyors of illegal drugs in America for years, but we’ve made no significant progress. There are many reasons that we’ve made little progress in this ‘war’ — and many reasons why we shouldn’t be in it — but the biggest reason is that the ‘war’ is crippled by its rules of conduct. And the reason it has these crippling rules of conduct is that it’s a policing action and not a war at all. If it was a war we wouldn’t have to get a court order to raid a suspect’s home or business. We aren’t serious enough about achieving the objectives of the ‘War on Drugs’ to be calling it a war. Neither are we serious enough about securing Iraq to be calling it a war.

In Iraq we have a lot of vague political objectives but no military objectives. The military is better suited to capture and hold operations than it is to ‘persuade everyone to behave and learn to like us’ operations. Most of the time we don’t even know who is the enemy. The Iraqi elements fight among themselves and we stand by bemused by it all, not really knowing which element we want to prevail.

The only way to subdue and control the people of a foreign nation is to first beat them into submission. Take away everything they have and treasure and make them dependent. This would require destroying all their institutions and much of their infrastructure, killing or imprisoning all their leaders, and, of course, completely disarming them. Then, once all their hope is lost, ride in to their rescue and rebuild their lives for them giving them prosperity that they never knew before. Afterward, talk about returning to the old ways won’t gain much traction. (Please understand that I’m not recommending that this is what should have been done in Iraq. I’m simply saying that given the objective of turning Iraq into an America-like democracy, this is the only approach that would work. I’ve said before that I think we should have left Iraq to the Iraqis as soon as we captured or killed Saddam, his sons and most of his henchmen.)

In the future I hope we don’t go to war unless it is absolutely critical to our survival as a free nation. When we do I hope we really mean it and are prepared to see it through (that means do what is neccesary to win).

Have you noticed how the media promulgate some ideas as if they are fact with little or no supporting evidence? They are particularly inclined to latch onto pronouncements of gloom and doom. There have been two of these in the last few days: (1) That if we ‘lose’ in Iraq it will be a disaster for the United States. (2) That President Bush’s new surge strategy is his last chance to achieve his goals in Iraq.

Losing in Iraq would certainly be an undesirable outcome and a tragedy that so many people gave their lives for naught. It would most likely be a disaster for the Iraqi people. But in no way would losing in Iraq be a disaster for the United States. It would be a huge mistake for any country to be encouraged to attack us simply because we failed to create a stable and secure democracy in Iraq. To assume that a country with the wealth and firepower that the US possesses is a paper tiger becuase it failed in Iraq would be absolutely absurd. Would you intentionally provoke a tiger because you know that someone else survived a confrontation with one? Of course not — unless you have no choice. You know that the tiger had a good reason to let that person survive and the reason was not a lack of ferocity or the will to attack when sufficiently provoked.

After the initial invasion and fall of the Saddam regime, we have used only a fraction of our military capability in Iraq. The Air Force’s heavy bombers are seldom if ever used. The Navy is minimally involved except for the Marines. The Army units in Iraq haven’t used their heavy armor and big guns to any great extent. We haven’t even considered using our nuclear capability. So it should be clear to the Irans and Syrias of the world that if they decide to attack us directly or provoke us in some other way we still have the capability to destroy them in a matter of days and perhaps even hours.

We have committed foreign policy debacles before and survived. How many times have we brokered peace deals between the Israelis and the Palestinians? There was Henry Kissinger’s ’shuttle diplomacy’, Jimmy Carter’s peace prize for the Camp David Accords, and Bill Clinton’s Middle East Peace Summit. There have been many others, but they’re still fighting. The Palestinians are even fighting amongst themselves now. And don’t forget Korea and Vietnam. It’s hard to lose credibility when you hold all the cards.

I think the second grave pronouncement is only wishful thinking from Bush’s political opponents. They don’t think that his surge strategy will be successful and they don’t want to accept the possibility that he will come up with a strategy that will work. The worst conceivable outcome for them is for Bush to pull something out of his bag of tricks and use it to achieve a clear victory in Iraq in the Spring or Summer of 2008. Obviously, if that did happen, they would have to accuse him of deliberately prolonging the war in order to orchestrate a politically timely victory.

There is no real reason that this has to be Bush’s last chance. He still has two years left as President. He and the Pentagon could shift strategies several times in that timespan. They could even decide to give the battlefield commanders free rein to fight to win.

Early in Dr Martin Luther King, Jr’s campaign for equality of opportunity for blacks I was skeptical of his motives and methods. Later I came to understand that the changes that his struggle wrought were absolutely essential at that point in our history. Now I see him as truly a Saint compared to today’s ‘civil rights leaders’.
_______________

“Mama, they’re lying to me!” “Make them stop!” CBS reports that Senator Bill Nelson, D-FL, said in regard to the President’s Iraq war strategy: “I have not been told the truth over and over again by administration witnesses, and the American people have not been told the truth.” What a whiner! As a US Senator you’d think he could ferret out the ‘truth’ himself.
_______________

In a Senate hearing recently Senator Barbara Boxer, D-CA, told Secretary of State Rice that we wouldn’t be at war in Iraq if she and the President had children at risk. Her view is that a single, childless woman (or man) is not qualified for the position that Rice holds because she is too prone to commit us to war. Boxer apparently feels that top executive branch officials, Republican or Democrat, must have children in the military in order to properly do their jobs. On that basis she couldn’t have supported Lincoln’s decision to defend the Union. I believe that having a brain is the most important requirement for public service.
_______________

Since President Bush’s speech on his new strategy in Iraq there has been a lot of hand-wringing over Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s “willingness and ability to rein in sectarian militias and cobble together some sort of national reconciliation” (Tom Bevan, RealClearPolitics). General Petraeus needs to summon the pompous fart over to his office and tell him what he must do if he doesn’t want to join Saddam in the ground. Stop pussyfooting around with those people. Kick some ass and get the job done!
_______________

A column by Peter Mulhern of RealClearPolitics is well worth reading.

Government officials in Iraq have finally located Captain Jamil Hussein.  They have acknowledged that the Iraqi policeman, cited by the AP as their source for about 60 recent stories, does exist.  The elephant-in-the-room type question though is why did it take so long?  Anyway they have arrested him for talking out of turn.

It turns out that he has a blog.  It’s worth checking out.  Read the comments too.

“My conclusion was that it would be a mistake to send more troops to Baghdad,” said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine. “I think the sectarian violence there requires a political not a military solution.” If that is what your conclusion was then why aren’t you telling us what your conclusion is? Oh, OK, you meant to say ‘is’.

How can any reasonably intelligent person believe that the problems in Iraq can be solved purely politically? How can she think that the various factions in Iraq are going to negotiate credibly without some kind of forcing function? Diplomacy can’t function in chaos.

Without an outside contolling force, the only way out of internal chaos is for the competing factions to reach a standoff. A lot of time can pass and a lot of people can be killed in Iraq before that happens. As long as one faction believes it has the upper hand it won’t be willing to give up anything at the negotiating table. What the outside force does is punish the faction with the upper hand until it becomes willing to negotiate.

Obviously this is not going to work if the outside force is unable to inflict sufficient punishment on the internal faction. If that is the case then more outside force is needed. More outside force can be achieved either by adding resources or by using the existing resources more effectively. Greater effectiveness might be achieved by changes in the existing personnel, equipment, strategy, tactics and training. Adding resources means increasing the amount of personnel and equipment.

_______________

I disdain Defense Department officials who say that sending more troops into Iraq will only result in more casualties. It seems to me that such a statement assumes that the additional troops will achieve no military objectives to be traded off against the additional casualties. If not that, then it suggests that the primary military objective in Iraq is to minimize casualties. Obviously this is not the case or we wouldn’t have any troops there. Minimizing casualties should always be an objective but it can never be the primary objective.

If I were President I would fire a Defense official who tells me that he or she can’t use additional resources when that official is not getting the job done.  Maybe that is what the President is doing now.

I’ve previously given my executive summary of the actions we need to take  in Iraq. Now I’ll summarize the Iraq Study Group’s recommendation: We need to go forth and make nice with any and everyone to convince them that we all just need to get along.

I don’t believe I have ever seen a more pedestrian product come from such a supposedly august body. They cavalierly propose simplistic approaches to extremely complex problems: Iran’s and Syria’s interference in the region; the Arab/Israeli problem. They base their recommendations on unsupported assumptions. The report comes across as a whole lot of wishful thinking and not much substance. Some excerpts from the report’s executive summary and my comments follow.

The policies and actions of Iraq’s neighbors greatly affect its stability and prosperity. No country in the region will benefit in the long term from a chaotic Iraq. Yet Iraq’s neighbors are not doing enough to help Iraq achieve stability. Some are undercutting stability.

This is an example of the pervasive flawed logic in the report. It says that no country will benefit in the long term from a chaotic Iraq. But what about in the short term? What is their definition of long term? Iran may not be trying to help Iraq achieve stability now because they know that they will benefit more in the long term if the US fails and they then move in and save Iraq, or they at least save the Shiites.

Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage them constructively.

The ISG presses on with the unsound assumption that Iran and Syria have an “interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq.” Even if they do want to avoid chaos in Iraq it doesn’t mean that they want to help the US — unless they get huge concessions.

The United States must adjust its role in Iraq to encourage the Iraqi people to take control of their own destiny.

I thought that was our role since shortly after the fall of the Saddam regime. In fact, I have been critical of that role because I think that we should have taken control of the country and maintained control until it was stable and then installed an Iraqi government.

By the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq.

Not necessary for force protection? They must expect a lot of progress by 2008. The 140,000 troops there now aren’t able to protect themselves.

It is the unanimous view of the Iraq Study Group that these recommendations offer a new way forward for the United States in Iraq and the region. They are comprehensive and need to be implemented in a coordinated fashion. They should not be separated or carried out in isolation.

Translation: We’ve done all the thinking that needs to be done. Mere mortals should not dare to mess with our work. Sorry guys, I’m ROFL. We can only hope that someone in the Administration does take it apart — or they ignore it completely.

The Washington Post reports:

As pressure mounts for a change of course in Iraq, the Bush administration is groping for a viable new strategy for the president to unveil by Christmas, with deliberations now focused on three main options to redefine the U.S. military and political engagement, according to officials familiar with the debate.

Dictionary.com says that one definition of ‘grope’ is “to touch or handle (someone) for sexual pleasure.” I’ll assume that’s not what the WaPo meant since this is not about the Clinton Administration. So they must have meant “to search blindly or uncertainly.” While this might be true it is just their opinion and shouldn’t be in a news article. I doubt that the “officials familiar with the debate” said they are groping in the dark. I suspect that if the article was about a Democrat they would have been simply searching for a viable new strategy or perhaps defining a viable new strategy.

The results of the Administration’s groping according to the WaPo:

The major alternatives include a short-term surge of 15,000 to 30,000 additional U.S. troops to secure Baghdad and accelerate the training of Iraqi forces. Another strategy would redirect the U.S. military away from the internal strife to focus mainly on hunting terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda. And the third would concentrate political attention on supporting the majority Shiites and abandon U.S. efforts to reach out to Sunni insurgents.

*At least I think this was a front page story. I got it from their web site but it states that the article is from page A01.

Testifying on Capitol Hill, Iraq Study Group co-chair and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, referring to the group’s report, said: “I hope we don’t treat this like a fruit salad and say, ‘I like this but I don’t like that.’ This is a comprehensive strategy.”

To continue his simile, I would agree that the report is not like a fruit salad, it’s more like a fruit salad with a vegetable salad and a chicken salad thrown into the same bowl. There might even be some roast duck with mango salsa in there for the GEICO cave man.

Baker likes to crow about the fact that the report is bipartisan. One problem with bipartisan products is that while they may be acceptable to all the contributors they are truly satisfactory to none. What the President needs are the best recommendations, not just those based on a consensus.

According to the Associated Press James Baker made the following statements during a discussion of the Iraq Study Group report:

… he said, the administration should involve the leaders of Iran in the search for peace in Iraq. Baker said that Iran had helped the United States “stabilize the situation in the aftermath of our invasion of Afghanistan.”

“We haven’t talked to Iran in 26 years and it hasn’t gotten us a whole long way, in my opinion,” he said, adding that the Iranians “do not want a chaotic Iraq” because if things collapse there they will be “besieged with refugees.”

According to Baker, we haven’t talked to Iran in 26 years, yet they helped us with Afghanistan about five years ago. So why does he think we need to talk to them now to get them to help us with Iraq? Perhaps Iran is more helpful when we don’t talk to them.

But Baker said that not talking to Iran “hasn’t gotten us a whole long way” right after saying that they helped “stabilize the situation in the aftermath of our invasion of Afghanistan.” So he seems to believe that Iran’s help with Afghanistan was no big deal, yet he wants us to talk to them about helping with Iraq.

If this is the kind of muddled thinking that went into the ISG report I don’t have much hope that it will be very helpful to the President.

Keep in mind though, that the AP may have completely garbled Baker’s statements. One advantage of video over print journalism is that when you see and hear the words coming out of the speaker’s mouth you know what they actually said.