The Belgravia Dispatch: Mailbag

January 16, 2007

Mailbag

A Ph.D candidate in polysci at MIT writes in:

Note on Kagan - I’m dubious of the numbers he uses for his surge estimate in the 12/04/06 Weekly Standard piece (the only one that outlines anything close to a methodology), and, moreover, the Bush surge plan comes nowhere close to meeting the already-suspect requirements of the 12/04 article. To begin with, despite Kagan’s confident claims, there is no consensus on what force-population ratios are necessary for stability. Examples like Bosnia and Kosovo are so obviously dissimilar to Iraq it’s hard to know where to begin. The Dobbins RAND study and Quinlivan’s 1995 Parameters piece are at very very best mildly suggestive; there has been no rigorous test of the ratio arguments.
Kagan’s comparative method within Iraq focuses on the Tal Afar and Sadr City clashes to use as force size baselines. Last I checked, both of these places are in real bad shape now, so unless we can sustain the 1:40 force-population ratio used in Tal Afar (assuming with great faith this is somehow the right number) indefinitely, the Baghdad surge will also have no lasting effect. The bad guys are just going to slip away, as the Shiite militias already are, unless we’re credibly there forever.

Things get really problematic when we get to Kagan’s specific recommendations in the 12/04 piece. The 80,000 surge is contingent on “concentrating all available forces in the area” (i.e. 70,000 American combat forces already in Iraq). This obviously isn’t happening. Note the next steps – first, he correctly notes that of the 150,000 American troops in Iraq, only 70,000 are combat troops. But Kagan goes on to say that “there are currently about 100,000 Iraqi army troops that the U.S. command considers trained and ready.” He assumes all 100,000 are combat forces (unlike the Americans, who have less than 50% combat personnel out of their forces). And then goes on to assume 1) that they can be concentrated entirely in Baghdad, and 2) are equal to American forces in their competence and loyalty, both claims I am highly dubious of. [ed. note: You don't say?]

So to summarize the brilliant plan - by assuming that every combat-ready American in Iraq (70,000) goes to Baghdad, every combat-ready Iraqi (supposedly 100,000, or roughly 100% of Iraq’s army) goes to Baghdad, and that we add 80,000 more combat-ready Americans, we get to the 1:40 force-population ratio that worked temporarily in Tal Afar, with 250,000 troops for the 10 million people in greater Baghdad. This is already impossible, since it would totally denude the rest of the country of soldiers, makes almost certainly wrong assumptions about Iraqi forces, and demands a level of surged troops that is unsustainable.

But then as of 12/27/06 somehow 20-30,000 surged troops is OK. This despite the resultant ratio being vastly lower than the level Kagan previously claimed was necessary (since obviously not every single American and Iraqi will be going to Baghdad, and the surge is far smaller than called for). God knows how many competent and non-sectarian Iraqis will actually show up (certainly not 100,000), but it’s crystal clear the Bush plan comes absolutely nowhere close to achieving the supposedly correct stability ratios. I guess a new AEI method has been developed, though the slideshow has no specifics of any sort about where their recommendations come from.

The whole thing is just a shellgame of unsupported, malleable assumptions and assertions hiding behind a veneer of “military planning.” It’s more than inconsistency on surge numbers – at least from what I can tell, there’s no real methodology at all behind the madness. I can’t believe this kind of crap is the basis for major policy decisions.

Neither can I friend. And your arguments leave aside little variables like the fate of this expedition, among other worrisome variables to be detailed another day. But with this crew, Kagan passes for something of high-brow fare. The incompetents running the country are very easily impressed, it would appear.

Posted by Gregory at January 16, 2007 04:36 AM

Comments

This apparent discrepancy is thoroughly debunked by Richard Lowry here

Posted by: anonymoose at January 16, 2007 05:14 AM | Permalink to this comment

Ummm, no it's not - where's the discussion of the 70,000 Americans and 100,000 Iraqis assumed in the Kagan Weekly Standard piece? Or any detailed justification for why Sadr City was left out of the new Kagan/Keane plan as outlined by Lowry's post? Or detailed justification of why 50,000 is good enough for phase-by-phase? Are they just making up numbers?

Plus, read Greg's update below on Lowry.

Posted by: KL at January 16, 2007 05:19 AM | Permalink to this comment

kl: yeah, i think belgravia bitchslaps lowry well and good in the update to his post here....

Posted by: gary2 at January 16, 2007 05:25 AM | Permalink to this comment

"I guess a new AEI method has been developed, though the slideshow has no specifics of any sort about where their recommendations come from. "

You do not want to see a slideshow of that.

Posted by: CMatt at January 16, 2007 05:43 AM | Permalink to this comment

This apparent discrepancy is thoroughly debunked by Richard Lowry here

HA! HA HA HA! HA HA HA HA HA HA! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Oy..... Now that I can breathe again..... The notion of Richard Lowry "debunking" anything is just -- surreal. "Intellectual dwarf" doesn't begin to describe Lowry. "Lickspittle" sums him up pretty well, though.

Lowry's playing the same kind of toady games that would be familiar to any participant in a Hitler strategy session, circa April 1945. Hate to break it to you Rich, but just because you've got a few more little flags pinned to the map doesn't mean that General Wenck really is going to save the day.....

And why the hell doesn't Lowry enlist, anyway? Why does he shirk? A good DI will make a man out of him.

Posted by: sglover at January 16, 2007 06:26 AM | Permalink to this comment

As to the MIT correspondent -- we have to remember that the ONLY objective of our Iraq "strategy" is ensuring that the difficult, unpopular, and NECESSARY decisions are deferred to Bush's successor. Bush wants American troops to die so that, in his mind, his reputation can be salvaged.

By the way, didn't Bush say, during his "60 Minutes" interview, that he was drafted? Why is he allowed to routinely lie so? Why??

Posted by: sglover at January 16, 2007 06:32 AM | Permalink to this comment

Kagan is just another in long line of right wing 'intellectuals' who is or will be rewarded for dutifully white washing bad or misleading policy - thus his shameless shell game. Ask yourself this: does it make any sense at all to make success of 'surge' contingent on performance and good faith of highly suspect Iraqi 'partners'? No - unless of course you're not interested in success, at least as it has been publicly defined.

Posted by: saintsimon at January 16, 2007 11:46 AM | Permalink to this comment

Guys,

This plan is a punt. Bush is punting the problem to the next administration. He is running out the clock. That's all. It doesn't matter to him that more Americans will die for this, but that's how it is.

Posted by: Dan at January 16, 2007 01:49 PM | Permalink to this comment

What really scares me about this "augmentation", "escalation", or whatever one wishes to call it, is first, we do go after Sadr and the militia and second, Chris Mathews big fear, we get into a war with Iran because of being engaged hot pursuit.

For the Shia militias, I'm afraid that if we do go after them, they will generally just melt away, but I am worried about stepped up attacks on the British, in an attempt to weaken our supply lines. I don't think the British public will accept a casualty spike at this point of the war, and will demand their troops leave, eliminating most of the protection for American supply lines and leaving us huge swath of the country to govern.
As for Iran I am worried, but not as much about an updated Guns of August. That is exactly what Ahmadinejad wants. That is the only way to unite his country. I think it also plays into messianic views. Same goes for President Bush, I think both of them view this as a conflict that has to come sooner or later, so it might as well come now when there are large numbers of American forces in the region. Whether as forces for the attack, or forces to be attacked. I don't think either leader has really looked long and hard at the consequences of any such war. They would be devestating for the interests of both nations.

Posted by: jon at January 16, 2007 03:25 PM | Permalink to this comment

Interesting and important picture. Pickup trucks. Thin armored vehicles I can't recognize and a van.

Posted by: Chris at January 16, 2007 06:41 PM | Permalink to this comment

True or not, the surge doesn't bring enough troops to administer or conquer Iraq. It will however add stink to failure, if it is thought America has reached its limit, and still failed. One wonders if an enemy agent could do more damage to America than GWB.

Posted by: Tom at January 16, 2007 10:10 PM | Permalink to this comment

By the way, didn't Bush say, during his "60 Minutes" interview, that he was drafted? Why is he allowed to routinely lie so? Why??

I think I was wrong about this. After a quick skim of a summary of the interview on the CBS site, all I could find was Bush saying that there was a draft during the Vietnam War, not that he was drafted.

Sorry, CINCPOTUS!

Posted by: sglover at January 16, 2007 10:35 PM | Permalink to this comment

Hate to draw more attention to him, but Lowry has spoken to a "senior administration official" who has informed him that:

"The debate over how many troops are in a brigade seems entirely academic. A brigade is a brigade. It doesn’t matter much how you try to count the number of troops."

Yes folks, he get paid to write this stuff.

Posted by: Tim at January 17, 2007 02:30 AM | Permalink to this comment

"It doesn’t matter much how you try to count the number of troops."

Well hell then. Send the Kagan brigade, consisting of Kagan. And the Lowry brigade, consisting of Lowry. And there's two brigades right there!

On a more serious note, I'm starting to think we should just announce that we'll take the side of the faction that brings us the most dead foreign Al Qaeda fighters, and help them fight against the side that brings us the least dead foreign Al Qaeda fighters.

Posted by: Jon H at January 17, 2007 03:29 AM | Permalink to this comment