The Political Chase

Lt. Gen. Dempsey’s Testimony to Congress

Appearing before the House Armed Services Committee yesterday, Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey gave a report on Iraq that could at best be described as dismal. A trained Iraqi army capable of insuring the safety and security of Iraq is a primary prerequisite for U.S. troop withdrawal under President Bush’s strategy (such as it is). According to Gen. Dempsey’s report, the condition of the Iraqi army is so poor, one could only surmise that withdrawal of any U.S. troops will not happen in the foreseeable future, and certainly not by middle of next as many in Congress have suggested. 

These reports are troublesome, but it is far better to have an accurate view of reality, which President Bush has never provided. This raises two issues. Why does it take a Congressional nomination hearing to get the slightest bit of accurate information on the status of Iraq? It seems that since January, when President Bush announced his cure-all-to-end-all surge strategy, about every six to eight weeks, an announcement or revelation is made that requires more troops or the situation has worsened enough that is reasonable to expect an increase in U.S troops will soon follow to remedy the problem. And, then the cycle just repeats, never getting better.

Gen. Dempsey reported the Iraqi must increase its troop levels by at least 20,000 troops, but that is a meaningless number.

Even then, Iraq will remain incapable of taking full responsibility for its security for many years — five years in the case of protecting its airspace — and will require a long-term military relationship with the United States, said Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, who until recently led the U.S. military’s training effort in Iraq.

Bill Maher has frequently and seriously raised the notion that things would likely be much better in Iraq if Saddam was back. Putting Saddam back would be a tad difficult since he is dead, but the point is made and understood. A political comedian talking about bringing Saddam back is one thing, but when the proposed Deputy Commander of Central Command inserts the notion in his Congressional testimony, that is entirely different, and woefully telling.

Dempsey depicted the level of violence tolerated by Iraqis as “mind-numbing” and acknowledged that a dearth of security has made some Iraqis nostalgic for the rule of Saddam Hussein

Although Dempsey’s testimony is believable, one of his statement is a bit perplexing to me.

Iraqi security forces will require growth in scope and scale similar to what we accomplished in 2007 in order to ensure sufficient force to protect the population throughout Iraq.

What have they accomplished in terms of sustained, big picture success?

According to Dempsey, and many others, not much. Roughly 25 percent of the Iraqi soldiers are on leave at any given time, and of those not on leave, only 50 percent bother to show up. What really gives a view into how well things are going and the level of commitment from the Iraqi government is this.

He pointed out that when units showed up in Baghdad at 50 percent strength for their 90-day rotations, the American officers were upset, but “senior military leaders of the Iraqi government were kind of pleased that they had gotten 50 percent to come.”

So, the Iraqi army needs to be increased by 20,000, when 50 percent of the present army doesn’t show up? That makes a hell of a lot of sense. They can’t get 50 percent of the existing army to show up, but they are going to add 20,000 more? Will the additional 20,000 show up if they can enlist them? I suppose it is too much to ask why can’t the U.S. and Iraqi military leaders force the existing Iraqi troops to show up?

The efficacy and commitment of the Iraqi army and its leadership is indeed frustrating, but that pales in comparison to the inequity between U.S. troop requirements and Iraqi troop requirements. U.S. troops must serve multiple 15-month tours, but 25 percent of the Iraqi troops are on leave at any given time, and only have 90-day rotations. Obviously given the policies in place, Iraqi blood is far more valuable than American blood. I think not.