Doctrine of Acreage
T. E. Lawrence (aka Lawrence of Arabia) noted in an article about "Mesopotamia" (1920) that to properly hold it, an alien force would have to have enough manpower to cover the then 140,000 sq. miles every 4 square miles or so. He said a minimum of 20 men per emplacement would be required. To do this now, would require over 800,000 troops, as Iraq now covers over 168,000 sq. miles.
Let's assume that the modern war planners believed in their equipment and troops, and themselves assumed they could double Lawrence's estimate in all directions: instead of an emplacement in the center axis of a 2 x 2 grid, how about in the center of a 4x4 grid, or 16 square miles coverage by each emplacement? That would demand coverage of 10,500 such nodes by say only 16 troops, which gives an estimated requirement of only 168,000, a number more in line with the highest magnitude of coalition troops in Iraq since the invasion of 2003. Is this thinking valid? Is this the thinking that appears to have severely underestimated needed troop strength in Iraq?
Lawrence also wrote in an Encyclopedia Britannica article (1929, 14th Edition) on Guerrilla Warfare of a "doctrine of acreage," a concept he exploited in his own leadership of Arabs against the Turkish empire. In this, the idea follows that an occupying army is vulnerable because it stretches out from its root and is therefore relatively immobile and vulnerable. History has repeatedly shown that such formidable armies can be exploited for the very reason its generals consider their armies invincible.
Concentrated strength draws activity, but not often where the generals want it to take place. The armored front may have an equally weak underbelly, etc. A small chink in the armor, hole in the dike, tunnel under the barricade, or strategically placed roadside/trackside bomb can be exploited to cause "death by a thousand cuts" unless the occupying force can control its space without doubt. The only way to do this is either with significant levels of troop strength and fortifications, or a significant level of technology that monitors and/or defends open acreage.
Based on these theories, in order to beat the non-armies in Iraq, we either have to at least quadruple our numbers, or try something different. Bush and Co. have continued to harp on a "stay the course" theme, but still have virtually nothing to show for it. Long-time opponents to the war have seized the opportunity to push for complete withdrawal, which is certainly something different, but doing so does not offer a reasonable future for the region we've gone into and ruined.
Reports indicate that we have effective and relatively inexpensive reconnaissance aircraft that have not been included in our tech arsenal to any great extent. These could help inexpensively (and apparently VERY effectively) patrol the perimeters of our holdings, as well as seek out targets and discover minefields and other hazards. Other less-expensive aircraft could also support ground troops in a probably more cost efficient way than current choices in operation.
Regardless of material concerns, our manpower issues have only been inadequately addressed by the political leadership and remain a significant clue to likely failure in Iraq under current policies.
Human Factors
Observers from Stephen E. Ambrose to Andy Rooney have noted the impact on the local civilian populations by modern American soldiers and marines in combat zones. They note how our guys once had a truly special reputation around the globe. Our earnest young men were known by millions to be the liberators of choice, because they came in and took care of the people and their needs instead of merely replacing the enslavers that had oppressed them before.
Our current crop in Iraq are trying to continue in that vain, but their reputations have been severely tarnished by several factors, including the mercenaries that work for the "contractor" agencies, Abu Graibh and Bush administration policies that seem to be based in ethnic bigotry instead of intelligent statecraft. Through the military's decimation of the infrastructure and by not putting it back good as new, contractors have tarnished our Yankee image as problem solvers. By ignoring the civil service needs of the country which led to a decision to fully disband the Iraqi army, our efforts to get things working properly in Iraq have been severely compromised.
Local inhabitants don't see a benefit of American occupation yet, and it's likely they never will unless the Bush administration finally begins to focus its attention on doing all that is necessary to bring this nation back to its once high standard of living. Until then, our enemies can point to our failures at the human level in this conflict, and they will gain much from the resulting derision aimed our way.
Fading Glory
Republicans should study their roots in America, as should Democrats. Both parties have had a connection with greatness over the years, but no longer seem interested in the truly big ideas. I think Republicans began to unravel with Nixon, and Reagan did nothing to help it, even though most modern Republicans seem to see Reagan as some kind of savior for their party, a view I've never been able to fathom. Both Bushes, however, are essentially responsible for tearing down the house, so to speak.
I believe that the last good Republican president was Eisenhower. His remarks at the end of his presidency indicated very clearly that he understood a thing or two about the world, and about the "military-industrial complex" about which he felt called to warn the world. His thoughtful policies as Supreme Allied Commander in WWII cemented our reputation as the good guys throughout the world. As a career soldier, he understood that planning for war involves heavy-duty planning for peace, a lesson completely lost unsurprisingly on the Bush administration, notable for its across-the-board lack of military service, especially in key members. Eisenhower's efforts (carried out during the Truman years following Marshall as chief of staff) to restore sanity to a post-war world that had reeled for too long in the ugliness of war, like Lincoln's, were exemplary in their generosity and spirit. In his farewell address to the nation, he said:
Despite these holocausts, America is today the strongest, the most influential, and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this preeminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches, and military strength but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.
He also helped get us out of the clinging lure of imperialism promoted in the practices of an earlier Republican president:
Down the long lane of the history yet to be written, America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect. Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.
That earlier Republican president, Teddy Roosevelt, understood the importance of America taking its place as a leader of the free world. Although too imperialistic for modern thinking, he understood the balance between government power of the people, of the military, and of private enterprise. He thought globally, and understood personally about maintaining a strong military, but also about using it sparingly, and for only the right reasons. We can thus thank him for the Panama Canal as well as the National Parks. He understood how vital preserving our resources was, and still is (and Eisenhower echoed this sentiment later). His personal interests and curiosity helped set us on our path toward invention and growth through innovation, always recognizing that private enterprise should be encouraged, unless it stands in the way of our citizens' growth.
And Republican Abraham Lincoln understood the idea of unity among many, of the real equality of humans under the skin, a fulfillment of the words of predecessor Thomas Jefferson who wrote that "all men are created equal" in spite of being unable to live up to those words in his own life. Lincoln put us on a path that finally abolished slavery, and promoted the causes of many underrepresented members of society, bringing many of the Founding Fathers' ideals into practice. Nevertheless, even though Eisenhower enforced desegregation laws in the 1950's, it wasn't until a Southern Democrat from Texas came along in the '60's (LBJ) that the federal government finally forced sweeping social reforms of the status quo in the South, as well as in the rest of the country.
Democrat Bill Clinton may one day be recognized as one of the first to properly understand our role as the lone remaining superpower in the world following the fall of the Soviet Union. His successor clearly has demonstrated nowhere near the level of understanding Clinton showed. Clinton's view was the natural progression from T. Roosevelt through FDR and Eisenhower, skipping the Viet Nam war presidents, and the two followers of Nixonian corruption. Reagan was the last Cold War president, and one who gets far more praise from his advocates than he perhaps earned. The Soviet Union's internal efforts to compete with the West, its excessive expenditures on too many global intrigues, military efforts, and ideological expansion, and the apparent inability of socialism to work in a large complex society without a totalitarian government were the chief causes of its own demise. Yes, the U.S. and the Western alliances were able to maintain constant pressure on the Soviets to match our progress, but ultimately, it was the Soviet system that imploded on itself that destroyed it.
During Clinton's administration, following the 12 year run of Reaganites in the White House, he made it clear that he was going to give the UN more say in world affairs, and that the U.S. was not going to unilaterally decide how the world was to develop. Most of the 1990's were boom times across the board, and the U.S. enjoyed a strong a prosperous image in the world as we simultaneously tried to relieve fears that we'd start flexing our own imperialistic muscles now that the Soviet threat was over.
It was a tightrope path, and one on which Clinton & Co. were able to make some progress before Bush took over and undid much of the gains through so-called neo-conservative policies. Critics of Clinton could not so easily let go of our "supremacy" in world affairs, thoroughly forgetting both parts of T.R.'s famous counsel, "Speak softly but carry a big stick" as well as warnings from Eisenhower and MacArthur about the influences of the military-industrial complex on public policy. Both the Bush and Clinton administrations during the 1990's also oversaw much shrinkage in the size of American military forces, probably assuming that our forces would be less necessary now that our biggest enemy had been emasculated. This, too, may have been shortsighted, but Clinton's approach with the U.N. gave them a much-needed success in the Balkans, even after the modern precedent for coalition forces was modeled in the first Gulf War under Generals Schwarzkopf and Colin Powell.
Pax Americana
The agenda associated with members of the G.W. Bush administration appears to have succeeded only where it has abandoned its own ideology. The U.S. cannot be the single force in the world that sets the agenda for everyone else. We cannot pursue our own agenda by ignoring what we've always stood for. We cannot dictate to the world a monolithic, supposedly "democratic" view of the future in which the U.S.A. is the key voice, especially while simultaneously violating elements of our own doctrine at home.
Yes, we can encourage others, and we can lend our aid and support to others who are suffering from oppression or depredations in their locale. We are, after all, a generous people. We cannot, however, run the world only for our own interests. We must promote criticism and the free exchange of ideas and opinions, as well as fair trade laws, and appropriate global conservation. We must allow others to express their beliefs in their own ways. We must also put our own house in order before we try to tell others how to live. For further goals, I refer to The Ten Duties of a King.
Comments