Misunderstanding Iraq

I'm writing this post during President Bush's address on a new course for Iraq. I don't have T.V., so I can't watch it, but ABC reports that the new plan will require a "surge" of about 20,000 troops. Additionally, the President is announcing new tactics for the way combat troops will be used in Iraq. Baghdad will be divided into nine sections and the troops will be based in the same neighborhoods they patrol. This is a dramatic shift from the old tactics in which U.S. troops would frequently clear areas of the city and leave only to have the violence increase after they left.

Now I'm going to do the cliche thing and analogize some of the "lessons" from Vietnam.

As many, have pointed out, things aren't going so well in Iraq and it might be time to cut our losses. I'm not so sure about that because chaos in Iraq could have devastating consequences. Iraq could become a haven for al-Quaeda terrorists who could strike against Jordan, Saudi Arabia, or even outside the region. Iran could intervene and trigger a massive regional war. If Iraq did descend into a full-scale civil war, the humanitarian crisis could be even more disastrous than it is now.

Here are a few of what I understand to be the lessons of Vietnam that are relevant to Iraq.

1. You have to isolate insurgencies. During Vietnam, the Viet Cong got support from Laos and Cambodia and used those countries as safe havens to launch attacks against the South. Iraq is receiving help from Iran and foreign fighters are adding energy to the sectarian violence. It is nearly impossible to fight insurgents who have help from their nearby neighbors.

2. You have to protect the people. Part of winning the hearts and minds of the people living in these insurgent areas is to show them that you can protect them. Bush's plan tries to do that by protecting the neighborhoods of Iraq. If the new plan is successful, it is possible that the U.S. troops might make some progress toward stability, but the tropps haven't yet shown that they can protect any of the territory that they "clear" of insurgents. The green zone, for example, is one of the more dangerous parts of the country.

3. You have to understand the people. The United States is not a terribly culturally sensitive place right now. Fighting an insurgency is a cross between military and police work. You are fighting people with big guns (military), but you have to find them from among a lot of peaceful people (police). Police work requires rapport with the local people and you can't get that rapport without language skills and cultural understanding. A year and a half ago, I worked at a law firm in Argentina. I speak decent Spanish, but I did not understand Argentine culture. I couldn't get assignments, my supervisors were constantly frustrated with me, and I ended up translating documents that had already been translated and reading Atlas Shrugged at my desk. There is a huge learning curve to understand a new culture and I don't know if we have the time to bridge the gaps.

If the President's strategy had been tried three years ago it might have had a chance. I'm worried that it is too late. I think that the first two problems (and there are many others) can be addressed pretty quickly if they become major priorities to the Administration. But, the third will take time. And in light of the November election, I don't know if Americans have the patience.