Why the Military Cannot Afford a Surge

A long time ago, I commented on MyDD that current US military policy in Iraq had one coherent goal:  to limit casualties.  I think, in retrospect, I will expand that mission.  

1. to maintain an occupation force in order to display US strength in Iraq and the Persian Gulf.

2. to guard specific areas, such as the airport and the green zone, all military bases, and roads between.

3. to limit US casualties.

The main reason that civil war has raged unchecked in Iraq is because the US is not positioned to police the nation.  The "commanders on the ground" have been very clear about advancing our "limit casualties" policy.  The current problems of Iraq will require an Iraqi domestic political cure or a full-scale civil war to resolve.  The US military cannot assist in either.  

It is actually shocking to realize that the President does not understand this.  He is frustrated by the fact that a mere presence in Iraq does not mean that we "won" the war, and he does not understand that more soldiers will not lead to more "success."  So, his plan is to pump more troops into our occupation force.  

Because the President of the United States is stupid and stubborn, he will, in his capacity as Commander-in Chief, order more of our soldiers to join an occupation army that is impotent to solve any real problems.

So, why can't our military tolerate this?  Because they can succeed in their current mission (to guard and limit casualties) quite well.  If Iraq is then not stable, that is not a reflection on our military.  But, angry and frustrated, their commander, the President, wants progress and a legacy.  Now in his mind is a grand plan of ultimate victory.  We must police Baghdad and the rest of unstable Iraq.  Gosh darn, that will get things done.  

But the problem is that the 50-100 casualties a month, victims of IEDs, will no longer be the cost we pay in lives.  Now, as we patrol from neighborhood to neighborhood, kicking in doors, our armies will face real urban warfare.  Our military will be charged will policing Iraq.  And this is what the insurgents want:  a whole shitload of US soldiers with targets on their backs.  Separated from their sanctuary areas, they will at last be in the sights of the insurgents.  

What good will come from this?  Will Iraq suddently become stable?  Will the Iraqis resisting American occupation suddenly give up?  The fact is that in the long term, 20,000 more US troops will not change the situation in Iraqi.  The only difference will be more US targets, and more US casualties.  

And so, the major goal of our occupation army, to limit casualties, will be subjourned to a new, fantastic, and impossible plan:  to police Iraq.  In the end, all that happens is that we get more body bags, and our military cannot afford that.