• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Testimony by Maj Gen John Batiste, US Army (Ret)
House Committee on Foreign Affairs
27 June 2007

Our national strategy for the global war on terror lacks strategic focus; our Army and Marine Corps are at a breaking point with little to show for it; the current "surge" in Iraq is too little, too late; the Government of Iraq is incapable of stepping up to their responsibilities; our nation has yet to mobilize to defeat a very serious threat which has little to do with Iraq; and it is past time to refocus our national strategy and begin the deliberate withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. Indeed, it is time to place America's vital interests first. Our troops are mired in the complexity of a brutal civil war and we have lost sight of the broader objective of defeating world-wide Islamic extremism. The following testimony will address the current situation and recommend a way-ahead. Iraq and Afghanistan are the first two chapters in a very long book and we are off to a terrible start.

Iraq is embroiled in a civil war and the situation is getting further out of control with each passing day. Factions in Iraq will continue killing each other whether or not we are in their country. As many as 3,000 Iraqis are murdered every month and the violence has produced nearly 4 million refugees. The various factions of the insurgency continue to regenerate their numbers at an alarming rate despite staggering losses. The insurgency goes well beyond the influence of Al Qaeda and includes a complex mosaic of Shia and Sunni Islam, Arab and Kurd centuries old animosity, tribal infighting, and a large number of criminal mafia style gangs. To further complicate the situation, Iraq's neighbors in the region all have different objectives and agendas. The situation is most alarming because Iraq is distracting the United States from the main effort of defeating world-wide Islamic extremism while draining our national treasure in blood and dollars.

The Bush administration's strategy lacks strategic focus. General John Sheehan may have said it best when he recently said, "there is no agreed-upon strategic view of the Iraq problem or the region.the current Washington decision-making process lacks a linkage to a broader view of the region and how the parts fit together strategically." Our current Iraqi measures of effectiveness delve deep into the details of Iraq's national reconciliation and de-Ba'athification. These measures are incredibly important for Iraq, but may matter little to US strategic interests and defeating Al Qaeda. When and how will we complete the work in Afghanistan and root out the terror networks in other parts of the world, such as northwestern Pakistan? Indeed, Iraq is a side-show that is diluting our focus. Through most of this century, we will face expanding Islamic extremism, asymmetric demographics, competition for decreasing energy resources, the effects of the "haves and have nots" driven by globalization, global climate change, and unstable population migration. What American desperately needs now is a political framework defined by an ever expanding global alliance of equals-disciplined diplomacy based on a vision that is focused on long-term objectives. The security implications are staggering and American's expect our government, both the executive branch and the Congress, to address our real enemies-Islamic extremist groups to include Al Qaeda type organizations, and the nation states that support them. This enemy is world-wide, respects no national boundaries, and is concentrated in areas well outside of Iraq. Unfortunately, the current administration's near sighted strategy remains focused on Iraq and is all but dependent on the military component of strategy. Diplomacy and the critical political and economic components of a successful strategy are dangerously lacking. Clausewitz cautioned us that war is the extension of policy by other means. In other words, America should commit our young men and women into battle only when all other means are exhausted. The administration ignored this sage advice and we are paying a heavy price.

Our Army and Marine Corps are at a breaking point at a time in history when we need a strong military the most. The cycle of deployments is staggering. American formations continue to loose a battalion's worth of dead and wounded every month with little to show for it. The current recruiting system falls drastically short of long-term requirements and our all-volunteer force can not sustain the current tempo for much longer. The military is spending over $1 billion a year in incentives in a last ditch effort to keep the force together. Young officers and noncommissioned officers are leaving the service at an alarming rate. Equipment is in dismal shape, requiring hundreds of billions of dollars to refit the force to pre-invasion conditions. Active duty companies preparing for deployment to Iraq within the next six months are at less than 50 percent strength, are commanded by young and inexperienced lieutenants, and are lacking the equipment needed for training. We are setting the conditions for the next "Task Force Smith" disaster at a time in our history when we are facing a serious world-wide threat.

The current "surge" in Iraq is too little, too late. The so-called surge really amounts to nothing more than a minor reinforcement, a number which represents all that our military could muster. Our counter insurgency doctrine requires 20 soldiers for every 1,000 in the indigent population. Assuming there are 6 or 7 million people in Baghdad, the requirement to properly secure the city as a precursor to the rule of law would be over 120,000 "combat" troops. There are less than 80,000 "combat" troops in Iraq today, even with the surge. What we are seeing is the myth of Sisyphus being played out over and over again. Today's battles in places like Baghdad and Ba'qubah are not new-we have been down this road before, but lacked the number of coalition and competent Iraqi forces to clear, hold, and build. The number of "combat" troops matter and we have always lacked the right numbers. Further, our counter insurgency doctrine recognizes that fighting an insurgency is very different from combat operations and that successful operations "require Soldiers and Marines at every echelon to possess a daunting set of traits, among them a clear, nuanced, and empathetic appreciation of the essential nature of the conflict.an understanding of the motivation, strengths, and weaknesses of the insurgent, and a knowledge of the local culture." I could not agree with this more. Success in a counter insurgency is more about relationships, improving the people's quality of life, and the incredibly hard work to change people's attitudes to give them alternatives to the insurgency, and less about the application of lethal force. Numbers mattered in March 2003 and they matter today. The current administration drove this nation to war without the military planning and capability required to be successful in this kind of war. The administration set our great military up for failure and is putting our nation at risk.

The Government of Iraq is incapable of stepping up to their responsibilities. Our current administration's notion of freedom and democracy in the Middle East is certainly noble, but completely unrealistic. Democracy is inconsistent with the tribal and religious culture in the region. The Maliki government is dominated by Shia, is all but ineffective, and will most likely accomplish few if any of the benchmarks established by the legislation passed by the US Congress last month. These benchmarks include tough milestones dependent on reconciliation, to include completing a constitutional review, enacting and implementing legislation on de-Ba'athification, enacting and implementing legislation to ensure the equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources of the people of Iraq without regard to the sect or ethnicity of recipients, and much, much more. The expectation of a mid-September report to the President all but empowers the insurgency with the timeline they need and at the end of the day, we all know what the results will be. With respect to the Government of Iraq's responsibility to increase the number of Iraqi security force units capable of operating independently ignores the reality that historically, armed forces in the region have been perpetually ineffective due to social factors deeply rooted in Arab culture, to include secrecy and paranoia, pride, enormous class differences, an inability to coordinate, and no individual freedom of action or initiative. Why would we think our efforts in the 21st century would be any different than other nation's efforts in past centuries? Further, the world has committed inadequate resources to build effective Iraqi security forces. The Iraqi army and police require heavy weapons, helicopters, light armored vehicles, and radar assisted counter-battery artillery to control the insurgency. The Iraqi security forces have taken horrendous casualties and do not have the tools to replace US combat formations. Whether we can trust these Iraqi formations is another question. Our experience over the past four years is that most Iraqi formations will either not show up for the fight or will not hold their ground in the face of the insurgent for a myriad of reasons. America has ignored the lessons of history.

Our nation has yet to mobilize to defeat the threat of world-wide Islamic extremism which has little to do with Iraq. Iraq is distracting America from what should be our focus of main effort. Our leaders have a responsibility to galvanize the American people for what might very well be a decade's long struggle. Americans want to be told the truth-what are we facing, what will it take to win, how long will it take, and what are the consequences for failure? Americans want to be part of the solution. We want to properly fund the war with war bonds or taxes-programs that do not mortgage our children's futures. We want to properly resource our great military, to include beginning the debate on national service. We want to mobilize industry to get behind this effort. Why is the military competing with golf club manufactures for specialty metals? Why does it take years to replace a helicopter destroyed in Iraq or Afghanistan? Why do we have the huge backlog of broken military equipment in our military depots? Why is veteran medical care still broken? Why are we not serious about immigration reform and homeland security? Why is America still dependent on foreign oil? The time for half-measures is over. It is also past time for our Congress to provide constitutionally mandated oversight over the executive branch.

It is critical that we rethink our national strategy and begin the deliberate withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. It is in America's best interest to rethink our national strategy, deliberately disengage from Iraq, refit and rearm our military, get serious about homeland security, and prepare to win the next phase of the struggle against world-wide Islamic extremism. Bottom line, we have put our strategic interests in the hands of an incompetent government in Iraq and we are "waiting to see if the Iraqis can settle their differences." This is unacceptable. Our plan for withdrawal must be exponentially better than the plan to invade Iraq. Such a deliberate withdrawal will take up to a year or more to complete. With respect to the deliberate withdrawal from Iraq, the administration must establish a timeline for a withdrawal, put the onus for success squarely on the backs of the Iraqi government, and launch into a new national strategy which must include a serious diplomatic surge with friends, allies, and enemies, to include countries in the region with a vested interest in the future of Iraq. There may or may not be a long-term mission in Iraq, but that must be driven by our strategic interests in the region. Our two vital interests are that Iraq can not become a launching pad for world-wide Islamic extremism or become a source of regional instability. Secondary interests are that our withdrawal can not create a humanitarian disaster or an Iraq dominated by another state(s) in the region. This may require a residual force of up to 30,000 US troops for decades to protect the US mission, train and advise the Iraqi security forces, provide a counter balance to unintended consequences of Iran and a greater "Kurdistan", and take direct action against residual Al Qaeda in Iraq. We cannot walk away from our strategic interests. It did not have to be this way, but due to the failures of the current administration, we are where we are.

In conclusion, America's national strategy for the global war on terror lacks strategic focus. Our Army and Marine Corps are at a breaking point with little to show for it; the current "surge" in Iraq is too little, too late; the Government of Iraq is incapable of stepping up to their responsibilities; our nation has yet to mobilize to defeat a very serious threat which has little to do with Iraq; and it is past time to refocus our national strategy and begin the deliberate withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. The way-ahead is uncertain at best, but it is time to put America's vital interests first. From this point forward, America's strategy must focus on the mission is defeat world-wide Islamic extremism.