too optimistic

Many of Glenn Reynolds’s readers appreciated his linking to William Stuntz’s “ Doubling Down in Iraq,” in which Stuntz says that drawing down our troops is exactly the wrong thing to do and that we need to increase our troop levels. He explains why:

Why do insurgent gangs, who have vastly smaller resources and manpower than the American soldiers they fight, continue to try to kill those soldiers? The answer is, because they believe they only have to kill a few more, and the soldiers will leave. They need not inflict a military defeat (which would be impossible, given the strength of the American military)–all they need to do is survive until American voters decide to throw in the towel, which might happen at any moment.

The proper response to that calculation is to make emphatically clear that the fight will not end until one side or the other wins, decisively.

I agree that what Stuntz says makes a lot of sense in principle. I would caution, however, that what he proposes is not “the” solution that everyone seems to be looking for. My problem with his proposed solution is that it implies there will be “victory” at the end of the operation, that there will be a knockout punch and that we’ll be able to claim victory afterward.

I am deeply skeptical of this. I’ll note that the Israelis have been trying to make use of the “doubling down” principle forever. Look how well it has worked for them. And that’s because the “insurgents” in Iraq are not like soldiers of the South. They are indoctrinated fanatics.

So: I would urge people to stop looking for “the” solution to Iraq. That is a very American way of looking things, and it doesn’t comport with the situation on the ground in Iraq.