The different levels of strategy, and Iraq

At Arms and Influence, Kingdaddy has an excellent post on the different levels of strategy. He uses a recent CNN interview with Joe Lieberman to illustrate what is wrong with the manner in which many Americans see Iraq today, including presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain. During his interview with CNN, Sen. Lieberman while disputing Kyra Phillip's assertion that many Iraqis don't want another Republican president in the White House, said this:

...there will be genocide and bloodshed, and Iran and al Qaeda will win, and we'll loose.

According to Kingdaddy,

For sake of argument, let's agree with Lieberman. We leave, and Iran and Al Qaeda "win." (That's not necessarily true, especially for Al Qaeda, but let's not get off track.) By implication, the United States loses. But what did we lose?

Kindaddy argues that it is important to separate the different levels of strategy: Grand strategic, theater, operational, tactical, and technical, because "success at one level does not necessarily bring success at all the others" likewise, failure in one theater does not necessarily bring failure at all the others. With regard to Iraq, he argues

If the United States were to lose one part of its theater strategy for the Middle East, it does not portend a cataclysm for the United States in that region, or for the most recently added priority in American grand strategy, counterterrorism.

The United states may have to contain the consequences of occupation and withdrawal, but there are several outcomes that may be eminently tolerable for the United States. The Iraqi factions are likely to remain focused on each other, not the United States. Iran may gain power and influence within Iraq, but exactly how does this automatically translate into a catastrophic loss for the United States? Freed from the Iraq trap, the United States might be able to do more in the Middle East overall, instead of pouring more blood and treasure into a single country. Americans might live in less danger of terrorist attack, if the American occupation no longer inspires outrage against the United states.

As a means of understanding this let's look back at the British Empire in the late 1700's. In 1775 the American colonies declared themselves independent of the British Crown. For the next eight years the British expended blood and treasure to bring the American colonists back under the fold. Due to their superior naval strength, they were able to take over most coastal cities in America, but were unable to take the countryside, due to their small land army (in comparison to the landmass they had to control). In 1778, after the American victory at Saratoga, France signed a treaty of alliance with the new American republic and declared war on Britain later that summer. In the next two years, Spain and the Dutch also declared war on Britain. The war expanded from one between the British Crown and thirteen of its colonies, to a worldwide struggle for the empire. The French and Spanish attacked the British throughout the West Indies, and Gibraltar. The French also began to contest the control of India with the help of their allies in the Kingdom of Mysore (Southern India).

As if this was not enough, by 1781 French involvement made itself felt in the American colonies and was instrumental in the British defeat at Yorktown in that year. By 1783, the colonial war for independence was over. Freed from having so much of its military might occupied by a colonial uprising and though grudgingly accepting defeat, the British moved to reinforce their position at Gibraltar and other theaters, including India and the West Indies. The British were so successful in repositioning their forces, that not only did they retain control of India and Gibraltar, but by the end of the war they had returned the West Indies to the status quo ante, with Britain as the preeminent power in the region. In this instance, it is clear that the British defeat on American soil, far from being cataclysmic, actually allowed it to commit its forces to regions were they could have an impact. In fact, after 1783 trade between the United States and Britain grew overwhelmingly and continued to do so, until the War of 1812.

I'm not a scholar on the war of Independence, and relied heavily for this post on wikipedia, so if anyone finds any historical inaccuracies please alert me to them, and I will correct them at once. Also, this post is not arguing that we are losing in Iraq, though this blogger believes that unless more radical changes take place within the country, it is hard to see how we can win (at least in the manner defined by this administration). The post is only meant to highlight the most important points brought forth by Kingdaddy at Arms and Influence, while also providing one more example of how a defeat in one theater, does not necessarily mean a defeat for our global strategy.

In short, we need to move beyond the myopic view of win/lose with regard to Iraq, and focus more profoundly on what we need to do to correct our strategy and succeed in defeating the more potent threats we face in this misnamed global war on terror, while also managing the global order we underpin. We can't have that discussion until many on the right stop simplifying the Iraq war to slogans of win-lose, appeasers vs. patriots, etc. In like manner, we also need to move beyond what has become the slogan for many on the left "McCain wants 100 yrs of war." He does not, he merely compared the American presence in Iraq (at least how he would like to see it) to that of South Korea, Germany and Japan. That is, he looks forward to a time when the United States will have troops in Iraq, not fighting insurgents or militias, but merely as a guarantee of allegiance and aid for the government of Iraq. Can you attack him for wishful thinking, perhaps, but to dumb down a legitimate difference of viewpoint (that Iraq can achieve such stability) to the simplistic slogan noted above is not helpful to anyone, or our need to truly debate what it is we are going to do moving forward.

Here's the full version of what Sen. Lieberman said. The statement referenced in this post, and Kingdaddy's comes near the end of the interview. The video itself is from ThinkProgress, hence my rant above on moving away from sloganeering as they once again repeat the strawman attack that McCain wants us in Iraq for 100yrs of war.