Lose The Battles, Win the War

Escalating violence in Iraq has called the Coalition's chances of victory in Iraq into question more and more. NYTimes reports the aftermath of a massive suicide attack (exploiting an oil tanker) in Mussayib, a poor Shia community near Baghdad. With terrorists killing more, not fewer, Iraqis, and with no apparent correlation between Coalition efforts and on-the-ground results it's hard to argue that increased effort or a few key nabs will turn the tide.

America, however, has a history of winning wars despite losing battles. The Revolutionary War made the concept famous, as Generals Washington and Greene retreated their way into history. The Civil War witnessed a virtually unbeatable Confederate Army under Robert E. Lee - yet it surrendered to the Union Army of the Potomac, whose greatest accomplishments were those times it managed to avert disaster. Conversely, the U.S. won many a battle in Vietnam, and had an astronomical kills-to-casualties ratio, but lost the war ignominiously.

Where does Iraq fit in? Can we really call suicide bombings "lost battles" in any meaningful military sense? Is this just another Vietnam, where endless waves of expendable cannon fodder will ultimately overwhelm the will to war of the U.S. and her allies?

In reality, losing battles has little to do with winning wars. However, in hearts-and-minds conflicts, at least, winning battles has equally little to do with winning wars. And the Times article, as biased and negative as it is (see the opening paragraph), contains the seeds of the Coalition victory:

The attacks also come as most of the country's major Sunni Arab communities have begun to coalesce around a commitment to get out the Sunni Arab vote in the December elections for a full government, a decision the government views as a further step toward solidifying a political process that the insurgency has been trying to undermine.

The insurgents may be killing people on a large scale, but Iraq is not Spain. After two decades of Saddam Hussein, random killings are part of the fabric of a rough national life. The goal of the insurgents, apparently, is to disrupt the democratic process enough that the Americans leave, a civil war ensues, and their various backers then have a chance to take over. However, Sunnis, as the quote above states, have realized that their future lies with the Coalition-backed government, not a rebellion. This is in no small part due to the remarkable forbearance of Shi'ites, who have refrained from vengeance despite two decades under Saddam and two years at the hands of suicide bombers. They want stability (if not democracy) and the loyalty and discipline with which they follow their leaders has made a Coalition victory possible.

Shi'ite forbearance has led to a slow growth of Sunni trust, and a possibility that the U.S. could win this war without ever fully stemming the tide of suicide bombs. Obviously, the murderous pace of the past week cannot be sustained, but with some ups and downs, its not unreasonable to imagine a scenario where Iraq's policymakers go through with a successful constitutional convention and subsequent elections, with the same gumption that they showed last time around, and the U.S. begins to withdraw shortly thereafter.

Without the U.S. presence, what will the suicide bombers be attacking? I doubt Zarqawi & Co. will still have eager recruits when it becomes starkly clear that the only business in town is killing other Arabs.