Skippy-san and I have had the occasion to disagree from time to time, and it looks like we will again. In a blog post over at his place, he takes me to task for - and I’m being charitable to both of us here - being mistaken in my facts on a previous post having to do with Iraq and the political demands of a certain presidential candidate. I have no intention of engaging in a point-by-point refutation of the issues he raises with my post, but will assert that it is not necessary that one must believe in an emerging Utopia-on-the-Euphrates to acknowledge that significant things have indeed been accomplished there, and that good work may yet be accomplished.
Let us be clear up front: I consider Skippy-san to be a patriot whose loyalty to his country is beyond question. I humbly beg for myself the same indulgence. We both of us want what’s in the best interest of the nation whose Constitution we swore an oath to support and defend. Where we differ then is not in ends, but in definitions and means: What is in the national interest? What is the best way to promote it?
(At this point, certain among our international readers may feel a tendency to get tight-lipped: More self-referential American navel gazing? But I make no apologies, as a serving military officer my loyalties and responsibilities are clear. I also happen to believe that, in general, what’s good for the US is also good for freedom-loving countries and peoples everywhere, although there’s certainly room for argument there. Perhaps we can have that discussion another day, but my short answer to such objections is here.)
So: We went to war in Iraq because we believed it was in our national interest to do so. Our reasons for thinking this to be true were varied and sundry, but they were all laid out in front of the responsible arms of government under the watchful eye of the American public. We had a debate as befits a great republic, and having made a decision through the prescribed process, we went to war - no trifling undertaking.
Even back in 2003, when vast majorities of both the public and Congress agreed that doing so was in the national interest there were people who disagreed. In the intervening years, the people who thought it was a bad idea from the outset have actually increased - hindsight may or may not be 20/20, but there are advantages which accrue to those who remain silent when important decisions are being discussed. But Skippy-san is not one of those. Like John Donovan and many others, he went on record at the time as saying that the idea was dangerously fraught with unforeseeable consequences.
This was a logically supportable, honorable and patriotic position to take during the national debate of 2002-2003. John - to his credit in my view - put aside his personal reservations once our forces crossed the line of departure and continues to acknowledge the need to win the fight we are engaged upon. Others have not done so, in fact for some - and I do not lump Skippy-san in this category - the most important thing seems to be an ugly emotional need to be publicly applauded for their original perspicacity, as if the most important thing was for themselves to be proven correct even if it meant that their country had to lose a major war to do so. There is an equally revolting obverse to this tendency - the need among certain of the war’s supporters to be proven right no matter how many among the flower of the nation’s youth have to die to do so. But I take it for granted that Skippy-san does not engage at this level and I have probed my own soul deeply enough to believe that I do not. As I said, I believe we earnestly seek what is in the nation’s interest.
Now some of the reasons that we went to war over have proven chimerical in retrospect, and some of them have proven vastly more difficult to implement than even the war’s most reluctant proponents could have envisioned. Neither of these things was clear at the moment of decision however, which is the only way that such decisions can reasonably be judged.
History, moreover, does not stop its inexorable progress down the trail of time once a particular path is chosen. In an alternate reality wherein we did not choose to depose Saddam by force, the UN sanctions regime - which was already groaning under the weight of all those dead Iraqi children even while the Monster engorged himself on their miseries - would very likely have collapsed. Remember “Smart Sanctions”?
Perhaps a nuclear armed Saddam would have been a better buttress to world stability than an emergently nuclearized Iran - not all cards on that issue have yet been played, by the way - but those who insist that this is true have a duty to explain to rest of us precisely how, as do those who stubbornly impute that the whole thing would have turned out better if only we had gotten a self-interested and in any case pouting, truculent France on side back in ‘03.
But one thing leads to another and no reasonable person can deny that 2006 was indeed a very bad year. After many false starts, the Sunni rejectionists finally managed to goad the Shia majority into a murderous rage - all along an inexplicable and incomprehensible tactic - and now their co-religionists are nightly reaping the retributive whirlwind. The security situation in the capital is atrocious, the government inept and corrupt and the costs continue to mount in both fiscal and human terms. Iran feels growingly empowered, US prestige in a critically important region is under assault and everywhere fingers are wet to the winds. To acknowledge this is to understand the scope of the problem.
So what is to be done?
Well first of all, it goes without saying that we don’t get to have a “do-over,” and probes of original sin are rightfully the work of disinterested historians, not pragmatists forced to operate in the world as it is, knowing only what can be known. We are where we are and the only real question is what we do from here.
Skippy-san argues that our interest is best served by returning American forces to their stateside garrisons, effectually abandoning whatever influence we might have on events in a region whose strategic value is almost incalculable. But even setting aside the moral implications of an act that would in effect if not intent equate to fomenting genocide, it’s hard for me to understand how that would serve the national interest. What do we gain by allowing nations and non-national actors who bear us no good will, including Iran and Syria to rush into the vacuum we leave behind? What do we gain by forcing our nominal allies in the region to either align with these forces or else take arms against them?
What do we gain by returning a demoralized force to garrison, troops who had never been beaten in the field, to an echoing and embarrassed public silence, evident pawns in a game of domestic power politics? What do we gain by confirming to an all-volunteer force the realization that once again their political class and electorate had sent them into sacrifice unseriously, lacking the political endurance to match their personal heroism? What do we gain as we execute a multi-year “reset” of their equipment and training, during which time our power to militarily influence overseas events will be sharply reduced even if we could muster the political will?
What do we gain if we abandon to barbarism and slaughter those overseas who trusted in our promises of freedom, self-determination and support? What do we gain by leaving vast swaths of Al Anbar to grow into a Qaedist mini-state? What do we gain by providing the jihadis graphic evidence of our provocative weakness? What do we gain by proving to allies that our word cannot be trusted?
How does any of this serve the national interest?
And all of it would even make sense if it were demonstrably true that in staying we would be throwing good money - and lives - after those unwisely spent, that all is lost or that the cost of remaining outweighs even the costs of defeat. I myself do not believe in insoluble problems, nor do I believe - as Skippy-san asserts - that Islam and democracy are fundamentally incompatible. Indonesia after all, is the most populous country in Islam and has a functioning democracy, however challenged it might otherwise be. And while I remain agnostic on the effect that 21,000 additional troops may have on the stabilization of Baghdad, it is at least worth a try. There are no other recommendations on the table that do not lead to national defeat, no matter what other name you use to label it.
But all of that is really beside the point. The issue at hand was and is that if any of the candidates campaigning for the presidency truly believe that our defeat in Iraq is inevitable, they have a duty not to wait two more years but to demand - on the record - that the power of the purse be used to thwart the surge and bring the troops home now. That is the only principled stand.
Those who in 2003 voted “aye” on the authorization to use military force are welcome to change their minds in the light of newly understood reality, but they have no right to resent the fact that victory cannot be achieved on a timetable favorable to their personal political ambitions.
Skippy-san is fond of repeating some fervently held beliefs. I will respond in kind: We cannot be defeated. We can only decide to lose. Before we do so, we ought to seriously consider the consequences.
31 responses so far ↓
1
Byron Audler
// Jan 31, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Lex, I’ve never since I’ve been avidly reading your blog ever see be anything less than the perfect officer and a gentleman. I also believe that Skippy is acting on his conscience, and doing so in good faith. The difference is that I believe in the same things that you believe in. I also believe that Skippy has the God-given right to speak his mind, and respect his beliefs, even though I don’t believe them.
Lex, we truly only have one choice: throw the whole can of whoop-ass at the problem, and tell the generals to get the job done. No more of this piece meal approach. Just beat on them until they either see reason, or are six feet under. The Commander in Chief told them six years ago: You’re either with us, or against us.
2
Slick Rick
// Jan 31, 2007 at 2:33 pm
LEX for PRESIDENT!!!!!!
P.S. I had to look up perspicacity.
3
Lee
// Jan 31, 2007 at 2:47 pm
There’s other “blogs”? What are these blogs you speak of, Capn’?
4
badbob
// Jan 31, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Overall, I pretty much agree and shadow Lex’s world view re GWOT/Iraq and I also take some pride in the metrics he touts about freeing 30 million, voting and all that…I most strongly agree it’s a fight we can’t lose….
On the flip side, Skippy often appeals to certain cynical vibes that arise from time to time re certain realities of the nature of the enemey and certain things in our national interest. But I never buy-in because what he offers is not victory. At best it is expedient disengagement. IMO, that ain’t gonna work..not with this enemy. IMO, someone, somewhere will have to pay the price in the future and that price will be much higher than what we are paying now. A quick look back at history will confirm that to any clear thinker.
In my mind nation building ain’t why we’re there. It’s only a by-product to hopefully provide topcover to those fence-sitting sheep amongst us who don’t trust the sheepdog, or the wolf. Cynical? Maybe.
To be honest the fact that we are killing the evil sumbitches over there and NOT here is enough for me.
Regarding the genie outta da bottle thing Skippy pointed out, I somewhat agree. Here’s my take though:
Let’s say you’re walking by a hornets nest. Ever done that? They come out and bite ya. Hell, you were even paying ‘em for their honey (oil)! Fact o’da matter is, they bit first and it doesn’t matter why. So predictably, the dang Hornets (sorry Lex-shoulda used wasps) are swarming and outta the nest. We have two choices: Either run away and get bit later or stay, smash the nest and get bit now. Me, I’d rather just finish off the nest. Why? For one simple reason, I don’t want my grandkids getting stung, too.
BTW- that SSGT over at B5 that gave his manifesto is a helluva lot smarter than all of us combined. Did y’all see it?
b2
5
Skippy-san
// Jan 31, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Lex,
I was not taking you to task at all and if it appeared that way, then that is due to my poor writing skills.
I also did not advocate withdrawing back to garrison in the states. With all due respect I would submit that I have been misquoted there. The United States needs to be forward deployed especially in the Pacific. With regards to the Gulf region though, I’ve been a long time advocate that less would be more.
When it comes to Iraq there is a certain amount of emotionalism on my part-I’m sick of hearing about Iraq, tired of Americans having to be there, and tired of other Americans having the specter of going there hanging over their heads. I’m tired of seeing young men and women on the roll of the dead and the injured. I’m tired of a world where all of this exists. I’m tired of hearing about the good Islam vs the bad Islam. All Islam is bad. Call it what you will, but it colors the way I look at the war. I also have never made the connection between Iraq and war on terror. Iraq is about Iraq. I realize that is minority opinion but there is documentation that backs my view. I believe that this conlfict will continue to drain the resources of the United States that need to be applied elsewhere in the world. There are costs-short and long term-that the US will be years recouping. What really disgusts me is that the Arabs have not rallied to fix their own problems themselves. And I see no clear cut end to all this.
That’s all. I feel that whoever wins the White House will pull the US out of Iraq in 2009. The public is not going to stand for anything else.
And enlightened intellectual discussion is one reason I am over here reading every day.
6
Kris, in New England
// Jan 31, 2007 at 4:51 pm
I’m with Lex on this one.
And B2 - yes, that SSGT over at B5 is right on the nose…if only their leadership would read it and implement it.
7
John B
// Jan 31, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Lex,
I really enjoy reading your stuff.
Two points: 1, I believe this is a long war, probably generational. 2, Iraq may not have any ties to 9/11, but it was thick in the middle of terror. Of all of the places al Quada was in I will never be convince they were not in Iraq.
RLTW
8
RPL
// Jan 31, 2007 at 5:45 pm
The other day, the people at strategypage.com published a top ten list about the myths of the Iraq war. It’s well worth the time to read, especially point #10, about how victory will be classified now versus 20 years from now.
Anyone with the time should also read Col. Bay’s On Point column about what the war will look like (he wrote in early in 2003, before the war started).
My own feeling is that we are probably further along than most people are aware. From the looks of things, intelligence has been improving, the insurgents are taking a beating, and people are at least making noises about negotiating (al Sadr and the militias).
9
Byron Audler
// Jan 31, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Skippy, I only have one question to your argument: if we exit Iraq, what will that mean towards security here in the US, and our citizens abroad?
10
Skippy-san
// Jan 31, 2007 at 6:22 pm
I think there is no difference in the security posture for inside the US and outside it if we are in Iraq or not. The Birimgham incident sort of proves that. I’ve never subscribed to the theory that killing insurgents in Iraq reduces the threat to the US. It does not-if anything its done the opposite- galvanize terrorists elsewhere and allow the cancer to spread.
I think the medical analogy is an apt one because the current conditions in Iraq are the ones that create the sustainment of the insurgency: a foreign occupier, a weak government, and scores of blood feuds-all combined with a cornucopia of weapons available.
The US has not been attacked in 6 years only because the US has become more vigilant as Cartoon Network found out yesterday.
11
lex
// Jan 31, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Sorry Skip if I improperly put words in your mouth. I did sort of make the assumption that if you wanted the troops out of Iraq, they’d have to go somewhere and a return to garrison seemed the logical choice.
I think all of us of every point of view are sick of hearing about Iraq, sick to death of thinking about the killed and wounded, appalled at the cost of all of this and mortified both at the nature of many of those we have liberated along the way to protecting ourselves and those among the newly liberated who would use their new-found freedoms to terrorize the others among them.
But we do live in “interesting times,” and all the wishing in the world won’t make it stop, and the fatigue of old men like ourselves doesn’t mean a great deal to the forces of history, and we can only thank God or fate, karma or kismet that young men and women still stand firm in the space we used to occupy.
Our fathers fought one hot war and a long, long cold one, and they passed the latter down to us. We finished it for them, and thought ourselves blessed, thought that history had finally stopped.
We have been disabused.
12
John of Argghhh!
// Jan 31, 2007 at 7:21 pm
…as a serving military officer my loyalties and responsibilities are clear.
My commission remains in effect, if in abeyance, so to speak.
Indeed - as a good staff officer I have offered my opinions when sought.
I have volunteered for recall to serve. However, apparently, rotund bearded redleg-historian-simgeeks are not needful to bring the foe to heel.
As I will implement the decisions made to the utmost of my ability.
This is one thing the anti-war left has trouble getting their brains around.
Skippy understands all that. It’s not like he’s JadeGold, for heaven’s sakes.
He still has to buy the first round, however.
And while I may not have been all that keen on invading Iraq - nor was I all that keen on invading Kosovo.
In fact, oddly enough, considering some of the invective tossed my way about things, I’m not keen on invading anything, generally.
But I do believe in finishing what you start, and making a true honest effort. And not just quitting because it took longer and cost more than you expected. Of course, every project I start at home follows that pattern, so perhaps I’m inured.
And I will listen respectfully to people who think that staying there one more day is no different than the Generals sending one more wave into the Tractor Factory at Stalingrad.
The hard question is - and only answerable in the fullness of time - are we the Germans, or the Russians?
Armistead, or Meade? Thomas, or Longstreet?
That’s why historians can get so annoying. It’s all so clear, after they’ve sifted everything.
Too bad the decision maker is the Man in the Arena, as Teddy put it, and not the Bobblehead on TV, or, dare I say it, blogger.
Yes, Lee, there are a *few* of us who glitter dimly in the dark matter of the cold fringes of the Neptunusverse…
8^)
13 Theodore // Jan 31, 2007 at 7:22 pm
When the debate over Iraq was going on in 2002-03, I argued that Iraq was a necessary experiment: that we had to try to plant democracy in the heart of the Islamic world and help it flourish, because if it didn’t there were two alternatives. One was a return to realpolitik, an ugly word that means we don’t care how many of your own people you kill as long as you don’t bother us while doing it. The other was a true clash of civilizations. One means the deaths of millions, the other the deaths of billions.
Not being ready to have the blood of either millions or billions on my hands, I figured we ought to give this democracy thing a try.
I’m still not ready for that much blood.B
14 The Wood Shed » // Jan 31, 2007 at 8:42 pm
[...] More from Cox & Forkum. John lashes out. Lex on defense: Those who in 2003 voted ?¢‚Ǩ?ìaye?¢‚Ǩ¬ù on the authorization to use military force are welcome to change their minds in the light of newly understood reality, but they have no right to resent the fact that victory cannot be achieved on a timetable favorable to their personal political ambitions. [...]
15
Skippy-san
// Jan 31, 2007 at 9:44 pm
I would be happy to buy the first (and the second round) if the opportunity ever presented itself.
16
lex
// Jan 31, 2007 at 10:34 pm
And I, for one, would be happy to drink your beer
17
John of Argghhh!
// Feb 1, 2007 at 3:39 am
I didn’t lash out - I just scored beer.
Geez, you guys don’t think strategically, do you?
8^)
18 Sim // Feb 1, 2007 at 4:37 am
“At this point, certain among our international readers may feel a tendency to get tight-lipped: More self-referential American navel gazing?”
“what?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s good for the US is also good for freedom-loving countries and peoples everywhere, although there?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s certainly room for argument there”
19
Michelle
// Feb 1, 2007 at 6:30 am
Fighting the urge…..fighting the urge……. must not…….
Are YOU talking to ME?
ARE YOU TALKING TO ME??
Sheesh……..I hope not
[eyes darting left to right, looking for cover]
Damm, hope I won’t have to call in air support here. Cuz you know, they might just not come. And that would NOT be good!
And to think that the only thing that really grabbed me in the post was the reference to international readers with pursed lips - now THAT reminds me of Rhythms!
20
MajMike
// Feb 1, 2007 at 6:35 am
Lex, John, Skippy: with each of you holding well reasoned and well informed positions, i must declare myself fully in line with Lex’s stance on this topic.
21
John of Argghhhh!
// Feb 1, 2007 at 7:14 am
MajMike - Fine! Be wrong! Plllpppppttt! (we can’t let things get too serious).
22
Pogue
// Feb 1, 2007 at 7:16 am
I got back in the Guard post 9-11, and knew that I’d be getting deployed somewhere… My first choice was Afghanistan, because there was a country supporting the terrorists, and that was a pretty clear situation. As far as Iraq went, while I didn’t think it was a necessary response to 9-11 directly, I felt (and still feel) that there’s a compelling interest for the United States in having a “democratic” state in the region. Frankly I felt Iran would have been a better target since they’ve been exporting terrorism since Lebanon, but that wasn’t my decision. So I deploy when and where they tell me to, and do the mission I’m given as best I can. And when we get our next mob order I’ll do the same. But I’m just a sergeant, so life is simple. As an aside, I get a little creeped out by the “bomb them into the stone age” rhetoric I see occasionally at other blogs. While it’s emotionally pleasing to envision huge free fire zones, advocating the genocide of a religious group in answer to their lunatic fringe is a bit extreme. Muslims are different, that doesn’t make them all evil. If every follower of Islam was a terrorist we would have already lost.
Respectfully,
Sgt Phil Ryan
A-2/180 FA AZ NG
aka Pogue
23
MajMike
// Feb 1, 2007 at 7:32 am
..i also counted on Lex being the senior man, so he’s more likely to actually be putting the cash on the bar.
(hint, hint)
24
Pogue
// Feb 1, 2007 at 7:53 am
Oh, and the reference to other blogs did not include Skippy-san. Just being clear.
25
CDR Salamander
// Feb 1, 2007 at 8:58 am
I’m still with Lex on the hilltop - but that isn’t my worry. My worry is all these people going out drinking with Skippy. I mean, hey, we aren’t 25 anymore.
26
Byron Audler
// Feb 1, 2007 at 9:29 am
I’m hanging with whoevers buying the Bombay Sapphire…hey, I didn’t say I was cheap!
27
Kris, in New England
// Feb 1, 2007 at 10:02 am
RPL in #8: here is the link to the Top 10 Myths of Iraq: http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/topten/articles/20070128.aspx
Oh and for anyone who is wondering, I like Gosling’s Black Seal Rum and Coke…with a lime.
28
CPT J
// Feb 1, 2007 at 10:35 am
What Byron said: #1 & #26
My toast is to Victory….with a Pink Gin.
‘Made in the United Kingdom in the 19th century, a Pink Gin contains gentian and a dash of ‘pink’. ‘Pink’ referring to the Angostura bitters, a dark red extract of gentian and spices. This is typically an English way of drinking and enjoying gin.
Also called Gin and Bitters, the Pink Gin cocktail was created by the Royal Navy. They created the drink in order to make Angostura bitters more enjoyable. The Royal Navy used the bitters to treat medical conditions in sailors; furthermore, it was also used to treat seasickness.
The Recipe
This recipe serves 1
* 1 measure gin [Bombay Saphire, of course]
* 2-3 dashes Angostura bitters
Coat the sides of a chilled martini glass with the Angostura bitters, add chilled gin and serve.’
First round’s on me Byron. Having made all the appropriate toasts with a proper gin, we shall then retire to the strategists’ table for some honest brews and hard-won wisdom.
29
kat-missouri
// Feb 1, 2007 at 10:48 am
I have a beef with Skippy-san and the folks that say we “created terrorists”.
Frankly, you could turn that around and say that the terrorists are creating American soldiers (sailors,Marines, Air Force, etc) since they continue to sign on the dotted line and go to war.
Really, is anybody shocked, when we went to war with AQ and any who might support him, that “terrorists” were recruited and continue to join? Was anybody under the impression that AQ’s resources were finite at the moment of attack and we only had to attrit those forces to “win” against Islamic terrorism?
Was anybody confused by the post 9/11 celebrations in the vaunted “Arab Street” (quickly shut down by their governments) or the schadenfreude opinion pieces coming out of the Mid-East (and Europe and here for that matter) that we, lips pursed, perpetuated the attack on ourselves by our other (less war like) actions?
Or, hey, when Osama declared war in 1998 and then struck the big blow in 2001, did anyone imagine that the 1% of Muslims (10 million) who believe in Jihad wouldn’t send him men and resources? Or the 30% who believe in the Islamist state wouldn’t throw some money his way or men?
Osama and his movements have been recruiting and “creating” terrorists since the Afghan/Russo war. They re-invigorated it in 1992 and it’s been growing since then.
yes, war has probably precipitated a growth in Islamists “terrorists”, but it also precipitated a growth in people volunteering for our military. That is what war does.
And, speaking of Afghanistan, I also find the “creating terrorist” comment disingenuous considering the activities of AQ and Taliban recruiters in Waziristan, Pakistan who, every summer, sweep through the villages and pick up the out of school youngsters, bored shephards and unemployed college grads for some Jihad. Not to mention the Kashmiris, Indonesians, Saudis and other such folks that travel that way to take part in the big Jihad against the Christian Crusaders in Afghanistan.
One thing I don’t hear, however, is anyone making analogies about the creation of “terrorists” in Afghanistan or many suggestions that, since this is happening we should withdraw.
Seriously, can we not come up with a better argument?
30 PunkysDilemma // Feb 3, 2007 at 9:16 am
Thank you Lex for saying the things that often troubles me.
The condition of our country concerns me as we’re faced with candidates campaigning for the presidency who, frankly frightens me. Granted, its still early in the game, but thats what ‘they’ were telling me before the majority shifted.
I listen to the whispers of those muttering the words, “this war is a grotesque mistake.” “The war is a failure.”
It disturbs me that these are the words that may manifest itself into a reality of defeat.
There is an uneasiness that I have for our country. The future that it holds may very well be a dim one. I hope to God I’m wrong.
I don’t know if sending 21,ooo additional troops would be the answer, but I haven’t heard anyone come up with something better.
Thanks Lex for being a sound voice of reason.
31
Skippy-san
// Feb 4, 2007 at 2:30 am
So Phibian, What I hear you saying is that you cannot hang anymore.
Leave a Comment