Former Marine Owen West makes a couple of very important points. First, angst about the costs and benefits of ongoing operations in Iraq combat appears to grow in inverse proportion to personal risk:
Nearly six years into the war on terror–which is being fought by less than 30% of the military and less than one-half of 1% of the nation–and the stark irony of America in modern war has emerged. Our professional warriors who take the most risk believe the nation must commit to a long-term fight that includes Iraq in some form. Overall support for the endeavor wanes with distance.
Second, politicians on both sides of the aisle need to lower the temperature of the debate now:
The poisonous partisan climate in Washington has seeped beyond the Beltway and is now harming the public’s trust in the institution that will continue to sacrifice most in the coming years. Extremists from both political parties have used Iraq as a zero-sum emotional battle for votes instead of putting the battlefield in proper context.
That’s the reader’s digest version. You really ought to read the whole thing.
Would be wonderful if it could happen, if the poison could be neutralized and reason could reign.
Ain’t gonna happen. Reid’s already calling for a vote — to draw down troops faster and limit their roles more narrowly. He’s purposely ignoring Petraeus testimony and Bush’s speech and plans tomorrow, trying to preempt him and feed the base the red meat it wants.
Reid and Pelosi and been in nominal control of the nutroots and are losing what little control they had. It’s going to get worse. If the NYT is willing to shill for the nutroots and MoveOn.org, and muckrake the military, then it won’t be long before the general public has no trust in Congress, the Presidency, nor the military. No trust in anything. They’ll all be troothers in some fashion.
We’re doomed.
(Rats. I need to go back to my corner again. Thought I could come out and play nice, but I guess not. Sorry for the downer.)
Lex, the link is incorrectly keyed. It starts out “hhttp”.
and it’s got an extra “ttp://” on the end.
(Really, I did read the article, just read it before Lex posted it. Honest.)
That’s two “doomed” posts in a row; I am glad you folks are catching on. The Reid/Pelosi/Schumer/Code Pink/Move On’s are not anomalies. They are direct reflections of our country and our culture. Remember, they “loathe the military”. Even Joab understood fecklessness: “You have made it clear today that the commanders and their men mean nothing to you.” (2 Samuel 19:6)
Rats ~ I may never get to leave my corner again, Gray. What am I going to do?!?!
I keep trying to step away from the interwebs and the news, but it reaches out and sucks me back in. I’m doomed, I tell you, doomed.
Good thing I’m on my way to Tennessee to see my daughter and SIL and maybe a new grandbaby. (She’s not here yet, so she must be waiting for me!! to get there ~ do you think?) Prolly light posting for a while. Play nicely.
I think West makes an assumption that is hard to back up-namely that the professional serving military is of one mind when it comes to the War in Iraq. Or the toll that the current OPTEMPO is taking on the services. Granted my informal sample size is Navy and USAF specific and consists of opinions garnered in conversations that may or may not have been rendered under the influence of alcohol.
My observations is that opinions about the war in the military are just as all over the map as opinions outside of the military. Probably the difference is that military people will obey the orders of the elected and appointed leadership and will execute them to the best of their abilities. However to say that all the professional military is of one mind, seems to me to be an overstatement.
He’s right about the second part though-Move On and other folks are over the top and not accomplishing anything productive. Problem is Reid and company still think they need to appeal to the “base” instead of giving them lip service and concentrating on pushing all the John Warners over the edge. The misgivings are there on the Republican side-they just need to be nutured. Every attack by a radical group makes them circle the wagons-which is why they have not yet been successful.
And finally, as far as his statement “continuously undercutting Gen. Petraeus–most recently dismissing his forthcoming testimony as “Bush’s report.”
It is ultimately Bush’s report. Bush has made Petraeus the visible symbol of the war for the adminstration. You can’t separate Petraeus from the war. Petraeus is the war. He’s not a private soldier, he’s a public figure; at present he is the point man for promoting the program of America’s politician in chief. So he gets linked , deservedly so, with Bush whether people like that or not. Petraeus knows that-he’s not losing any sleep over it I’m sure.
Ah Skippy…
“It is ultimately Bush’s report. Bush has made Petraeus the visible symbol of the war for the adminstration. You can’t separate Petraeus from the war. ”
Well, yes, Patreaus is the visible symbol of the war as he is in charge of the war in Iraq. You make it sound like he is some stumped up suit sent to Capitol Hill to support the Bush adgenda. That, he is not. He is a soldier and, as you say, will carry out the directives of the United States Administration.
It is a backhand slap to say that he will ultimately be Bush’s report as anyone that has been following this inside baseball knows full well that AFTER he reports this president, as any other President, has the opportunity to cut the report to suit himself. This is not a recent partisan endeavor. So, please be very careful when you characterize the Patreaus report and don’t jump the gun melding it into the the Bush report…
As for you P3-W, get out of the corner and jump in the pool. Splash around a bit, we like it when you do!
Babs,
I think it is naive, after all of the hype that has been attached to this report, to assume it was not vetted with the White House all along. If the conclusions had been the opposite of what the administration wanted-neither man would have made it to Capitol Hill. Its clear that the President decided a long time ago that he was going to keep a large troop presence in Iraq for the rest of his administration.
Furthermore there is no report-only the transcript of the testimony before both the House and the Senate committees.
The key moment of the hearing for me, was when Senator Warner asked the man twice if the Iraq war was making America any safer-and Gen Petraeus gave a very truthful answer, ““Sir, I don’t know.”
Skippy-san, I concur with your observation that having serious reservations about what we are doing in Iraq does not automatically put one in the Code Pink category. In fact, I’m of a mind that we drop all the Code Pink-ers and their ilk into Iraq, to keep the various militias and muj preoccupied while we withdraw. The image of those freaks scrambling across the sand with muj in hot pursuit just makes me feel all warm inside.
As for “angst in proportion to personal risk,” or “Our professional warriors who take the most risk believe the nation must commit to a long-term fight that includes Iraq in some form,” that reeks of the Chickenhawk argument, strangely inverted. If the policy stinks, it stinks, regardless of who says it.
Is the Iraq war making America any safer? Give credit to GEN Petraeus telling the truth: “Sir, I don’t know.” If that doesn’t give you pause regarding the wisdom of the whole democratization of Iraq project, I can’t imagine what would.
if the Iraq war was making America any safer-and Gen Petraeus gave a very truthful answer, “Sir, I don’t know.”
Is it his job to know that? IMHO, he was asked to share an opinion on something out of his purview.
Others are responsible for anything above and beyond his analysis of the situation in Iraq. The question would have been more appropriately asked higher up the chain of command.
Exactly, Dave – that was a trick question designed to generate a sound bite. It’s not in the general’s lane to determine whether or not the effort in Iraq makes us safer and any affirmative opinion he’d express on that subject would have made him into the stooge he was made out to be for partisan purposes. His job is to fight and win.
A far more interesting question to ask would have been the reverse: “Speaking just as an informed American citizen, general, would leaving Iraq expeditiously but without setting the minimal conditions for military security and political stability make America safer?”
Assuming the answer to that question would be “No”, doesn’t that most likley leave you in one of those dammed if you do and dammed if you don’t places?
Now who’s hair splitting? I think Warner’s question was a perfectly reasonable one and is indicative of the frustration a lot of Americans feel-including Warner, who is certainly not a surrender monkey.
As a 4 star who is supposed to be advising another four star who is supposed to be advising the President and the Secretary of Defense its well within in his lane.
Dunno Lex–that’s just as loaded a question in its own way. If you can ask him if leaving “too soon” makes America more or less safe, you can ask him whether (in his informed opinion) succeeding in his current mission makes America more or less safe. Which is what SEN Warner’s question was, even if Warner was fishing for an answer that he could spin. The only difference between your hypothetical and what actually happened is whether he answers as GEN Petraeus or Mr Petraeus. He’s a three-star, not a shavetail, and has a duty to think beyond the current mission to its ramifications and consequences.
Sadly, no one on either side of the benches is asking this question, which pretty much defines everything that is wrong in our current policies regarding Iraq: Should a “victory” in Iraq be defined as anything other than an outcome which will definitely leave the Camp of Islamic Jihad weakened? Iraq is just one battlefield of a very broad, very old war, boresighting on it to the exclusion of the greater war is dangerous. In that context, SEN Warner’s question is even more valid.
It’s interesting how two people with such very different world views otherwise can come to agreement on this issue, whether we are safer, or not. Or rather, whether that judgement is appropriate to a warfighter testifying before Congress.
Hair splitting? Hardly. We’re all perfectly aware that it is an article of faith in the Democratic Party that Mr. Bush’s Mesopotamian Adventure has made us Less Safe At Home, although the “how” of that statement is an exercise left to the listener. Members who disagree with this particular canon are branded heretics and cast out.
Some members of the Republican Party, angry and embarrassed that the left has seized the narrative of the war to fashion a political victory which endangers their party’s future, gamble that by crossing over the aisle to link arms with those who eye their vacated seats greedily, they may neutralize the issue prior to 2008. Others reckon that the only way out is through.
For Petraeus to inject himself in this wholly political debate would not only be inappropriate, it would be maladroit.
Michelle, it does indeed leave us with options that are either unpalatable or criminally irresponsible. Sometimes one must choose the lesser evil.
I think it is naive, after all of the hype that has been attached to this report, to assume it was not vetted with the White House all along
Well then Skippy, I guess you think Petraeus is a liar because I heard him say at the opening of his remarks to congress and again on FOX news that he had released his statement to NO ONE prior to his appearance.
Senator Warner-Taylor, pardon me while I vomit.
Whew, I feel a little better now. Skip, you’re out of your lane, and Zane, I’m surprised. Lex’s comment is absolutely 100% correct, although the General could have given a better answer. Either Senator Warner-Taylor threw him a curve, or the Army’s Senate Liaison f’d up.
The professional military is overwhelmingly politically conservative, because that’s where you find patriotism, not among the failures in our culture who cling to the tit of socialism. To borrow from the big screen, the bums are with us always, the Mendozas and Zembiecs only come along once in a while.
The failure in this war is the same as the failure in Vietnam. We have failed in dealing with our internal enemies at home, not on the end of the spear.
Dave Petraeus should have responded: “Senator, Seatbelts make America safer.”
The question of America being safer was certainly a legitimate, and is indeed an immensely important one. Those who would try blame the questioner for an answer perhaps not to their liking are unfortunately diverting and dodging the real issue… to wit, are we in fact safer by our continuing actions, or not? We must have a real answer to that question in order to honestly proceed on an effective course of action, or else we are just wandering in the desert aimlessly. Please, someone must have the better answer…. although I do not fault Gen. Petraeus for his. After over 4 years and many lives, shouldn’t we know?
Directly related to the “is America safer” question is the heated friction and disagreement between Gen. Petraeus and his boss, CENTCOM Adm. Fallon. Whereas Petraeus has been advocating the Surge, Adm. Fallon believes we should be urgently withdrawing troops from Iraq. The implication obviously is Adm. Fallon’s real concern that we are overextended in Iraq to the great detriment of our forces, especially in view of other world threats, thus leaving us less safe.
Link
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39235
And this should not be reduced to a Democrat vs. Republican debate and a petty spectator sport.
Skippy-san’s contention that opinions of those in the military are not at all uniform, but rather “all over the map” certainly rings true. From my personal experience in another controversial war, one would be amazed at the very diverse opinions of combatants on the politics and conduct of that war. Nevertheless, everyone easily compartmentalized the lively and heated evening political discussions, and equally prosecuted the war the next day with great vigor. So I wouldn’t want to make too much of Adm. Fallon’s and Gen. Petraeus’s disagreements, no matter how important the underlying questions are, and elusive as the true answers still surprisingly may be.
For me, the “Is America safer?” question is a sucker question. There is no right answer. We most certainly are safer from those that are now dead on the battlefields in Afghanistan and Iraq — they can’t come here and do any damage to us now. We are somewhat safer in that more of their brothers-in-arms are fighting “over there” and not “over here.”
However, none of us is blessed with hind-sight, fore-sight, what-if sight, or some such. There’s no knowing, no way of even guessing if we have really stopped any further attacks. I hope we’ve been able to do so, but I think moreso we’ve crippled their ability to strike us here, not their desire.
Oh, I don’t know about that P3. I think we’ve done a lot to reorient their desires. That we haven’t done it perfectly is because we’re imperfectly human. In the long view, a stable Iraq makes us immensely safer. Every effort toward that end is noble.
How would one go about prosecuting the GWOT without an Iraq? If we didn’t have an Iraq, we’d have to create one. Which is what Dubyah did. God bless him for having the strength to do what needed to be done.
Concur, Casca.
But a stable Iraq making America “safer”? A difficult question to answer — and one more to likening apples to oranges to me. A separate thing, a good thing, but not necessarily done to make us “safer” here as an immediate goal. Perhaps as a side benefit, it does.
As I said, I think it’s a sucker question. Like asking someone, “Don’t you want to save the Earth?” Ultimately, yes, but at what cost and how to do it. It’s a feel-good question, not necessarily definitively answerable.
The question of America being safer was certainly a legitimate, and is indeed an immensely important one.
Legitimate? Yes, if asked of the appropriate party. I’ll get to that, but I have to introduce this as well:
As a 4 star who is supposed to be advising another four star who is supposed to be advising the President and the Secretary of Defense its well within in his lane.
Perhaps it’s due to my acting as a cog in the corporate America machine, but this makes no sense to me. I’m an IT Director. As such, it is my function to ensure that a few billion dollars flow though my systems in an accurate, reliable, consistent, and accountable manner every year. It is my function to plan for when parts of the system fail, and to be able to exercise those plans to provide business continuity when things get wrenched up. It is my function to support growth initiatives as directed by my executive management. It is my function to provide periodic reports to my executive management related to what is working, what is not, plans to resolve the problems that are causing things not to work, and to request resources as needed.
This is a fairly complicated job, and I too rely on advisers to assist me, each having their own area of expertise. While each has some knowledge of others areas of responsibility, each has a very in-depth knowledge in the area to which I have assigned them. I too have some knowledge as to what is going on in the other departments, but it is by no means my specialty or responsibility.
My function is a single, yet critical, component in the overall success of the company. If I drop the ball, very bad things can happen. If I am asked if my systems can support any given proposed initiative, I am expected to have an answer. It may be “Yes,” or it may be “No, here’s what I will need to make that happen.”
But if you ask me once, twice, or a hundred times if what I am doing will improve our stock price, you will always get the exact same answer: “Sir, I don’t know.” I may or may not have an opinion as to how all of the other components (Sales, Marketing, Operations, Finance, etc.) are doing, and I may or may not have an opinion as to how well all of them together are supporting the growth of the company, but if you ask me if what I am doing will bring our stock price up, I am always going to say, “Sir, I don’t know.”
It’s not my job to know, and it’s not my job to answer that question.
Good analogy, DaveG, and probably where I was heading, albeit hamfistedly.
Thanks.
“How would one go about prosecuting the GWOT without an Iraq? If we didn’t have an Iraq, we’d have to create one. “
Wow, that’s an interesting statement.
I’m not too sure that I like what it implies. Assuming I’m interpreting it correctly. of course.
So, dare I ask, what exactly did you mean by that Casca?
I am the absolute King of analogies. I have to be – it’s how I understand things.
I’m really good at acronyms, too. For example, I invented HVDFP, or High Visibility Driving Finger Portal. You probably call it a “sun roof.”
DaveG, I think your analogy misses the point.
The question should be, Company X is out to eat our lunch. Is what you’re doing making your company more capable of resisting Company X’s efforts? You don’t have to be knowledgeable of every aspect of X’s counter-efforts to judge, am I making my company stronger or weaker vis a vis X? Your judgement will be incomplete and imperfect, but you still have to make that judgement.
Stock price? That’s others guessing whether you’ve made your company stronger or weaker. Not your job, as you correctly noted.
GEN Petraeus needs to be making that same assessment. I’m sure he does. But I’ll also agree that in that politically loaded environment, he’s wisest to demur. Just as you would be, if cornered by a WSJ analyst.
s what you’re doing making your company more capable of resisting Company X’s efforts?
You flatter me, or at least the scope of my (analogous) position. My executive management determines what will make us capable of competing with Company X.
If part of that analysis results in something that I will be tasked to do, my opinion as to whether that task is feasible is solicited. I don’t get to decide whether it will be effective or not, although I do share on opinion at times. I may even promote alternative approaches. But I am by no means the decision maker.
This is shades of gray, though. I think we actually meet in the middle on this one. The General answered the question in the best way possible, given the environment and conditions.
Not to speak for Casca, but if you accept the notion that “realist” foreign policy with respect to the Middle East died six years and two days ago, then you may find yourself torn between the options of 1) Disengaging from that part of the world entirely, 2) Tolerating the odd catastrophe now and again, or 3) Attempting to remake a deeply troublesome part of the world in a more congenial image.
Iraq, as a relatively modern, relatively secular Arab state whose tyrannical depredations were more than ordinarily well-established, whose threats to the region and whose enmity to ourselves was not in question, and whose military and political system we knew about as comprehensively as we could, seemed a likely place to start drawing the venom.
The path has proven more difficult than almost anyone could have imagined. But the fact that it has not succeeded yet does not mean that it won’t.
America is not the first power that has set out to remake the Middle East into a more congenial image. Napoleon tried, and so did Disraeli and Lloyd George. Even Sir Anthony Eden tried. The West’s track record of sucess in doing that is not exactly a positive one.
It’s all relative, Skippy-san, as you should well know, it’s all relative.
You could have said the same thing about Japan a few decades ago.
No one made it to the Moon before us either.
Yes but, the Japanese are made of superior stock to that of the Arabs.
As for the moon-we went there, but we have never gone back.
I’m kinda concurring with Skippy and his older and smarter agree-er-upon, Jerry Pournelle. Jerry thinks we were wrong to go in there, but we can’t quit now without making things even worse. He sees no good outcomes for our Republic, considering who’s likely to get elected.
Please, all, have a look at his site: http://www.jerrypournelle.com
Oh, to be more specific:
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view483.html#Thursday
Lex, you left out a 3rd option.
Instead of total disengagement (impossible), and remaking the Middle East in a more congenial image (impossible), stir the pot. Let Iraq settle into the three pieces it already is, let the Saudis and the rest of the Sunni realm spend their wealth and their expendable manpower battling the Shia for Baghdad. After deposing Saddam, all we have to show for our time in Iraq is that we have made Iraq a new vassal state to Iran, something Khomeini couldn’t do after ten years of war. Declare victory and leave. No matter how we leave, that part of the world will see it as our defeat, so let’s leave on terms that leave them weaker and us stronger. Because what we’re doing now isn’t making them weaker, and it isn’t making us stronger. Stir the pot.
break break
Casca, you’re surprised at me? I’m surprised.
Mmm, Zane, old-fashioned balance-of-power type stuff? Well, it worked for the Brits for a long time and incidentally kept the peace for everyone else as well.
But the resentments did build up, and when the Krauts and the Nips stirred the pot…
(Just stirring the pot, here)
Justthisguy, I’m thinking more containment than balance of power, knowing full well that the inmates of that asylum shouldn’t be let out, and will take care of killing each other quite well without our involvement.
Skippy, I’d ask you to consider what would have occurred in history had the “remake” efforts you mention above had not occurred at all? Either our cause is in the main noble and just or it isn’t. I can find much to criticize in any like endeavor; that has nothing to do with whether it’s right or not.
As to this remarkable statement: “the Japanese are made of superior stock to that of the Arabs.” This appears to be much more a measure of your views than it is a measure of the parties mentioned.
Thanks for picking the ball up Lex. I didn’t see it pop out of the scrum.
To answer Michelle would properly require a book. Let’s just say that there is method to our madness. In 2001 we had no way to practically influence events in the long run in the ME; i.e. by using the stick, or at least showing our willingness to use a stick. The drive-by shootings of the Clinton era were impotent gestures designed more for domestic public consumption than effectiveness.
To effectively prosecute the GWOT means to bring the threat to our real enemy, Iran. They are the destabilizing force in the ME and the world. We couldn’t do that from Saudi or Afghanistan. Saddam set himself up as the punk needing an ass-whiping. We obliged, and at the same time created a honeypot to attract our regional enemies to play their weakness against our strength. We’ve killed a lot of them.
We dare not leave a weakened Iraq on Iran’s doorstep. A stabilized vigorous Iraq has got to scare the shit out of the mullahs. We are working toward that end. Like the old Soviet terror masters, they’ll have to call, raise, or fold. So far they’ve been raising, on their pair of kings, but we hold the royal flush. We just need to have the stones to play out the hand.
But what about AQ you ask? In the grand scheme they’re merely an irritant. Iran is the threat.
Thanks for the response, Casca.
The reason I picked up on your first comment was that it jingled up for me that old refrain from way back that invading Iraq was all just part of the masterplan of … (shows how much attention I was paying, I guess) … Bush’s inner circle, Rumsfield, etc. who had made comments long before 9/11 as to their “plans” for the world and how it should look. I’m sure somebody here knows of what I speak better than I. Anyway, I must ponder this upon that for a while.
Tom,
The remake efforts sowed the seeds of the current situation. Its up to history and the observer to decide if they were worth it or not.
As for the views of the Japanese vs the Arabs-I’ve never made it a secret that any and all Arabs are not on my Christmas card list-or that I hold the Japanese in high regard.
Nonetheless comparisons between Japan and the situation in Iraq are fatally flawed IMHO. Japan was a unified national entity both before and after the war. Most of the major institutions of government were already place before the war and did not require any major re-invention after the war. The Japanese did not launch an insurgency-they took their defeat in a stoic fashion and set about to rebuild their infrastructure-and did so in a relatively short time.
And as for religion,Shinto and Islam have nothing in common and the Japanese have never had the religious fanacticism of Muslims.
“the Japanese have never had the religious fanatacism of the Muslims”
Tell that to the Chinese, and to the Nanjingese in particular, and you will get a different perspective.
“Either our cause is in the main noble and just or it isn’t. I can find much to criticize in any like endeavor; that has nothing to do with whether it’s right or not.”
TomG, the question isn’t whether the effort in Iraq is noble and just. It is. Everyone on this page is agreed with that as well.
The question is, is it the effective thing to do? The first requirement of any nation is to effectively defend itself; nobility and justice don’t even enter into it, otherwise, they are reduced to the being the means of a suicide.
Flat lander,
That had nothing to do with religion-everything to do with nationalism and racism.