Bring the Boys Back Home?
Phil Carter is back from Iraq, and has an op-ed in the New York Times that you can read here. Any supporter of the war needs to read it. Carter says:
The war I knew was infinitely more complex, contradictory and elusive than the one described in the network news broadcasts or envisioned in the new field manual. When I finally left Baquba, the violent capital of Iraq’s Diyala Province, I found myself questioning many aspects of our mission and our accomplishments, both in a personal search for meaning and a quest to gather lessons that might help those soldiers who will follow me.
Carter says that “[t]he vibrancy and vitality of Iraqi society was the norm,” yet violence “was not a figment of reporters’ imaginations” and worsened as time went on. Carter says that we accomplished much by taking out Saddam, but this is now Iraq’s war:
Despite these successes, I still left Iraq feeling uncertain about what we had accomplished. In theory, security should have improved with the development of capable Iraqi Army and police units. That did not happen. This is the central paradox of the Iraq war in fall 2006: we are making progress in developing the Iraqi Army and police, yet the violence gripping the country continues to worsen.
This paradox raises fundamental questions about the wisdom and efficacy of our strategy, which is to “stand up” Iraqi security forces so we can “stand down” American forces. Put simply, this plan is a blueprint for withdrawal, not for victory. Improving the Iraqi Army and police is necessary to prevail in Iraq; it is not sufficient.
Carter explains that it takes very few people to sustain an insurgency; therefore, we must convince “virtually everyone” to choose the current government over the alternatives. He says:
At this point, and with this strategy, it may not be possible to win in Iraq. America gained a spectacular victory in 2003, toppling the brutal Saddam Hussein regime. But there are limits to what military force can accomplish. You cannot plant democracy with a bayonet, nor can you force Iraqis to choose a particular path if their democracy is to mean anything at all.
Carter says he is still wrestling with these issues, and invites comments in this blog post.
I don’t trust James Baker and his commission, which is planning to issue a report recommending a course change. And I don’t trust the media. But, while I believe in civilian control of the military, I also think it makes sense to pay attention to the folks who have had their boots on the ground.
Phil Carter is one of those people. So is a guy I spoke with the other day — a guy who patrolled Baghdad for 2 years. He used to be a Special Forces guy and fought in Mogadishu during the Black Hawk Down debacle. What he told me about Iraq was sobering, and dovetails in disturbing ways with Phil Carter’s piece.
He said that it’s pointless for us to be patrolling the streets there. He told me that our guys there are just targets. There is sectarian violence there and it’s going to occur whether we patrol the streets or not. But at least we can keep our guys from being killed.
This guy’s back was broken by an IED. (He has recovered and is not paralyzed.) What was the point of that? he asked me. Why did he walk around picking up body parts of people who had been his friends for years? What was the point of that? Why did he break his back? To get a Purple Heart? Who cares about that?
Is this opinion shared by most of the soldiers there? I asked. Yes, he said. Virtually all of them. Morale is terrible, he said. And when morale is bad, bad things happen.
Does he think we should get out entirely? I asked. No, he said. We should establish a couple of strong bases in case the fighting threatens the government. But patrolling the streets is a useless exercise.
So why all the violence now? I asked. There have always been sectarian tensions, he said. Contrary to what people think, Saddam actually had parts of the country that he couldn’t control. So he paid warlords to keep the peace. Now they’re not getting paid any more, so violence has broken out. We can’t contain it and we never will be able to, he said.
What about the idea that it will encourage the terrorists for us to cut and run? I asked. You were in Mogadishu, I said. Don’t you think Al Qaeda was encouraged by our actions there? Won’t Al Qaeda be emboldened if we leave Iraq? He said that, in his opinion, it won’t make any difference; either we continue on as targets or we don’t. The only difference will be how many of our guys get killed.
What did he think about WMD? I asked. He frowned and shook his head. There weren’t any WMD when we went in there, he said.
So is the average Iraqi better off or worse off today than before the invasion? I asked. After his torrent of criticism for the war, his answer surprised me. They’re better off, he said. There’s no question. I’ve seen videos of what Saddam’s people used to do to opponents, and it would shock you. A lot of the people committing the violence now are the same ones who did it under Saddam, and they’re targeting our soldiers and the police, he said. Even in Baghdad, the average person is far better off.
Interestingly, Phil Carter’s interpreters disagreed:
Our Iraqi interpreters told us things were better than last year, which in turn had been better than 2004, when American forces frequently fought pitched battles in Baquba. Yet, sometimes in the same breath, they would long for the days of stability and order under Saddam Hussein.
There is evidence, including this evidence provided by commenter steve, that these interpreters are not alone.
I present this for what it’s worth. I can’t verify that what this guy told me is true, and I don’t want to tell you anything about him that could identify him in the slightest. All I can tell you is that his views are simply those of a longtime military guy who has the virtue of real experience.
What he told me is nothing new, of course. Reports like this have been rampant and increasingly impossible to deny. But there’s something about hearing it directly from someone, face to face, that has an impact. Arguably, it has too great an impact. We tend to be influenced by things we hear directly from people we find trustworthy. A friend tells me that he has a friend who got back from Iraq last December; that friend says things are going OK, and my friend tends to believe that.
Still, the things I have read and heard are enough to make any war supporter at least think twice about supporting the war effort as it is currently being conducted — and I was a reluctant supporter of the Iraq war to begin with. It’s easy for us to say we support the war, but we aren’t the ones who have to fight it.
Maybe, just maybe, “supporting our troops” means getting them out of the business of patrolling the streets of Iraq.
P.S. You should read this letter from a Marine officer in Iraq.
I agree the war was not fought well and it may not be salvageable now. The man you talked with’s impression is about the same as mine. Both in the virtue of patrolling the streets and the improved lot of the average Iraqi who desires to be free.
The mistake was fighting while worried about media reports, collateral damage, etc. as opposed to how to kill as much of the enemy as possible as quickly as possible and severely damage the resupply efforts (by striking with a combination of air, sea launched, and ground strikes) of the enemies supporting the insurgency in Iraq. Which would never have got off the ground to the same degree had they been thoroughly cowed and/or killed to begin with.
This should have been the strategy from day one or don’t bother to fight.
Fallujah was an example of piss poor generalship, Mr. Rumsfeld: politics before military necessity. When you know where your enemy is, you kill them, and if someone else is between you and them then, I guess, you kill them too.
Such is war.
By not doing that and unleashing the full conventional strength (together perhaps with selected targeted nuclear strikes against Iran using special tactical weopans that detonate below ground, which I support) the U.S.A. followed the Johnson/Kissinger Vietnam model and not the rather more successful WW2 model lead by Democratic President F.D. Roosevelt, Conservative Prime Minister Churchill, and Communist Party Chairman Joseph Stalin. War ain’t beanbag.
Can the war be won now? Sure, it wouldn’t be the first time a war was fought half-assed then later engaged in more seriously and won. However, this may require a change in political leadership from Mr. Bush, whom I love as a man, to someone else whom I recognize as a great war leader.
George W. Bush had the right policy in response to 9/11: aggression — just not enough of it. The amount of pure aggression required to wage successful war does not come easy for a decent man, but it’s necessary nonetheless or the consequences can be terrible for free civilization.
We need more Sparta and less Delphi.
Christoph (9824e6) — 10/16/2006 @ 1:06 amPatterico, nice post.
Christoph, what is your war aim, to kill everybody in Iraq?
James B. Shearer (a28aa1) — 10/16/2006 @ 1:47 amShearer,
No, just those trying to kidnap, kill and bomb us. Do you really think that’s everybody in Iraq?
paul from fl (967602) — 10/16/2006 @ 4:45 amWhy don’t you trust them?
actus (10527e) — 10/16/2006 @ 4:51 amWait, so you think the problem is that we didn’t use nuclear weapons? jeezus
actus (10527e) — 10/16/2006 @ 5:04 amThank you for this honest assessment of our occupation there. Despite the rhetoric from the neo-cons, our presence there is making terrorism worse.
Psyberian (9b3c88) — 10/16/2006 @ 5:05 amThank you for the interesting post. I wrote Inteldump a letter to give forth my views on the overall strategy and why Baghdad and Baquba are remaining as they are. Basically, it comes down to doing the exact inverse of the ‘oil spot’ strategy which would have wasted time, effort and many, many more lives in fruitless MOUT combat. Instead the inverse is done so as to cut off exterior supply lines to insurgents and quiet those areas that were quietest to start with and get them under Iraqi control. First the supply lines via the Riverine campaign, then the building along the perimeter via border forts and helping regional towns and using early Iraqi forces to gain experience in fighting *there*. Now that real Iraqi forces are standing up, the real ‘tough nuts’ of Baghdad, Southeast and Southern borders along with Baquba and central Diyala remain.
For the wounded soldier: if he was stuck on the static perimeter of Baghdad until the start of the late AUG 2006 Operation Forward Together, then not only was patrolling Baghdad, especially Route Irish, nasty, but it *was* a holding action. The rest of Iraq needed to be divided centrally to separate the different insurgent routes to the east and west, and then the easier and western portions addressed first. Baghdad is now going through a slow removal operation to get terrorists and track them *backwards*. By doing it this way the North is basically being cut off, the west is now seeing local tribes standing up to al Qaeda and Ba’athists and the Iraqi Government can *finally* go after ALL the sectarian militias and not be seen as discriminating amongst them. Duty in Baghdad up to late AUG 2006 was nasty, tedious, and seemed that there was no end in sight.
Will there be problems? Of course! Between 1783 and 1787 the US nearly collapsed into chaos multiple times and that was *without* borders with hostile nations trying to undermine us. We no longer fight a ‘Total War’ concept and prefer to make enemies incapable of fighting via tools other than just the mere military. The objectives are military, but the social and economic tools are just as or even more important. Baghdad could *not* effectively be addressed first as Iraqis were in no condition to maintain anything built there. A long, slow spiral has now seen the majority of the quiet areas of Iraq now go directly under Iraqi control. People report on the *hotspots* NOT the quiet areas… and the datelines for the hotspots are getting fewer and fewer over time. Almost like there was a strategy at work, or something…
ajacksonian (03662a) — 10/16/2006 @ 5:26 amMaybe, just maybe, “supporting our troops” means getting them home before 2010. However, we are all left to wonder what it truly means. As the best propaganda does, it evokes emotion and nationalism, without leaving itself open for debate.
greg (efb594) — 10/16/2006 @ 7:17 amIn reality, this isn’t a war we’re fighting anymore. It’s an occupation. Occupations end in withdrawal or annexation.
Victory? Not up to us, not winnable through military means.
The time to declare victory and get out has been long overdue..
Geek, Esq. (5885af) — 10/16/2006 @ 7:18 am“Christoph, what is your war aim, to kill everybody in Iraq?”
No more than we did when defeating the great powers of Japan and Germany, which are our allies. My points are we didn’t defeat them in a vacuum, we defeated them as part of an integrated strategy. And we used a hell of a lot of force. And they’re are friends now because we broke them (our enemy) before trying to put them back together again.
My war aim is not to be the nicest people on the battlefield.
Christoph (9824e6) — 10/16/2006 @ 7:44 amYour special forces friend had what I think is a pretty good suggestion. Draw down our numbers some and put the rest in bases so that they can respond quickly to dramatic developments, which would force Iraqi’s to either succeed or fail on their own. If the Iraq government holds together they will inevitably win, so having us there as simply a fail-safe would make that more likely.
thelinyguy (e32b76) — 10/16/2006 @ 8:10 amForward basing in Iraq as a standby should we be required by the Iraqis sounds like an idea we all could agree upon, right? But what do we do if the government falls? Run?
spongeworthy (45b30e) — 10/16/2006 @ 8:45 amI don’t know that the government is so fragile that it could fall without some kind of physical threat, which is where our based troops would come in. Maybe I’m wrong on that, though.
But IF the government failed, I think we would have to know under what circumstances in order to decide how best to respond. For example, if it becomes Taliban 3, that would be different than if it simply splits due to sectarian violence flaring up into a civil war, which would be different than a semi-secular dictator taking over with ambitions to strengthen ties to the west.
thelinyguy (e32b76) — 10/16/2006 @ 8:57 am[…] Patterico’s Pontifications » Bring the Boys Back Home? Phil Carter is back from Iraq, and has an op-ed in the New York Times that you can read here. Any supporter of the war needs to read it. Carter says: […]
Patterico goes wobbly at politburo diktat 2.0 (4aa448) — 10/16/2006 @ 10:23 amChristoph said:
“My war aim is not to be the nicest people on the battlefield.”
I don’t think this is a sensible war aim.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 10/16/2006 @ 12:55 pmpaul from fl said regarding war aims:
“No, just those trying to kidnap, kill and bomb us. Do you really think that’s everybody in Iraq?”
The simplest way to prevent attack on our troops is to remove our troops from Iraq. Do our troops have any mission other than defending themselves?
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 10/16/2006 @ 12:58 pmI agree wholeheartedly. F it. Let’s just go home.
Or not.
At the very least, removing ourselves would stem the tide of such angst filled diatribes…
Or not.
(and while we’re at it, can someone find me an example of a moderately functioning state being established in less than…say….10 years?)
Army Lawyer (498217) — 10/16/2006 @ 1:16 pmVery well said, Army Lawyer.
In my frustration, I was too critical of both George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld.
I believe they are both decent men doing the best they can. If they have a flaw, it’s their inner decency, which makes them both reluctant, if not unwilling, to fight as aggressively as I would have recommended.
Nonetheless, resoluteness and will may succeed where sheer firepower was not deployed if it can but be sustained.
My worry is that with the presidential election approaching in 2 years, there may be a tendency to cut and run before the 10-20 years required to produce a functioning model state (which would be a tremendous boon to peace and quality of life in the region) is achieved.
Let us hope that good does indeed triumph over evil.
Christoph (5ab65d) — 10/16/2006 @ 1:32 pmIt will be difficult to ever pin down a “victory” in what is really a guerilla war. I really think that Saddam’s people gave up when it looked like they were losing and had this insurgency planned all along. It’s the ME way of war–look at the Lebanon “civil war.” Same thing.
I actually feel better after Carter’s comments. Stop the patrols, agreed, if they are ineffective and pointlessly dangerous, but the Iraqi government must establish the monopoly on force, and we can help them do that. Judging by the insurgent’s plea for hudna today, that eventuality must be close at hand.
Patricia (2cc180) — 10/16/2006 @ 5:00 pmI keep thinking of Pink Floyd every time I see this post’s headline. I hope that “Dogs of War” won’t be too far behind…
Psyberian (9b3c88) — 10/16/2006 @ 5:02 pmMy Bro-In-Law just got home from Iraq, and I asked him how we were doing. He said, militarily, fine, but they would pick a guy up who was running an IED shop , pos explosives residue and everything, and he would be back on the streets in a month. I’d heard stuff like that before, but that bad?! My jaw dropped.
I think it’s time to draw down. He was slightly more upbeat about the Iraqi troops. I think we’ll have a situtation like 1971 Vietnam. As long as we don’t pull the plug on them, they’ll probably be okay.
John (a82b39) — 10/16/2006 @ 5:24 pmI agree, John. I saw the President on O’Reilly tonight. I voted for him reluctantly–I started out as a Democrat, but that’s another story–and I thought he was brilliant. He addressed every one of my concerns. Why doesn’t he talk to the nation more often like this? We understand what’s going on, the stakes and the risks, and we need to hear that he understands. What kind of political geometry tells him that shutting out the American people is a sound political strategy?!
Patricia (2cc180) — 10/16/2006 @ 7:25 pmChristoph: I guess I’ve been wrong before: Sorry! I’ve finally read something from you that I agree with 100%. We did blow it at Fallujah. By all rights, there should only be an open field of rubble at that site in Iraq. If ever there was a situation that called for a “Roman” response, Fallujah was it. Plus, it would have sent a very direct message to the Iraqi masses – Don’t (mess) with US.
JBS: You need to grow a brain, if not a spine.
As to the inherent decency of GWB and Rumsfeld, I agree. The sad thing, is that their determination even with that underlying decency sets them so far apart from their peers in DC that it is frightening. More and more, it seems that your average pol, regardless of party, is a spineless POS. This is what we have reaped from 40-years of political correctness.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 10/16/2006 @ 7:37 pmMy Dad is a WWII veteran who served in the European theatre from 1942-1945. He never doubted that America had to defeat the Germans although he did admire their tenacity and organization, but he didn’t care much for the French or English either. His goal was always to do his best, protect his men, and get home alive.
Like many of WWII veterans, my Dad experienced first-hand the waste and hell of war but he rarely talks about it now. However, I’ve heard enough stories from him and at reunions from those he served with to know that the European theatre in WWII was one big mess that only got worse after the war was over. The level of friendly fire deaths alone was significant, widespread and demoralizing.
I don’t know when is the right time to leave Iraq or how to do it, but I do think we tend to forget how painful the reconstruction period can be after a war is over.
DRJ (ccb97e) — 10/16/2006 @ 8:04 pmRealpolitik says that you have to be willing to kill thousands to establish control. Mao, Stalin, Castro/Che, Tito, Saddam, the Ayatollahs, King Hussein, Assad, Pol Pot kept control.
The criticism of the President’s Iraq Policy is that there are thugs killing civilians. President Bush is not willing to commit mass murder to win.
What of SCentral LA? Compton? SChicago? NY? WashingtonDC (our capital)? These cities are overrun by thugs who kill thousands of civilians. We have a far higher police/population ratio here than in Iraq. Should we declare these cities “Quagmires” and pull out?
Come to Long Beach (CA) and talk to our Cambodians about the Killing Fields. Talk to the SVietnamese, the Lao, the Hmongs. What will happen in Iraq after we surrender? What will happen to the women who voted and went to school? What will happen to the people who just want what you and I have? This is what you want?
Why do we call a group the “Peace” Movement when every time they get what they want, we surrender after we won the war, the people who trusted us get slaughtered by the thousands, and a despot gets into control? What Lover of Freedom will ever trust the USA again?
JoeS (375936) — 10/16/2006 @ 9:05 pmThelinguy (#11):
I’m sorry, but that is simplifying a highly complex situation. The problem is that Iraq will fail or succeed not on their own, but with multiple outside forces acting upon it. Iran and Syria are busily interfering, Turkey is looking askance at the Kurdish area in the north and let’s not forget the possibility of AQ reinforcing their Iraq front and trying to destabilize the government.
The “dramatic developments” might be massive electrion fraud electing a majority of Iranian puppets to the Iraqi gov’t.
Darkmage (4de99c) — 10/17/2006 @ 7:46 amDrJ, you are so right. I read somewhere that 400 GIs were killed in Germany in the reconstruction period. Can that be right?
But back then we didn’t have the organized anti-American media machine. We would have lost the war and the aftermath if the NYT and LAT of today were covering it.
Patricia (2cc180) — 10/17/2006 @ 7:49 amSo, we’re automatically assuming that Bush and Rumsfeld are decent, humble men, whose only fault is being too humane in a time of war?
I would be extremely surprised if any of you could could convince a rational moderate that this is the case.
Leviticus (43095b) — 10/17/2006 @ 8:03 amSo, we’re automatically assuming …
And am I to understand that you’re “automatically assuming” the opposite?
Harry Arthur (5af33b) — 10/17/2006 @ 8:15 amYou are to understand nothing of the sort.
I have yet to post anything along the lines of “Bush and Rumsfeld are moral degenerates and cowards”, claims that would leave me looking awfully partisan (particularly if i did nothing to support them).
Wouldn’t you agree?
Leviticus (43095b) — 10/17/2006 @ 8:28 amThe influence you’re talking about would be one of politics, which the presence of troops on street corners would have no sway over anyway. How does having our troops in harms way affect non-physical influence being exerted from Syria, Iran, et al? At this point we can do little more with our troops than eliminate the most ominous physical threats and help reassert control if a security situation gets out of hand. Everything we are doing militarily can eventually be done by Iraqi forces. At a certain point there is no need for us to be there holding their hands and taking a large chunk of the casualties. Rather, us being in the country for support and as a fail-safe sounds like a safer, and maybe even more effective, solution.
thelinyguy (e32b76) — 10/17/2006 @ 9:48 amYou are to understand nothing of the sort. fair enough
I have yet to post anything along the lines of “Bush and Rumsfeld are moral degenerates and cowards”, claims that would leave me looking awfully partisan (particularly if i did nothing to support them). True and also fair enough. Perhaps I was a bit too eager to jump to that conclusion based on the cacophonous (and largely unjustified IMHO) personal character assasination to which Bush and Rumsfeld have been treated for the past several years. I’m more than just a bit tired of the “Bush lied, men died” meme. It’s old, tired and demonstrably wrong. If you weren’t headed down that road, then it’s my bad … just old, tired and far too sensitive myself perhaps.
Wouldn’t you agree? Yes I would and I humbly opologize for my oversensitivity in taking your comments out of context. I would argue, though, that there is adequate evidence to conclude that Bush and Rumsfeld are decent, honorable men. Their conduct of the “post-war war,” (or whatever we might call it) of course, is another subject and certainly one on which reasonable people can reasonably disagree.
At a certain point there is no need for us to be there holding their hands and taking a large chunk of the casualties Certainly true, though the Iraqi police and military have been taking the far larger chunk of casualties for some time now. I don’t think any rational person could suggest that they have not been doing their part at least in that regard.
Harry Arthur (5af33b) — 10/17/2006 @ 11:53 amHarry: I agree that there is adequate evidence to conclude that Bush and Rumsfeld are decent, honorable men.
However, I think there is also adequate evidence to conclude that they are decent, honorable men who have made mistakes, and that they have not done a good job of acknowledging and fixing those mistakes.
There’s a fine line, though, between my observation and character assassination. I have no wish to assassinate their characters; I think they are decent, honorable, and well-intentioned. But I also think that, like most people including me, they are flawed; and I think that their flaws are to some degree interfering with the success of our mission in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
How do I express that without degenerating into character assassination?
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 10/17/2006 @ 11:57 amApology accepted, Harry.
Allow me to explain my first post on this thread:
I believe that public figures should be judged on their public policies, as well as the consequences of those policies.
Insofar as we cannot accurately judge intention, we ought to stay away from it.
Accordingly, any and all speculation about the motives behind the invasion of Iraq (the “Bush lied”part) can be thrown out the window. More important is the second part of the statement: “people died” – a lot of people. This is tangible, and this is where my grievance is rooted.
I won’t say that Bush and/or Rumsfeld are evil. I will say that they have championed a number of failed policies, and that they should be held accountable, not as humans but as professionals, for those policies.
Leviticus (b987b0) — 10/17/2006 @ 12:04 pmLooks like aphrael and I see rather eye to eye on this one. Kudos, sir.
Leviticus (b987b0) — 10/17/2006 @ 12:05 pmThe US did right in not giving Fallujah the Dresden treatment — and then going in the second time.
The US military is there to make sure the Iraqi Gov’t forces can win any battle they choose to fight. The US can take a huge amount of Iraqis killing Iraqis — reducing the US patrols seems a better idea than the Lt. Hegseth (?) WSJ idea of more troops (who don’t speak Arabic).
The comment where a guilty guy was picked up but then free again in a month, this seems the biggest problem. Rule of law requires punishment for the guilty.
Of the two errors possible, far too many guilty are wrongly going free; who then wrongly punish the innocent (thru terrorism).
There are two victory scenarios: either a single Iraq, or a “velvet divorced” Iraq. But with so many Shiites in Baghdad, a velvet divorce seems impossible.
In any victory, tourism is possible and foreigners must not constantly fear for their lives. Iraqis must be willing to turn in the terrorists — and such whistleblowers must not fear for their own lives. Protecting whistleblowers seems one of the best justifications for more troops — even tho more troops means more US death, and quite likely less Iraq responsibility.
The mess in Iraq is mostly an Iraqi mess.
The gov’t Iraqis will likely be increasing the death squads and their own torture chamber activity to reduce the violence.
All current “aid” should be converted to loans — which the Iraqis agree to repay but also have full authority and control over.
Tom Grey - Liberty Dad (7aaa09) — 10/17/2006 @ 4:21 pmaphrael, How do I express that without degenerating into character assassination? I believe your comment accomplished precisely that. I detect no hint of a personal attack on anyone’s character.
However, I think there is also adequate evidence to conclude that they are decent, honorable men who have made mistakes, and that they have not done a good job of acknowledging and fixing those mistakes.
There’s a fine line, though, between my observation and character assassination. I don’t agree at all that there is a fine line as you suggest. Your statement is entirely fair criticism in every respect and does not even approach character assassination. You’ve said nothing at all to impugn the character of anyone, nor have you said anything that I find objectionable even as one who generally supports Bush’s efforts.
Leviticus, thank you for your explanation … I believe that public figures should be judged on their public policies, as well as the consequences of those policies.
Insofar as we cannot accurately judge intention, we ought to stay away from it. Both excellent points on which I completely agree. This is the only way we’ll ever engage in a productive civil national debate on the subject, otherwise we’ll continue to wrestle in the mud.
Looks like aphrael and I see rather eye to eye on this one. Add an eye. I think our primary disagreement, if there is one, is whether there has been net “progress” to date in Iraq. Without question it has cost dearly in blood and treasure for both ourselves and the Iraqis. I admit that I honestly don’t know yet whether it has been worth it. I’m not sure anyone does at this point. As a retired soldier (25 years including Viet Nam) myself I admit that I trust the soldiers’ views above those of the MSM since they have a more up close and personal view. This was my particular attraction to this thread.
It also seems to me that even my fellow soldiers (if I may be so bold as to claim the honor to still call them my fellows) are conflicted since they’ve seen both the successes, and there have been many, and the failures, and there have also been many. They are also the ones who’ve invested their blood and their lives in the effort. It’s a valuable and necessary exercise to debate where we go from here and how we get there. It’s also entirely fair to criticize our national leaders for their failures, though I believe in fairness that we should also acknowledge their successes.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 10/17/2006 @ 8:34 pmMy experience in Viet Nam leads me to offer the following afterthought: Even though Rumsfeld may very well be a decent and honorable man, that in no way should imply that if the preponderance of the evidence suggests that his handling of the war was grossly deficient, beyond the mere “fog of war” that is to be expected, that he should not be replaced.
Furthermore, if the military leadership has significant and profound differences with the way Rumsfeld is prosecuting the war, the only honorable means by which they have to express that opinion is by their resignation. Our military is under civilian leadership by the foresight of our founders, but our military leaders need to be warriors not political careerists concerned only for their own careers as so many were in the MacNamara-run Viet Nam debacle.
None of which was meant in any way to impugn the character of any currently serving military leader.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 10/17/2006 @ 8:43 pmGood for you Harry. Too many of us forget that the SecDef serves at the pleasure of the President. As long as the President has confidence in Rumsfeld, and he is accomplishing the task(s) assigned to him, there will be no change. If the Generals are unhappy, perhaps they need to flesh out their retirement plans a little early. Go to Montana and enjoy the fishing, and while there, write a book that they can release in 10-15 years after the edge is off their anger.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 10/17/2006 @ 10:58 pm[…] I recently expressed concern that we are nothing but targets patrolling the streets of Iraq. I think we need to make our own decisions about what is best for our interests and those of our soldiers. That may include setting up a couple of strong bases in Iraq, and getting out of the business of patrolling the streets. It may be time to let the Iraqi people take care of their own internal problems themselves. […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » Reacting to Jonah Goldberg’s Column on the War (421107) — 10/19/2006 @ 6:58 am[…] I recently expressed concern that we are nothing but targets patrolling the streets of Iraq. I think we need to make our own decisions about what is best for our interests and those of our soldiers. That may include setting up a couple of strong bases in Iraq, and getting out of the business of patrolling the streets. It may be time to let the Iraqi people take care of their own internal problems themselves. […]
Pay Per View! » Blog Archive » Reacting to Jonah Goldberg’s Column on the War (36991c) — 10/19/2006 @ 8:20 am[…] There are two interesting points about the article. The first is that it creates an interesting counterpoint to the opinions of the soldier I discussed in this post, who told me he believes we are sitting ducks in Baghdad, and we should establish a couple of strong bases in Iraq and get out of the business of patrolling Baghdad. It just goes to show you that, like Americans here, the guys on the ground have different opinions about what we should do. […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » WaPo Piece on Soldiers’ View of A Pullout from Iraq (421107) — 11/6/2006 @ 7:49 am