‘A flawed, American-centered framework’

It’s been a really discouraging weekend for the Lieberman-Kristol-McCain contingent of Iraq war supporters. Yesterday, Jonathan Finer explained that their visits to Baghdad — after which they boast of widespread “progress” — are scripted, largely “ceremonial” visits. Their “epiphanies” aren’t based on much, and shouldn’t be taken too seriously.

Today, champions of the Bush administration’s Iraq policy suffered another indignity with a powerful NYT op-ed from seven infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division, who will soon be returning home frustrated and jaded.

Joe Klein said the troops’ piece “puts to shame — and shame is the appropriate word — all the Kristol, McCain, Lieberman, Pollack and O’Hanlon etc etc cheerleading of the past two months.” I think that’s exactly right. From the op-ed:

Viewed from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day.

The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. […]

Given the situation, it is important not to assess security from an American-centered perspective. The ability of, say, American observers to safely walk down the streets of formerly violent towns is not a resounding indicator of security. What matters is the experience of the local citizenry and the future of our counterinsurgency. When we take this view, we see that a vast majority of Iraqis feel increasingly insecure and view us as an occupation force that has failed to produce normalcy after four years and is increasingly unlikely to do so as we continue to arm each warring side.

To say this is vastly more important than the O’Hanlon/Pollack piece that shook up the political world a couple of weeks ago is an understatement.

This is powerful, reliable, and accurate stuff.

At the same time, the most important front in the counterinsurgency, improving basic social and economic conditions, is the one on which we have failed most miserably. Two million Iraqis are in refugee camps in bordering countries. Close to two million more are internally displaced and now fill many urban slums. Cities lack regular electricity, telephone services and sanitation. “Lucky” Iraqis live in gated communities barricaded with concrete blast walls that provide them with a sense of communal claustrophobia rather than any sense of security we would consider normal.

In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, “We need security, not free food.”

In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.

Read the whole thing, but keep a couple of things in mind. First, these seven members of the 82nd Airborne are showing courage on the battlefield, but they’re also showing political courage in writing this piece while serving on active duty. This isn’t an op-ed that is going to be well received at the White House, so kudos to all of them, not only for their service, but for putting in print what the nation needs to hear.

And second, like John Cole, I can’t help but wonder how the right will respond to something like this. I suppose there will be a temptation to kick the Smear Machine into high gear, but it’s probably more likely that conservatives will simply pretend the op-ed doesn’t exist. It would be far easier than challenging the piece’s conclusions.

To say this is vastly more important than the O’Hanlon/Pollack piece that shook up the political world a couple of weeks ago is an understatement.

…And to say that, unlike the O’PollHack piece, it will vanish virtually unremarked by the Teletubbies like Tweety and Wolfie is almost too certain to be worth mentioning. As is the likelihood these guys will undergo the Scott Beauchamp treatment at the hands of their superiors. Whether the 101st Keyboarders will respond with silence or smears, I don’t know. I’d guess more the former than the latter. No font-parsing is going to make this well reasoned perspective go away. But it’s certainly a hell of a lot more significant than the Beauchamp stuff in terms of what it says about the overall strategic situation. These guys certainly cut through the bullshit, that’s for sure.

  • …meant to add: after all, none of these noncoms are on any producer’s rolodex, unlike O’PollHack. So they might get a mention, but that’s going to be it. And I expect they’ll not go unpunished for trying to do their duty by the American public and tell the truth. Which should be an eternal blot of shame on the whole Military Message Control Complex, including FauxNews, MSN-B.S. and the Candy-assed News Network.

  • Thank God for True American Patriots that have the courage to tell the No Peace, More War Movement what they don’t want to hear.

  • Read the whole thing, but keep a couple of things in mind. First, these seven members of the 82nd Airborne are showing courage on the battlefield, but they’re also showing political courage in writing this piece while serving on active duty. This isn’t an op-ed that is going to be well received at the White House, so kudos to all of them, not only for their service, but for putting in print what the nation needs to hear.

    Life is like a well-written novel more and more. Think of how this contrasts with the President’s having his press person call up a local newspaper style-write the other day, to complain about the paper’s article commenting on or criticizing his clothes.

  • This is the depressing reality: we are an occupying force, one that has ravaged their country, that has supplied arms to both sides in their civil war, that after four yrs have not even gotten electricity, clean water or safe streets or a central government, that have caused more bloodshed than our withdrawal ever could have caused, that has not even gotten a diplomatic involvement from countries in the region with the UN to find solutions to Iraq’s problems, caused by us.

    It’s been lies and mistakes every step of the way and even America’s diplomats return from their “visits” covering up the lies and mistakes that most Americans quit believing long ago. We’ve lost billions in cash, shrink wrapped on pallets. We’ve lost hundreds of thousands of weapons. But most important, we have lost our credibility.

    Along with the video of Cheney in 1994, this article makes clear that we should never have invaded Iraq, nor should we continue to occupy Iraq. But one thing these “dog and pony show” visits have made clear is that Bush will never leave Iraq until he is forced to leave. Just like Bush and Cheney have “forced” our soldiers to fight and die just to keep from admitting to a failed policy they also are forcing Congress to “make” them withdraw from Iraq for the very same reasons.
    Finally someone was brave enough to speak the truth about what is actually happening in Iraq. Now, if only Congress can be brave enough to do something about it before more are forced to die, rather than waiting for a new president to straighten it all out.

  • The soldiers’ sober, and sobering, assessment of Iraq brought one important issue to the fore: the solution to this mess is political (not in the Karl Rove sense of political, but in the diplomatic Marshall Plan sense of political.)

    These troops accurately point out that by arming all sides of the conflict we are simply pouring more gasoline on the fire. Peace is not going to come from the barrel of a gun, it will come from the leaders of the gun carriers to tell them to put their weapons down. We are trying to play both ends against the middle and it is our troops and the many, many innocent civilians in Iraq who are caught in the crossfire in that middle.

    Political pressure needs to be brought to bear on the religious-centered factions at the center of all the killings and unrest and this solution needs to be taken in a regional context. Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and other regional players need to be brought into the equation with other non-state players such as NATO, the Arab League and the UN. Sunni vs. Shia vs. Kurd conflicts are not just limited to Iraq and initiating at least an initial dialogue would raise our national prestige in the region and world immensely, as well as taking the first few steps on the road to peace.

    Our current insistence on only a military solution is caused by the logical and political laziness of our current executive branch leadership. The only way to win militarily is to pick a side and get busy killing the others — a solution that Dick Cheney refers to as requiring “stomach” but which will make the United States a world-wide pariah. Our current political policy has no strategy other than to use our troops as a political weapon against the Bush’s administration’s political opposition. Our troops are in Iraq to fight Democrats in Washington … and they are dying for that end in the sands of Iraq. I am aghast at the comment, “When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages,” because the Bush administration’s primary preoccupation is attacking the patriotism of fellow Americans seeking a legitimate solution to the Iraq mess. We will get nowhere as long as we have leaders who act as if peace is for pussies and that a permanent state of war will help their party in the US political fashion show.

  • Late August is a bad time to roll this out, and I hope both its treatment by the media, and the fate of these super brave guys (I assume guys) will be chronicled by this site and others. It is very esy to hide such a piece, but I intend to send it to everyone on my email list.

    Retaliation against them may not be swift, but it will be sure. Too many careers are on the line, and that’s what runs the military.

  • “In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.”

    Damn if that wasn’t addressed straight at Maliki.

  • I think what struck me most is that the op-ed was devoid of partisanship, or nationalistic fervor, which ought to allow all sides in this country to look at the situation more objectively than the politics and ego have thus far allowed.

    I say that with little optimism, unfortunately. In fact, I expect to see a companion piece show up in the next few days, also from active-duty military, that takes the exact opposite position; in our “fair and balanced” world, the tie-breaker for opposing views seems to be that whichever view most resembles that of the commander in chief, wins.

    Boiled down to the essence, much of the arguments seem to have reached the level of the 5-year olds’ favorite: “Did, too/Did not” and “Are so/Am not” and other equally immature and equally endless bickerings.

    The NYT op-ed was not at that level, but the introduction of a rebuttal that I have no doubt will go down that road, will end up de-valuing today’s piece, and get us no further to resolution; we need more than a high-stakes military and political poker game, that amounts to “I’ll see your seven enlisted men, and raise you one general,” if we are ever to resolve this mess.

  • Anne, your posts always leave me thinking that anytime you want to start a public access cable show “Politics and Policy from Anne to Zeitgeist” you just let me know. 🙂

  • Zeitgeist – thank you, and let me return the compliment by telling tou that I always enjoy your comments, always find myself nodding along in agreement and marveling at how clever you are (the “Anne to Zeitgeist” being but one example!).

  • This is incredibly brave. I remember 40 years ago, as an antiwar vet who was back in civilian life, how much I respected my brothers still in who were speaking out from inside a system where they had none of the rights they were supposedly defending by their service. They paid a price for so doing far higher than any of the rest of us ever did.

    This marks an event of huge significance. These seven guys with this kind of guts each represent probably hundreds if not thousands of their brothers in arms who agree with them but don’t want to face the inevitable whack that’s coming from the Perfumed Princes of the Imperial Wehrmacht. When the troops started taking action during the Vietnam war, it brought the war to a halt. By 1971, a Pentagon report that was finally made public in the 1980s stated that the majority of those in the Army opposed the war and would refuse orders and that the lives of senior noncoms and officers who supported the war were in danger from their own men. That was what stopped the war Vietnam. This is what will stop the war in Iraq.

    We have to support these guys, who are truly demonstrating what is meant by the oath of enlistment “to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” They’re going to pay a price for this far higher than any of us ever will.

    Those seven guys demonstrate what being a Good American really means.

  • This is a MUST read Why Iraqis oppose U.S.-backed oil law Workers think foreign firms will take over

    Across the political spectrum in Washington, members of Congress are now demanding that the Iraqi government meet certain benchmarks, which presumably would show that it’s really in charge. But there’s a big problem with the most important benchmark: the oil law. It is extremely unpopular in Iraq.

    Congress has been told the law is a way to share oil wealth among Iraq’s regions and religious sects. Iraqis see it differently. They say the law will turn over the oil fields to foreign companies, giving them control over setting royalties, deciding production levels, and even determining whether Iraqis get to work in their own industry.

    AND a few days ago, as we all heard, the Iraqi deputy oil minister and others were kidnapped in Iraq and NOW it looks like the Bushies have decide to share the oil contracts with countries like China and Russia after all, at least according to this news source

    Lukoil, the major Russian firm, is trying to win back a contract signed and then dissolved during Saddam Hussein’s regime, teaming up with Russian state-owned firms and asking the government to help its case.

    ConocoPhillips, which owns 20 percent of Lukoil, is also helping out.

    Royal Dutch Shell and BHP Billiton, of Australia, are researching the Missan area of Iraq, Business Intelligence Middle East reports. Shell and Mitsubishi are eyeing plans for Iraq’s vast natural gas deposits as well.

    The China National Petroleum Corp. already received a pledge from Iraq’s oil minister to renegotiate a contract signed under Saddam for the al-Ahdab oil field. Any deals that were valid at the time of the regime’s fall will be upheld, though they need to be brought in line with a future federal oil law.

    That law is stuck in negotiations between political factions. They can’t agree on how much power the central, federal and local governments each should have in exploration, development and production of the oil. Also at issue is a key decision as to what extent foreign companies will be allowed to invest in the sector.

    And of course awhile back, an Australian official said that Australia was in in Iraq for the oil which caused a lot of protest.

    So guess what Australia is saying:

    Australia: No Iraq oil law, no troops

    Published: Aug. 13, 2007 at 5:49 PM

    BAGHDAD, Aug. 13 (UPI) — Australia’s leader has told Iraq’s prime minister that he’ll withdraw troops from the coalition if Iraq doesn’t approve a draft oil law.

    The law, which is highly controversial, is being promoted by the Bush administration as a way toward reconciliation in the highly factionalized country. The thought is if political and other leaders can decide how to compromise on sharing the wealth from Iraq’s vast oil reserves, they can also compromise on issues that are leading the country toward fracture and civil war.

    The oil law Bush, and now Australian Prime Minister John Howard, are begging for, however, doesn’t divvy up the revenue from oil — that will be handled in a separate revenue-sharing law. The draft oil law actually decides the extent of federalism in exploration, development and production of the third-largest oil reserve in the world, as well as how much access foreign oil companies will have, among other issues that are proving hard to find agreement on between the competing demands of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.

    “If the Iraqis fail to make progress, the public support for Australia’s military deployment to Iraq may not be sustainable,” Howard said in a letter delivered to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki by the ambassador to Iraq, Mark Innes Brown, the Voices of Iraq news agency reports.

    “Prompt, concrete measures are needed not only to secure Iraq’s future, but also to ensure regional stability and continued constructive international engagement,” the letter said.

    Australia has 1,500 troops in Iraq, but its leadership is pressed to reduce that. Howard meets with President Bush this week in Sydney.

    Bush just sent out his War Czar to test the waters for the military draft, I think it’s a big non-starter so it looks to me as Bushie is NOW offering oil contracts to China and Russia – BUT, I’m certained that Bush is also asking for troops from China and Russia. Otherwise Bush is losing “our vital interest in the region” but I say it was never our vital interest to begin with, Bush ,pure and simple wants to steal it Iraqis.

    The message is clear – Iraqis DON’T want to sign Bush’s oil law. It’s not about democracy – its about oil and how desperate Bush is to secure for his energy task forces buddies.

  • Iraqis DON’T want to sign Bush’s oil law. It’s not about democracy – its about oil and how desperate Bush is to secure for his energy task forces buddies. — Me_again, @13

    Yes, me_again; it is about oil, it has always been about oil; no surprises there. Iran’s about oil too. Everything else — the possible genocide (Iraq) if we withdraw, the possible nuclear weapons (Iran) if we don’t check them — all of that is but a window dressing for the oil greed. But, since the Dems actually *do* worry about things like genocide, the Rethugs have us over a barrel and treading water in indecision.

  • Kudos to Anne, Zeitgeist, Ed Stephan, Libra, Tom Cleaver…. and many more. You’ve all provided me with a lot of insights that keep me reading this blog on a daily basis. (I’m currently paying big bucks to get a university education that doesn’t come close to this level of discussion.)

    Oh, yeah. There’s also that Carpetbagger guy, aka Steve Benen, who provides us not only with this forum, but with an excellent source of news everyday.

  • Likely the right will try and ignore it and hope it goes away. Bush of course will never see it or hear of it. Commonsensical observations and inconvenient facts are frequently uncomfortable for those on wrong side of the debate and we all know how the Bush administration dislikes facts.

    These soldiers must be really frustrated and have been so for a while to have written this op-ed and in such a big circulation paper.

  • Kudos to the ‘mag seven’ for standing up and stating clearly what type of conflict they are involved in–a sectarian set of civil wars…Many in the pro-war camp & the hardline Bushiviks glide over the exact nature of the war they talking about and waste a lot of time talking about “Al Qaeda in Iraq” (which is itself probably 90% Iraqi anyway) so as to both confuse the actual issues and conflate the unreality of their outlook on the war with that of the deluded “Commander Guy” in the WH.

    The NY Times Op-Ed page has at least partly regained some credibility with me after the debacle of enabling the Polllack/O’Hanlon Hack job…and the other editor atrocities along the road….

  • Comments are closed.