What is this Crap from Newsweek ?
The U.S. Army has also stopped pretending that Iraqis—who have failed to build a credible government, military or police force on their own—are in the lead when it comes to kicking down doors and keeping the peace. And that means the future of Iraq depends on the long-term presence of U.S. forces in a way it did not just a few months ago. “We’re putting down roots,” says Philip Carter, a former U.S. Army captain who returned last summer from a year of policing and training in the hot zone around Baquba. “The Americans are no longer willing to accept failure in order to put Iraqis in the lead. You can’t let the mission fail just for the sake of diplomacy.”Many U.S. military experts now believe that, if there is any hope of stabilizing Iraq, the Petraeus plan is the only way to do it. The critical question now, they say, is whether we have anywhere near enough troops committed to the effort, and whether America has the political will to see the strategy through to the end.
Now this is just stupid. Why does "the future of Iraq depend on the long-term presence of U.S. forces in a way it did not just a few months ago" ?
Why ?
Does that mean things were a lot better in Iraq in December and suddenly things got much worse in January and February ?
That is, technically, what the above sentence says.
So what happened since December to wreck all the good things that were happening?
What good things ?
Can you be specific, Mr. Hirsh ?
Does Tony Blair and the British troops in Basra know anything about these good things ?
Why are you, Mr. Hirsh, and the Associated Press, keeping these good things a secret from us ?
Why is Mr. Hirsh of Newsweek quoting as a principal source a U.S. soldier, Capt. Philip Carter, who has been stateside since this past summer? How is Mr. Carter an authority on what is happening in Iraq at this moment ? How is Mr. Carter aware of things that soldiers in Baghdad right now are unaware of?
Who are these American "military experts" who have told Mr. Hirsh the "Petraeus plan is the only way" to stabilize Iraq ? Do they have names and ranks ? Have they, like former Capt. Philip Carter, been stateside for the past 8 months ? Do they actually know anything or are we just supposed to blindly trust that they do ?
Most interesting is Mr. Hirsh's declaration that U.S. combat troops must stay in Iraq for a long time and any time shorter than a long time would be a de facto defeat:
Even so, because the Petraeus plan will likely extend well into the next presidency, much will depend on the views and actions of whoever is elected in 2008. Ultimately, if we do withdraw prematurely, we may end up doing what embattled British Prime Minister Tony Blair has just announced he's doing in the southern Iraqi city of Basra: declare victory (though there is scant evidence of one), and go home. But not if Dave Petraeus and his dream team can help it.
Again, what does this idiocy mean? That the only victory is to stay forever? That leaving Iraq is a prima facie admission of defeat?
And what the hell is the purpose of this "dream team" quote? Is Mr. Hirsh smoking angel dust through a lead pipe? Why on Earth would U.S. soldiers want to be associated with the lawyers who represented Orenthal James Simpson?
Err ... and also ...
Does the following quote really sound like a live, candid spoken utterance by a real U.S. combat soldier coming back from duty in Iraq?
We’re putting down roots ... The Americans are no longer willing to accept failure in order to put Iraqis in the lead. You can’t let the mission fail just for the sake of diplomacy.
Since when does one U.S. Army Captain speak for the entire United States joint military force?
What is this crap ?
Without further detail, this is an awfully low-level source, unless, say, he was a general's aide with access to high-level discussions. Of course, if that was the case, he needs to find another career, as those discussions were privileged if not classified.
If the Iraqi security forces cannot quickly get to a level of providing basic safety, US troops, not language-qualified or trained in urban policing, can't do it. As long as US forces can demonstrate that they are steadily increasing the effectiveness of Iraqi security forces, I'm not unwilling to continue. If the improvement rate levels or drops, it's time to accept civil war, just as the Arab countries that have a degree of democracy had to go through civil war, or, in the case of Kuwait, invasion and liberation. (None are ideal democracies, but there are about four showing promise)
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
February 23, 2007 1:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
A lot of Americans are going to continue to die needlessly if we do that.
Tom
February 23, 2007 7:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do which? I presented several options. In one, there is continued presence in a training and own-force protection role, and there is a metric of the Iraqis replacing the Americans in that role. If there isn't progress, there's withdrawal ASAP, and, in any event, there is a timetable, not necessarily public, for full withdrawal.
Other options involve withdrawal at a rate compatible with safety of the withdrawing troops.
If the Iraqis can't manage their own security, I expect a major civil war. To varying extents, that is what happened in Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia before they could get to their presents and variable level of democracy. Democracy may or may not work in Iraq.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
February 23, 2007 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll have to side with Doug on this...
It's a load of crap!
And it been a long long road of crap since we invaded.
~OGD~
February 23, 2007 2:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're misreading this article.
Newsweek is presenting the military's point of view. They're saying we're not leaving Iraq any time soon.
Something the punditry has not figured out yet.
Something even some Democrats haven't figured out, let alone Republicans.
Dissent Protects Democracy.
February 23, 2007 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
If all Newsweek can cite is a captain of unidentified assignment and experience, that's not a very credible source for the military's view. In any event, it is not the military that will make the final decisions about withdrawal but, under various scenarios, the White House or Congress.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
February 23, 2007 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The piece is sourced from more than that one person.
What the piece is saying to me is the White House is setting up for us to never leave Iraq. Something that's well-known or well-accepted in places like TPMCafe -- the difference is this is confirmation of that, well beyond assumptions people have made. This seems to confirm it.
Dissent Protects Democracy.
February 23, 2007 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
My own military contacts are mixed on that assumption. Of course, the situation will emerge into a White House change, a Constitutional crisis, or an impeachment -- or a combination.
Still, on the active side, I wish I knew if Newsweek had talked with any of Petraeus' PhD-Colonel-Warrior advisers like McMaster, Mansoor, Meese or Kilcullen. Dan Bolger in training. It's not clear if Casey has much to contribute or that he was kicked upstairs, much as Westmoreland was after Vietnam.
Also, retired people with varied views, such as Hoar, Shinseki, Odom, Zinni, Abizaid, Schoonmaker, etc.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
February 23, 2007 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink