NYT Op-Ed: A War We Might Just Win

[Psephos]

A War We Just Might Win

By MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK
Published: July 30, 2007

VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work. Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference. Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began — though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.

In Ramadi, for example, we talked with an outstanding Marine captain whose company was living in harmony in a complex with a (largely Sunni) Iraqi police company and a (largely Shiite) Iraqi Army unit. He and his men had built an Arab-style living room, where he met with the local Sunni sheiks — all formerly allies of Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups — who were now competing to secure his friendship. In Baghdad’s Ghazaliya neighborhood, which has seen some of the worst sectarian combat, we walked a street slowly coming back to life with stores and shoppers. The Sunni residents were unhappy with the nearby police checkpoint, where Shiite officers reportedly abused them, but they seemed genuinely happy with the American soldiers and a mostly Kurdish Iraqi Army company patrolling the street. The local Sunni militia even had agreed to confine itself to its compound once the Americans and Iraqi units arrived.

<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opinion/30pollack.html?ei=5090&en=33fd6c98de2a6409&ex=1343448000&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

[kenny blankenship]

1. Sure, give it another ten years. Why not?

[TomClash]

2. I was really skeptical of this piece

Pollack wrote a book begging to overthrow Saddam and O'Hanlon has been a cheerleader for the War from the start. Both are CFR moderately conservative establishment Dems. I really wonder about their "findings" without substantially more information about their itinerary - who they talked to, where they stayed, which areas they visited and when, how often they returned to the same location, who accompanied them and so on. Otherwise, I think this is more bullshit from the Empire's minions.

[TwilightGardener]

3. The last paragraph sums it up:

How long should our troops keep fighting and dying? Well, at least until 2008! And what happens after 2008? Uh, no one knows--it might all unravel. But one thing's for sure--we can't leave now! Shops are opening! Morale is high! This reads like pure neocon propaganda. These guys must be the official Liebermanesque "buy-time" media cheerleaders. These are the very words Bush was using a few months ago--no "victory", but a "sustainable stability"--remember the "acceptable level of violence" plan? Sorry, guys, it's do-or-die time for the Iraqis. No more of our meat for their grinder. We've done enough--and I mean that in both positive and negative ways.

[CTyankee]

4. It is futile to fight these insurgents. It is for the most part their country.

We can go home and the sooner the better. We won't win. We can't win. The insurgents will just grind us down and eventually wreck our economy. History is a guide here, folks. This is no Pax Americana, like the Pax of the Roman Empire where the Romans actually brought something to the people it conquered. Cruel as the Romans were, the subjugated got roads and water systems that at least improved some areas of their lives. We, on the other hand, have only brought death and destruction.

[road2000]

5. W.T.F. n/t

[Demeter]

6. Consider the Source: A PNAC Spin Doctor Think Tank

I read it with disbelief. Brookings Institute hasn't even a nodding acquaintance with the truth.

[fjc]

7. 340 some people viewed this article....

and only 6 had anything to say. What, are we afraid the surge will work?

[mariema]

8. I'm kinda afraid

I think what I am afraid of is that the surge will "work" to the point that it is just good enough to make sure we keep throwing money and bodies at it until gods know when. Until "victory" is achieved, as defined by who?

[Lautremont]

9. Work how?

"The surge is working" is a phrase with a different meaning to just about everybody. In most iterations it means very little. Naturally, if you throw a bunch of extra soldiers at an enemy, a lot more people on both sides are going to die, which is what's happened. But you can point exclusively to the so-called enemies who have died while ignoring your own, and there you go, victory! Great success! But success, winning, victory, these terms are meaningless because there are so many meanings, and because the authors of this war have themselves changed the meaning by moving the goalposts around as it pleases them. I'm sure many of those White House denizens don't even know what the victory they're banking on is even supposed to look like anymore.

[mariema]

10. "Work” as they state in the NYT Op/Ed:

“...the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.” (end of second paragraph)

"Sustainable stability", "sustainable security" are not metrics, just ambiguous phrases. But these and other versions of the meme will be sufficient to ensure that they can claim "the surge is working." They don't even have to define what "working" is, just so long as they can keep it going.

[fjc]

12. Well, sustainable stablity could be a metric of sorts...

except it is a metric that by definition commits us to a longer period. I understand the poster who expressed concern that "working" merely means more and unlimited time, bodies, and money. And I've seen other say that the surge was merely intended to make it possible for Bush to offload this war unto his successor. But what if this strategy works in the sense that we can see some light at the end of this long tunnel? What if it can be shown that we have a real chance that our departure will not result in another bloodbath? Shouldn't people opposed to this war, regardless of how we were deceived into it, reconsider our commitment there? I mean, we may not like it, but if we have a chance to do what's right, don't we owe it to the Iraqi people, not to mention our dead soldiers?

[mariema]

15. I wish I could believe there was a chance

fjc said : “But what if this strategy works in the sense that we can see some light at the end of this long tunnel?”

It depends on how long a tunnel and how bright the light.

If we are talking years more the first question I think of is how do we do that with the US military as badly strained as it is?

As for the bright light we come back to the definition of success. What is it? As Petraeus said, there is no military solution without political solutions. And the Iraqi political situation seems to be getting worse by the minute. So no matter how brilliantly our military performs if the Iraqi government cannot do what needs to be done, it all falls apart.

Take a look at a short interview with Michael Ware: (about halfway down the page, after Cheney coverage)http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0707/31/acd.01.html

snip

"What we're seeing is -- is, to a degree, some sleight of hand. What America needs to come clean about is that it's achieving these successes by cutting deals primarily with its enemies. We have all heard the administration praise the work of the tribal sheiks in turning against al Qaeda. Well, this is just a euphemism for the Sunni insurgency. That's who has turned against al Qaeda.

snip

..yes, sectarian violence is down, but let's have a look at that. More than two million people have fled this country. Fifty thousand are still fleeing every month, according to the United Nations. So, there's less people to be killed. And those who stay increasingly are in ethnically cleansed neighborhoods. They have been segregated.

snip

But, honestly, Anderson, it is a myth to believe that the Iraqi forces have been rid of their sectarian or militia ties. No matter how much any commander wants to tell you, the minute the American forces turn their backs, these guys revert to form, be that Sunni or Shia lines, Kurdish ethnic lines, or be it militia lines.

So, there is still no sense of unity. And, without America to act as the big baby-sitter, this thing is not going to last. So, all these successes that O'Hanlon and Pollack point to exist. They're real. But the report is very one-dimensional. It doesn't look at what's being done to achieve this and what long-term sustainability there is."

America as baby-sitter. In other words: "sustainable stability"

[Doctor_J]

11. Glen Greenwald set the record straight on this bullshit

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/31/ohanlon/index.html

See my other post in this forum for some snips

[fjc]

13. Thanks for that link. It really helped to put it in perspective.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

14. Sean Hannity was parroting this on his show yesterday.

I just knew that there was SOMETHING that he was failing to mention.