[antimedia] antimedia: I have a great deal of respect....

[Email subscription to blog articles]

Posted by antimedia:
I have a great deal of respect....
http://www.antimedia.us/posts/1158812357.shtml


   ....for Michael Yon. So when he [1]recommended reading an article by
   Joey Galloway (if you've seen [2]We Were Soldiers you know Galloway
   earned his stripes as a war correspondent), I clicked on [3]the link
   (pdf) and read the whole thing.
   Galloway interviewed a number of present and former military leaders
   and asked for their thoughts on Iraq. As you can imagine, it's
   interesting, provocative and mostly negative toward Bush.
   Since these men are supposedly experts, many people will respect what
   they have to say and think they're probably right. But when you read
   what they say to Galloway, you (if you're at all like me) will come
   away scratching your head wondering why Galloway wasted his and his
   readers' time.

     In hopes of furthering that debate, this week I asked more than a
     dozen top Army and Marine Corps generals -- active duty and
     retired, dissidents and administration loyalists -- to address what
     we should do now in Iraq.
     All of them agreed that America's strategy and tactics in Iraq have
     failed, and that President Bush's policy of "staying the course" in
     Iraq isn't likely to produce anything but more frustration, more
     and greater problems for the United States in a dangerous world and
     more and bloodier surprises for the 135,000 American troops in
     Iraq.

   Immediately we have a problem.
   President Bush's policy has never been "stay the course" in the way
   that his critics mean it. When Bush says, [4]"We will stay the course
   in Iraq", he means, we will not abandon Iraq -- we will not leave
   until the job is done.
   When his critics criticize "stay the course" they claim Bush is
   [5]rigid and inflexible and [6]refuses to change despite the lack of
   progress. This despite the fact that the administration has repeatedly
   said that [7]they are constantly adjusting their tactics to reflect
   the reality on the ground.
   This is a similar complaint to those who claim Bush's view of Iraq is
   [8]"pollyannish" or [9]"rosy" or [10]"optimistic" (as opposed to the
   critics' "realistic" view, which I would define as excessively
   negative!) Their complaints begin by mischaracterizing what the
   President has said and then beating their straw man about the head and
   shoulders incessantly in the hope that no one will notice their
   arguments are vacuous and flaccid.
   One wonders how many times the administration has to say [11]"long
   hard slough" and [12]"tough going" before any journalist will actually
   admit he isn't being "rosy" or "pollyannish" at all.
   Galloway summarizes the "experts"' analysis thus.
    1. Review America's military options.

     None of the officers I interviewed recommended an immediate U.S.
     withdrawal from Iraq, and a few suggested sending more U.S. troops
     to Iraq. "You have to be willing to let the GIs on the ground
     continue to do what they have been doing recently, fighting smart
     rather than dumb . . . doing counter-insurgency and not fighting on
     the northern plains of Europe," said Wilkerson. Most of the
     officers, however, agreed that the administration has relied too
     heavily on the military and shortchanged economic and political
     efforts in Iraq.
    2. Bolster the effort to train and equip Iraqi military and security
       forces that can take over from U.S. troops.

     Newbold said that the time for adding more U.S. forces on the
     ground has passed, if only for political reasons, and that the best
     military option now is to reinforce the efforts of Gen. George
     Casey, the U.S. commander in Iraq, to stand up a capable Iraqi Army
     to take over security. If we're serious about standing up a capable
     and effective Iraqi Army to take responsibility for security, said
     a serving senior general, "then we need to get serious about it
     now" and make certain that only the best American Army and Marine
     officers and NCOs are assigned to the Military Transition Teams.
     Without that, he said, "we will be there forever."
    3. Devote greater energy to rebuilding Iraq's economy and political
       system.

     Newbold agreed that the U.S. must focus its primary effort in the
     economic and political realms in Iraq, and he said that so far the
     other agencies of the U.S. government haven't come close to the
     intensity and commitment of the military engagement. "To borrow a
     phrase: It's the economy, Stupid!" he said.
     The State Department and other agencies need to stop staffing the
     U.S. Embassy and U.S. advisory teams to the Iraqi government
     ministries with inexperienced, short-term Generation X staffers,
     agreed a senior general. Stop making duty in Baghdad strictly a
     volunteer affair, he said: Assign your best and most experienced
     staffers to this vital work.
    4. Revive American diplomacy in the Middle East.

     "Everything we are doing brings Iran and Syria closer together when
     we ought to be doing everything we can to split them apart," said
     the senior general. "We need a U.S. ambassador in Syria. (The Bush
     administration recalled the U.S. ambassador, who hasn't returned.)
     It would help in Iraq and have spin-off benefits in Lebanon. You
     can't exert influence if you are not there. We need to be talking
     to the Syrians. Hell, we need to be talking to the Iranians. This
     whole axis of evil thing is bull! All it did was drive our enemies
     closer together."
     Wilkerson said the administration should "bring in the surrounding
     states, not just Iran, though it is the most important one, and get
     them to share the load money-wise and diplomatically. The Bedouins
     have got to stop putting their money on all sides, hoping that one
     will win. They must put their money exclusively on the government
     in Baghdad. They have to understand that the U.S. is not leaving
     until the situation is stable."

   Frankly, I agree with the first three points, but I disagree with the
   way these men frame their arguments.
   For example

     Even retired Army Col. Larry Wilkerson, the former chief of staff
     to Gen. Colin Powell at the State Department in President Bush's
     first term and now an outspoken critic of the administration's
     policies in Iraq, said there's still a way to succeed. "First, you
     have to think big," Wilkerson said. "Not stupid big, the way Cheney
     and Bush and Rumsfeld do, but smart big the way Teddy Roosevelt
     used to do."

   If these birdbrains are so much smarter than Bush, why is it that
   their first three points are precisely what the administration is
   already doing? Either they aren't quite as smart as they'd like you to
   think, or Bush isn't quite a stupid as they'd like you to think.
   I'll let you decide which is more likely the case.
   The two areas where we are weakest in Iraq are points 3 and 4. The
   "failures" of economic and policital progress in Iraq can be directly
   attributed to the longstanding resistance of the State Department to
   Bush's policies. State is the bastion of "realists" and "Arabists",
   all of whom believe Bush's entire approach is wrong. (Joseph Wilson is
   a classic example of the attitude prevalent at State.)
   The idea that we should be doing more diplomatically is, in my view,
   quite a bit more pollyannish than Bush's approach to Iraq. Who are we
   going to "do diplomacy" with? France? They stab us in the back
   routinely. The UN? That's the most corrupt, inept organization on
   earth. Russia? They're playing games, trying to raise their "street
   cred" in the world again. Iran? Syria? Don't make me laugh! Egypt?
   Saudia Arabia? Kuwait? Jordan? UAE? We're working with all of them,
   many times behind the scenes due to their hypocrisy.
   The very idea that we should return to the days of "realism" (which is
   what Bush's critics really want), when it was thought better to lie
   down with brutal dictators than upset the apple cart by pushing for
   democracy, is anathema to the heart and soul of America. We believe
   passionately in freedom. Realism, coming from America, is hypocrisy at
   its most banal. Furthermore, it's at least partially to blame for the
   present situation in the mideast (and I would argue greatly to blame.)
   The criticism of these "experts" boils down to this. Bush should keep
   doing what he's presently doing but do it better, smarter, more
   diplomatically. He should also do what no other President has managed
   to do -- corral the State Department. And he should emply diplomacy
   more, even though there's no one to be diplomatic with that isn't
   already supporting our efforts in Iraq and elsewhere.
   Color me unimpressed.

References

   1. http://michaelyon-online.com/wp/joe-galloway-speaking-the-truth.htm
   2. http://www.weweresoldiers.com/
   3. http://michaelyon-online.com/media/pdf/vox/MCT_9_6_06.pdf
   4. http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/005019.html
   5. http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=8639
   6. http://www.mikehersh.com/printer_Bottom_Line_Bush_Failed.shtml
   7. http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-bush-text,0,198061.story?page=5&coll=ny-nationworld-headlines
   8. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/bush.criticism/index.html
   9. http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/11621
  10. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-30-iraq-bush-edit_x.htm
  11. http://www.msnbc.com/news/984071.asp?cp1=1
  12. http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/01/11/bush_tries_to_shape_iraq_debate_in_election_year/