|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland
Posts: 24,806
|
Who will keep his nerve?
Great article.
TR
March 24, 2006
Hard Pounding
Who will keep his nerve?
by Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online
If I could sum up the new orthodoxy about Iraq, it might run something like the following: "I supported the overthrow of the odious Saddam Hussein. But then the poor postwar planning, the unanticipated sectarian strife and insurrection, the mounting American losses, the failure to find weapons of mass destruction - all that and more lost my support. Iraq may or may not work out, but I can see now it clearly wasn't worth the American effort."
Aside from the old rehash over disbanding the Iraqi army or tardiness in forming a government, three observations can be made about this "readjustment" in belief. First, the nature of the lapses after March 2003 is still the subject of legitimate debate; second, our mistakes are no more severe than in most prior wars; and third, they are not fatal to our cause.
Consider the most frequently alleged errors: the need for more troops; the need to have restored immediate order; and the need to have had up-armored vehicles and some tactical counterplan to improvised explosive devices.
In none of these cases, was the manner of the solution all that clear-cut - especially since on the first day of the war the United States was trying to avoid targeting civilians, avoiding infrastructure as much as possible, and waging a supposed war of liberation rather than one of punitive annihilation.
Had we brought in another 200,000 troops to secure Iraq, the vast increases in the size and cost of American support might not have been commensurate within an increased ability to put down the insurrection, which from the beginning was decentralized and deliberately designed to play off larger concentrations of conventional patrolling Americans - the more targets the better.
The insurrection broke out not so much because we had 200,000 rather than 400,000 troops in country; but rather because a three-week strike that decapitated the Baathist elite, despite its showy "shock and awe" pyrotechnics, was never intended, World War II-like, to crush the enemy and force terms on a shell-shocked, defeated, and humiliated populace. Many of our challenges, then, are not the war in Iraq per se, but the entire paradox of postmodern war in general in a globally televised world.
And if the point of Iraq was to stress "Iraqification" and avoid too large an American footprint in the Middle East, then ubiquitous Americans may have posed as many problems as they solved - with two or three Green zones rather than one. Instead of drawing down to 100,000 we might now be talking of hoping to keep below 300,000 troops.
Past history suggests that military efficacy is not so much always a question of the number of troops - but rather of how they are used. Especially large American deployments can foster dependency rather than autonomy on the part of the Iraqi security forces. Each month, fewer Americans are dying in Iraq, while more Iraqis are fighting the terrorists - as it becomes clear to them that some enormous occupation force is not on its own going to save the Iraqis' democracy for them.
The looting should have been stopped. But by the same token, after the statue fell, had the U.S. military begun immediately to shoot looters on sight - and that was what restoring order would have required - or carpet bombed the Syrian and Iranian borders to stop infiltration, the outcry would have arisen that we were too punitive and gunning down poor and hungry people even in peace. I fear that 400,000 peacekeepers, given the rules of postbellum engagement, would have been no more likely to shoot thieves than would 200,000.
We forget that one of the reasons for the speed of the American advance and then the sudden rush to stop military operations - as was true in the first Gulf War - was the enormous criticism leveled at the Americans for going to war in the first place, and the constant litany cited almost immediately of American abuses involving excessive force. Shooting looters may have restored order, but it also would have now been enshrined as an Abu-Ghraib-like crime - a photo of a poor "hungry" thief broadcast globally as an unarmed victim of American barbarism. We can imagine more "Highway of Death" outrage had we bombed concentrations of Shiites pouring in from Iran or jihadists from Syria going to "weddings" and "festivals" in Iraq.
Throughout this postmodern war, the military has been on the horns of a dilemma: Don't shoot and you are indicted for being lax and allowing lawlessness to spread; shoot and you are gratuitously slandered as a sort of rogue LAPD in camouflage. We hear only of the deliberately inexact rubric "Iraqi civilian losses" - without any explanation that almost all the Iraqi dead are either (1) victims of the terrorists, (2) Iraqi security forces trying to defend the innocent against the terrorists, or (3) the terrorists themselves.
Legitimate questions arise as to whether America' army is too small, or whether requisite political support for military operations is too predicated on the 24-hour news cycle. But all those are issues transcending the war in Iraq. In retrospect, up-armoring humvees would have been wise from the very outset - so would having something remotely comparable to a Panzerfaust in 1943, more live than dud torpedoes in 1942, or deploying a jet at the beginning of the Korean War that could compete with a Russian Mig 15.
So again, the proper question is not whether there were tragic errors of judgment in Iraq - but to what degree were they qualitatively different from past errors that are the stuff of war, to what degree were they addressed and corrected, and to what degree did their commission impair the final verdict of the mission?
Instead of this necessary ongoing discussion, we are left with former hawks that clamor ad nauseam for the secretary of Defense's resignation as a sort of symbolic atonement for their own apparently collective lament that the postwar did not turn out like the aftermaths of Panama, Kosovo, Afghanistan, or Gulf War I. All that angst is about as helpful as perpetually damning Turkey for not letting the 4th ID come down from the north into the Sunni Triangle at the beginning of the war.
It is often said we had no plan to deal with postwar Iraq. Perhaps. But the problem with such a simplistic exegesis is that books and articles now pour forth weekly from disgruntled former constitutional architects and frustrated legal experts who once rushed in to draft Iraqi laws, or angry educationists and bankers whose ideas about school charters or currency regulations were not fully implemented. Somebody apparently had some sort of plan - or the legions that went into the Green Zone in Spring 2003 wouldn't have been sent there immediately in the first place.
Yes, we had zillions of plans alright - but whether they were sufficient to survive the constant and radically changing cycles of war is another matter, especially in a long-failed state plagued with fundamentalism, tribalism, chaos, insurrection, and Sunni, Shiite, and Baathist militias whose leadership had been routed rather than its military crushed. The best postwar plans do not work as they should when losing enemies feel that they won't be flattened and a successful attacker feels it can't really flatten them.
In March 2004 perhaps our initial manner of enacting the "plan" - train the Iraqi security forces, craft a consensual government, and put down the terrorists - was thwarted by our inexperience and naiveté. But by March 2006, the identical plan seems to be working far better - precisely because, as in all wars, we have adapted, modified, and nuanced our way of fighting and nation-building, as American fatalities decrease and Iraqis step up to fight for their freedom.
Nothing in this war is much different from those of the past. We have fought suicide bombers in the Pacific. Intelligence failures doomed tens of thousands - not 2,300 - at the Bulge and Okinawa. We pacified the Philippines through counterinsurgency fighting. Failure to calibrate the extent of Al Zarqawi's insurrection pales before the Chinese crossing of the Yalu.
Even our current clinical depression is typically American. In July 1864, Lincoln was hated and McClellan and the Copperheads who wished a cessation of war and bisection of country canonized. Truman left office with the nation's anger that he had failed in Korea. As George Bush Sr. departed, the conventional wisdom was that the budding chaos and redrawing of the map of Eastern Europe would prompt decades of instability as former Communists could not simply be spoon fed democracy and capitalism. During Afghanistan by week five we were in a quagmire; the dust storm supposedly threatened our success in Iraq - in the manner that the explosion of the dome at Samarra marked the beginning of a hopeless civil war that "lost" Iraq.
The fact is that we are close to seeing a democratically elected government emerge, backed by an increasingly competent army, pitted against a minority of a minority in Zaraqawi's Wahhabi jihadists.
While we worry about our own losses, both human and financial, al Qaeda knows that thousands of its terrorists are dead, with its leadership dismantled or in hiding - and most of the globe turning against it. For all our depression at home, we can still win two wars - the removal of Saddam Hussein and the destruction of jihadists that followed him - and leave a legitimate government that is the antithesis of both autocracy and theocracy.
Syria is out of Lebanon - but only as long as democracy is in Iraq. Libya and Pakistan have come clean about nuclear trafficking - but only as long as the U.S. is serious about reform in the Middle East.
__________________
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - President Theodore Roosevelt, 1910
De Oppresso Liber 01/20/2025
|
Linear Mode
