Sunday, September 16, 2007
Let us win
The dynamic in Iraq has changed, but more important is the dynamic in America.
Gen Petreus dominated the news. His testimony was far more important than the President's speech. The speech was a footnote.
What has happened is that the military is making a direct appeal to the American people to let them win the war. This makes the war theirs, not the President's. It's an appeal not to break faith with the men and women fighting in Iraq.
Vietnam is very important here. Most people will admit that it was a mistake, but most people also have little use for the antiwar movement of the time. The disrespect shown to the military 40 years ago casts a long shadow. People don't want to do that again. There is also the realization that the military lost because the public would no longer support it. There's collective guilt about that.
While it is OK to attack the President, going after the military is a lot more difficult. The attack ads against Petreus tried to personalize the war, just like the antiwar movement focuses on President Bush. The trouble is the uniform. Petreus doesn't have much personality beyond his uniform. He's very much a stereotypical professional soldier. He projects competance. This is all very intentional, I'm sure. He's a stand- in for all the officers and men in Iraq. The less personality he shows, the better he'll make his point. I think he'll do the most good by staying the hell away from cameras and reporters. Not letting himself become a focus for antiwar anger is the best strategy.
The military is the most respected institution in the country. By bypassing the political leadership (anyone seen Sec. Gates lately?) they are using that influence to make the war about them rather than the President. They're saying "OK, so there was no WMD. The war was run badly by Bush and Rumsfeld. But now the professionals are running it and we're starting to win. Let us finish the job. You don't like them, but you respect us. Don't let us down, like you did in Vietnam."
This could work. Everything does come down to results. If the Army and Marines can keep winning, I think they'll keep getting the support of the American people. If the President can shut up and let the military remain the focus of the war, then we might just get through this. War supporters should give people enough breathing room to support the war effort without having to endorse the President. Hell, let him be a scapegoat if we can win. Admit what went wrong. Assign blame. There's plenty to go around.
The war has to stop being a Republican war. It has to stop being Bush's war. If it becomes the US military's war, then it's everyone's war. And we can win. It's amazing what you can accomplish if you don't care about taking credit. The war is more important than partisan points.
EDIT: Thanks to Dr. Reynolds for linking.
Gen Petreus dominated the news. His testimony was far more important than the President's speech. The speech was a footnote.
What has happened is that the military is making a direct appeal to the American people to let them win the war. This makes the war theirs, not the President's. It's an appeal not to break faith with the men and women fighting in Iraq.
Vietnam is very important here. Most people will admit that it was a mistake, but most people also have little use for the antiwar movement of the time. The disrespect shown to the military 40 years ago casts a long shadow. People don't want to do that again. There is also the realization that the military lost because the public would no longer support it. There's collective guilt about that.
While it is OK to attack the President, going after the military is a lot more difficult. The attack ads against Petreus tried to personalize the war, just like the antiwar movement focuses on President Bush. The trouble is the uniform. Petreus doesn't have much personality beyond his uniform. He's very much a stereotypical professional soldier. He projects competance. This is all very intentional, I'm sure. He's a stand- in for all the officers and men in Iraq. The less personality he shows, the better he'll make his point. I think he'll do the most good by staying the hell away from cameras and reporters. Not letting himself become a focus for antiwar anger is the best strategy.
The military is the most respected institution in the country. By bypassing the political leadership (anyone seen Sec. Gates lately?) they are using that influence to make the war about them rather than the President. They're saying "OK, so there was no WMD. The war was run badly by Bush and Rumsfeld. But now the professionals are running it and we're starting to win. Let us finish the job. You don't like them, but you respect us. Don't let us down, like you did in Vietnam."
This could work. Everything does come down to results. If the Army and Marines can keep winning, I think they'll keep getting the support of the American people. If the President can shut up and let the military remain the focus of the war, then we might just get through this. War supporters should give people enough breathing room to support the war effort without having to endorse the President. Hell, let him be a scapegoat if we can win. Admit what went wrong. Assign blame. There's plenty to go around.
The war has to stop being a Republican war. It has to stop being Bush's war. If it becomes the US military's war, then it's everyone's war. And we can win. It's amazing what you can accomplish if you don't care about taking credit. The war is more important than partisan points.
EDIT: Thanks to Dr. Reynolds for linking.
# posted by John Lynch @ 6:45 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
I don't take issue with your characterization of America's relationship with it's military. But aren't you addressing only half the equation. General Petraus wasn't alone during his testimony. There was a guy sitting next to him the whole time remember? He wasn't military. He represented the diplomatic/political equation. And both he and Petraus asserted repeatedly that a military 'success' doesn't mean a thing without a political success. Sure, let the military 'keep winning'. Why not? But a 100% 'win' by the military doesn't equal 'sucess'. Unless you're using the president's barometer of success, which we all know is a sliding scale.
# posted by 
: 1:54 PM
: 1:54 PM
Ambassador Crocker is a competant guy. But who paid attention to him?
I know it's going to take an Iraqi political settlement to win the war. That's the current antiwar meme right now, and a lot of people are clinging to it to discount military success. Petreus himself feeds it in his report.
The thing is, the way Iraqis work, some backroom deal may happen one day and all of a sudden it works. That's what happened in Anbar. Boom, peace. Then what's the antiwar position going to be?
I won't hold my breath, but looking at Ramadi makes me wonder. 'Anbar is lost' used to be the meme. Now it's not. Goalpost shifting is done by everyone, but facts on the ground trump everything.
It's more important to have a political settlement in America.
Fine, hate the President. But support the troops in winning the war. Take credit away from the administration, give it to our troops. I'm fine with that. The President should be fine with that.
War is always for political objectives. We may yet fail at those, but we will certainly fail if the military is abandoned. That's their message. I know a lot of people don't agree with that, but it's powerful.
I know it's going to take an Iraqi political settlement to win the war. That's the current antiwar meme right now, and a lot of people are clinging to it to discount military success. Petreus himself feeds it in his report.
The thing is, the way Iraqis work, some backroom deal may happen one day and all of a sudden it works. That's what happened in Anbar. Boom, peace. Then what's the antiwar position going to be?
I won't hold my breath, but looking at Ramadi makes me wonder. 'Anbar is lost' used to be the meme. Now it's not. Goalpost shifting is done by everyone, but facts on the ground trump everything.
It's more important to have a political settlement in America.
Fine, hate the President. But support the troops in winning the war. Take credit away from the administration, give it to our troops. I'm fine with that. The President should be fine with that.
War is always for political objectives. We may yet fail at those, but we will certainly fail if the military is abandoned. That's their message. I know a lot of people don't agree with that, but it's powerful.
I, too, have a problem with saying the military can win. They can beat the insurgents down day and night, but I do not think Iraq can ever be a stable Republic.
A successful Republic requires a certain kind of citizen to be dominant in its demographics. A certain philosophical outlook on politics and life in general. Iraqis, I think, do not have this.
I have every confidence in the US military to destroy the insurgency, even with the ridiculous restrictions we put on them. I have no confidence in the Iraqi people.
A successful Republic requires a certain kind of citizen to be dominant in its demographics. A certain philosophical outlook on politics and life in general. Iraqis, I think, do not have this.
I have every confidence in the US military to destroy the insurgency, even with the ridiculous restrictions we put on them. I have no confidence in the Iraqi people.
I read Michael Totten's report from Ramadi (which is a lot more interesting than anything I'm going to write).
http://michaeltotten.com/
Iraqis don't need a perfect government to have peace. Anbar isn't run from Baghdad, but it's still quiet. That may change, but a Iraq that ends up looking more like Yemen (for example) is preferable than one that looks like Somalia.
Goalpost moving? Yes, it is. But it's driven by what's actually happening on the ground. I'd rather win than have been right all along.
http://michaeltotten.com/
Iraqis don't need a perfect government to have peace. Anbar isn't run from Baghdad, but it's still quiet. That may change, but a Iraq that ends up looking more like Yemen (for example) is preferable than one that looks like Somalia.
Goalpost moving? Yes, it is. But it's driven by what's actually happening on the ground. I'd rather win than have been right all along.
I read Michael Totten's report from Ramadi (which is a lot more interesting than anything I'm going to write).
http://michaeltotten.com/
Iraqis don't need a perfect government to have peace. Anbar isn't run from Baghdad, but it's still quiet. That may change, but a Iraq that ends up looking more like Yemen (for example) is preferable to one that looks like Somalia.
Goalpost moving? Yes, it is. But it's driven by what's actually happening on the ground. I'd rather win than have been right all along.
Oops double post. My apologies.
http://michaeltotten.com/
Iraqis don't need a perfect government to have peace. Anbar isn't run from Baghdad, but it's still quiet. That may change, but a Iraq that ends up looking more like Yemen (for example) is preferable to one that looks like Somalia.
Goalpost moving? Yes, it is. But it's driven by what's actually happening on the ground. I'd rather win than have been right all along.
Oops double post. My apologies.
Excellent post, John. We are "winning" in Iraq, no matter how and/or who defines that word. Developments out of Israel today, re: possible strikes against Syrian/NK nuclear materials on Sept. 6, only reinforces the point that what goes on in that region is critically important to world-wide stability. "Winning" in Iraq is not an option: it is a necessity.
# posted by : 4:06 PM
: 4:06 PM
These men and women in the military in Iraq and around the world are America's response to America's enemies.
They represent all of us - America! This war is not the military's war. It is our war and it will not end in Iraq.
We are no longer fighting "insurgents". The Sunni Insurgents have come to our side and are now supporting the Iraqi Government's Iraqi Army and the US Military against the al Quaeda "foreigners".
The political changes are occuring from the bottom up in Iraq as Sunnis, Shias, Kurds all recognize who the enemy is - al Quaeda in Iraq and the interference of Iran in the Shia Militias.
General Petraeus did a masterful job of explaining the situtation and what is at stake to the American People. Too bad the Democrat Politicians in Congress are still not supporting America's Military.
Let all Americans support these wonderful men and women who are giving their blood for America.
If you personally do not believe there is a war against terrorists who would kill YOU and YOUR CHILDREN perhaps you could emigrate to Europe.
They represent all of us - America! This war is not the military's war. It is our war and it will not end in Iraq.
We are no longer fighting "insurgents". The Sunni Insurgents have come to our side and are now supporting the Iraqi Government's Iraqi Army and the US Military against the al Quaeda "foreigners".
The political changes are occuring from the bottom up in Iraq as Sunnis, Shias, Kurds all recognize who the enemy is - al Quaeda in Iraq and the interference of Iran in the Shia Militias.
General Petraeus did a masterful job of explaining the situtation and what is at stake to the American People. Too bad the Democrat Politicians in Congress are still not supporting America's Military.
Let all Americans support these wonderful men and women who are giving their blood for America.
If you personally do not believe there is a war against terrorists who would kill YOU and YOUR CHILDREN perhaps you could emigrate to Europe.
# posted by : 4:30 PM
: 4:30 PM
I agree that making this war the military's war is a good political tactic. However, the main failure of this war has been poor political leadership. The Army does better now than it did a few years ago but still needs thoughtful political supervision. Bush's management has been too hands-off to provide that supervision. Petraeus is obviously first-class but some of his predecessors were not, and he or someone else equally competent should have been put in charge several years ago. The military won't make such high-level personnel decisions on its own; it needs firm political direction of a type that Bush has not been willing or able to provide. (I am not saying that a President Gore or Kerry would have done better -- I doubt it. I am saying that the military does not and should not fight wars alone.)
# posted by : 5:39 PM
: 5:39 PM
Hi Santiago,
I heard a similar remark about the futility of democracy in the Arab world from a well-educated Lebanese friend, and this was what I said to her:
Do you think that democracy succeeds here in Australia because we are all civilised and enlightened!?
Australian society doesn't consist entirely of ethical, hard-working lower middle class Anglo Saxons like me, it was also built from the deceitful and rapacious descendants of the English upper classes and the ignorant and violent descendants of her lower classes; it incorporated backward, barbaric Irish; hostile, ignorant Scots; scheming, avaricious Jews; and now also includes other large insular ethnic enclaves who hold their host society in contempt like lawless and quarreling Southern Italians and Eastern Europeans; it has accepted failed participants in Nazism and Communism; large sections of our working and middle classes are anti-democratic thugs who still long to live under Communism; and Australia even includes many communities just a few generations removed from the Stone Age!
The Arabs are truly an wonderfully enlightened and civilised people in comparison to the motley rabble of scoundrels and no-hopers that comprises Australian society.
An honest look at American society would find something similar.
Could any authoritarian system hold together our society together? For a decade or two perhaps.
Democracy is not a highly tuned high precision precision vehicle that can only be driven by experts -- democracy is like a tractor with an engine that can run on potato peelings and cow dung. You can run it through cr#p and forget to put in oil for years and it still keeps going. That's democracy!
And if it works for us, it can work for anyone.
I heard a similar remark about the futility of democracy in the Arab world from a well-educated Lebanese friend, and this was what I said to her:
Do you think that democracy succeeds here in Australia because we are all civilised and enlightened!?
Australian society doesn't consist entirely of ethical, hard-working lower middle class Anglo Saxons like me, it was also built from the deceitful and rapacious descendants of the English upper classes and the ignorant and violent descendants of her lower classes; it incorporated backward, barbaric Irish; hostile, ignorant Scots; scheming, avaricious Jews; and now also includes other large insular ethnic enclaves who hold their host society in contempt like lawless and quarreling Southern Italians and Eastern Europeans; it has accepted failed participants in Nazism and Communism; large sections of our working and middle classes are anti-democratic thugs who still long to live under Communism; and Australia even includes many communities just a few generations removed from the Stone Age!
The Arabs are truly an wonderfully enlightened and civilised people in comparison to the motley rabble of scoundrels and no-hopers that comprises Australian society.
An honest look at American society would find something similar.
Could any authoritarian system hold together our society together? For a decade or two perhaps.
Democracy is not a highly tuned high precision precision vehicle that can only be driven by experts -- democracy is like a tractor with an engine that can run on potato peelings and cow dung. You can run it through cr#p and forget to put in oil for years and it still keeps going. That's democracy!
And if it works for us, it can work for anyone.
"If the President can shut up and let the military remain the focus of the war, then we might just get through this."
Well, I still had hope for success in Iraq, even despite who the president might be during the war. But I guess success isn't as important as hating the right people.
Well, I still had hope for success in Iraq, even despite who the president might be during the war. But I guess success isn't as important as hating the right people.
# posted by : 8:08 PM
: 8:08 PM
I think it's due to the overwhelming Chinese pop during primetime. It can't be all Hostile Takeover can it?
# posted by : 8:15 PM
: 8:15 PM
I think most people are missing the most important ramification of the Anbar Awakening. For forty years the Iraqi people have lived in a top-down government structure. When a dictator controls every aspect of your life, you cease to have much pride of ownership in the system. The tribes will always remember that they did what was necessary to secure peace in their own environment. This will translate to the election of responsible representatives.
# posted by : 9:00 PM
: 9:00 PM
If it becomes the US military's war, then it's everyone's war.
I really do wish that were true. Unless the undecideds are engaged, they won't even know there's a war on.
The Party that benefits from American defeat in Iraq is not going to change.
I really do wish that were true. Unless the undecideds are engaged, they won't even know there's a war on.
The Party that benefits from American defeat in Iraq is not going to change.
What has happened is that the military is making a direct appeal to the American people to let them win the war. This makes the war theirs, not the President's. It's an appeal not to break faith with the men and women fighting in Iraq.
...
The military is the most respected institution in the country. By bypassing the political leadership (anyone seen Sec. Gates lately?) they are using that influence to make the war about them rather than the President.
No. The military is not making an appeal, nor would it be proper for them to do so. Petraeus and Crocker were asked by Congress to testify about the situation in Iraq, and they offered their testimony. That's all. I certainly hope we can make well-reasoned decisions, but the way to do that isn't to base them on "putting faith in the troops" or anything. We don't owe it to them to decide one way or another, but to make the correct decision.
Along those lines, it's about time you stopped using the word "win". It's no longer a war, or a competition of any kind. The damage is basically done. We "lost" the moment we set foot in Iraq unprepared to run the country. Iraq is not going to be a shining success story. The world is not going to change its mind and decide what we did was okay. Hundreds of thousands are people are dead, millions out of their homes, and more by the day. Moreover, the public there has no confidence in the government. As long as we have to keep the military there it lacks legitimacy. I certainly think the military ought to stay for now, but we're not going to "win". One day maybe they can leave and we can be happy for that.
...
The military is the most respected institution in the country. By bypassing the political leadership (anyone seen Sec. Gates lately?) they are using that influence to make the war about them rather than the President.
No. The military is not making an appeal, nor would it be proper for them to do so. Petraeus and Crocker were asked by Congress to testify about the situation in Iraq, and they offered their testimony. That's all. I certainly hope we can make well-reasoned decisions, but the way to do that isn't to base them on "putting faith in the troops" or anything. We don't owe it to them to decide one way or another, but to make the correct decision.
Along those lines, it's about time you stopped using the word "win". It's no longer a war, or a competition of any kind. The damage is basically done. We "lost" the moment we set foot in Iraq unprepared to run the country. Iraq is not going to be a shining success story. The world is not going to change its mind and decide what we did was okay. Hundreds of thousands are people are dead, millions out of their homes, and more by the day. Moreover, the public there has no confidence in the government. As long as we have to keep the military there it lacks legitimacy. I certainly think the military ought to stay for now, but we're not going to "win". One day maybe they can leave and we can be happy for that.
# posted by : 12:13 AM
: 12:13 AM
I love it when people underestimate President Bush and his Party (Thank you Gore, Kerry, and Pelosi!). Without Bush standing firm on Iraq, there would be no Petraeus. Without the Repubicans backing Bush, the Dems would have pulled out long ago, with the war going on, just closer to home. We are all in this together, and you can't keep politicians out of this, nor should you in a democracy.
Concerning Petraeus, as important as he is, it just a matter of Lincoln finding his Grant.
Post a Comment
Concerning Petraeus, as important as he is, it just a matter of Lincoln finding his Grant.
<< Home
