A fantastic and genuinely informative debate here, between Bill Quick and his commenters—including Steven Den Beste, Ric Locke, Kim du Toit, Dean Douthat, Veeshir, and other smart folk—over progress (or lack thereof) in the GWOT.
Well worth reading all the way through (though it starts to get a bit personal toward the end).
For the time being, I’ll leave it to you to guess where I stand on these matters. In fact, I’m eager to hear from you just exactly how I come across on this issue. Then, when I’m better rested, I hope to comment at some length.
(h/t Cold Fury)
****
related: Andrew McCarthy, “Mission Shift,” NRO (h/t Dailypundit)
I’m with Den Beste on this one. I suspect you are, too.
I am too, but at the same time I believe that the Iraqi’s are too slow to stand up and assume leadership in government and on the battlefield. I think that this war will expand much wider before it is over, despite the best intentions at the top to keep it narrow in scope. I think that without the power of the blogs and the internet, the American people would be too willing to listen to a despondent version of events delivered everyday by the MSM. I believe at the end of the day we will win this war because what we are trying to accomplish is better than what our enemy is.
I will admit it is hard to remain optimistic at times but it is imperative that enough of us do so. We must never cede the argument to those who claim to love America, but who’s every word and action belies that notion. We must fight if even only with our words, and we must win.
I agree with Den Beste that its “steady as she goes for as long as she goes” only because I think it’s “reality based”.
I would love to jump on the Bill Quick bandwagon and advocate rapid expansion of the “hot” phase of this war to Iran and Syria except for one thing: I just don’t believe there is a political stomach for it here at home, and am not sure we have the military for it to accomplish our aims in the field short of using tactical nukes (see “No Stomach For It At Home”). We sure as bloody hell won’t get any help from our current “Allies” for such an expansion.
Bill’s right that something must be done about Syria and Iran, though. Not to draw icky Viet Nam parallels, but we can’t leave these bases of “insurgent” activity alone as somehow sacrosant and off limits to military punishment.
But it is an interesting and informative debate.
Quick seems awfully hostile in that thread.
Anyway, he left out an important part of his argument that Bush = FDR (which is specious no matter which side it comes from).
FDR didn’t have a gargantuan press/media constantly expressing, at best, skepticism about his policies, his statements, his strategy. In fact, he had Hollywood actively assisting him in the effort to beat Nazism and Japanese imperialism.
It’s not even necessarily Right-versus-Left … it’s second-guessers versus people who’d like to win this fight and leave at least some of the decision-making up to the people in charge.
A great discussion indeed. Long, but very useful. And I too agree with Den Beste – Iraq and Afghanistan are just first steps and that this will be a war that will probably last as long as the Cold War did, should we keep our resolve. It’s not a war to destroy people or things—it’s to change an ideology, to educate, and to build, and those things take time. Generations, even.
You, however, come across as a rabid idiot with your insistence that Mother Sheehan was to blame for 9/11 and that the dolphin in the pea coat had a clear shot at Saddam back in 1983, but that Carter personally intervened to pull him out and thus set up what is now the Halliburton dynasty. Carter’s presidency ended in 1981, so like, how stupid is that theory?
And your assertion about waiting in line at the car wash being a quagmire ‘just like Vietnam’? Lazy thinking, dude. It was far more like the battle of Stalingrad, but without the harsh winter battles.
Seriously though, you come across in much the same way as Den Beste and others who caution patience. And you are tireless in pointing out how the left is so intent on regaining control of the US government that they’re actively working for and promoting failure. You accurately point out that if they win, they really lose, as do we all. (Burqas, anyone?) And you confront that defeatist threat better than anyone I know; with humor, logic, history, and the occasional discussion with Leif Garrett, when the need arises.
Yeah, Jeff, you’re with De Beste, because you’ve worked on campuses and you know, as I do, that the manpower for what Quick is proposing isn’t there.
Yeah, after watching Bill call Den Beste every name in the book while trying to make his “point”, I made kind of a snide comment and almost got banned for it. I probably shouldn’t have said what I said to him on his site, but I think he was just “having a meltdown” along with his argument.
I agree with Den Beste that patience is needed. Of course there is plenty of room for constructive criticsm, but there is a difference between constructive criticsm and abandoning ship. Painting every single piece of bad news as proof of failure is abandoning ship, and abandoning ship does nothing but objectively help the enemy.
I’ll go along with SDB (and with Jeff, I suspect). I’ll throw in a few additional points, though.
Both Steven and Bill were throwing around a lot of historical parallels, some more apt than others. One that hasn’t been noted is the occupation of Germany and Japan. In both cases it was several years before the national governments regained full sovereignty, and the US kept a close eye on them for decades after that. Germany, Japan, and South Korea are the only available examples of countries where democratic governments have been successfully fostered, and in all three cases it was a long, slow, incremental process. There’s never been any reason to believe Iraq would be any different. Democracy can take hold in Iraq and the region if we make a serious long-term commitment to the project; if we don’t, then it will fail. Griping because it isn’t happening overnight is just buying into the tiresome leftie tactic of setting an utterly unrealistic standard for success and branding everything that falls short as a complete failure.
Bill’s parallel with the Civil War completely fails to hold up, mostly because of the casualties and general level of destruction. In four years 600,000 people were killed; proportionately, that would be equivalent to a war that killed something like 4.5 million people today. In World War II, 300,000 Americans died, in a country with less than half our current population. 33,600 U.S. troops died in Korea, and 58,200 in Vietnam. Compare those figures to the 1800 soldiers who have died in Iraq over the last three years (out of 350,000 who have served there). For that matter, compare it to the 1,533 police officers who have died in the line of duty over the last decade (out of a total force of 740,000). Iraq isn’t a country at peace, but it’s easily lthe least deadly conflict we’ve ever fought.
Jeff identified a big part of the reason for the current defeatism a few days ago, in his post on the lack of context for reports of casulaties. If war reporting in World War II had consisted of nothing but strings of fatalitiesâ€â€Ã¢â‚¬Å“1492 DEAD IN GUADALCANAL CAMPAIGN;†“1009 KILLED IN TARAWA ASSAULTâ€Ââ€â€the war effort would have been called off somewhere in the central Pacific. For a whole string of reasons, the MSM have basically decided what the Iraq War narrative is going to be, and mere facts won’t dissuade them from describing a challenging but worthwhile task as an unbearable burden. Granted, the administration has done almost nothing to challenge the MSM version of the facts. But it’s still depressing to see bloggers on the right starting to buy into this scenario.
Utron,
Good points. Framing the battle in terms of loss of life is always a losing proposition for us, as the Americans put a high value on life, and will always see any death statistic as “bad news.”
I think what Bill is trying to get at is that he thinks Bush is going to pull up short on the war out of protection of his reputation. He sees military action against Syria and Iran as essential to winning the war, and the fact that it hasn’t happened is a result of Bush’s incompetence as a wartime President.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume that Bush DID want to respond militarily to either Syria or Iran. Even if this was the case, there is no way he would ever get such actions passed in Congress. The absolute worse thing we could ever do is to threaten military action against a country only to have it defeated by the legislature. Talk about emboldening our enemies!
The current problem in this battle happens to lie within the public perception of how we are doing. The administration hasn’t done a whole helluva a lot to improve this perception, so part of the bed they lie in is a result of this failure. However, there is a significant portion of our very own people that will stop at nothing to point out each and every bad piece of news is direct evidence of strategic failure.
That is one of the reasons I love this blog so much. Jeff absolutely antagonizes the crap out of those people and their absurd arguments.
I’m eager to hear from you just exactly how I come across on this issue…
Well, if you know what’s good for you, you’ll come across the way your Jewish masters tell you to!
I couldn’t point to the specific posts that would back me up on this, but it seems to me that you believe:
(a) the GWOT is an important and legitimate fight
(b) it will take a long time and will require a marathon approach – 40 years is not a crazy figure
(c) setbacks and difficulties are inevitable
(d) our most powerful enemies are the ones right here who don’t want us to win – in pretty much the exact same way that our most formidable Cold War opponents wasn’t the USSR, it was the Americans who wanted the USSR to win
(e) COCK COCK COCK COCK COCK
Sorry, so many words without “cock”, I lost control of myself.
If Russell Simmons secedes from America and becomes king of his own tiny nation, and Bush sends in troops to restore American sovereignty, will it be all about the hiphopcracy?
Quick’s had a temperament problem for a long time. I’ve been sticking to reading adults myself.
TF6S:
Good comments, but I think there are actually 2 current problems.
1) Public perception, as you discussed
2) Political correctness/lawyerization at the Pentagon and State Department
I submit that #2 is directly causing a lot of the confusing/weak/bad strategy that Bill and others have noted, and it’s amplifying Bush’s natural tendency to be obsequious to the Saudis. Why did our troops have to call a lawyer to ask if they could kill Mullah Omar? In what universe does that make sense?
I hate to say it, but both sides make cogent arguments, and it seems impossible to tell which side is right at this point in time. Bill and Steven both want to see America safe from the threat of WMD out of the Middle East; they differ on which path to take.
Bill’s side requires a level of commitment that I don’t think the current electorate will provide, and destabilizes so much so quickly that managing the aftermath seems well-nigh impossible.
The SDB side requires a level of patience that I don’t think the current electorate will provide, and allows our enemies an uncomfortable amount of breathing room to develop “weapons of deterrence” against us. And if Bill is right, and one of these regimes really does provide a nuke (or equivalent) to an AQ-type group, well, let’s just say that managing the aftermath seems well-nigh impossible.
Yes, we should get Iraq on its feet. Yes, we need to block the flow of men and materiel into Baghdad. Yes, we should be putting a lot more pressure on the neighbors. Yes, the media is rooting against us. Yes, we need a leader who can spell out our strategy and inspire the country to see it through. No, Bush is not that leader. So, what options do we really have?
Bill and Steven are both right, and both wrong. As is usually the case for all of us.
Cylon detector: points, as in “both sides made ‘em.”
I disagree with Bill Quick as to his general point in this case, but he (and Donald Sensing) are right in that the administration is pretty mealy-mouthed when it comes to saying anything of substance as far as what progress we’re making, and how far this is going to have to go.
What has been said up to this point (assuming it’s actually reported correctly and in context; hardly a given considering that elements of the media are bordering on openly hostile towards anything to do with GWB or his administration) has been a barely-adequate start. People need to hear this shit, and need to be able to put it into context – it’s a lack of understanding (by the general populace) that leads to weariness and the rise of the “fuck it, nuke them and be done with it” line of reasoning. The overall goal is to help change the political culture in the mid-east – that’s a pretty ambitious plan. That’s why it is too important to simply spout off platitudes and hope people figure it out on their own.
RDub, I hope you don’t mind if I piggy-back off your comments. I think you point out to what I also agree is our weakest effort in the war:
This is war where much that is occurring is happening behind closed doors. Many of our successes are going to be kept secret for some time. However, especially with regards to Iraq, the Administration has been tight-lipped as they view admitting to any failures as a sign of weakness. This keeps them removed from the process and completely incapable of maintaining any forward momentum in public perception.
Ian Wood, at Astonished Head, did a great job of explaining the administration’s weakness in this area about a year-and-a-half ago:
Bush needs to realize that admitting to failures is not a sign of weakness, it is just that “we the people” need to be reminded why we still need to fight it out and that, in the sum total of this war, we are winning.
I want it BOTH ways, a little bit, maybe. But I really do have a strong definite possible maybe position.
I agree wth SDB that progress is being made. Look to Hitchen’s article, he recites the positives, PLUS all of the reconstruction in Iraq, the recent polls reflecting the people’s desire for a Democratic government and the progress made in Saudia Arabia (inch by inch). I disagree that it is going to take upwards of 40 yrs or so, I believe no more than a generation.
At the same time, I am appalled with the “so called” prosecution of the war. We have the mightiest military in the history of the world, the best traained troops with the latest in technology and for all that, we might as well cut our dicks off and call ourselves pussies.
You cannot fight a <object is to bring the enemy to his knees, remove all of his weapons and <b>make damn sure</b> that he knows the consequences of any future resistance.
I fault Bush for the prosecution of the war only because I also think that he is too influenced by public opinion – and that flows down to the Commanders in the field.
I don’t know what happened but that should be:
“you cannot fight a politically correct war, the object is”
Preview, preview, preview.
*sigh*
I hate to point out something that may have been missed. You cannot force a nation to accept democracy, because the very act belies the ideas.
TW: effect, as in “cause and…”
Projecting my beliefs onto Jeff, this is what I think Jeff believes:
SDB is right. Patience is required, and our ability to win is primarily a factor of our nation’s fortitude. Further, expectations have to be realistic with respect to what constitutes “victory.” “Good enough” is good enough.
Because there’s no centralized enemy, there will never be a ticker tape parade and banner headlines proclaiming “We Win.” Rather, victory will look pretty indistinct and mundane, characterized by a quietly contentious stability between Israel and Palestine, and a host of imperfect Middle-East democracies that strive to marginalize and prosecute an ever-present caste of ineffectual religious/political radicals. Such a cultural shift cannot be accomplished quickly or by force of arms alone.
But Bill is kind of right too. Like it or not, there’s a political time window Bush and the neocons are working in. We’d like to see America have the fortitude to see this through for 40+ years, but the ugly truth is, we don’t have it. Perhaps if Bush were a more charismatic politician he could have sold this to the fickle idealists and social elites as the next next step in their morally righteous civil rights movement (with good reason). But when uninspired, Americans are impatient and the press is an unrelentingly negative influence.
A reactionary Democratic President will be elected far too soon, (in part because of defeatism from people like Bill) and in an effort to cozy back into Europe’s good graces, he/she will declare the GWOT a mistake or prematurely “good enough,” thereby relegating Middle East democracy, and in all likelihood, Israel itself, to the ignominious pile of failed socio-political experiments.
Which is to say, we’re on a tightrope…. And yes, there’s a time limit…. But Bill’s jumping up and down isn’t helping.
SDB nails it, and Bill’s claim to have “handled” him is overblown by quite a long stretch.
Assertions, such as Bill’s, that there was a perfect way to do things, are flatly absurd. Steven knows this, engineer or not, and Bill’s apparently gotten overheated in the juxtaposition between “we should kill them all and occupy their oilfields” and “oh my god, we’re losing!”.
Recognizing, up front, that it was going to be hard, is the key to equanimity on the matter, and SDB seems honestly comfortable, as well he should be.
While I’m troubled by continued difficulties and dead American soldiers, it hasn’t occurred to me there’s any way for us to “lose” this battle with Islamic extremists unless we’re successfully hectored by those among us who desire our defeat. After this battle, there will be others, and the war won’t be over until the last battle, but that’s no reason to get all weak-kneed during this particular battle.
We can’t be beaten on the physical battlefield, in other words, without the help of our weakest supposed compatriots. Perhaps on Bill Quick’s “personal battlefield”, defeat is possible, but more rational folk, with more rational initial expectations, will tend to avoid such self defeat. Or so I continue to hope.
Bill appears to be in the fevered stages of war fatigue. This is understandable, as I have battled this malaise myself, but I would join other voices in urging patience. While overt progress in the “GWOT†may appear to have stalled, the most critical (and largely unreported – go figure) facet of this struggle is still well underway:
http://www.memri.org/reform.html
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/967715B8-276C-4708-AC08-7FD102E13BA7.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45575-2005Feb22.html
Ultimately the regional nexus of stagnant medieval tribalism, religious fundamentalism, tyranny, and terrorism will have to be defeated from within via reformation of Middle East culture, and by its very nature can never be defeated exclusively at the end of an M-16 barrel. While Bill seems to long for the days of a uniformed national enemy and total war doctrine (the types of conflicts in which we are virtually undefeatable), this is simply a much different kind of conflict.
I would argue that we are at a critical juncture in the GWOT, and for now we are better served by holding steadfast in Afghanistan & Iraq, allowing and encouraging the dialogues of reform to continue, while expanding covert actions in places like Syria & Iran. It will be years before we know the full extent of covert operations currently being performed. My guess is that in addition to overt diplomatic pressures on Iran and multinational efforts like the Proliferation Security Initiative, a covert war to overthrow the regime is well underway. While Afghanistan and Iraq are examples of forced reformation from without; an internal upheaval & subsequent regime change in Iran would prove priceless in encouraging reformist moderates in the region that such a thing is possible even without full-scale American military intervention.
Invasions of Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, while remaining options (and options more easily facilitated by our current military-intelligence footprint throughout the region), are not only politically & militarily impossible at this time, but would likely serve to undermine our long-term strategy of dragging medieval mindsets into the 21st century. At this critical juncture it would likely only serve to empower the Terror-Masters (and Leftist) propagandizing of infidel empire building, and would swing a significant number of potential moderates to extremism.
An Iraq exit strategy through Syria and Iran remain as strategic options. But they are both ill-advised and infeasible options at present.