Let’s grant up front that a single data point does not a trend make. That out of the way, Bill Ardolino points out that a volunteer for the Fallujah Protectors shares a different view of the role of the US surge in the Anbar Awakening than does New York Democratic Congressman Chuck Schumer. Schumer, recall, had this to say about the US surge [update: seems he has now altered his statement. With his special progressive airbrush!]:
[…] let me be clear, the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al Qaeda said to these tribes we have to fight al Qaeda ourselves. It wasn’t that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here. And that is because there was no one else there protecting.
This assessment doesn’t seem to jibe with the assessments on offer from the few folks in Fallujah Bill has spoken with — but then, what do they know, anyway?
If we can’t concede they are ready for self-governance, why should we allow that they aren’t simply telling us what they think it is we want to hear?
Sneaky, these brown people.
What interests me most, however, is this bit Bill left in the comments, in answer to another commenter’s query about how attuned Iraqis in Fallujah are to the political wranglings / news cycle here in the US:
Folks over here might miss specific statements or political gambits in the US (they’re pretty busy), but plenty gets through, and many are well aware of the general political atmosphere in the United States.
This affects politics in Iraq because some players prep themselves for American withdrawal, rather than counting on long term US brokerage of national unity. The prospect of withdrawal discourages the long view in favor of jockeying for position in the aftermath. That said, US civilian and military strategy presses forward.
Wait, you mean Iraqis are acting in their own self interest — and that such self-interest is, in some cases, dependent upon whether or not they believe the US will honor its commitment?
Scoundrels!
For several years here I’ve been making the argument that what our politicians say, and how our media presents events, will have a demonstrable impact on how the war in Iraq proceeds. This argument has generally been met by those on the anti-war side either with feigned skepticism or outright dismissal.
But the fact is, propaganda and counter-propaganda are an important part of fighting and winning wars, particularly in a representative democracy (where we tend to distance ourselves from the concept of “propaganda” altogether in favor of more “dignified” terms for the very same kinds of persuasion or rhetorical reinforcement). And what we have managed to do in this country is set up a distinct propaganda paradigm in which propaganda campaigns of the sort that galvanize public support and counter the propaganda efforts of our enemies are depicted as untoward and unsophisticated (we are loath to celebrate any kind of military accomplishment, so gauche is such a thing, and so somber we must all pretend to be about the Horrors of War — a phrase that has itself become a virtual marketing tool); while constant self-criticism, and a rush to insist that we hold ourselves to a “higher standard,” has been substituted for “boosterism”.
Which — were the self-criticism even and honest, and the boosterism uncalled for — might prove a laudable frame. But instead, the act of criticizing has come to replace honest and substantive criticism, just as support for war in general has become a kind of vulgarity — the end effect being that we’ve replaced one kind of propaganda with another, and have moved to redefine “patriotism” in such a way that “real” patriotism is defined by one’s willingness to dissent.
And underlying these two propaganda paradigms are two very different attitudes toward the US.
Unfortunately for us, our sophisticates have chosen to reinforce their own sense of moral worth by pretending toward a kind of cultural self-loathing — even though we all know that it is not themselves that they loathe, but rather the kinds of bourgeois clockpunchers they believe are easily swayed by newsreels and the ghost of Bob Hope.
And in doing so, they’ve merely created a new kind of propaganda — one in which the subtext is that we must fight wars with our hands tied in order to keep things “fair” (recall the outrage from certain quarters when the US was found to be feeding stories to Iraqi papers, eg.) or keep ourselves above the bloody fray.
To them, all is fair in politics and rhetoric. In love and war? Not so much.
Or maybe not. Truth is, I’m feeling a bit grumpy today, so take all this with a grain of salt.
****
update: Blackfive’s Uncle Jimbo interviews Ardolino.
Sen. Chucky Schumer would not know the truth if it hit him upside his pointy little head.
Since they are governing themselves and we have them a bunch of guns to fight the AQ folks and the Shias, does that mean we can leave? You know, declare victory and all? Since, we’ve finally won
Salt my ass. Nailed that one, Jeff.
Sounds painful, Joseph.
Or maybe not. Truth is, I’m feeling a bit grumpy today, so take all this with a grain of salt.
From where I’m sitting, you nailed it. And without calling anybody a pussy either. Which is a bit unsatisfying.
By the way, Senator Chuckie has altered the offending comment on his official taxpayer-funded website.
What a putz.
Vandalay – If you have a point to make, spit it out.
And Chuckie is one of the most vile Senators in that institution.
Oh it is. Especially rock salt delivered via shotgun.
Curse my ambiguous grammar.
The proof is in the pudding. There are legitimate reasons to advocate a withdrawal but those don’t fit on a bumper sticker so you don’t hear those and never have. You could have honest dissent and discussion but we don’t.
If the antiwar Left doesn’t want to wear this around their neck they know how to get shed of it. They’re playing to a very emotional crowd, many of whom would leave on Tuesday if victory were guaranteed on Wednesday.
Funny as it sounds, even to me, but I thank God for our President and his stubborn insistence on American resolve. We’d be well and truly fucked if he were even a tiny bit less determined to see this through.
Oh, I’ve got many more data points on the way.
“Or maybe not. Truth is, I’m feeling a bit grumpy today, so take all this with a grain of salt.”
You are grumpy? What do you think my mood is after reading this?! You are spot on. I am going to have to step into a situation where I cannot but believe the Iraqi soldiers I will be training will have the thought in the backs of their minds – “sure, he says this now, but where will he be in a month?”
Thanks so very much Senator Schumer.
Good. Make sure they have really butch mustaches, though, or I’m not sure I can use them.
“It is well that war is so terrible, or we should become too fond of it.”
— Gen. Robert E. Lee, CSA
Vandalay –
your question:
“Since they are governing themselves and we have them a bunch of guns to fight the AQ folks and the Shias, does that mean we can leave? You know, declare victory and all? Since, we’ve finally won”
I’ll pretend that your question isn’t rhetorical and answer: No. It’s a process. The security momentum in Anbar in our favor is almost unstoppable, depending on continued economic development and political reconciliation with (read: resources from) the national govt. This can be accomplished a few ways: a change in leadership at the national level, continued brokerage & pressure by America with the current leadership, mistakes from our strategic enemies, the development of Anbar’s economy, and thus attractiveness to Iraq as a whole, the increase in Sunni power and leverage through provincial elections, and the potential, though difficult, triumph of Iraqi nationalism. There is also still potential for things like soft partition of the country, though no one except many of the Kurds and some of the Shia are really excited about the idea.
All and any positive outcomes will take more time. But more and more, given how utterly violent and hopeless the province was when I was last here, and how astoundingly different things are at the moment, I’m coming to believe that much more than one may think is possible.
And one of the main strategic enemies in Iraq – al Qaeda in Mesopotamia – is discredited nationwide (perhaps regionally) and literally in its dying gasps.
A lot of people are working very hard out here to make Iraq a success. The personnel in Anbar can only accomplish things to the limit of their area of operations, and that they are doing this very well. But the history that Iraq will be a disaster or a civil war is not written yet. There are many Iraqis that have not given up on the concept of Iraq – a Sunni, Shia and kurdish Iraq.
And if you don’t trust my impressions, I can only urge you to come out here and see what is going on for yourself. I’m not playing the chicken-embed card, but honestly stressing that first-hand observation adds dimensions to the shallow impressions that many folks currently have about Iraq.
[…] response to my earlier post on propaganda, counter-propaganda, and the shifting of the propaganda paradigm, I received the […]
“I’ll pretend that your question isn’t rhetorical and answer: No.”
He can’t here you, Bill, he is too busy trying to boil a 3-minute egg in 45 seconds.
Seriously, thanks for the job you are doing, I got a bonus coming up soon and a chunk of it will be heading your way.
*hear* The word is hear hear HEAR!
I am not really an ignorant hillbilly, I just play one on teh internets.
Jeff,
I can’t help thinking that the misuse of the word “War” to describe civil collective actions, as in “War on Poverty,” War on Drugs,” etc., has complicated the task of rallying our nation to perform militant collective actions.
Just sayin’s all.
So, why can’t our politicians come up with a word other than “war” to describe the collective works of a nation’s citizens during peacetime.
Maybe they just lack a good thesaurus. But, I think it’s because both parties have been playing taudry rhetorical games – and poisoning the discursive well, so to say – for years now. And the result is, finally, in 2007, the chickens are coming home to roost.
“I’m not playing the chicken-embed card, but honestly stressing that first-hand observation adds dimensions to the shallow impressions that many folks currently have about Iraq.”
Forget it, Bill. I’ve tried to offer folks my own first-hand observations from the time I spent in Iraq, only to be told, “You’re too close to the issue.” Open minds, my dimpled ass.
cjd, when they say “You’re too far away to see” or “you’re to close to see” or “you’re only getting part of the story,” translate this as “your facts are not congruent with my narrative!”
Senator Schumer Gets a Pass on Slandering the Troops…
Newsbusters is reporting that Armchair General Media hog Senator Chuck Schumer is getting a pass from the old media for his comments slandering our Troops in a speech he gave on the floor last week. In fact, the old media has whitewashed it…
[…] More posts on this can be found at Hot Air, INDC Journal, Blog-o-Fascists, BizzyBlog, Thought Mesh, Protein Wisdom […]
[…] posts on this can be found at Hot Air, INDC Journal, Blog-o-Fascists, BizzyBlog, Thought Mesh, Protein Wisdom More Political […]