The Andrew Bacevich collection

[Steve Blair]

Agreed. People have just as much right to oppose his opposition as he does to take the position to begin with. Both forms of expression are protected. His is no better than theirs. This is one thing that many elements in this country (on both sides of the fence) have a great deal of difficulty coming to grips with.

[John T. Fishel]

Since I saw Colonel/Dr. Bacevich's piece early this morning I debated long and hard about whether to post a response. Any critical response is likely to cause hurt to someone who has lost so much. Nevertheless, he has stepped into the public debate and chosen to use his son's tragic death to support his argument and, therefore it is appropriate to respond.

First, it is unconscionable to accuse Colonel Bacevich of being responsible for his son's death. But it is also appropriate, as 120 points out, to note that opposition to the war does undercut the troops and their effort. Again, as 120 states, is there a greater good served by this opposition? In this case, I think not, at least, not in the terms that the debate has taken.

This is not the first US counterinsurgency that Colonel Bacevich has opposed. He was the lead author of the famous (infamous) Four Colonels Report on the US effort to support COIN in El Salvador. In that report, he was wrong both as a military observer and analyst. This was a case where we and our allies got it right yet Bacevich argued that we were doomed to lose. The central argument was that we had sent in our second team, something that turns out to have been totally inaccurate as veterans of the El Sal MILGP built a better track record of promotion and responsible position than any other similar group in the contemporary Army.

Since leaving the Army Dr. Bacevich has been a professor of International Relations at Boston University. There, he has written on the American Empire - a position that is both highly polemical and questionable in empirical terms. Some of that line of reasoning appears in his Washington Post commentary which comes out sounding very much like Marine Major General Smedley Butler in the 1930s. IMO Dr./COL Bacevich's argument has about the same level of validity. One need only ask how the major oil companies have profited by the war in Iraq.

In short, while I certainly sympathize with his loss, I am saddened to see the discussion take the form it has.

[Tom Odom]

In short, while I certainly sympathize with his loss, I am saddened to see the discussion take the form it has.

Agreed, John T. I posted earlier when I first heard of the loss, offering appropriate sympathies.

Best

Tom

[jcustis]

I'm curious, and I hope this doesnt spin this thread off track, but where is the empirical evidence that opposition to a war aids the enemy?

In our current fight, how does opposition factor into things? Is it possible for a jihadist to become emboldened because an article is posted in the New York Times?

[WVO]

To build on jcustis's question, is the main effect of opposition that it supports the enemy directly or that it erodes support at home?

Certainly Bacevich is entitled to his opinion, any media outlet is entitled to publish it, and anyone is entitled to oppose it. Perhaps his best know published work ,"The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War," was pretty polarizing when it was published a couple of years ago, as mentioned in an above posting. It is among a body of newer writings expounding on the virtues of isolationism. It would be nice to redeploy behind our oceans and pull up the drawbridge, but that didn't work between the World Wars and is even less like to work in an ever more globalized international environment.

[SWJED]

To build on jcustis's question, is the main effect of opposition that it supports the enemy directly or that it erodes support at home?

Certainly Bacevich is entitled to his opinion, any media outlet is entitled to publish it, and anyone is entitled to oppose it. Perhaps his best know published work ,"The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War," was pretty polarizing when it was published a couple of years ago, as mentioned in an above posting. It is among a body of newer writings expounding on the virtues of isolationism. It would be nice to redeploy behind our oceans and pull up the drawbridge, but that didn't work between the World Wars and is even less like to work in an ever more globalized international environment.

Nice first post - to the point and quite true. Thanks.

Isolationism is not an option regardless of one's desires to "pull-back" and defend Fortress America. Unless we remain engaged - and not just military kinetic - we lose - plain and simple.

[John T. Fishel]

First, I know of no quantitative studies of the subject. There may be some that address the issue indirectly but I don't specifically know of any.

But empirical evidence does not need to be quantitative. There is plenty of evidence that the French lost Algeria when the French public lost faith in both Algerie Francaise and the French Army. There is also a lot of evidence that opposition to the Vietnam War aided the VC/NVA in their cause by influencing US policy and actual support to the RVN. The survey data do correlate with policy.

Finally, this issue is all part of the war for legitimacy which is fought in the country where the war takes place, the countries that support the "host government," and the "court of world opinion." (Sorry about the shorthand.)

[selil]

Agreed. People have just as much right to oppose his opposition as he does to take the position to begin with. Both forms of expression are protected. His is no better than theirs.

Actually I disagree with this position. It may seem minor.

"He" has the right to oppose the war.

"You" have the right to support the war.

If you oppose his opposition you add nothing to the debate and define your argument by his opposition. This fails to provide discourse and into the vacuum of errant ideas only fallacious logic will fall. The debate will quickly turn to an attack of the person rather than a discussion of the ideas.

[Jimbo]

Great post John T.

Selil, interesting thought, but I would contend that opposing Dr Bacevich's opposition was meant in terms of being "pro" Iraq War, not necessarily the doctor himself. I do find it interesting that his families story is special, and roughly another 3,398 and are not.

This begs a further question that was raised regarding supporting the enemy. While commentary and honest discourse do lend aid to the enemy in a very abstract and tangential manner. However, in the U.S. today, the discourse has dropped to an irrational level below polemical tracts and muckraking articles of our history. This does give "aid" to an enemy. Not direct aid, but definately indirect aid. Since most guerilla warfare theory defines insurgency/guerilla warfare as a protracted conflict utilizing guerilla tactics to defeat the political will of a militarily superior enemy, then I would argue that the fact that beyond normal discourse gets mass media exposure, the guerillas/insurgents are aided.

[Bill Moore]

Does opposing the war actually aid the enemy? Unfortunately it does aid the enemy for the following reasons.

1. The enemy cannot defeat us militarily, so he aims to defeat us by influencing the American homefront to pressure its politicians to pull the military out.

2. A vocal public dissent provides motivation for the enemy to stay in the fight. One of the key factors for maintaining an insurgency is maintaining the belief that victory is possible. It is difficult to convince the enemy to put his weapons down and join the political process while he still thinks he has a chance of winning.

The bottom line is a vocal opposition to the war tells the enemy his strategy is on track, yet as painful and confusing as it may be it is still isn't an act of treason.

We all swore or affirmed to protect our constitution, and in so doing the implied task is to protect the freedom of our citizens, to include the freedom to protest the conflict. I would rather live in a nation where the people have the moral courage to stand up to the government "if" they believe the government is wrong. Of course the sad and confusing truth is that now much of the protest isn't based on strong moral convictions, but rather crowd mentality that blindly follows the far left so called Hollywood elites, and a few idiotic professors in our academic communities. The last thing I want to see in the U.S. is a mindless mass movement like Hilter started with the Nazi Party, but if we ever have it one it will come from the political correct far left.

Regardless of whether you support or protest the war, we have to deal with the reality of loyal dissent. Our strategy and actions in OIF can still influence the majority of the population to support the effort, but first we have to get our strategic communications game on track, stop politicizing the war, and stop blaming the press and protesters for our woes.

[120mm]

Actually I disagree with this position. It may seem minor.

"He" has the right to oppose the war.

"You" have the right to support the war.

If you oppose his opposition you add nothing to the debate and define your argument by his opposition. This fails to provide discourse and into the vacuum of errant ideas only fallacious logic will fall. The debate will quickly turn to an attack of the person rather than a discussion of the ideas.

That is too simplistic to include "my" viewpoint. I oppose the war. But I oppose losing the war, more than I oppose the war. I think that vocal opposition of the war is counterproductive in this case. Therefore I oppose Bacevich's point of view. Bacevich attacks my point of view as illegitimate.

Frankly, I think my argument is the better one, though it runs counter to what many believe.

[tequila]

Our strategy and actions in OIF can still influence the majority of the population to support the effort, but first we have to get our strategic communications game on track, stop politicizing the war, and stop blaming the press and protesters for our woes.

I think the worm has turned pretty decisively on this. Historical evidence indicates that generally it will not turn back.

Acknowledgement of this reality is a must. As GEN Barry McCaffrey said, "US domestic support for the war in Iraq has evaporated and will not return." We have, at most, perhaps 12-18 months before a significant American drawdown is forced on whatever American president is elected in 2008. Pretty much any realistic scenarios for American actions in Iraq have to take this into account.

[skiguy]

stop politicizing the war, and stop blaming the press and protesters for our woes.

The only ones politicizing this war, IMO, is the Left. They are still stuck on "the reasons for going" and, unfortunately, that is what has led the way and continues to lead the opposition.

There's dissent...and dissent is Patriotic blah blah blah, but then there's just plain wrong. I don't know how many political forums you guys read, but there's still discussion on a daily basis about Joe Wilson, Plame, WMD's, Saddam had no ties to AlQ, etc. Will they ever move on? (pun intended). There is virtually no discussion about victory, the only discussion is "get out of Iraq now" or "Bush lied"

I disagree that the press and protesters are blameless. Yes, they all have the freedom and liberty to protest or speak out. But they have to take responsibilty for the consequences of their actions. They are the reason public support has wained.

[tequila]

But they have to take responsibilty for the consequences of their actions. They are the reason public support has wained.

I find this very unpersuasive. A far more likely reason, I think, is the chart on page 39 of this GAO report.

[marct]

Hi Skiguy,

The only ones politicizing this war, IMO, is the Left. They are still stuck on "the reasons for going" and, unfortunately, that is what has led the way and continues to lead the opposition.

I would have to disagree with that. The Iraq war was first politicized by the Administration, who are now in a reactive mode against the Left. To say that the Left are "politicizing" this war is just plain silly. What they are doing, however, is shifting the rhetorical basis of the discourse from what the Administration established at the start, and is now pretty much invalidated. The newer rhetoric is wrapped in a type of "moral rectitude" (and we all know where that comes from) that is designed to allow them to win votes.

I disagree that the press and protesters are blameless. Yes, they all have the freedom and liberty to protest or speak out. But they have to take responsibilty for the consequences of their actions. They are the reason public support has wained.

Don't you think that there are other reasons for why support has eroded? Just off the top of my head, I would say that one of the main reasons it has faltered is that the entire case for going to war in the first place has been disproven. When that is coupled with not having a UN mandate in the first place (i.e. no international legitimacy regardless of what anyone may think about the UN) and with all of the problems surrounding Phase IV, I would have to say that there are definite reasons for public support waining other than the "press and protesters".

My own position is very close to 120's - I didn't really think here was much of a case for it in the first place and, after the fiasco in the UN (i.e. not waiting for a final resolution), I was pretty jaundiced about it. However that doesn't matter now and hasn't for a number of years. You are quite correct that the Left is rehashing history and doesn't really consider future effects given current conditions. A rapid pull out or timetable will just encourage a loss so we have to deal with what is now.

Marc

[Steve Blair]

I'm also very close to 120mm's position, because I see too many possible repeats of history coming...not on the ground but in the halls of Congress and offices of policy makers. They spend so much time looking backward (selectively, of course) and so little time actually understanding what they see that they're rocketing toward a replay of 1972-1975 in Vietnam. But what disturbs me even more is that many of them don't seem to care. So many are so busy jockeying for some sort of political position or gain that they appear mentally incapable of thinking more than six months ahead (or the next election or polling cycle).

The claim that protesting occupies a higher moral ground than support (or disagreeing with protesters) is absurd, of course. Both sides have equal standing and worth within our system. I do fear, though, that there is little value in the positions of some of the protesters and supporters, since they have long ago wandered into personal attack land and contribute little of value to any meaningful discussion of policy or strategy.

[John T. Fishel]

Hi Marc--

and everybody else. Clausewitz got it right on the one thing he was totally consistent about in all 8 books: "War is and extension of politics/policy (POLITIKA - German) by other means." This war, like all wars, is political.

Marc, I must disagree that the rationale for the war was discredited. There were some 20+ reasons given in the congressional resolution, only one of which was discredited and it was one that Democrats from Bill Clinton to John Edwards as well as all Republicans and nearly every intel service believed to be correct. Where the media and others bear significant responsibility for the loss of public support is in their continued repetition of partisan mantras that fly in the face of facts. In their worst form, they come out as "Bush lied." But deemphasizing the fact that WMD was the common belief is almost as bad.

This is not to say that the Administration does not bear the brunt of the blame for the loss of public support. It does. But it is hardly alone.

Cheers

JohnT (I guess this is my new moniker)

[Bill Moore]

Just as a question, not a serious proposition, I wonder what the reaction of the American people would be if the President came out in the next couple of days, and told America that we cannot stablize Iraq, so we will begin a rapid phased withdrawal of our troops within the next few weeks?

Of course no ones knows what would really happen in Iraq if we did this, I still think the Al Qaeda would be destroyed by the Iraqis, once they loose their reason for being there, which is primarily to fight us. None the less the talking heads would rapidly start shaping U.S. opinion, and explain how Saudi and Iran may wage a proxy war, which could cause the price of oil to sky rocket if Iraq's southern oil fields are threatened, and the Kurds and Turkey wouldn't have the U.S. in the middle to mitigate their disputes, not to mention the perception that U.S. lost and the power that will give our foes worldwide. Once people seriously start talking about the consequences of simply quitting I think the rhetoric will change, and it will become more sober.

[jcustis]

But empirical evidence does not need to be quantitative. There is plenty of evidence that the French lost Algeria when the French public lost faith in both Algerie Francaise and the French Army. There is also a lot of evidence that opposition to the Vietnam War aided the VC/NVA in their cause by influencing US policy and actual support to the RVN. The survey data do correlate with policy.

Finally, this issue is all part of the war for legitimacy which is fought in the country where the war takes place, the countries that support the "host government," and the "court of world opinion." (Sorry about the shorthand.)

To frame my question a bit differently, is opposition to a war necessarily bad? Furthermore, can opposition and dissent be in fact patriotic? There's a book out there about the liberal left reclaiming the patriotic high ground, and I believe that there are folks who have responsible and mature viewpoints about our global power and its repercussions.

And I do firmly believe that the road to war matters even more as we move along the timeline, because the venture of war will always take a toll in "precious treasure". We need to focus on moving to an endstate, for sure, but it doesn't mean we stop dissecting how we took that path in the first place.

[Jimbo]

Once again, I am with John T fishel (or is it John T.). He brings up the exact reasons that there are issues., and the media has plenty of blame on it.


I remember sitting in the Kuwiaiti desert for 6 months in 1998, and listending to a bunch of speeches on AFN by a different President say the same things. I also heard the same lines out people who have ran for President in the recent past. I also seem to recal that almost every 18 months were sending the heavy DRB over to Kuwait as a show of force for some shannigans that Saddam was pulling.

The media's culpability lies in that they as an organization have taken to using the lowest common denominator partisan laangauge to make a story. And when they do this, some people come out ahead, and it isn't anybody sitting in this country. Last weekend the Washington Post ran a story on the funding bill, and US doemstic politics. Buried in the story was a line from Zwahiri talking about how they were all going to be able to pressure President Bush to leave Iraq. No I am not a political stategist or party chair, but I think if my oarty's rhetoric was getting a thumbs up from Al Qaeda's number 2 guy, then there is a problem. The problem isn't the democrats, the problem is how the media covers them and their stances on this issue. What is televised are arguements, not debates. the arguments are heavy emotion and very light on facts. The media appears to be doing a good job of presenting these emotions as facts. This totally kills any strategic level IO we are trying to do, and hurts us at the lower levels as well. That is my $.02