Misreading the History of the Iraq War

[J Wolfsberger]

Outcomes in Iraq and Afghanistan I believe do have strategic consequences, although we (big Allied "we") have trouble articulating and agreeing on them, and as such the HQs of those efforts are plugged into the broader strategic pictures (I'll use a geographical reference of regional and global because its easier to think about).

At the National Strategic level, I believe our involvement will profoundly change the political dynamics in The Middle East. Furthermore, I'm not privy to the inner workings of the Cabinet, NSC or State, but I believe that was the goal.

If (when) we succeed, we will have accomplished the following:

1. Toppled a brutal dictator who was fairly broadly despised bu most of the Iraqi people as well as in the rest of the Middle East.
2. Helped the Iraqi people to establish their own representative government.
3. Left.

At present, the Middle East, and especially the most brutal and oppressive parts of it, are victims of a ruling class ("Kleptocracy" in many cases, such as Hussein) that has used Israel as the whipping boy to distract from their own failings. None of the facts surrounding the Balfour Agreement, or the foundation of the current state of Israel ever make it into discussions of Middle East tension. For good reason - the state of Israel isn't the real cause. It is, however, convenient to point to in order to distract domestic attention and anger. I suspect that the last thing the leaders of countries such as Syria or Iran want is for Israel to go away.

Now factor in the successful accomplishment of the goals I listed above. Israel didn't beat the Iraqi's down, their own people (Ba'athists) did. Israel didn't go into Iraq, the US did. Contrary to hard left propaganda (including that of many Muslim government), the US isn't behaving like a conquistador, we are very clearly trying to help the Iraqis stand up their own government. Israel and the US aren't oppressing the Iraqi's; to the contrary, the US is helping them establish a modern country with rule of law, a market based economy that is already leading to a higher standard of living, modern infrastructure, etc.

None of this bodes well for the authoritarian regimes that have kept the pot boiling for decades.

And that, I think (hope) was the intention. Once it is seen that the Iraqis can establish a stable, modern, prosperous, self governing state, the pressure for change is on.

[Rex Brynen]

At present, the Middle East, and especially the most brutal and oppressive parts of it, are victims of a ruling class ("Kleptocracy" in many cases, such as Hussein) that has used Israel as the whipping boy to distract from their own failings. None of the facts surrounding the Balfour Agreement, or the foundation of the current state of Israel ever make it into discussions of Middle East tension. For good reason - the state of Israel isn't the real cause. It is, however, convenient to point to in order to distract domestic attention and anger. I suspect that the last thing the leaders of countries such as Syria or Iran want is for Israel to go away.

This is often claimed, but there is really no evidence for it. On the contrary, the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict delegitizes regimes far more than it legitimizes them.

In Jordan and Egypt, leaderships are forced to explain why they have peace treaties with Israel while the nightly news shows image after image of Israeli occupation. The Jordanian regime in particular regards the continuing conflict as a grave national security threat.

In Syria, defeats in the conflict with Israel have helped propel more than one regime change since 1948, so it is hardly a legitimation strategy! Certainly, under Asad (both late and current) the projected image of being a steadfast confrontation state has bolstered regime legitimacy. However, a peace deal with Israel that recovered the occupied Golan Heights would be far, far more valuable to the regime in terms of strengthening its domestic position.

Elsewhere in the region, populations generally rate the Palestinian issue as important--but rate Arab handling of it poorly, which hardly helps the regimes.

[SWJED]

In this morning's Wall Street Journal - Officer Questions Petraeus's Strategy by Yochi Dreazen.

... Lt. Col. Gian Gentile, a history professor here who served two tours in Iraq, begs to differ. He argues that Gen. Petraeus's counterinsurgency tactics are getting too much credit for the improved situation in Iraq. Moreover, he argues, concentrating on such an approach is eroding the military's ability to wage large-scale conventional wars...

Col. Gentile is giving voice to an idea that previously few in the military dared mention: Perhaps the Petraeus doctrine isn't all it's cracked up to be. That's a big controversy within a military that has embraced counterinsurgency tactics as a path to victory in Iraq. The debate, sparked by a short essay written by Col. Gentile titled "Misreading the Surge," has been raging in military circles for months. One close aide to Gen. Petraeus recently took up a spirited defense of his boss...

Col. Steve Boylan, a spokesman for Gen. Petraeus, said the surge deserved credit for enabling the other dynamics contributing to Iraq's security gains. "The surge was definitely a factor," he said. "It wasn't the only factor, but it was a key component."

Col. Boylan said that he was familiar with Col. Gentile's arguments but disagreed with them. "I certainly respect the good lieutenant colonel," he said. "But he hasn't been in Iraq for a while, and when you're not on the ground your views can quickly get dated."...

Col. Gentile's arguments have drawn fierce criticism from counterinsurgency advocates, in particular from Gen. Petraeus's chief of staff, Col. Pete Mansoor, who is retiring from the military to teach at Ohio State.

In a posting to Small Wars Journal, a blog devoted to counterinsurgency issues, Col. Mansoor wrote that Col. Gentile "misreads not just what is happening today in Iraq, but the entire history of the war."...

Additional links at SWJ.

[William F. Owen]

In Jordan and Egypt, leaderships are forced to explain why they have peace treaties with Israel while the nightly news shows image after image of Israeli occupation. The Jordanian regime in particular regards the continuing conflict as a grave national security threat.

Yet the same regimes are immune from criticism when Muslims and Arabs are killed in Darfur, Yemen, Chad, Somalia, and all over the Middle-East, by other Moslems and Arabs or in Bosnia by Christians. The only difference in Palestine is that they are killed by Jews.

At least 30x More people have died in Darfur, in 7 years than have died under Israeli occupations in WB & G.

Even rough figures show that Israel accounts for less 1% of total deaths of Muslims in Wars since 1948, YET - this is the issue they get energised about.

[jcustis]

Here in Diyala the Army only ventures outside its comfortable FOB with at least three stykers, oftentimes six or more. They do commute to the neighborhoods, and when they do they don't go without a ridiculous amount of security. Even when they poke their heads out to visit my MTT living out in town with our IA battalion, they stay buttoned up in their armor and fire warning shots and anything that moves, even IA HUMVEES. Meanwhile, we're playing a game of soccer with the local kids without even a pistol between us. And they wonder why they don't have a relationship with the people and they get with IEDs 10 feet from the front gate.

Even Army MTT teams commute- COMMUTE!- to their IA battalions. There are whole areas of the U.S. battalion's AO that go unpatrolled because, according to them, it's "too dangerous." Too dangerous? What did you sign up for, the KBR food? We've been fighting the Army for a week now to clear a stretch of road of IEDs so the civilians can use it again, but the Army refuses because their stykers can't make it down the road even though we're going to maintain security. You can walk can't you?

Things are a little better in Anbar (spent a month there before moving here to Diyala), but not by very much.

PM sent

[dubya]

One of the biggest problems I see with the current state of the "Long War" is that we've mis-identified the enemy to maintain "political correctness." bin Laden and Saddam are/were both only bit players in the real struggle.

The real enemy is irrational, religion-inspired totalitarianism that demands that individuals enslave themselves to some "supernatural" being and "sacrifice" themselves to some mythical world inhabited by the dead. Islam is the biggest offender here, and the source of that Islamic totalitarian impulse is the mullahs and ayatollahs based in Tehran.

Opposed to the Islamists is the equally mythical and false philosophy of altruism: the belief that the collective is of greater value than the individual. This is the philosophy of socialism and christianity that demands that individuals "sacrifice" their well-being, happiness, and indeed their lives to the "greater good."

I invite you to read an excellent article about the so-called "Just War Theory" which is based on this philosophy of altruism:

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/...war-theory.asp

[dubya]

A perfect illustration of the moral falsehood of "Just War Theory" is the story of "Lone Survivor" Marcus Luttrell who was on the Seal team with Medal of Honor "winner" Michael Murphy when Murphy was killed.

Three goatherds came across Murphy's team and the team sacrificed themselves rather than prevent those goatherds from reporting the team's presence to the Taliban forces. Murphy was awarded the MoH for exposing himself to Taliban fire to call for backup. The backup forces were destroyed by the Taliban who shot down their hellicopter.

22 of America's finest, most highly-trained warriors were "sacrificed" for 3 ignorant religious zealots. If that is "Just" then somebody's got their concept of Justice wrong!

[Ken White]

You should go here (LINK) and add an introduction of yourself to the thread. Thanks.

[wm]

One of the biggest problems I see with the current state of the "Long War" is that we've mis-identified the enemy to maintain "political correctness." bin Laden and Saddam are/were both only bit players in the real struggle.

The real enemy is irrational, religion-inspired totalitarianism that demands that individuals enslave themselves to some "supernatural" being and "sacrifice" themselves to some mythical world inhabited by the dead. Islam is the biggest offender here, and the source of that Islamic totalitarian impulse is the mullahs and ayatollahs based in Tehran.

Opposed to the Islamists is the equally mythical and false philosophy of altruism: the belief that the collective is of greater value than the individual. This is the philosophy of socialism and christianity that demands that [U individuals "sacrifice" their well-being, happiness, and indeed their lives to the "greater good."

I invite you to read an excellent article about the so-called "Just War Theory" which is based on this philosophy of altruism:

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/...war-theory.asp

The referenced article is a caricature of just war theory. As a counterweight to this invective, I suggest a reading of
this relatively short essay by Karl Jaspers.

[dubya]

The referenced article is a caricature of just war theory. As a counterweight to this invective, I suggest a reading of
this relatively short essay by Karl Jaspers.

I'm not sure how what appears to be a philosophical treatise on "German Guilt" is relevant to your charge that the article I referenced exaggerates or distorts a theory which places higher value on the lives of non-American "civilians" than on the lives of American soldiers.