Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - 6:24 AM
I've been reading an advanced copy of Nir Rosen's new book on the U.S. in the Middle East. It is titled Aftermath and will be out in October, but you can buy it now on Amazon.
It is a very knowledgeable deep dive through Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon. He contends that we still don't understand what we have gotten ourselves into. I don't agree with all of it, but I learned from it even when I disagreed.
Some highlights:
What the occupation felt like to Iraqis:
Under Saddam the violence came from one source: the regime. Now it has been democratically distributed.
Why the U.S. military has a hard time carrying out counterinsurgency campaigns:
COIN was dangerous, and the military was risk-averse.
(Here I think Rosen means commanders, not troops.)
A great lesson on how to deal with local allies, especially those who have turned from the other side:
According to a major who served under Kuehl, ‘An unsung hero of this entire time period [of the surge] was the commander of a combat support hospital in Baghdad. More than anyone else he kept our sometimes tenuous relationship with the SOI [Sons of Iraq AKA insurgents put on the American payroll] on good standing, simply by admitting their casualties to his facility and treating them. The rules on this were somewhat in the gray area, and lesser men or those who did not see the strategic situation would have been justified refusing care and turning them away. I had one such conversation with a doctor on Camp Liberty who was discussing the practical reasons for not treating them, that they wouldn't have enough beds for the American casualties. I told him that if he wanted to quit treating American casualties altogether, all he had to do was treat those SOIs when they were injured.'
The effect of the surge:
It was only in 2007 that they [the Americans] finally conquered Iraq, with the help of stronger Iraqi Security Forces, but chiefly thanks to the Shiite defeat of the Sunnis in the civil war. The American surge of troops came at just the right time, and they proved flexible enough to take advantage of events on the ground. The subsequent relative decline in violence was meant to lead to political reconciliation, but it never happened.
Where we are now in Iraq:
Six years after the fall of Baghdad, it felt as if the Iraqis were occupying Iraq.
Meanwhile, Joel Wing says that Iran's farewell attacks in Iraq appear to be beginning.
A book quite possibly built on a false premise
I will reserve final judgement on this book until I take a closer look at it, but, based on the paragraphs reproduced above, this book doesn't look promising.
"It was only in 2007 that they [the Americans] finally conquered Iraq, with the help of stronger Iraqi Security Forces, but chiefly thanks to the Shiite defeat of the Sunnis in the civil war."
Rosen is right in stating that the occupation turned the corner when the Shiite's clocked the Sunni's on the head, forcing them to have their "Awakening". But its awfully presemptuous to claim we conquered Iraq. Conquering means we are in a position to dictate terms and that is definitely not the case. All we did is manage a period of calm for us to exit with some level of dignity.
"COIN was dangerous, and the military was risk-averse."
This is garbage. The military's reservations about COIN has little to do with risk aversion and more to do with the fact that there is a significant element in the armed forces who question the benefits of the tactics espoused by COIN.
Of course they are, that's why they hate the firepower restrictions. No one wants to go home legless or cold for "democracy in Iraq." They just want to get through their tour with a few medals and combat pay and "war" stories and go home. They hate this sh--t, but they're making 2-3 times more than they could in the civilian world, assuming they could find a job.
So when some COIN experts say they should get out of their vehicles and work like policeman, they refuse. If shots are fired, they don't want to shoot it out with RPGs zipping by. Best to call in an airstrike or even MLRS (yes, they use those too) and blow everything up. Great fun too.
I think Mr. Ricks knows this deep inside, but he instinctively follows the politically correct notion that our GIs are saints doing God's work. If anyone wants to see reality, google video for Iraq and air strike or MLRS and watch our GIs cheer as they blow up homes from afar.
Good to worry on the troops. Good to be concerned of their wounds, including the wounds of the spirit. But shouldn't this be in a larger discussion of the utter fecklessness of these wars, their strategic pointlessness? Somehow I feel that all this talk is of symptoms and not disease. The price of endless war will continue to be endless pain.
RD, of course you are right but what is happening now in the grand debate (such as it is) over Iraq and Afghanistan is what usually happens when a nation is losing a poorly conceived war, it argues over the lesser details. Tactics, commanders, blame fixing and emotional but diversionary side issues such as the sunk costs of troop sacrifice emerge to overwhelm what should be the real debate over war aims and strategic consequences. Indeed, often the only rational for persisting in a losing effort is the pathetic belief that so much has already been invested that it would be a shame to abandon the effort. This reminds me of my days on Wall Street when managers of losing investment positions would average down rather than be stopped out as they had so much invested already and were incapable of believing their investment theses was in error. The greatest self-delusion was to ‘give the position it a little more time’ to sort itself out. Essentially, they forgot that ‘hope’ was never a good strategy in finance let alone war. It takes a lot of intestinal fortitude for a financial manager let alone a nation like ours to say we have badly blundered let us cut our losses and regroup.
(4)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE