Somebody with a political axe to grind, or someone who has literally bet their life:
When it comes to the future of Iraq, there is a deep disconnect between those who have firsthand knowledge of the situation — Iraqis and U.S. soldiers serving in Iraq — and those whose impressions are shaped by doomsday press coverage and the imperatives of domestic politics.
The ones with a political axe to grind (and the uninformed who follow their lead) think Iraq is a lost cause or a mistake:
A large majority of the American public is convinced that the liberation of Iraq was a mistake, while a smaller but growing number thinks that we are losing and that we need to pull out soon. Those sentiments are echoed by finger-in-the-wind politicians, including many — such as John Kerry, Harry Reid, John Edwards, John Murtha and Bill Clinton — who supported the invasion.
Those with firsthand knowledge and a stake in the matter believe the contrary:
American soldiers are also much more optimistic than American civilians. The Pew Research Center and the Council on Foreign Relations just released a survey of American elites that found that 64% of military officers are confident that we will succeed in establishing a stable democracy in Iraq. The comparable figures for journalists and academics are 33% and 27%, respectively. Even more impressive than the Pew poll is the evidence of how our service members are voting with their feet. Although both the Army and the Marine Corps are having trouble attracting fresh recruits — no surprise, given the state of public opinion regarding Iraq — reenlistment rates continue to exceed expectations. Veterans are expressing their confidence in the war effort by signing up to continue fighting.
I have long believed that, whatever its flaws, the Iraqi campaign is on the road to strategic success. Figuring out who is winning requires that you ask a deceptively simple question: which side is making better progress toward their strategic objectives?
I think the answer is very clear – the US and its allies are making progress toward their strategic objectives, and their Islamist/Baathist enemies are not.
We have removed three potential WMD players (Iraq, Pakistan, Libya) from the scene as a direct or second-order consequence of the Iraqi campaign. We have removed one of the major terror-supporting states (the Saddamite regime) from the picture. We are introducing by far the most democratically accountable government into the Mideast (other than Israel), and are destabilizing the long-term prospects for neighboring dictators who, coincidentally, sponsor terror to one degree or another. We have forced the Islamists to fight in the Mideast, and as a consequence are eroding their support as they do what they do, which is attack civilians. We have badly disrupted international terrorist networks.
As for the Islamists, well, what ground have they gained toward their stated goals of a pan-Arab caliphate, the eradication of Israel, the acquisition of WMDs, or the destabilization of the West?
I don’t see any real gains on their side, and I see real progress on ours. Sure, progress has come at a cost, but only the most naive (or those with ulterior motives) would believe that we could neuter the Islamist threat without any missteps or losses.
Those on the front lines think we are winning a fight worth fighting. It is those in the perfumed salons who don’t think we are winning, and who don’t think the game is worth the candle. I know who I believe.
Someone who has bet his life has a much greater interest in seeing that his cause comes to pass. After all, political hopes come and go, but no one wants to think he risked his life for nothing.
– Josh
Those on the front lines think we are winning a fight worth fighting
What makes you think the average US soldier on the ground understands the strategic implications of what they are doing? Are they more knowledgeable regarding US strategic interests than everyone else?
Well Matra, the left would have you believe that John Kerry was superior in foriegn policy based on his tour of Vietnam. Ditto Al Gore. Neither of them were field grade but somehow that’s supposed to make the voters believe they know something about combat.
Most grunts aren’t the uneducated hilljacks their detractors paint them as. Educational incentives and training make soldiers aware of history and geo-politics.
How about neither?
In any case, someone’s motivation is no guide to the correctness of their knowledge or objectives. History is littered with misguided martyrs. In fact, misguided martyrs seem to be the source of much of the world’s worst troubles at the moment.
Drake:
If that’s true then they were wrong – as is Robert Clayton Dean for suggesting troops know more about US strategic interests than people back home.
RCD also wrote:
Democratic government in Shiite-majority Iraq will likely mean closer relations with Iran. I see precious little evidence to suggest that Iran has been destabilised. Quite the contrary – it’s fortunes seem to be rising.
Besides doesn’t democracy in the Muslim world just mean more Islamic fundamentalists? The recent gains made by Islamists in Egypt, the Iranian election, the unpopularity of Musharraf in Pakistan, and the popularity of Bin Laden in Saudi Arabia, do not make me confident. Keep in mind these are tribal societies based on cousin marriage and deep rooted hostility to outgroups and nepotism towards ingroups. I find it hard to believe that the type of civil society required for sustainable democracy is going to develop in the Middle East. Even in the main Anglo countries – the UK, USA, Canada – there is plenty of evidence to suggest that traditional legal, constitutional, and democratic norms and institutions are buckling under the assaults of the Left. If we can’t even defend our own societies what hope do we have of transforming the MidEast?
Guy,
Quite so. But on the ground experience – even at an operational rather than strategic level – surely trumps a lack thereof. Which is the point being made.
Do American soldiers know everything, no.
Do they have a good perspective? Probably better then the most.
Matra:
RC Dean is not arguing they understand our ‘strategic interests’ better in a theoretical sense. He is merely making the simple point that armies in the field usually have a fairly good feel for whether they are winning or losing a conflict.
Re: Iran– in fact, the government’s overall position is weakening. It has had to sack and/or reshuffle much of the internal security appartus, it’s diplomatic corps, and bring in a lot of foreign extremists in order to try to control the situation at home. Its increasing bellicosity is an attempt to distract the attention of both domestic and foreign observers from its fundamental weaknesses.
re: elections in Egypt. You have to give the Egyptian government some credit for cleverness. It has manipulated the election process by suppressing the secular opposition while at the same time allowing the Muslim Brotherhood more leeway (but not too much). The result is predictable: more support for Mubarak abroad and among the upper classes in Egypt in the face of the ‘growing’ Islamist threat. To get the Egyptian government to have free and fair elections it would have to do the opposite: a) suppress the MB and b) allow the secular opposition more leeway to organise politically.
The whole ‘push’ of the Bush admin for change in the Middle East is designed to ultimately break this dangerous co-dependency between brittle despotisms and the Islamists.
That’s another reason why Senator Biden’s call for a return to “stability” in the Middle East last weekend was a farce. To paraphrase some former enemies, it is much better for us “to march boldly into the future, leaving the world in ruins behind us,” than to return to the status quo ante bellum.
Personally I think the soldiers’ attitudes are a very solid indicator. When things are going pear-shaped, like eg: Vietnam, the first people to know it are the soldiers on the ground. The modern army is far too porous to blogs, digicams etc, for any sort of morale-censorship to work, therefore you can take them at their word.
‘…closer relations with Iran‘ – do you pay attention to anything?
“If that’s true then they were wrong – as is Robert Clayton Dean for suggesting troops know more about US strategic interests than people back home.”
Well, then. The argument is settled.
People on the ground day in and day out – including the Iraqis themselves – are wrong. People who are not involved know better. Time to tell the French and the Brits what to vote in their next election. They can’t possibly know better than us what is good for them, their nose being so close to the picture and all.
It’s important not to confuse a first hand source – unreliable evidence in the extreme – with a statistical sample of first hand source – much better.
One of the many blows dealt to rational thought by the internet is the glorification of first hand evidence – the idea that a single doctor’s opinion on the NHS is worth more than that of an economist who has spend years studying the NHS – simply because the Doctor ‘sees it with his own eyes’.
It’s true that soldiers have an interest in believing that the war is going well – but God knows enough academics have an interest in believing that it’s going badly.
The soldiers I know have a studied uninterest in geo-politics and strategic goals, in much the same way that your average electrician isn’t that concerned with national engergy policy.
My unscientific view on UK soldier’s opinions, as gleaned from arrse.co.uk is that they generally view the war rather dimly. It’s interesting that this appears to be different from the US view, where the war is seen as necessary, worthwhile, and likely to succeed.
I personally think we can succeed in establishing a west-friendly, stable regime in Iraq, and a whole bunch of permanent military US bases. I’ve always assumed this was the real reason for the war. I’m dubious that a real democracy _could_ ever be established, and I’m pretty sure we’ll happily settle for something that is a semi-democracy.
And finally, FWIW, I agree that the new regime in Iran is _less_ stable that the one before it. It’s still possible that the ‘new’ Iraq ends up way more Iran friendly than the US wants, but it’s looking less likely as time goes on – the new head guy in Iran is busy replacing the executive there with his mates, which will result in an inexperienced regime more likely to play into the US’s hands.
We should also bear in mind that it takes a stronger officer to go against the required military ‘flow’ and say that there is little or no change in Iraq, as shown by the 36% in that survey. What I would be interested in is the actual statistic – how many officers were sample interviewed, what rank were the officers who were interviewed and what were the actual questions put to them? We all should know, on this blog especially, that opinion polls are invariably rigged for the benefit of the client.
I still maintain that we can not pull out of the Iraq situation now without encouraging more terrorist attacks in the USA or UK and certainly abandoning the poor Iraqis to the very worse excesses of psychotic ‘insurgents’. Those people would see a withdrawal as a definite sign of weakness by the West.
If your take on these views is correct, Mr. Dean’s argument is in trouble.
And finally, FWIW, I agree that the new regime in Iran is _less_ stable that the one before it.
Considering what the government of Iran has been up to for the last ~25 years, I am of the opinion that ‘stability’ is quite overrated.
It’s still possible that the ‘new’ Iraq ends up way more Iran friendly than the US wants, but it’s looking less likely as time goes on – the new head guy in Iran is busy replacing the executive there with his mates, which will result in an inexperienced regime more likely to play into the US’s hands.
🙂
Greetings!
On the subject of ARRSE
Captain Tuesday ‘ BAFF’s gravelly voiced radio interview representative is in fact Tony Cooke AAC, who is better known on ARRSE as The Lord Flasheart. Not a lot of people know that.