It's Not the Execution Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

The NY Times has its five year retrospective on the Iraq War and I gotta say I'm not impressed.  There are nine pieces: Bremer, Perle, Slaughter, Pollack, Pletka, Fick, Eaton, Kagan, and Cordesman.  I understand the need to bring in more conservatives for this piece, since they are the ones responsible for the execution.  But out of the nine pieces not one talks about the strategic failure of going in in the first place.

Almost 4,000 American troops have died, approximately 30,000 have been wounded, we've appropriated more than $500 billion with the costs to the actual economy estimated to be well over $1 trillion and possibly heading towards $3 trillion.  For all of this we have gotten a more powerful Al Qaeda, a more powerful Iran, a more unstable Middle East, and an overstretched military.

But all of these pieces talk about the failure of execution and foist blame at various directions as if this could have all worked out if we had just done some things differently. 
Let's face it, the failure was in the initial concept and the fact that the Times feels like it needs to give both Pletka and Kagan a spot, and can't find us a Korb, Graham, or Bacevich to make the strategic failure argument is pathetic.

And for God's sake.  With 9 Pieces about Iraq, perhaps the Times should have had at least one piece by ummm.... perhaps an Iraqi?  But after all who cares what they think.  Fred Kagan and Danielle Pletka tell it like it is.

On the bright side.  No Mike O'Hanlon.

Comments

[Dan Kervick]

I understand that in the world of foreign policy grownups, and even more in the world of foreign policy wannabe grownups, it is considered terribly naïve to consider the consequences of national actions for anything or anyone in the world, except insofar as they affect the “national interest”, or can be classified as a “strategic success” or “strategic failure.”

But the greatest humanitarian catastrophe in the world today is Iraq. Not Darfur. Iraq. There have been more people killed due to violence in Iraq than Darfur; there are more internal and external refugees from the war in Iraq than from the war in Darfur; and the level of economic devastation in Iraq is far deeper and far more widespread.

Yet there is no end of liberal humanitarian hand wringing over Darfur, while discussion after discussion of Iraq focuses entirely on the 4000+ American dead, the impact of the war on our oil prices, and the costs of the war for us. It’s perverse. The moral double standards and cowardice on display here are breathtaking. Maybe an atrocity is only truly atrocious if it is perpetrated by some swarthy Arabs or Africans?

The New York Times proves once again the systematic exclusion of the left from our national discourse. It recruits nine people to comment on the war, and while it has no problem printing the ruminations of right wingers like Pletka, Perle and Kagan, the critique from the left is invisible. Is it so much to ask that there could be at least one representative of the left? Who do we get instead? The furthest left the Times is willing to go is with centrist Democrats like Slaughter and Fick. I really am not asking for much. Just one left-winger - Please.

I have a lot of despair about this country. Our national discourse is as circumscribed and orthodoxy-bound as thirteenth century Europe. How did an allegedly free people develop such a profound fear of ideas and debate, and build such an impenetrable barrier of moral obtuseness?

It appears there will be no Iraq “lessons”. We seem doomed to make the same mistakes, and spread the same kinds of human misery that have marked the insane Iraq adventure , over and over.

[Don Bacon]

As is his wont, Dan says it best. I wonder why the NYT didn't print Chomsky.

McClatchy has a report from a Georgetown University task force which summarizes the Iraq War's toll.

And don't forget Afghanistan, where there is a similar humanitarian crisis after six years of undeclared war. "Food shortages in Ajristan District of Ghazni Province, central Afghanistan, have forced some families to eat dried grass in order to survive." SecDef Gates said recently that the situation requires not more food but more troops: “some allies willing to fight and die to protect people’s security, and others who are not.” Easy for him to say.

And Somalia, where there is another humanitarian crisis exacerbated by another undeclared US war.

[Don Bacon]

Ilan: perhaps the Times should have had at least one piece by ummm.... perhaps an Iraqi?

It's easy to overlook this passing remark, but actually it is central to the situation of the US in the world today.

American Exceptionalism, as explained by Bush: "The advance of freedom is the calling of our time; it is the calling of our country." The US wants to change parts of the world, to incorporate it in the American Empire. They really want to control the world. The US government wants other countries to change their customs, their government and their economies for forms aligned with US norms, which not incidentally would give the rich and powerful in the US control over them.

Purportedly we have an idea of what the good life is, and what they need to do to get it, so the US, through the World Bank, trade treaties, military sales and training, invasions, and other means, forces ideas upon other countries, while control of their societies passes to the US.

Central to this transformation is that all the goals and processes are retained in US hands, lest control be lost. The US can't allow the recipients to have any control because control is zero sum -- it they get it the US loses it.

Also key to this process is that all reportage on its success (or "success") is the purview of the change agent, the US. That's what Ilan was saying. "But after all who cares what they think."

[David Tomlin]

I would add a plea for a representative of the anti-war Right. Cato could supply someone suitably credentialed.

Speaking of think tanks, has anyone else noticed that three of the nine represent the American Enterprise Institute?

[Americaneocon]

Strategies shifted, of course, so your agument is completely pre-surge.

Maybe NYT sould have included Jules Crittenden:

"Iraq has become the central battlefield in the 21st century's Islamic war, and may have been destined to be, with or without us...

Saddam Hussein convinced the world he had active weapons programs. The evidence now suggests he didn't, but how active his programs were, ultimately, is irrelevant. He had demonstrated his desire to dominate the region....

Five years on, the threat Saddam Hussein posed to regional stability--global stability, if you consider the resources he sought to control--has been neutralized. The toll in American and Iraqi lives to date may well have averted a far worse toll, though we can yet get the full accounting if we withdraw precipitously....

All wars go through evolutions, and it is unrealistic to expect no missteps. In this case, however, they are cited most frequently not as arguments to improve the war effort, but as excuses for abandonment. The Bush administration has made good at last with a counterinsurgency strategy that has hobbled Al Qaeda in Iraq and has the Shiite militias in a box. Iraqi military capabilities are improving, and the next president appears likely to inherit a somewhat pacified, reconciled Iraq; an enhanced American position of influence in the Middle East; opposing terrorist organizations that are sharply compromised; and a string of nascent democracies. At considerable cost of American blood and treasure, the United States is now in a position of marked if precarious influence in the most dangerous part of the world. The new president will have to consider how much of that he or she wants to throw away or build upon."

The truth, of course, is that we're winning in Iraq, and while considerable debate over the strength of al Qaeda or other anti-democratic groups will continue, the fact remains that we can simply either recognize the phenomenal progress we've made - and commit American resources and will to seeing the job through - or we can succumb to a cost-sensitivity that will set back American foreign interests more disastrously than at any time since Vietnam - an earlier, regrettable retreat from war that left the world's correlation of forces dangerously advantageous to the evil designs of Marxist-Leninist totalitarianism.

We cannot afford to do the same today.

Crittenden's right: Iraq is now the world's ground zero in the battle against 21st century Islamic war. There's no retreat from the struggle, no matter the political dynamics at home. Our enemies won't rest until they've achieved their goal of the complete and utter destruction of the United States, by any means necessary.

That's a lesson that can never be forgotten this campaign season.

[tubino]

americanneocon completely misses the point:

"Our enemies won't rest until they've achieved their goal of the complete and utter destruction of the United States, by any means necessary."

Back in 2004, Bin Laden explained how his meager forces would challenge the US:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/

4 years ago he explained his plan, and the US *still* fell for it, and is still falling for it.

And Crittenden, and Bush, and Americanneocon still haven't bothered to see that they are following Bin Laden's plan.

It sounds as though the NYT couldn't be bothered to have someone point this out either...

[1Watt]

All of this idiot reporting totally fails in the analysis of the the facts. Sadr's (the Iraqi Nationalist) is Radical, Malika (an Iranian Shia puppet) is a BushCo installed P.M.. Cheney is begging the Sunni governments of the gulf to lend support to bolster the Iranian controlled Shia government of Iraq, while bad mouthing Iran about support for Sunni insurgents in Iraq. Meanwhile, Bush gives safe harbor to terrorist in both the North & South of Iraq, who destabilize Afghanistan, Turkey, & Iran. Now, where's my $160K job in the State Department?

[pseudonymous in nc]

Maybe NYT sould have included Jules Crittenden:

Or maybe not. That Frummagem Minor is paid to write for a newspaper says all you need to know about the state of the American media. Are you related, perchance, Amneocon? It seems to be a requirement these days.

[Innocent Bystander]

Well, they did get oil from $30.00BBL to $110 and climbing....certainly Exxon-Mobil appreciates the efforts of this administration's nation de-building in the ME. Exxon-Mobil ought to be good for at least $100MM towards the Bush Library

[Green Eagle]

Remember, they did the same thing with Vietnam. It was all about the failed execution (primarily due to the evil antiwar movement at home). Even when the vast majority of the American people turned against the war, it was outside the bounds of respectable discourse to question the justification for our having gone in there in the first place. Decades of propaganda have succeded in wiping out any consideration of what right we had to kill two million innocent civilians. Now, they are going to use the same tactics with Iraq. And, if we remain silent, they will succeed again.

[Don Bacon]

Jules Crittenden is, at least, amusing.

The Bush administration has made good at last with a counterinsurgency strategy that has hobbled Al Qaeda in Iraq and has the Shiite militias in a box.

The Sunni militias, not US forces, took on al Qaeda, which of course were absent in Iraq prior to the US invasion. Shiite militias in a box? They don't think so, according to a recent news report: "Violence erupted once again in central and southern Iraq as heavily armed Shiite militia groups battle with police and army over control of residential quarters."

At considerable cost of American blood and treasure, the United States is now in a position of marked if precarious influence in the most dangerous part of the world.

Precarious is right. The Iraqi "government" has closer ties to Iran, made closer by the recent visit of President Ahmadinejad.

The American people have been allowed to believe that getting out of Vietnam was the best thing we did there, and that there was no penalty for cutting our losses.

According to the US State Department, March 12, 2008: "The U.S.-Vietnam relationship has expanded in an impressive number of areas since we re-established diplomatic relations with Vietnam in 1995. President Bush’s trip to Hanoi in November 2006 for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum meeting and President Triet’s visit to Washington in June 2007 reflect the advances in our relationship."

[Peter Principle]

The NY Times has its five year retrospective on the Iraq War and I gotta say I'm not impressed. There are nine pieces: Bremer, Perle, Slaughter, Pollack, Pletka, Fick, Eaton, Kagan, and Cordesman.

Sounds almost like what you would have expected from the old Pravda doing a five-year retrospective on the Afghanistan invasion.

No glasnost needed here, comrades.

[1Watt]

Remembering My Lai:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7298533.stm

[c.l. ball]

With 9 Pieces about Iraq, perhaps the Times should have had at least one piece by ummm.... perhaps an Iraqi?

OK. I'll bite: who?

[Don Bacon]

OK. I'll bite: who?

Ali Marzook--"It’s been five years since the so-called occupation, liberation, invasion - and we’re not witnessing progress. In fact, there are no signs of development. Our infrastructure is damaged, as is the spirit of the people. There is little optimism for the future. Instead, we are surrounded by fear, depression and violence."--Kurdish Media

Kareem Zair--"Violence erupted once again in central and southern Iraq as heavily armed Shiite militia groups battle with police and army over control of residential quarters. Most ferocious clashes are reported to be taking place in the Province of Wasit of which the city of Kut is the capital."--azzaman

Abed Battat--"The provincial authorities in the southern city of Basra are applying new emergency measures in the wake of an upsurge in violence and lawlessness. More than 5,000 police officers are taking part in the campaign “to pursue outlaws, armed men, smugglers, some tribal groups and illegal militias,” according to the city’s police chief, Lt. Gen. Abduljaleel Khalaf."--azzaman

[Bill]

approximately 30,000 [US troops] have been wounded

Likely much higher. And surely it's worth including in further costs of war the hundreds of thousands of deaths, the 4+ million displacements, and the god-knows-how-many wounded or injured on the Iraqi side of the ledger. When you take those sorts of things into account, "strategic blunder" quickly morphs into "epic crime."

[masaccio]

How about the Iraqi blogger Riverbend: http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/ ?
Or one of the bloggers at the McClatchy site: http://washingtonbureau.typepad.com/iraq/

[masaccio]

Or with links: Riverbend , or McClatchy employees.

[Enoch Root]

Look, how many times do we have to say it? Things are going EXACTLY as desired in Iraq. There has been no failure. This is how empire works. The failure is that those opposed to such warfare can't see this for what it is.

In order to understand the US occupation of Iraq, you have to understand that the US is an empire. We are an empire occupying a foreign nation. The natural resources of Iraq were desirable to us, and so we invaded and occupied. In the logic of empire, there is no failure here. We still hold those resources, and so there is no failure.

Please either address the occupation as what it is, and quit expecting the imperial neocons to change their opinions of themselves.

[doggril]

If Dan doesn't think that liberals have not expressed concern, distress and anger over the impact of the war on the Iraqis, he's not reading the right liberals.

[Dan Kervick]

doggril,

Let me be more precise. J'accuse Democracy Arsenal. Democracy Arsenal specifically has been grossly negligent in addressing the moral dimensions of the Iraq apocalypse, and has been an enabler of those working to cast the full and atrocious reality of Iraq into Orwellian oblivion. I just checked the Democracy Arsenal archives back to January 1st, and could not find a single post devoted to the scope of the humanitarian catastrophe in Iraq, and the US role in creating it. And as someone who has been visiting this site for several years now, I can tell you that there is nothing new in that recent neglect.

For a couple of years I have been trying to provoke discussions here of the sheer numbers of Iraqi casualties, the spectacular damage done to Iraqi society, and the criminal dimensions of the US attack and occupation. Many of the other commenters are eager to talk about it. But among the official contributors, no luck. The writers here avoid these topics like the plague. I suppose that's because they are very serious people, who aspire to a role in the councils of the powerful, and too much concern for the sufferings of the Iraqi enemy or the moral turpitude of American actors and decision makers looks weak and insufficiently loyal in such circles, and would disqualify them from the roles they wish to play.

This isn't to say that there have not been plenty of posts on Iraq. There are posts on the effect of the Iraq war on US national security; the effect of the Iraq war on the US military; the effect of the Iraq war on the US image in the world; the effect of the Iraq war on US domestic politics; the surge, and whether it is working or not working; the Awakening, and whether it is working or not working. But it is hard to find any sustained discussion of the effect of the Iraq war on Iraqis. It's all about how bad this war has been for us.

The closest I could find were a few allusions made in passing. Shawn Brimley, on January 21st, said:

We absolutely have a moral obligation to the Iraqi people. We invaded their country, destroyed much of their infrastructure, and spent several disastrous years stumbling around making things worse.

On January 10, Ilan Goldenberg made this brief note about a single incident:

Sean Duggan points me towards the understatement of the day regarding a Blackwater helicopter dropping CS gas on an Iraqi crowd.

"This was decidedly uncool and very, very dangerous,” Capt. Kincy Clark of the Army, the senior officer at the scene, wrote later that day. “It’s not a good thing to cause soldiers who are standing guard against car bombs, snipers and suicide bombers to cover their faces, choke, cough and otherwise degrade our awareness.”

Probably the best I could find was from Lorelei Kelly, who passed along a link and a quote from Major Andrew Olmsted:

... perhaps my death can serve as a small reminder of the costs of war. Regardless of the merits of this war, or of any war, I think that many of us in America have forgotten that war means death and suffering in wholesale lots. A decision that for most of us in America was academic, whether or not to go to war in Iraq, had very real consequences for hundreds of thousands of people. Yet I was as guilty as anyone of minimizing those very real consequences in lieu of a cold discussion of theoretical merits of war and peace....

But these were very brief and indirect allusions. The humanitarian dimension of Iraq, and the many instances of US criminality that have contributed to it, have never been a sustained topic of discussion.

However, in the midst of this smoldering moral ruin, one can find at Democracy Arsenal an assortment of posts filled with insipid patriotic schmaltz about about America's inherent goodness, its exceptional moral excellence and wonderfulness, and its exemplary city-on-a-hill moral radiance.