� Thomas Barnett's Game Plan | Main | More Iraqis think Iraq is going in the right direction �
November 1, 2005
Defining the Victory Conditions
More then anything, if there's one thing the White House has woefully mismanaged in this war, its been the propaganda campaign.
Instead of cursing the darkness, here's my attempt to light a candle.
The first thing we need to do is clarify the victory conditions in Iraq. If we don't set the expectations of the press, the press will make unreasonable assumptions. The media at this point don't have any reporters who have every been soldiers (or had any sort of real job for that matter). So its up to us, the bloggers to set reasonable expectations, since the Administration doesn't seem to be able to. So here goes:
Peace is Relative
Iraq is never going to be as peaceful as say, Flagstaff Arizona. Yet as Americans, we're going to think somehow in the back of our mind that for us to “win”, Iraq will be at peace.
That is unreasonable. For us to win, Iraq need only be as peaceful as say, Compton (famous for its drive-by shootings). That would make it one of the most peaceful of the nations in the Middle East. This is especially true if you consider, as I do, violence done against peaceful citizens to actually count. By that standard, Israel, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia are not at “peace”, and repressive regimes like China and North Korea to not be at “peace”. (See Dhimmi Watch if you'd like to see what the status quo in Arab nations is like towards their own citizens. ) So if we want to consider peace, we should consider true peace. If the US topples a regime that is killing 20,000 of its citizens a month; but incites an insurgency that kills 20,000 civilians a year, that's actually progress.
So victory occurs not when Iraq meets the “Flagstaff, Arizona” definition of peacefulness, but when the violence has dropped to the nuisance level. We will never get to zero violence, there is no place in the world with zero violence. Perhaps that seems obvious to you, but the media will and has amplified every single event in Iraq without any perspective.
Recently, some Al Queda types tried to attack the Palestine Hotel. They were thwarted by the Iraqi Police, without any US aid. This was a huge milestone for the Iraqi Police. To the media of course, this was played as a bad thing. The media no longer has any perspective on what war is like.
The world is, and always has been, a dangerous place. We Americans, we happy few in the world have it pretty good. We can't apply American standards to another country, especially a fledgling democracy.
Agreement is Relative
The Iraqis will never be in complete agreement with each other any more then Americans are in complete agreement with each other. If Iraqis are in the Parliament screaming at each other at the top of their lungs, we have won. At that point we will have turned a violent process into a political process. If Al Sadr runs for Parliament, even if he wins, this means victory for the US.
The media will of course play up every minor squabble like its the end of the world. But I'll point out: ; Democrats and Republicans scream at each other all the time. They're not even very nice about it, nor especially peaceful.
Not all of Iraq's problems or issues will be resolved; 30 years later Americans are still arguing about Roe v. Wade. It is not our job to solve or mediate every dispute in Iraq, even fundamental disputes like Shia v. Shite or Kurd vs. Arab. All we merely need do is get the Iraqis to work together on their problems politically.
Eventually, we will leave
No doubt we left Vietnam prematurely. But at some point we are going to leave Iraq. That does not mean the insurgents have won. Already, there are more Iraqi police then US soldiers in Iraq. In approximately 8 months, we will have met our original goals for Iraqi security forces. At that point, we may very well transition to almost no military role in Iraq.
We cannot let the media paint the withdrawal of troops as another 'Fall of Saigon' moment. For that matter, if Iraq grants us military bases, that doesn't mean we're still occupying Iraq. Are we still occupying Germany?
Not Every Iraqi Will Like Us
It's unrealistic to expect the Iraqis to overwhelmingly like us. We invaded their country. In fact, the amazing thing about the Iraq War is that the Iraqis don't universally hate us. US Presidents never get 100% approval ratings and often have lower numbers then the US does in Iraq. When the US has higher approval ratings then the President, we're winning in Iraq.
Democratic revolutions are slow, painfully incremental miracles
Stolen from an article title by Austin Bay, I think the title says it all. In this 24/7 news cycle world (which frankly, seems to have the same 15 minutes repeated 96 times) it seems like the press expects everything to happen instantly. Some things just take time. Anything that involves people, and especially the perceptions of people can only change so fast. Iraq's progress will be measured in years, not months. The fall of Baghdad was the fastest military campaign in history, yet the press called it a quagmire. Actual accomplishments are the true measure of progress, not speed.
Case in point: Electricity in Iraq. Lead time for ordering giant power plants is measured in years. While I would like to have seen more progress on this front in Iraq, the reality is that we've probably been going as fast as we can: when we ordered new plants, the companies that made them had to start buliding them. Megawatt power plants aren't off the shelf items. Similarly, laying sewer or water pipe means digging trenches, and you can only do that so fast.
Anyways, that's it for the moment. Anyone else have any examples where they think the media is unreasonable?
Posted by the at November 1, 2005 8:13 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.opinionatedbastard.com/mt-tb.cgi/527
Comments
Media unreasonalbe? I think you need to rethink that to say: Is the Media guilty of Treason?
Short of that, are they just trying to make sure we lose any conflict, any contest, and endeavor that a Republican Administration is envolved in?
The answer in Iraq is one that no one wants. More troops, more killing, more fear. Make the average Arab, Persian fear us above all else. We become the barbarians, the Great Satan that they believe we are. After a few years 10 or 20, after we have used Iraq as a base to destroy Iran and Syria’s governments and military, we can leave a few fortified airbases and take most of our troops to the NEXT area of the world that we have to destroy in order to save.
Otherwise, we will drag out this half assed fought war against Islam for at least the next hundred years.
Papa Ray West Texas USA
Posted by: Papa Ray at November 2, 2005 11:38 AM
Some excellent points.
It brings to mind media accounts of ‘heavy fighting in Iraq’ during the first days of the invasion. Some reporters heard explosions and a lot of automatic weapons fire around them, and, well… that’s heavy fighting! Suddenly, two guys and their mortar, and their five friends with AKs, are ‘putting up heavy resistance against the invasion.’
My problem has never really been an expectation that invading, stabilizing, and rebuilding Iraq would take time. That’s a given. My problem has been the wildly unrealistic visions of what progress would be, and how fast it would come, that was sold to the country during the lead-up to the war.
Understimating how long it would take to train an effective Iraqi police and military force is one facet of this problem, and there are others.
Posted by: Jeff Eaton at November 20, 2005 10:04 AM
I agree with both those points, though I see the media as incompetent, not evil.
As for Bush being overly optimistic about Iraq, I don’t know if that was really true as much as he just felt it was necessary regardless of how hard it was or wasn’t going to be.
But we definitely made some mistakes in the planning phase, though we did plan for a lot of things that didn’t happen instead of planning for some of the things that did happen.
That is, there was no humanitarian disaster, but there was an electrical disaster.
Posted by: Opinionated Bastard ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.opinionatedbastard.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 21, 2005 8:15 AM
I think your analysis is pretty much on the mark, and yet it misses the point, which is, is “victory in Iraq” victory in the war on Islamofascist terror, especially if such victory is followed by US troop withdrawal?
I’m certain that the two victories are not congruent. In fact, Iraq was only a beachhead battlefield in the war on terror. Islamist terror is supported by the Saudi, Iranian, and Syrian regimes, all of which share borders with Iraq, and hence are vulnerable to direct military pressure from American troops in Iraq - assuming American troops are still in Iraq. If we withdraw them, we volutarily remove our single most effective lever in affecting the terror-supporting actions of the nations I mentioned. (We won’t even talk about Pakistan for the moment). How does that advance us closer to victory in the war on terror?
I fear the biggest mistake people make - including GWB himself - is focusing on Iraq as if establishing a democracy there after removing Saddam is all we need to protect the US against further terror attack. This is a world where Iran is about to obtain nukes and already has stores of other WMD.
I don’t care whether Iraq can “defend itself,” as long as it can’t foster Islamist terror or order deniable surrogate attacks against us. But to give up our hard-won military presence in the middle east because we have achieved “victory” in Iraq is a fool’s game, and one I fear we will all live to regret (well, most of us - some will die, of course) if it comes to pass.
Posted by: Bill Quick at November 21, 2005 6:14 PM
I wrote a long piece on this awhile back, you can read it here. The main point for me is that Iraq is dead center in the Middle East, so its the best fulcrum for our levers. I think we’re surrounding Iran.
Posted by: Opinionated Bastard at November 22, 2005 7:54 AM
