It's working, so stop it

Before last week, I had a mostly positive impression of Gen. David Petraeus. He seemed to me a smarter-than-average and capable military leader.

This impression was largely shaped by Thomas E. Rick's Fiasco, which still stands as one of the best early histories of America's catastrophic misadventure in Iraq. Petraeus plays a major role in Ricks' account as a capable contrast to the lethal bunglers like Gen. Sanchez and Gen. Odierno, a man who wisely dissents from the brutish foolishness of their if-only-we-could-kill-all-the-bad-people approach.

On the basis of this impression from Ricks, I was somewhat encouraged when President Bush tapped Petraeus to lead the American occupation. I had some slender hope that he might be able to steer us toward whatever the least bad of our very bad remaining options might be and bring the debacle to some kind of soft landing. It was uncharacteristic of Bush to empower someone who had been so critical of his earlier policies, so I was also worried that Petraeus was merely being set up as a scapegoat -- someone to blame for failing to unsoil the bed.

But whatever hopes or positive impressions I might have had of the general, they did not survive last week, when I saw that video making him out to be a fool and a man turning his back on his duty. I don't mean the notorious Move On ad, I mean the C-SPAN video of Petraeus' actual testimony, which was equal parts nonsense and bullshit. That's a rude term, but a necessary one.

But first the nonsense. Petraeus was sent before Congress to argue that, A) the "surge" is working; and therefore B) we should end it. Most of the discussion of his testimony centered on the factual claim A, for which he provided little credible evidence. The many reports contradicting this claim -- from the GAO, from an independent panel of military leaders, from the most recent National Intelligence Estimate -- provided a great deal of evidence, none of which Petraeus seemed able to refute.

But set aside the facts and their bias against Petraeus' testimony -- his argument simply makes no sense. One could argue that the surge was not working, and therefore ought to be ended. Or one could argue that the surge is working, and therefore ought to be continued. But to argue, as both Gen. Petraeus and President Bush did, that it is working and therefore must be stopped is just bizarre. The general and the president both came across like something out of Lewis Carroll.

I can't see how any sense can be made of this. Please try, someone. Play devil's advocate and explain to me why it's reasonable to go before Congress and argue that the new strategy is very effective and therefore must be stopped.

The explanation for all this nonsense, of course, is that the "surge" was just that, a surge -- a temporary and unsustainable increase in the number of troops deployed. It was, from the outset, a 15-month surge. That 15-month period began in January of this year and ends, inexorably, next April. The end of the surge has nothing to do with strategy or with any decision made by anyone in the military or the White House, it is simply a matter of arithmetic. January 2007 + 15 months = next spring. Period.

Which brings us to the bullshit. President Bush knew that the surge, whether or not it accomplished anything, was scheduled to end by next April. Gen. Petraeus knew this. All of the members of the House and Senate committees before which the general testified knew this. All of the media pundits offering color commentary from the wings knew this. Everybody knew this.

Yet Gen. Petraeus and President Bush decided to pretend that they didn't know this. Both of them got up and offered their incoherent "the strategy is working so we must end it" argument, disingenuously claiming that the reason for this step had nothing to do with what they both knew -- and they knew we knew -- was the real reason. Gen. Petraeus said things he knew weren't true. Usually, that's called lying, but Dr. Harry G. Frankfurt makes the case that lying is an attempt to deceive, which involves at least a backhanded respect for the truth. Shoveling nonsense with utter disregard for the truth, not caring even if those who hear it are deceived, is what Dr. Frankfurt classifies, with professorial precision, as bullshit.

Part of the original rationale for the troop surge was to "buy time" for the Iraqi government to become self-sustaining and for the Iraqi army to be sufficiently trained (so that "that can stand up and we can stand down"). But last week's ritualized nonsense had nothing to do with buying time for the Maliki administration, it was all about buying time for the Bush administration -- helping this president to run out the clock, forestalling the inevitable withdrawal so that it happens on the next president's watch in the hopes that this will provide a foothold for the stab-in-the-back legend blaming the whole fiasco on those who opposed it from the start.

This desperate attempt to redeem the political legacy of a failed administration had nothing to do with any military objectives in Iraq, nothing to do with America's national interests, and still less to do with any meaningful benefit for the people of Iraq. Yet Gen. Petraeus was perfectly willing to spend a week in service of that agenda and to say ridiculous things in support of it.

Why?

Comments

[Radar]

Maybe they were trying to distract from other, serious issues.

[Rozzen]

Why?
They're holding his wife hostage ?

[Edo]

Logical is the new black?

[Jesurgislac]

Why?

He was ordered to lie for his Commander-in-Chief, and he obediently did so.

'I swear by God this sacred oath: I will render unconditional obedience to George W. Bush, the President of the United States and people, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, and will be ready as a brave soldier to risk my life at any time for this oath.'

[J]

How likely was it ever that someone handpicked by Bush to do anything would not agree with him 100%? I TOLD you all this would happen several months ago. I believe my exact words were, "And when he [Petraeus] gets up there to testify in September, Bush's hand will be so far up the man's ass he can tickle his tonsils."

It has been proven over and over and OVER again that Bush appoints NOBODY based on comptence. It's all about loyalty.

And the whole talk of "ending" the surge--or even of the surge ending itself--seems beside the point. The whole vision is to have 30,000 fewer troops in Iraq by next summer. So, fifteen months after we started, we'll have exactly as many troops in as when we began; 130,000. The whole "Wait until the report in September" thing was a complete sideshow. It just bought time until they could finish writing up their new slogan, "Wait until next summer".

And why does Betrayus' testimony matter anyway? This is friggin' America; military leaders don't make strategic decisions here; supposedly we the people do. The whole "we-have-to-listen-to-what-the-generals-are-telling -us" angle is bullshit; a cover behind which politicians are hiding.

[the opoponax]

My assumption as this played out last week was that they wanted to create a situation that would look like the Bush Administration tokenisticly "bringing the troops home". Oh, except that they're not bringing all the troops home, just a few which were only meant to be temporary anyway.

But "demobilizing blah de blah" gets to be in headlines and on the TV, so the masses who have a track record in this administration of not paying very close attention will be deceived into thinking that the Republicans are trying to end the war, and/or that Bush is "starting the demobilization process", so that a future Democratic administration can be blamed later for complications and imperfections in the real life demobilization process, or perhaps for the war itself (especially easy if someone like Clinton, who voted in favor of Iraq in the first place, becomes President).

[Eoghan]

Since you did ask for someone to play devil's advocate, there are two possible explanations for the "the surge is working so we must stop it" idea.
First, the surge *is working* now but in six more months it will *have worked*. Violence in Iraq will be reduced to negligible levels, the mission will have been accomplished, and the troops can be brought home. 30,000 of them anyway.
Second, "the surge" is as much a change in strategy as a change in the number of troops. The new strategy of arming the sunnis and killing the shias, as opposed to the old strategy of arming the shias and killing the sunnis, is producing these great gains in security and will continue to work wonders even with fewer US troops.

[Rozzen]

And why does Betrayus' testimony matter anyway? This is friggin' America; military leaders don't make strategic decisions here; supposedly we the people do. The whole "we-have-to-listen-to-what-the-generals-are-telling -us" angle is bullshit; a cover behind which politicians are hiding.

I agree this is true in this particular case, but I think making a general policy of not listening to the generals during a war is pretty stupid (and is one of the mistakes Bush made).
I'm not saying do everything they say, the final choices are obviously with the civilian leadership, but you have to admit that the military are the ones who have at worst trained for war, and at best had actual experience with it. So their opinion and advice on the matter should be worth having.

[Rozzen]

Yay, Opo's back ^^

[the opoponax]

I had a crazy few weeks at work, and a weekend away from new-fangled 20th century gadgets (yes, 20th century, I didn't so much as use a phone.).

[Doctor Science]

What is Petreaus' religious affiliation? Is he a apocalyptic fundamentalist? Is he, in fact, trying to bring the End Times? Unfortunately, it's not a remote, tinfoil-hats-only possibility.

[J]

I'm not saying do everything they say, the final choices are obviously with the civilian leadership, but you have to admit that the military are the ones who have at worst trained for war, and at best had actual experience with it. So their opinion and advice on the matter should be worth having.

Uh huh. Yeah I've heard the "soldiers know firsthand the horror of war" argument before. It's bullshit. What was it James Merrill (or some other poet) wrote, "Soldiers learn each day the importance of war"?

Show me an anti-war general and I'll show you . . . um, something else that doesn't exist but which I can't think of.

[Jesurgislac]

Rozzen: I'm not saying do everything they say, the final choices are obviously with the civilian leadership, but you have to admit that the military are the ones who have at worst trained for war, and at best had actual experience with it. So their opinion and advice on the matter should be worth having.

Soldiers/military commanders do not get to decide military policy - they don't get to say "Hey, we think we should invade that country over there!" or "We think we should continue this military occupation!"

Their knowledge and experience, however, ought to be consulted when civilian commanders are making these decisions, and their estimates of the cost - both in materiel and in personnel - and whether the civilian plan/policy is possible given the current status of the military, and if not, what it will cost to bring the military to a state that will make the civilian directives possible.

In short, what General Eric Shinseki tried to do, and was ignored.

[Ian]

Yes, Rozzen, advice from military experts is important, though it's not clear that the Pentagon is producing generals who are experts at this kind of war.

It's worth noting, though, that senior commanders are political appointees. We have to consider the degree to which their advice is intended to further their career, particularly because the Pentagon has become a highly careerist bureaucracy. More importantly, it's the civilian leadership which sets grand strategy and which chooses those generals best suited to achieve those goals. If you can't trust the president, why trust his minion?

If the military is civilian-controlled, even the generals are supposed to be pawns. If they fail to obey the administration, they're fired, and if they disagree with they administration, they resign.

When what a general tells us something (the surge is working) which is clearly contrary to fact (Iraqi factions are further than ever from reconciliation) it's right to conclude that the general is either incompetent or dissembling. You don't need to be an expert to know that.

[Ayezur]

Am I the only one who thought he looked really uncomfortable during his testimony? Like, more than the usual "God I hate public speaking" deal.

[Rozzen]

Uh huh. Yeah I've heard the "soldiers know firsthand the horror of war" argument before. It's bullshit. What was it James Merrill (or some other poet) wrote, "Soldiers learn each day the importance of war"?

Show me an anti-war general and I'll show you . . . um, something else that doesn't exist but which I can't think of.

Where did I say they know something of the horrors of war ? (not that they don't, they and the civilian victims seem to be in first line to know about it. However it happens to impact their political and philosophical opinions)
What they should ideally know (of course they don't always, but at least they have the training and/or the experience that would justify some expertise in the matter) is something of waging a war.

Besides even though I don't like making such pronouncements with no experience of it it does seem military people are biased - maybe in a "to a kid with a hammer everything looks like a nail" way. That's why I said consult them, not leave the decision to them.

Kind of like scientists on subjects like climate change. They've studied the matter all their life, it makes sense to go to them for the facts and their opinions on what to do, but that doesn't mean they should make policy decisions instead of the government.

Soldiers/military commanders do not get to decide military policy - they don't get to say "Hey, we think we should invade that country over there!" or "We think we should continue this military occupation!"

Their knowledge and experience, however, ought to be consulted when civilian commanders are making these decisions, and their estimates of the cost - both in materiel and in personnel - and whether the civilian plan/policy is possible given the current status of the military, and if not, what it will cost to bring the military to a state that will make the civilian directives possible.
Maybe I wasn't clear, but that was exactly what I meant.

[Rozzen]

When what a general tells us something (the surge is working) which is clearly contrary to fact (Iraqi factions are further than ever from reconciliation) it's right to conclude that the general is either incompetent or dissembling. You don't need to be an expert to know that.
Yes, as I said I don't think my comment applies to the present situation. I only said it because J seemed to make a general statement and it's the general statement I disagreed with. I may have been mistaken on J's meaning though.

[Jeff G.]

Just to play devil's advocate (already done I know) but if the surge were really successful, they should be able to lower the troop levels, i..e the resistance is gone therefore less soldiers are required in the field.

The problems is that a truly successfull surge should result in lower troop levels than we had pre-surge. It's pretty clear from Petraeus' testimony that that isn't going to happen any time soon. So I don't know how you could possibly consider it a success.

[wintermute]

Kind of like scientists on subjects like climate change. They've studied the matter all their life, it makes sense to go to them for the facts and their opinions on what to do, but that doesn't mean they should make policy decisions instead of the government.

Well, given that the US Government's policy on climate change seems to be "Lalalalala I can't hear you", I'm not convinced that they're automatically better at setting public policy on highly technical matters than the scientists would be...

[Corbie]

I was sort of assuming it had to do with the lengthy deployments necessitated by the surge bringing the military to the breaking point. "It's working, and we can't keep this up any longer, so let's stop now before all our military personnel refuse to reinlist."

The military is now training Navy and Air Force personnel in ground combat, just in case. Kinda scary, that.

[Ecks]

Devils advocate:
From the charts Petraeus showed (full disclosure: I saw his powerpoint online, not his actual talk), the violence pre-surge had been building to spectacular levels, and is now down to roughly pre-surge levels, so you could argue that the resources required to keep making progress become proportionately less.

My guess why he actually did it: He figures he's smarter than a lot of the other idiot generals (which, like you, was my a priori impression), and if he is going to be allowed to keep doing smarter things, he can't resign, and must instead allow Bush's hand to reach as far as his tonsils for this one particular speech. It's a tactical loss of sorts (to his integrity) for strategic gain (control of war conduct). My guess is they worked a similar whammy on Powell, which makes it seem like it must be a pretty compelling one to be in the thralls of.

The KOS sorts are now publishing reports that Petraeus has used stupid and evil policies in Iraq, but I genuinely don't know what to believe about these. It's an extremely complex environment, and I'm inclined to believe that all simple analyses are probably wrong.

[J]

I only said it because J seemed to make a general statement and it's the general statement I disagreed with. I may have been mistaken on J's meaning though.

No, you were right. We should never listen to generals, ever. I'm sorry I'm not a member of your little Church of St. Shinseki.

The scientists and climate change analogy is apt, but not the way you think it is. We should ask generals' opinion on war the same way we should ask Exxon executives' opinion on climate change.

"General" is just "murderer" mispelled.

[LL]

We're building (or have just completed) the largest US embassy in the world in Baghdad. We're not leaving. We'll withdraw to just inside the walls of the embassy compound. And I'm guessing we'll keep people in the Kurdish north, too. The surge is just PR bullshit constructed for the civilians back home. I suspect it never mattered whether it "worked" or not. We did what we went there to do in Iraq: establish a huge embassy in the capital city to keep the Iraqi government from getting any funny ideas and put weapons on the border with Iran to keep the Iranians "in line."

[sievetronix]

The Surge was probably the only option open to them. Barring a draft they cannot sustain high troop levels and leaving is not an option being taken seriously by anyone with the power to do so. so the only thing they could think to do was say hey lets send in a bunch of troops to forcably calm the situation down to the point where they can manage to get some order out of the chaos there. I doubt they believed notion they can "prop up" the govt. of Iraq, a lost cause if there ever was one, what what they hoped to accomplish was probably to lower the amounts of killing and violence and to buy time to get basic services up and running throughout Iraq. Hopefully that would cause a sense of optimism in the Iraqi people and a willingness to get with the program.

Of coarse this looks like total occupation to the Iraqis and escalation to the American public pretty much killing the chances of it working, but what options does the field commander of the Us forces have.

Leaving is out.
Diplomacy is more concerned with cock wagging at Iran than finding a workable solution to leaving Iraq. (Assuming they want to leave Iraq)

So that leaves General Petraeus very few options and he didn't have a whole hell of alot to begin with.

So in that sense his testimony is not complete bullshit. It is working in the fact that violence is down(slightly and consider the rates were rising every month) And it is true that they should stop it.
(It is completly unsustainable and if continued over a long period of time, counterproductive)

Don't get me wrong I don't like the surge but at this point there are no good ideas left.

And this brings me to the General we went befor the congress lied, fibbed and put the best face on things to make his bosses look good.
This doesn't make him stupid.
Being a General doesn't make evil. But good Generals are very practical and he has to be thinking, considering Bush's track record of appointees if I am not here doing this job god knows what toadying asslick of a general they are going to appoint and how much worse is that going to be. (things can always get worse.)

[Dave Klecha]

The surge is not a strategy in and of itself, but an enabler of strategy (or, rather, tactical) change. Because, really, we're not even talking strategy necessarily but tactics. The strategy has been the same since the day I set foot in Iraq in March of 2004, and had been ongoing from before that: provide security, often in place of Iraqi forces, until the Iraqi forces can be brought up to speed. Everything sort of flows out from that simple strategy statement.

So, the surge enabled a change in tactics. It also enabled offensives against cities like Baqubah and Hit which were insurgent/Al Qaeda strongholds. It enabled troops to set up and populated neighborhood strongholds from which targeted raids, military, and police action could be taken within Baghdad. The surge was required because it takes more troops to establish something like this than maintain it. Now that many of these neighborhood outposts are operational, fewer troops are required and more can be brought home.

There was also a somewhat unanticipated side effect of the surge, which is that it provided a sort of PR statement to the Anbari tribes that the Americans were committed to security. As a result, Anbar province is getting to be one of the more quiet parts of Iraq, and the Marines are considering making Ramadi a no-body-armor zone, which doesn't exist outside of the Forward Operating Bases north of Kuwait. That, in turn, reduces the forces necessary to patrol that region, freeing up brigades to go home and not be replaced.

Overall, though, I think it's too simplistic a statement to boil Petraeus' testimony down to "The surge is working, we must stop the surge." If nothing else, the second part of that, in the testimony was a mix of "can" and "must." Partly, he was reporting that the surge can be ended or scaled back without negative consequences to the security of Iraq, and partly that it must be scaled back or ended in order to preserve readiness levels in the military.

[Rozzen]

My guess why he actually did it: He figures he's smarter than a lot of the other idiot generals (which, like you, was my a priori impression), and if he is going to be allowed to keep doing smarter things, he can't resign, and must instead allow Bush's hand to reach as far as his tonsils for this one particular speech. It's a tactical loss of sorts (to his integrity) for strategic gain (control of war conduct). My guess is they worked a similar whammy on Powell, which makes it seem like it must be a pretty compelling one to be in the thralls of.

Wow, if it happened like that it totally makes him a Robin Hobbs hero (well, other heroes too whose names slip my mind at the moment but I happen to be reading a book by her). I totally admire him for it. I don't believe the real world works that way, or as tidily, but it's still nice to think of them that way...

We should ask generals' opinion on war the same way we should ask Exxon executives' opinion on climate change.
Huh ? I can see why you say that, people in the military have a certain set of blinders, they may not know as much as they think they know, etc, but to me the analogy fails in that generals don't have a self-interest in a war going badly. Do they ? (I mean, one could imagine circumstances where a general would have some twisted vested interest in losing a war, but it's far from 2+2=4 like Oil lobbies and global warming...)

No wait, I think I've understood your point of view, which is that we should never get into a war in the first place, which would spare us the need to talk to the generals about it. So basically we're not arguing about the same thing at all. Sorry to have bothered you with it then.

[Richard Hershberger]

"My guess is they worked a similar whammy on Powell, which makes it seem like it must be a pretty compelling one to be in the thralls of."

You may be onto something, but while I consider Powell something of a tragic figure, this makes Petraeus out merely to be a slow learner.

[ericblair]

You may be onto something, but while I consider Powell something of a tragic figure, this makes Petraeus out merely to be a slow learner.

The scariest interpretation of Petraeus's conduct is that he's deliberately going along keeping us bogged down in Iraq so we don't free up the troops to do anything even more self-destructive, like, for example, invading Iran. I don't believe it, though, since if there's one thing the Pentagon's good at, it's slowing things down and gumming up the works. Does tend to keep you up at nights, though.

The two stories about Petraeus circulating are: his boss, Commander CENTCOM Adm Fallon called him an "ass-kissing little chickenshit", so if that's true, take the Admiral at his word; and second, that Petraeus is considering running for President sometime. So who knows, maybe Petraeus thought he could pull a rabbit out of a hat in Iraq and be the shining star of the Republican party in a few years.

Do generals always want war? Assuming totally amoral self-interested behavior, no. On one hand, combat command experience is a great ticket punch for promotions. On the other hand, costly and/or unsuccessful wars really put a turd in your personnel folder. Remember, Powell was initially opposed to the Gulf war, and a big reason was that it was going to break a lot of the shiny Army toys that everyone liked.

[J]

All these arguments that Petraeus is a secret genius who's only ACTING like a maestro-mouthpiece of manifold clusterfuckery . . . Not buying it. Because that's been the line all along; that despite that deafening quacking noise we're all hearing, the Iraq war is NOT a duck. Truly, it's about to get better, any second now . . . it's just a few dead-enders . . . the media aren't reporting the good news . . . stuff happens . . . there are known unknowns . . . etc.

[Jeff]

Show me an anti-war general and I'll show you . . . um, something else that doesn't exist but which I can't think of.

Sherman. Bradley. Eisenhower, I think. Schwartzkopf, possibly. They do exist, they're just very rare.

======================================================

the Pentagon has become a highly careerist bureaucracy

Since at least the Civil War. Quite probably since its founding.

======================================================

the Marines are considering making Ramadi a no-body-armor zone

Not after last Friday, I don't think. (I trust G'Kar at ObWi more than n00bie spouting BushSpeak.)

====================================================

I consider Powell something of a tragic figure

Not me. He had more than a little involvemnet with the reporting on Mai Lai, and willingly lied to the UN. Unless tragic=asshole.

[bulbul]

the Pentagon has become a highly careerist bureaucracy
Since at least the Civil War. Quite probably since its founding.
Um, wasn't Pentagon built and the DoD created after WWII?

[Ecks]

J, I don't know who you're talking to, but *nobody* here is arguing that the war is going well, and that given a month or two it'll be an orgy of love in Baghdad. The wildest optimist we've heard thinks that things aren't TERMINALLY fucked up YET, but there's only been 1 or 2 of those.

What we do have are a couple of theories about why Petraeus would say what he did that don't boil down to "all generals are lying manipulative psychopaths all the time."

Whether this particular general is a lying psychopath, though, remains to be seen.

[$85 Duane]

Now yer just showing off Bulbul.

[Tehanu]

the Pentagon has become a highly careerist bureaucracy
Since at least the Civil War. Quite probably since its founding.
Um, wasn't Pentagon built and the DoD created after WWII?

Posted by: bulbul | Sep 19, 2007 at 07:07 PM

If by "Pentagon" you mean the actual building, it was built just before WWII. The Dept. of War was renamed the Dept. of Defense -- for that, though, I'm not sure about the date.

However, if you mean "Pentagon" as a metaphor for the highest reaches of US military bureaucracy, not just the literal building, then the comment about how far careerism dates back is, if anything, not inclusive enough. It's been a feature of armies since Xenophon.

[Elmo]

Petraeus is a careerist. The closet thing he had to a command position before this was as an aide to a general (a.k.a the general's pissboy). The only reason he got this position was because he has proven himself incapable of bucking anything remotely resembling a person who could affect his career. Ass-kisser would be a complient.

[mmack]

The Dept. of War was renamed the Dept. of Defense -- for that, though, I'm not sure about the date.

The DoD dates back to the National Security Act of 1947, which also established the United States Air Force as it's own branch of the armed forces. The Department of Defense was officially named in 1949.

[hapax]

Fun fact! I just heard on the radio this morning that the CIA is celebrating its sixtieth anniversary. Time to pull out that diamond-encrusted waterboard!

[cjmr]

bulbul: Um, wasn't Pentagon built and the DoD created after WWII?

duane: Now yer just showing off Bulbul.

Bulbul--proudly showing off that he knows more about American history than actual Americans do since...I dunno...at least 2006.

[rampancy]

@ Jesurgislac:

"He was ordered to lie for his Commander-in-Chief, and he obediently did so.

'I swear by God this sacred oath: I will render unconditional obedience to George W. Bush, the President of the United States and people, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, and will be ready as a brave soldier to risk my life at any time for this oath.'"

Reading that reminded me immediately of the songs Capital G, and The Hand That Feeds by Nine Inch Nails. I kinda find that really disturbing - I guess Year Zero is coming sooner than we think.

[Ursula L]

"I swear by God this sacred oath: I will render unconditional obedience to George W. Bush, the President of the United States and people, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, and will be ready as a brave soldier to risk my life at any time for this oath."

"I swear by God this sacred oath: I will render unconditional obedience to George W. Bush, the President and Commander-in-Chief of the United States, and will be ready as a brave soldier to risk my life at any time for this oath."

I don't think I've ever heard Shrub limit his commander-in-chiefness to the Armed Forces. He thinks he commands the country, not just the army, navy and state militias.

[Jesurgislac]

rampancy: Reading that reminded me immediately of the songs Capital G, and The Hand That Feeds by Nine Inch Nails. I kinda find that really disturbing - I guess Year Zero is coming sooner than we think.

I wondered if anyone would recognize where I got the wording from. I guess if no one notices, they can't accuse you of Godwinizing, right?

[Rob]

I've encountered this, "Soldiers know firsthand the horror of war" attitude from two people now, one of whom actually said to me, "I don't follow the war because a civilian trying to understand war is like a virgin trying to understand sex."

I must admit, I am completely perplexed and mildly repulsed by this position. The best soldier in the world has no idea what's going on in the Iraqi parliament right now, and may not understand the ancient relationship between Sunnis and Shiites. Soldiers don't negotiate peace or supervise reconstruction. War has a lot of dimensions besides military tactics.

Anyway, this war isn't going to end when we've killed all the badguys or the Iraqis lay down their king or anything like that. In this war, the soldiers can win battles – lots of battles – but the war will still be lost without the involvement of many people whose attitudes must necessarily be different from those of the folks in the fray, which is why I find this hands off, "just do what the military tells us" public face of the administration to make no sense.

A recent poll suggests that many Americans have no faith in the president or congress, but still believe the military provides the best hope for "successfully resolving the war in Iraq." Whatever resolution a bunch of guys with guns and bombs might bring to a situation, I doubt very much it will be anything we would call "successful," assuming success isn't "A million more people who want us dead."

[Ursula L]

Rob wrote: I've encountered this, "Soldiers know firsthand the horror of war" attitude from two people now, one of whom actually said to me, "I don't follow the war because a civilian trying to understand war is like a virgin trying to understand sex."

(The following is not directed at Rob, but at whomever said that originally.)

Since when do civilians not know the horror of war?

My father was six, and certainly a civilian, when he looked over the fields and watched Munich burn. He knows the horror of war. My stepmother was the same age as she fled past piles of charred corpses as Dresden burned. She knows the horror of war. My grandmothers hid in cellars for weeks, having to choose between going out and getting raped, or staying hidden and not trying to find food to feed their children, as the Russian army moved in and occupied. They knew the horror of war.

Civilians in London, Leningrad, Dresden, Nanking all knew the horror of war in WWII. Civilians in Korea, Vietnam and Cambodia certainly knew the horror of war. Iraqi civilians definitely know the horror of war.

If anything, the soldier has a protected experience of war, being armed, surrounded by comrades also armed, and trained to know how to fight. Particularly the US soldier, knowing their family is safe and well fed at home.

[Jim]

People, first of all, y'all need to go read Sun Tzu, and then come back to continue this discussion if what we are doing is discussing what a general is. I don't think that is what we are actually talking about, though. The real problem here is that armies, and the generals who command them, exist to contend with other armies and other generals. That is, in fact, their purpose. When you start using armies and generals to contend with terrorists, you are moving into areas where armies and generals don't work so well.

Jesus, didn't we learn anything from our Vietnam experience? (And even there there was more of an actual military opponent than we have in Iraq.) Green Berets, Rangers, SEALs and other highly secret and highly trained groups were developed to deal with just these kinds of situations. Unfortunately, it appears that they have all succumbed to testosterone poisoning in that the emphasis is on fighting rather than building infrastructure on the ground to combat our opponents.

Of course, once we actually invaded Iraq, the time for following such long term goals as building infrastructure passed. However, would'a should'a could'a doesn't do anything to change the reality we are currently faced with. So, the question we should be asking becomes something like, "What will happen to us if we unilaterally pull out of Iraq. What are the potential ramifications and unintended consequences of such an action." Once such a question is asked, we should examine the responses from all across the spectrum (from the "only good things" to "only bad things") and then begin to make our decisions based upon what we learn from this debate.

Again, that is what we should do, but this is most likely not what we are going to do. What we are most likely going to do is have a shouting match, and the winner of this match will get to decide policy for the next four years.

What's the quote? A people get the government they deserve...or something like that? *sigh*

[85% Duane]

bulbul: Um, wasn't Pentagon built and the DoD created after WWII?

duane: Now yer just showing off Bulbul.

Bulbul--proudly showing off that he knows more about American history than actual Americans do since...I dunno...at least 2006.

No way, since 2005 sometime. Hell, I was reading slacktivist out loud to my wife standing in line at Disneyworld in early 2005 and one of the reasons I was reading other than Fred being so justwowsers was because of the awesome commenters. Surely that included the Bulbster??

[Jeff]

a civilian trying to understand war is like a virgin trying to understand sex.

Actually, this is apt, just not in the way that's meant. A virgin can understand sex -- can learn the mechanics, can appreciate the feelings, can just plain "understand" it (I understand the basics of how to fly a plane, even if I've never done it). So too, a civilian can understand war without having to undergo it. (Experience helps, but it's not the only way to learn.)

the Bulbster

Wouldn't it be "bulbulla"? [/smirk]

[Consumer Unit 5012]

What's the quote? A people get the government they deserve...or something like that? *sigh*

I think the Onion had the best retort to that, after Bush got "elected" in 2000: "They say people get the government they deserve, but I don't remember knife-raping any retarded nuns." :-P

[Ryan Ferneau]

"Ah, excellent work, Pfumpher. You're fired!"
"Fired? Why? I did my job perfectly!"
"Exactly. That's why... I don't need you anymore!"

[Ecks]

So, the question we should be asking becomes something like, "What will happen to us if we unilaterally pull out of Iraq

Yeah, I think that's why I'm so ambivalent about it now. I literally have no idea what will happen after withdrawal. Maybe better, maybe worse, more than at any point before in the whole history of this saga, I really have just. no. idea.

I think at root the question of whether the army is helping or not is the wrong one, though. Inasmuch as anything can be done at all, the answer isn't primarily military, it's political. But here's the bind: The political solution probably needs some form of military action to gain traction, so it would seem like a good idea to have the military there in case anyone figures out what that political solution is. BUT, nobody does know has a clue what it is, and even if they did, they wouldn't be allowed anywhere near a lever of power, so long as said lever is in the clammy hands of an impotent dimwit so petulant he likes to stand at the head of a heap of self-important flunkies, and call himself "the decider."

So... the army might be part of the solution, but isn't until 2008 at least, and by then humpty dumpty will be even more evenly smeared into the sidewalk... But is that just too much frustration talking? I don't know. The things I hear from Iraq are so fragmented and contradictory now that I don't know what to believe.

[cjmr]

duane: the Bulbster

jeff: Wouldn't it be "bulbulla"? [/smirk]

We could just call him 'Abdul the Bulbul Emir' and be done with it. (See Election Thread for further details)