« Sandmonkey Quick StudyBagram Rodeo »

Brainiacs of Baghdad

Small Wars Journal holds UK Guardian back after class for shoddy work on that Baghdad Brain Trust assignment: 

Today’s Guardian article (“Military Chiefs Give US Six Months to Win Iraq War”) misrepresents the Baghdad advisers. So much so, it makes me doubt the reliability of the single, unidentified source responsible for much of the article’s reporting.

I hope SWJ colleagues will forgive this more “personal” post than usual, but as Senior Counterinsurgency Adviser I have a duty to set the record straight on this.

There is a real country called Iraq, where a real war is going on, with real progress but very real challenges. We are not going to “win the war” in six months — nor would anyone expect to. But the Guardian seems to be describing some completely different, (possibly mythical) country, and some imaginary group of harried and depressed advisers bearing no resemblance to reality. As counterinsurgency professionals, we take an evidence-based approach and we are well aware of the extremely demanding task we face. That makes us cautious realists — but we are far from pessimists, as the Guardian’s anonymous source seems to imply.

The article is littered with inaccuracies:

• the “advisers” are not bunkered down in the Green Zone, but in another location, and frequently out on the ground.

• the article (incorrectly) describes me as a serving military officer – I’m a civilian diplomat, as any source truly familiar with the team’s thinking would be well aware.

• while recognizing the severity of the challenge, the team’s mood is far from pessimistic. Success will take months or years, not weeks or days, and although early signs are somewhat encouraging it’s really far too early to say how things will play out. The war has been going for four years, the new strategy for less than four weeks. Give it time.

• the State department is not failing to meet its personnel targets. On the contrary, more than 90 % of civilian positions in Iraq are filled, and we will grow to 20 Provincial Reconstruction Teams soon.

• the coalition is far from disintegrating – British redeployment from the South reflects improved security, not lack of will, and the same day the British announced their move the Australians announced a force increase in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

• The plan is not “unclear” or “constantly changing” – we all know exactly what the plan is. The article seems to be mistaking the freedom and agility which have been granted to us, allowing us to respond dynamically to a dynamic situation, for vacillation.

The rest here, with some Iraqi progress listed.  I thought that Guardian brain trust article sounded a lot like warmed-over crap from a single source who was telling the Guardian what the Guardian wanted to hear.
h/t reader EWB

Topics: Iraq, military

  Posted by Jules Crittenden at 9:25 am Comments (2) on Friday, March 2, 2007

2 Responses to “Brainiacs of Baghdad”

1. Bill's Bites Says:
   March 2nd, 2007 at 1:16 pm

   Nibbles // Open Post — 2007.03.02

   Just read ‘em. Maybe I’ll find time to do more with ‘em later. (And some things that are too short to excerpt and too good to not mention.) Please feel free to use this post for comments and trackbacks not

2. Old War Dogs Says:
   March 2nd, 2007 at 1:17 pm

   Bill’s Nibbles // Open Post — 2007.03.02

   Some Bill’s Bites posts, some things I excerpted and linked but I’m sending you to the original post. I may rearrange the order of the items within this post as I add new things that I think belong above the

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.