They Beg to Differ
NYT op-ed page hosts seven grunts in Iraq who see the counterinsurgency effort there as pointless and doomed to failure, and wonder why the press says its increasingly manageable.
I believe, in the last week or two, some elements of the press have begun reporting that some people feel that way, but I’d suggest these gentlemen may be misrepresenting the extent of that reporting and what is in fact the “surreal” part of the debate. That would be people like the NYT ed board and Obama saying genocide is OK.
They describe a lot of treachery, unreliability and insecurity, which no doubt is an accurate reflection of their experience and perceptions, but also is countered by numerous accounts from other grunts, officers and embeds that describe growing Iraqi force reliability, improved security and a willingness among brave Iraqis to step forward.
The essay is hampered by the use of a lot of multi-syllabic words to describe abstract concepts, not always very well, making it hard to address the points raised and sometimes hard to understand exactly what they are refering to.
Exactly what course the seven grunts counsel is not clear. They say they are ready to stay to complete the mission, and that it is up to Iraqis to force a withdrawal … something violence prone Iraqis clearly have not managed to do. They say the Iraqi forces are not up to the security task, but appear to advise that U.S. forces take a stand off and let the Iraqis sort it out.
Anyway, free country, they have certainly earned their opinions, whatever those may be. I would love to know the back story, how these seven soldiers came together, decided to take this action and ended up in the New York Times. I’d also be interested to see what comes into the NYT op-ed inbox in reaction to it, and what gets printed. The more knowledgeable voices the better, regardless of their point of view. I’m still waiting for the New York Times to start reporting on this war, especially with September upon us. That said, I suppose we be grateful there is some effort by the op-ed page to make up for the news desk’s failure to bring us much of substance from the field at all.
Best to Staff Sgt. Murphy in his recovery, and best to all of them in the field.
Here’s Blackfive, with a lot. Some point-by-point rebuttals, and also a citation of a past negative analysis that proved spectacularly wrong.
Mark at Blogs for Bush notes that these soldiers are offset by other soldiers’ opinions, all of which is informative, but the military isn’t exactly a democracy. He takes them to task on some overbroad generalizations and the conclusion that the ability to walk down a street unhindered is not an improvement.
Carpetbagger calls it “powerful, accurate, reliable stuff.” Not clear what he’s basing that on. Also, “vastly more important” than everything he disagrees with.
Mahablog, in love with what experienced soldiers say. These are the soldiers that should be listened to. Considerably more important and knowledgeable than Petraeus, their boss, who Mahablog shrugs off. Not clear from this whether Mahablog have ever heard any other soldiers say anything.
Juan Cole thinks its a “thoughtful, analytically precise, and informed essay.” I’d agree with the thoughtful and informed parts, within the range of these infantrymen’s personal experience, but I found it a little analytically obtuse. Cole adds, oddly, “We can’t be too grateful for what these guys are doing for us.” I didn’t realize Cole was a big fan of the mission. I agree with his next comment, however, that “The essay is a major part of seeing through their duty to the American people, since in a democracy, for the people to have a clear-eyed view of the situation is essential to informed policy-making.” It may be that … their opinion … and not fighting terrorism in Iraq part, that Cole is grateful for.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 8:41 pm on Sunday, August 19, 2007
6 Responses to “They Beg to Differ”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
August 20th, 2007 at 3:39 am
I’ve read the article, and Grim’s assessment at Blackfive (along with the comments, which were just as interesting). Juan Cole could not interest me no matter what the subject.
I appreciate the information and assessment in the NYT’s article. I’ve heard it before from Marines returning from Iraq. I even agree with some of it, and find parts of it important to the discussion. I also know that such opinions about operations among the troops are not unusual in the middle of a war. All one need do is read the letters and diaries of Civil War soldiers, for instance, to understand this. There are such letters and diaries from Grant’s soldiers sitting through the hell of the Vicksburg siege that question Grant’s sanity and competency. Who could blame them? This is the reason that articles written during such times are not allowed–or at least, did not used to be allowed. (It’s not my military, just as my military wasn’t my father’s, or his, his father’s.)
If you haven’t read Grim’s post at Blackfive, I recommend that you do (as well as the comments). As one sitting in the comfort of my home, I can only hope that his assessment is correct. We have put ourselves in a Catch 22 situation in this war–and we cannot afford to lose. Civilization cannot afford to lose.
August 20th, 2007 at 7:03 am
I knew a man who survived a Japanese POW camp in the Philippines and he thought MacArthur and FDR should have been shot for leaving them there to die. He saw thousands die. I don’t think most of the military felt that way, but his experiences shaped him.
A person’s individual experiences are valid, but there is a lot of variation to those opinions and I am sure that there are a half dozen guys who could tell you a completely different story about Iraq.
August 20th, 2007 at 11:41 am
All through the late 90’s and into 2003 these people told us Saddam was a juggernaut who had to be stopped. He was a terror enabler, he had weapons, he would use them, besides, the UN sanctions were killing 5000 Iraqi children a month, blah, blah, blah. Regime change in Iraq was a policy crafted and adopted by the Clinton administration. They did not tell us how difficult that would be, only Bush and the neocons did that. Sensing a path back to political relevancy, they fell out of love with the idea and since then we have had an entire string of fabulist lefty “war heroes” (Kerry, McBeth, Beauchamp, and others) tell us that the whole enterprise is a crock and their comrades (our brothers, sons, uncles and fathers) are a bunch of war criminals for going along with it. They even conjured up the old “whiz kid” Robert McNamara to write a book telling us the Vietnam War was a hug mistake and if he had to do it again, he would be much more in tune with the current McGovernite Democrat Party. (It would be nice if 58,000 infantrymen and aviators were waiting for you up there Mr. Secretary to let you know what they thought of your book, but I’m rather hoping you aren’t going where they are). So when does approximately half the country start questioning these people on the issue of National Security, because they have less than zero credibility.
/rant
August 20th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
“82nd Airborne…Near End of 15th month deployment” places them in Salahadin.
The June report to congress listed Salahadin as the second most violent province. Per-Capita it is the most violent province.
August 21st, 2007 at 4:07 pm
VotC, roger on the “but I’m rather hoping you aren’t going where they are.”
September 8th, 2007 at 8:42 am
Eric
I dont agree with you, if you look in Google you will see that your wrong.