Honestly evaluating the situation in Iraq

While I was out and about this morning I heard a very interesting interview by Terry Gross on her program, Fresh Air, with Thomas Ricks, senior Pentagon correspondent for the Washington Post. I urge you to listen to the program online if you get a chance. The link is here. They say the audio will be available at 3:00pm EDT.

Here’s the New York Times review of his evaluation of the conduct of the war in Iraq to date, Fiasco.

Ricks has plenty of criticism to go around: he criticizes the Administration (particularly Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld), the military, and the press. To my ear his harshest criticism was reserved for the Congress. Come to my arms, my beamsome boy!

He also has some praise, in particular for David H. Petraeus, commanding general of the 101st Airborne Division during the 2003 invasion and now responsible for the training of the Iraqi Army and H. R. McMaster, commander of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Division. He quotes Col. McMaster as saying to his men “If you disrespect an Iraqi, you’re working for the enemy”. Made me want to kiss the guy. Somebody who understands the mission.

Ricks examines the entire decision to go to war and the conduct of the war and the occupation, including crimes by U. S. soldiers against Iraqis. His conclusion on the latter is that they fall somewhere between “isolated incidents” and “official policy”. He attributes them to inadequate training and poor leadership.

I think it’s fair to suggest that, due to his long association with and identification with Pentagon offficers, Ricks’s book probably represents at least a dissident view within the Pentagon. I have no way of knowing if it’s a majority opinion.

Ricks’s somewhat pessimistic bottom line is that establishing a democracy favorable to the United States is possible but a long shot at this point with things continuing much as they are now for a generation or more with a substantial military presence in Iraq and a low-grade civil war far more likely. He warns of the utter unacceptability of an Iraq that returns to nationalism and authoritarian rule, whether secularly or religiously based and counsels that only an honest, dispassionate evaluation of the mistakes that have been made to date and a commitment to correct them, coupled with a resolve to see the job through, can result in victory for the U. S.

9 comments… add one
  • I think unfortunately it is probably too late. Too many options have been taken off the table. There is, for example, no chance that the American people will accept an increased US presence in Iraq. Also no chance of other nations offering assistance. Probably too late to reload with a new SecDef — the American people would dismiss it as a desperation move — unless someone like McCain could be convinced to take the job on with plenipotentiary powers. I don’t see that happening. Too late to undo the mass arrests, or the firing of the Iraqi army, or to convince the Iraqis that we respect them.

    I don’t see how we turn this thing. We’re almost secondary to the process there now. It’s not primarily about Iraqis and Americans anymore, it’s more and more an internal Iraqi matter. We’ve lost the strategic initiative. We’ve become hostages.

  • Well, illogical optimism is sweet, but this whole misguided war is an utter disaster, and History will note it as such. The whole sugared-up pie is caving in. Now it’s just a matter of those who iced it up to admit that there is rot and ants all over their plates, and blood on their hands. But that would require NOT being hypnotized, courage, and honesty.

    Spam-filter me all you want. I don’t care if my name appears anywhere online now or ever again. I just have to speak what I have to speak. You’re reading this now. That’s good enough for me.

  • You’ve identified many of the mistakes that Ricks pointed to in the interview, Michael. He also mentioned de-Ba’athification and lack of training for an occupation.

    He puts the odds of actual success i.e. a stable, democratic government favorable to the U. S. at about 1 in 20.

  • Since I opposed the invasion and have always been skeptical (mostly openly) of the program and policy, I don’t feel too responsible for it going south, NLXJ. You probably should listen to the interview—Ricks is far from optimistic.

  • One in 20 is 5%. That’s about where I would put it, too.

  • kreiz Link

    I was thinking the same thing, Michael. But I was also thinking that, pre-war, that’s where Powell, Scowcroft, Bush the Elder & Baker would’ve put it too. I know, I know- it’s water under the bridge. I just wish that someone would’ve listened to Powell.

  • I’ve believed from the very outset that transition to democracy would require a generational shift (or more). That’s one of the sources of my opposition to the original invasion: the solution was operating on a different timescale from the problem.

  • Uza Nolme Link

    I am reading these points of view and it is all linear thinking, nothing to do with how the world works. Failure? Success? What kind of binary thinkers are you people? It is probably too late to teach any of you the intricacies of how the world actually unfolds, particularly those of you whose binary views are particularly entrenched.

    You’re reading this now. That’s good enough for me.

    Oh, just too rich, my friend, too rich.
    :^)

  • I think you need to read a little more closely and a little more extensively, Uza Nolme.

    Perhaps my definition of success in this context would be helpful: we will have been successful if we maintain a level of safety and security for my countrymen in the United States without killing millions or hundreds of millions of people and reducing the Middle East to a radioactive slagheap.

    Still too linear for you? Then, please, help me out. Explain how I should be thinking about this.

Leave a Comment