.U.S. can still win in Iraq — but not with the military alone
PEACEMAKING AND NATION-BUILDING
U.S. can still win in Iraq — but not with the military alone
BY KEN ALLARD
That master satirist Jonathan Swift would have nodded knowingly, because he wrote: "When a true genius appears in this world you will know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
Strictly speaking, Swift wasn't talking about military genius, but there, too, our best and brightest are waging an uphill fight against the confederacy of the deliberately uninvolved.
The latest evidence came last month as Army Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli spoke from Baghdad at an end-of-tour news conference. His duties in Iraq this time included command of all U.S. ground forces. A tour begun against the hopeful backdrop of successful Iraqi elections is concluding with increasing sectarian violence.
Yet even now, Chiarelli believes in the success of the mission in Iraq if the proper diplomatic, military, economic and political strengths of the United States are brought to bear "against an enemy that we can destroy."
Civil-military integration is the key to that effort, even if it means realigning "our organizations and systems" so that military success on the ground can be matched by economic and political achievements. He said that 130,000 jobs added to the Iraqi economy might achieve more than 130,000 new soldiers.
But you might not have seen Chiarelli's news conference because our hyperactive media outlets were busy focusing on the report of the Iraq Study Group. There, the main thrust of the story line seemed to involve the willing suspension of disbelief.
How else to interpret a blue ribbon study that might have been produced at far less expense by an especially bright group of college sophomores? How else to take seriously the earnest entreaties for Syrian and Iranian cooperation, the equally naive pleas for greater political tolerance by the alleged Iraqi government?
Never was credulity more challenged than by the ISG's ludicrous assertion that unilateral U.S. troop withdrawals commence by 2008 — even if it means failing to counter the very real possibilities of ethnic cleansing, Iranian escalation or regional instability.
Not that I am suggesting, however, that the report was totally useless. Add a couple of "wouldja, couldja, shouldja, aintchas" to the final chorus of "I'm outta here, babeeee," and you just might have a pretty good country song.
But don't miss the significance of what Chiarelli was telling us after a year of commanding our forces in Iraq — assuming weary American voters choose to notice at all. His bottom-line assessment: Our troops are fighting the good fight with heroism, innovative tactics and interservice teamwork. Even more startling: This is a fight we can still win, assuming the Pentagon isn't left to fight on its own.
Chiarelli didn't say so, but the fact is that three years after invading Iraq, we are principally engaged there with only a single element of state power: the Department of Defense. Not Agriculture, Justice, Commerce or the rest of the interagency gaggle. Put aside the failure of Bush 43 to mobilize the country: To this point he hasn't even persuaded the rest of the government that this fight means applying the collective might of the United States.
Apologies to Swift, but for the interagency stay-at-homes to be a confederacy, they would have to be much better organized. And how is the vaunted American private sector contributing its expertise? Forget about it — except for Halliburton, KBR and the rest of the defense contracting crowd.
Let me hasten to add, however, that individual representatives of civilian agencies are fully present in Iraq. A decade ago, I served alongside such long-suffering missionary types in Bosnia, career civil servants on detached duty from agencies considered peripheral to the military mission.
Except that in Bosnia, we were learning a lesson seemingly forgotten in Iraq: That winning the peace means integrating all the elements of state power, not just one of them.
Even as the country's mood shifts toward retrenchment, hastily abandoned skills in peace-making and nation-building are basic military disciplines we dare not neglect. Been south of our border anytime lately?
Kenneth Allard is a retired Army colonel. He wrote this piece for the San Antonio Express-News.
Twincities
U.S. can still win in Iraq — but not with the military alone
BY KEN ALLARD
That master satirist Jonathan Swift would have nodded knowingly, because he wrote: "When a true genius appears in this world you will know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
Strictly speaking, Swift wasn't talking about military genius, but there, too, our best and brightest are waging an uphill fight against the confederacy of the deliberately uninvolved.
The latest evidence came last month as Army Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli spoke from Baghdad at an end-of-tour news conference. His duties in Iraq this time included command of all U.S. ground forces. A tour begun against the hopeful backdrop of successful Iraqi elections is concluding with increasing sectarian violence.
Yet even now, Chiarelli believes in the success of the mission in Iraq if the proper diplomatic, military, economic and political strengths of the United States are brought to bear "against an enemy that we can destroy."
Civil-military integration is the key to that effort, even if it means realigning "our organizations and systems" so that military success on the ground can be matched by economic and political achievements. He said that 130,000 jobs added to the Iraqi economy might achieve more than 130,000 new soldiers.
But you might not have seen Chiarelli's news conference because our hyperactive media outlets were busy focusing on the report of the Iraq Study Group. There, the main thrust of the story line seemed to involve the willing suspension of disbelief.
How else to interpret a blue ribbon study that might have been produced at far less expense by an especially bright group of college sophomores? How else to take seriously the earnest entreaties for Syrian and Iranian cooperation, the equally naive pleas for greater political tolerance by the alleged Iraqi government?
Never was credulity more challenged than by the ISG's ludicrous assertion that unilateral U.S. troop withdrawals commence by 2008 — even if it means failing to counter the very real possibilities of ethnic cleansing, Iranian escalation or regional instability.
Not that I am suggesting, however, that the report was totally useless. Add a couple of "wouldja, couldja, shouldja, aintchas" to the final chorus of "I'm outta here, babeeee," and you just might have a pretty good country song.
But don't miss the significance of what Chiarelli was telling us after a year of commanding our forces in Iraq — assuming weary American voters choose to notice at all. His bottom-line assessment: Our troops are fighting the good fight with heroism, innovative tactics and interservice teamwork. Even more startling: This is a fight we can still win, assuming the Pentagon isn't left to fight on its own.
Chiarelli didn't say so, but the fact is that three years after invading Iraq, we are principally engaged there with only a single element of state power: the Department of Defense. Not Agriculture, Justice, Commerce or the rest of the interagency gaggle. Put aside the failure of Bush 43 to mobilize the country: To this point he hasn't even persuaded the rest of the government that this fight means applying the collective might of the United States.
Apologies to Swift, but for the interagency stay-at-homes to be a confederacy, they would have to be much better organized. And how is the vaunted American private sector contributing its expertise? Forget about it — except for Halliburton, KBR and the rest of the defense contracting crowd.
Let me hasten to add, however, that individual representatives of civilian agencies are fully present in Iraq. A decade ago, I served alongside such long-suffering missionary types in Bosnia, career civil servants on detached duty from agencies considered peripheral to the military mission.
Except that in Bosnia, we were learning a lesson seemingly forgotten in Iraq: That winning the peace means integrating all the elements of state power, not just one of them.
Even as the country's mood shifts toward retrenchment, hastily abandoned skills in peace-making and nation-building are basic military disciplines we dare not neglect. Been south of our border anytime lately?
Kenneth Allard is a retired Army colonel. He wrote this piece for the San Antonio Express-News.
Twincities
posted by madtom at 2:53 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home