LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.   Exclusive Truthdig Merchandise - Gore Vidal signed first editions - Signed Mr. Fish prints
November 26, 2009
Log in / Register

 Choose a size
Text Size

Most Read

Still Doing God's Work on Wall Street

Obama's Thankless Thanksgiving

Colbert Conservatives and Military Waste

Obama Risks Losing His Judicial Prize

Age Trumps Youth in UC Tuition Dispute

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture

Digs
Financial Meltdown 101
Vetting Sarah Palin

Truthdig Bazaar
The Virgin of Flames

The Virgin of Flames

By Chris Abani
$11.20

Toward an Open Tomb

Toward an Open Tomb

By Michel Warschawski
$14.95

more items

 
Reports

E.J. Dionne Jr.: Assembly of Vipers

Email this item Email    Print this item Print   
Posted on Jan 11, 2007

By E.J. Dionne

WASHINGTON—Rep. Chet Edwards, a middle-of-the-road Texas Democrat who numbers President Bush among his constituents, did not judge the commander in chief’s words about Iraq on Wednesday night through the lens of his party affiliation or personal predispositions.

His standard was set by an Army officer who sent the congressman a powerfully honest, thoughtful and sophisticated 3,800-word memo based on the soldier’s experiences in Iraq.

With eloquence and urgency, the officer—Edwards said he had agreed not to disclose his identity—showed how the most important battles in Iraq are not military but political. The officer worries that, despite the heroic efforts of our troops, this aspect of the mission is not going well.

After receiving the soldier’s permission, Edwards shared the memo with me on the day of the president’s speech. The congressman was not trying to score any political points, especially since his informant accepts the goals of the war and writes not a critical word about the president.

Rather, Edwards, who chairs the Appropriations subcommittee that deals with military construction and veterans affairs and represented Fort Hood for 13 years, believes that “younger soldiers, both commissioned and noncommissioned,’’ can often provide more candid testimony than higher-ups constrained in their ability to present “bad news.”

Advertisement

For this officer, winning entails getting the politics right in Iraq at both the local and national levels. Locally, he says, our military has enjoyed considerable success. But he’s worried about the will and capacity of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to take on the Shiite militias.

“Our real goal,” he writes, “was to persuade our Iraqi friends and allies to actively and publicly support us ... to help us tip the balance of public opinion in our favor.’’ That meant helping them with security and “civil works projects’’ and giving them “prestige by showing publicly that our commander listened to their advice.’‘

Then these shrewd words: “We discovered that we were not fighting a military campaign, but a political campaign—not too different from what a small town mayor might do to win re-election back in the U.S. ... Fighting terrorists was only something we did when needed, because it interfered with our political objectives. If we could ignore the terrorists, we were winning. If we had to stop our economic and political activities in order to fight terrorists, they were winning.’‘

The core problem, the officer said, lay in the unwillingness of Shiites in the Iraqi security forces to confront terror from their own side. “Most officers did a great job when facing Sunni-based insurgents,’’ he wrote. “In fact, we had to keep a close eye on most units to make sure they were not too heavy-handed against the Sunnis.’‘

On the other hand: “When we dealt with the Shia, especially the Mahdi militia, things got a lot more complicated. Many officers were reluctant to fight the Shia militias because they had a well-justified fear for the security of their family. I have seen senior Iraqi officers flat refuse to follow American soldiers in pursuit of Shia insurgents—even when those insurgents just killed their own soldiers.’‘

The trouble goes all the way to the top. “We will never reach any kind of acceptable political settlement as long as the Coalition and the Iraqi government allow legitimate political parties to hold seats in the National Assembly while they finance and maintain military auxiliary wings that attack and kill Iraqi and American soldiers. These parties have enough clout in PM Maliki’s administration to effectively block any major military operation against the militias. This is an impossible situation.

“I don’t have the expertise to comment on whether or not a temporary ‘troop surge’ is necessary,’’ he writes. “I can say, however, that a troop surge is pointless if we cannot set the political conditions beforehand that allow us to act freely against the militia.’‘

In other words, the success of Bush’s new plan hangs on whether he is right in putting our troops behind the idea that Maliki heads a “unity government’’ and not an administration actually dedicated to total Shiite dominance. 

The officer concludes that he has “no idea how the American expedition in Iraq will end.’‘

“I doubt it will end well,’’ he writes. “But I do hope that the courage and civility of the American soldiers who fought there will not be forgotten both here and in Iraq.’’ Amen.

If Iraq does not end well, our men and women in uniform will not get the blame. The fault will lie with leaders in Washington who failed to face the politics of the situation as squarely as this soldier has.
   
E.J. Dionne Jr.‘s e-mail address is postchat(at symbol)aol.com.
   
Copyright 2007, Washington Post Writers Group
   

TAGS:



Related Entries

Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: E.J. Dionne Jr.: Assembly of Vipers

Next item: E.J. Dionne Jr.: Assembly of Vipers



Elsewhere: .

Comments

Are you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.

By jon eden, January 15, 2007 at 12:52 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

from Robert Parry, Consortium News, Jan 10,:

” At a not-for-quotation pre-speech briefing on Jan. 10, George W. Bush and his top national security aides unnerved network anchors and other senior news executives with suggestions that a major confrontation with Iran is looming.

  Commenting about the briefing on MSNBC after Bush’s nationwide address, NBC’s Washington bureau chief Tim Russert said “there’s a strong sense in the upper echelons of the White House that Iran is going to surface relatively quickly as a major issue - in the country and the world - in a very acute way.”

  Russert and NBC anchor Brian Williams depicted this White House emphasis on Iran as the biggest surprise from the briefing as Bush stepped into the meeting to speak passionately about why he is determined to prevail in the Middle East.

  “The President’s inference was this: that an entire region would blow up from the inside, the core being Iraq, from the inside out,” Williams said, paraphrasing Bush.”

The USS Stennis is to steam through the Straits of Juan Defuca on Tue on its way to the Gulf.

We have a chief executive that is out of control!

“We’re waste deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.”  from Pete Seeger

Jon
Connecting the Dots: From human behaviors to ecosystem collapse
http://StudentsForTheEarth.org

Report this

By Jen, January 14, 2007 at 5:43 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

Contrast this article with the clips of Condi in front of congress.  Our representatives appear to be shamefully simplistic in their analysis.

Report this

By jon eden, January 12, 2007 at 10:40 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

Forget all these sectarian details. The over riding big picture is that Iran is not going to let things settle down there and then position us to go after them—as we have promised we are going to.

The storms of war over Iran are gathering: US raid on Iranian consulate, and the arrest of 5 staff, in the Iraq city of Arbil. Another carrier, USS Stennis, departing Bremerton, WA this month for the Gulf, Bush surge speech rhetoric, and Israeli recent announcement that it is doing bombing practice in preparation for an attactk—nuclear bunker busters no less.

jon eden

Connecting the Dots: From human behavior to Ecosystem decline
http://StudentsforTheEarth.org

Report this

By talapus pete, January 12, 2007 at 8:50 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

No one doubts the courage of US troops in Iraq. No one doubted the courage of German troops at Stalingrad, either, or Japanese troops at Iwo. That’s not the issue.

Report this

By Stanley, January 12, 2007 at 8:02 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

The good news is that the man Bush has selected as his top military man in Iraq is David Petraeus, a man who, accoridng to the Book Fiasco is the one general in Iraq who has been most sensitive to the need to address the political needs in Iraq as well as the military.  Petraeus has a PhD in international relations from Princeton, and is the one hero in Fiasco.  If there is any hope that we will succeed in Iraq it is Petaeus.

Report this

By John Hanks, January 12, 2007 at 4:51 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

The pursuit of an impossible ideal is the best way of keeping everyone’s nose to the wall.  Military people are schooled in the arts of force and fraud, and yet they can’t seem to spot when it is being used against them.

Nanoparticles of depleted uranium may silence a world full of lazy cowards forever.  (We won’t be missed.)

Report this

By Manny, January 12, 2007 at 2:10 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

With out a doubt this article goes to the very core of the problems in Iraq. No amount of money and military power can change the reality of the political in fighting in Iraq. What Bush’s Neo-Cons fail to understand that just like their own American faith based Neo-Con political originazations that are willing to to kill if anything that gets in their way, the Suni and Shite are on the same agenda. The difference in this armed struggle is that the Americans are the invaders and the Sunni and Shite are fighting in a civil war.

Report this

By anonymous, January 12, 2007 at 12:54 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

Bush is done listening.

Report this

By Michael Murry, January 12, 2007 at 3:19 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Unfortunately for America and Iraq, a great many high-ranking officers, including one former general and Secretary of State, all-too-willingly went along in silence—when not outright actively assisting in the deception—while militarily inexperienced and ideologically hysterical maniacs launched America on a criminal invasion and occupation of a country that had never threatened America nor had any conceivable means of doing so. Millions of people all over the world saw this clearly and knew better. They marched in the streets and tried to stop the crime. No help from the fuck-up-and-move up brass there. So, how about acknowledging that the “leftists,” “fringe liberals,” “anti-war peaceniks,” and “dirty fucking hippies” got this one right a whole lot more honestly and courageously than all the stuffed-shirt, ticket-punching generals of the Warfare-Welfare/Makework-Militarism complex? And then tell us why we pay these people such big bucks and give them their own private jumbo jets to fly around in?

America’s military doesn’t have a “mission” or “goals” in Iraq—and never did. The whole bogus misadventure stems from no other desire than Deputy Dubya Bush’s infantile insistence on playing commander-in-briefs no matter how many die for nothing or how many trillions of dollars our descendants will find themselves obligated to work their entire lives paying off. Nothing here but rapacious intergenerational depredation. Thanks a lot, generals. I hope you enjoy those pensions, benefits, and contracts handing out your “advice” on CNN and other Orwellian propaganda outlets for our discredited government. As if anyone in their right mind would heed your worthless words. If you only had an ounce of the “improvisation” that those rag-tag, dead-ender “insurgents” seem to possess in such boundless amounts, then perhaps you wouldn’t keep getting so many thousands of your subordinates killed and maimed.

Parkinson’s Law, meet the Peter Principle: i.e., the upper ranks of the words fattest, dumbest miliary “leadership” since William Westmoreland defoliated South Vietnam and made starving, landless slum dwellers out of formerly self-sufficient rice farmers. Where does America get these people? Or do we just make them on demand like bad hamburgers at a fast food franchise? Time to stop eulogizing these eunuchs and start firing them by the trainload. At least that might save our kids and grandkids—if not us, too—a few hours of sweatshop labor working overtime off the clock at Wal Mart.

America doesn’t have too few soldiers. America has too many wars. Enough Warfare-Welfare and Makework-Militarism. America doesn’t have a small enough military. Time for regime change in America. Our regime might work for the generals and their rampant careerism, but it doesn’t work anymore for the rest of us.

Report this

Add Your Comment

Posts by unregistered readers are moderated. Posts by members
are published immediately. Why wait? Register today!







Number of characters remaining: 4000

Notify you when others comment on this article?


Are you a human?
Retype the word you see here.


Please read and abide by our comment policy.
By submitting this comment, you agree to this site's terms and conditions.

 
 

 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2009 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.