Victor Davis Hanson: The Fighting Over the Fighting. [Iraq criticisms' implications]

NRO ^ | 11/17/2006 | Victor Davis Hanson

[Tolik]

Let’s at least be clear about the implications of and explanations for our criticisms and suggestions

It looks as if Americans have pushed the rock of Iraq almost to the crest, only to let go, like Sisyphus, terrified that it will roll back; we hope only that we will not be crushed in its descent. While giving up now would be disastrous, we will almost certainly not succeed unless we change our tactics.

The Maliki government in the Green Zone wants the Americans quietly to kill the murderous insurgents. The hope is that this would give the Iraqi republic prestige and safety, at the same time allowing it the necessary denial of culpability for the necessary bloodletting.

We, in turn, wait for a tough government to emerge that will either provide a sense of fairness and safety for all Iraqis and so deflate the insurgency, or at least join us in a full assault on the jihadists.

In the meantime, the enemy counts on the evening news showcasing the daily harvest of Iraqis, and the killing of at least four or five Americans each week, to show the worried Arab world the mess that will always follow the appearance of Westerners on Muslim soil, while insidiously sapping our will back home.

Here at home we rage incessantly over the problem and its solution. The American public, for its part, has given the administration the go-ahead in two national elections, but apparently not in a third. In all the hysterical debate over Iraq, rarely do we find specifics about the options we currently face.

What we need at our possible 11^th hour is not more shrillness, but concrete facts supporting the variously proposed remedies. Take, for instance, the call for a large increase in troops. To suggest increases is fine, and they may indeed be necessary, but fist there must be an explanation of precisely how thousands more soldiers would help the current situation.

We know that that another 50,000 or so Americans would raise our profile in Iraq, spur more domestic hysteria, increase the cost of the war, increase the likelihood of Iraqi dependency, and enlarge the rear echelon compounds throughout Iraq that support our frontline fighters. But we are not sure that they would bring about greater security — that is, unless they were allowed different rules of engagement than are currently allowed in Iraq.

Will the thousands of more troops get permission from the Iraqi government to disarm the militias and smash insurgent enclaves? Can they target a Sadr and his thugs with impunity? Will they be able to kill Syrian and Iranian infiltrators across the border? Will they be able to target those in “civilian” dress who help plant the IEDs? And is all that not happening now because there are too few boots on the ground?

Before anyone simply cries for more troops, please explain precisely what they are supposed to do differently than what we are doing now, inasmuch as throughout history it is what fighters do, rather than how many of them there are, that determines their success or failure.

Since critics always evoke Vietnam, we should carefully examine its three phases: (1) 1963-1969, a phase of constant troop increases; (2) 1970-73, a phase of a steady downsizing of the American presence as Vietnamization took hold and counterinsurgency improved; (3) 1974-5, a phase of abandonment of the South Vietnamese government, followed by the conventional victory of the Communists. The second phase was the wisest course and should be the closest to our present strategy.

One can see why our military would expect 500,000 Americans to battle a North Vietnamese army of one million, with Soviet and Chinese advisors manning batteries in the North, along with another couple of hundred thousand Viet Cong guerrillas in the South.

Even generous estimates of the number of insurgents in Iraq conclude there are about 10,000 active killers — a fraction of just the irregulars in the south of Vietnam alone. Why then, when the numerical disparities are so much more favorable to our cause than during the Vietnam War, are we, rather than our vastly outnumbered enemies, lamenting the paucity of troops? That we have not secured the country may be due to the limitations put on our soldiers rather than their number; and to our preference for conventional rather than counter-insurgency fighting.

By the same token, Democrats are murmuring about timetables and “redeployment,” the current euphemism for flight, but they need to articulate exactly what they mean. We withdraw, and then what?

Are Americans ready to accept tens of thousands of refugees into the United States when those reformers who believed we’d stay and protect them are targeted for death? And what would we do if Turkey threatens Kurdistan with invasion once its patron has abandoned it?

And where, in a new region of jihadist ascendancy, are troops to be redeployed to? Other Middle East countries? What Middle Eastern illegitimate autocrat would want to host a retreating and defeated American army, a sort of modern version of Xenophon’s orphaned Ten Thousand? Indeed, the problem would not be redeployment to a nearby host kingdom, but just maintaining Centcom forces where they are now, once the Arab Street smells blood and adjusts to an Islamic victory. If IEDs worked in Iraq, why not also in Kuwait and Qatar?

Any gain from having more military forces “freed” from Iraq to face crises elsewhere would be vastly overshadowed by the far greater number of new crises that would soon arise — once Iranians, Syrians, Chinese, North Koreans, and the new Latin American Communists sought to emulate the successful Iraqi formula of defeating and humiliating the U. S. military.

Third, what does unbalanced reporting really mean? We all harp that the media — specifically, the wire services, network television, and the international stations like the BBC and CNN — all focused on Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, the carnage left by IEDs and suicide bombers, and the allegations against the Marines at Haditha, and neglected entirely the damage we did to the terrorists and Islamic fascists, or the singularity of seeing parliaments in places like Kabul and Baghdad. 

But the important question left unspoken is Why? Was the unbalanced converge, in the case of leftwing elites in the American media, a simple effort to embarrass Republican policy, allowing more sympathetic Democrats to regain power? In the case of the envious European media, was it to take down the Americans a notch or two to remind us that we are not as powerful as we think?

Or is the bias a more general result of a Western elite so deeply conflicted about its own culture, and so fundamentally unable to define its own civilization, that it either doesn’t care whether it wins, or in fact wishes that the West lose in Iraq?

One can grasp that generic  hypocrisy by reviewing all the journalists’ charges leveled against Gulf War I — too much realpolitik; too much pay-as-you-go war thinking; too much Colin Powell and James Baker and not enough Paul Wolfowitz; too much worry about stability and not enough about millions of poor Kurds and Shiites; too much worry about empowering Iran. Then compare those charges to those leveled against Gulf War II — too much naïve idealism; too much expense in lives and treasure; not enough Colin Powell and James Baker and too much Paul Wolfowitz; too little worry about regional stability and too much given to ungovernable Iraqis; and too little thought about empowering Iran.

The one common denominator? Whatever the United States does is suspect; and journalists without responsibility for governance, either for setting policy or for its implementation, are always brighter than generals, politicians, and policy planners saddled with it.

The truth is that wealthy Western elites in the media have evolved beyond worry over the basics of their civilization. They are so insulated, even after September 11, that they don’t believe there is much connection between liberty, freedom, consensual government, freedom of expression, and the everyday mundane things they depend on — whether excellent medical care, clean water, nice cars, neat electronic gadgets, eating out, or safety in their streets. A nuclear Iran, a missile-laden North Korea, a theocracy in oil-rich Iraq, an unleashed terrorist-sponsoring Syria, and an emboldened Hezbollah — all these still could still never quite take away their good life, so strong is the assurance of their never-ending comfort zone that they could not conceive of ever losing it.  

And thus the most vehement and angry critics find it possible, even desirable, to nibble away at their own civilization’s efforts, on the understanding that a loss in Iraq would be only an apparent loss. That defeat would not entail any material detriment to themselves, but surely would enhance their own sense of contrarian self-righteousness and self-worth, as they boldly caricature the very culture that so empowered them.

So yes, let us talk about sending more troops, or taking them out altogether, or cry about bad news coverage. But the truth is that, if they were given more tactical leeway to go on the offensive, we would already have enough soldiers in Iraq to win a victory that even a hostile media will have to acknowledge and enemies watching must respect — but only if we persevere here at home in this latest climate of renewed hysteria.

— Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is the author, most recently, of A War Like No Other. How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War.
 

[Tolik]

    Victor Davis Hanson Ping ! 

       Let me know if you want in or out.

Links:    FR Index of his articles:  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=victordavishanson 
            His website: http://victorhanson.com/    
                NRO archive: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson-archive.asp
New Link!    http://victordavishanson.pajamasmedia.com/

[Paladin2]

Stop Jihad Now! Jihad is NOT the answer.

[Steel Wolf]

The truth is that wealthy Western elites in the media have evolved beyond worry over the basics of their civilization. They are so insulated, even after September 11, that they don’t believe there is much connection between liberty, freedom, consensual government, freedom of expression, and the everyday mundane things they depend on ... A nuclear Iran, a missile-laden North Korea, a theocracy in oil-rich Iraq, an unleashed terrorist-sponsoring Syria, and an emboldened Hezbollah — all these still could still never quite take away their good life, so strong is the assurance of their never-ending comfort zone that they could not conceive of ever losing it.

Here is exactly why the War on Terror won't be won in the next few decades. A large percentage of Americans do not believe we're at war. What's more, they can't be made to feel it until it literally finds them at home.

America has evolved into a state so powerful that we're untouchable in almost every respect. Things like terrorism, nuclear proliferation, or regional instability are no more real to them then zombies or vampires. Some may find them scary at first, but after a while, they're just hollow names that convey no real emotion.

Most Americans can't concieve of an enemy more dangerous than people they disagree with politically. It's an absurd level for human beings to exist on, and, evidently, one that robs them of their perspective and common sense. At any rate, there is no downside for vast numbers of Americans to decide that we're not really in a war, and act accordingly.

[FreedomPoster]

I've said, for quite some time, that it will take another 9/11-type event, an order of magnitude larger, to wake us up.

I hope we stay sleeping, but I fear we won't have the chance.

[Steel Wolf]

I've said, for quite some time, that it will take another 9/11-type event, an order of magnitude larger, to wake us up.

So they can watch it on TV? Another attack will wake up the nation, collectively, that I agree with. For the real liberal elitists, they won't believe until the war finds them at home, and they see it with their own eyes.

[Fury]

Re: #4 - Good post. I am afraid you are correct. The vast majority of people in the United States see the violence and general situation in Iraq from the comfort of their own home. It is easy for many to be detached from the effects of radical Islam and how it impinges on Western Civilization.

I think a revealing poll would be one that asks how those folks who were directly affected on 09/11/01 about the threats now faced in the world. You wonder if they as a group realize the threat with more clarity.

Europe is a conundrum. It was ravaged by WWI and WWII, but perhaps those who experienced that horror are fading away, more dying of old age every day. That their descendants did not have to live through those times is fortunate, but said descendants seem to have forgotten how fleeting safety and security can now be (e.g. Madrid, London, etc).

[Valin]

Here is exactly why the War on Terror won't be won in the next few decades.

As I've said before, this is like the Cold War and it's 1953.

Question, Do you know anyone who doesn't really believe we are at war? Because I don't, even if they don't obsess on it like Freepers do.
____________________________________

True Grit To Counter Terror, We Must Conquer Our Own Fear
Rand Corp. ^ | Summer 06 | Brian Michael Jenkins
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1739562/posts


(snip)
Enlist the public. The best way to increase our ability as a nation to respond to disasters, either natural or man made, is to enlist all citizens through education and engagement. This also happens to be a very good way to reduce the persistent anxieties that afflict us.

In the wake of 9/11, Washington’s continual reminders of imminent threats induced Americans to think of themselves as victims instead of protagonists in a long struggle. By making homeland security a purely Washington affair, the government was signaling that it would take responsibility for both security and response. Instead of promoting self-reliance, the government created dependency. But the federal government does not provide homeland security. Citizens do. This nation has powerful traditions of self-reliance and resiliency, as proven on 9/11. We must build on those traditions.

It is amazing how many people want to assist in homeland security — not just “be vigilant” or patriotically keep shopping when alert levels are raised. Citizen volunteers, from schoolteachers to security guards and from medical professionals to CEOs, could be assigned emergency roles, which could then be practiced in drills. Psychologists have learned that knowing what to do and having an assigned task in preparation, planning, and response not only increases preparedness but also reduces stress.

Public education is the first step toward strengthening ourselves. We need to aggressively educate the public through all media, in the classrooms, at town halls, in civic meetings, through professional organizations, and in volunteer groups. This means more than speeches in front of the American flag. The basic course should include how to deal with the spectrum of threats we face, from “dirty bombs” to natural epidemics, with the emphasis on sound, easy-to-understand science aimed at dispelling mythology and inoculating the community against alarming rumors and panic. More-advanced training, including specialized first aid and family protection measures, can be offered through youth organizations and other groups. Our goal should be to have all American teenagers, adults, and able-bodied senior citizens capable of taking care of themselves first, then taking care of their families, then taking care of their neighbors who need assistance.

Become more sophisticated about security. We cannot banish danger. Not every terrorist plot can be thwarted, no matter how much is spent on security. We have to become savvy about security, accept its limitations, and ensure that measures taken in the name of security do not destroy our open society or disrupt our economy.
(snip)

[maica]

A powerful article that identifies the media as one of our chief problems.
We hear talking heads say that Americans are not sacrificing enough to 'feel' that we are in a war, and at the same time they publicize each negative story resulting from our engagement with Islamofascists.

If Americans saw pictures of the pre-9/11 New York skyline regularly, we would realize what we have sacrificed. Our media elites have decided, instead, to erase from our visual memory all remembrance of the magnitude of the buildings that were turned to rubble by enemies of our way of life. They have tried and succeeded in having that attack become like any other 'disaster' - unavoidable, and best not dwelled upon, like a random plane crash, snow storm or tornado.

[Alberta's Child]

Here is exactly why the War on Terror won't be won in the next few decades. A large percentage of Americans do not believe we're at war.

True, and you can count me among them, too.

You will never convince me that we are at war as long as these inconvenient little conditions remain in place:

1. Our elected leaders insist on using silly terms like "war on terror" instead of having the b@lls to stand up and name our enemies.

2. The U.S. sends troops halfway around the world to wage a so-called "war on terror" even as we permit nearly unfettered access into this country across our southern border and through our international airports.

3. People in government who bear an enormous responsibility for putting us at risk through either rank incompetence or direct complicity (I'll include people like Sandy Berger, Jamie Gorelick, and Richard Perle in this group) are never called to the carpet.

4. The initial "cal to arms" to the American people by this administration after 9/11 was basically a call for everyone to live their lives as if nothing had happened and to keep going to the shopping malls, car dealerships, etc.

You've really got to be kidding me.

[Alberta's Child]

In the wake of 9/11, Washington’s continual reminders of imminent threats induced Americans to think of themselves as victims instead of protagonists in a long struggle.

Right. The periodic "Code Orange" alerts in New York City whenever there is a terrorist attack overseas or threat of one here in the U.S. are particularly silly. You've got government officials telling people to be alert for a potential attack even as they: 1) insist that people should go on with their lives as if nothing is wrong; and 2) prohibit these same people from carrying firearms -- in direct violation of their Constitutional rights.

[Steel Wolf]

You will never convince me that we are at war as long as these inconvenient little conditions remain in place:

Your four points are entirely valid, and instructive as to why so many people don't think we're at war. The government itself sends out mixed signals. Depending on how you interpret those signals, you can walk away with wildly different messages.

So, you can lay much of the blame at the feet of the government. Still, that doesn't mean we're not at war. Pointing out the failures of our government to get their act together vis a vis the war doesn't absolve us of the personal responsibility to be ready for it.

The al-Qa'ida offensive against us is a grassroots effort, not an official one, and the response will have to be, as well.

[Gritty]

50,000 or so Americans would raise our profile in Iraq... But we are not sure that they would bring about greater security — that is, unless they were allowed different rules of engagement than are currently allowed in Iraq

Precisely. What is needed is not more troops, but the desire to use the ones there more effectively.

The truth is that wealthy Western elites in the media have evolved beyond worry over the basics of their civilization... so strong is the assurance of their never-ending comfort zone that they could not conceive of ever losing it.

Bullseye!

[Earthdweller]

"...if they were given more tactical leeway to go on the offensive, we would already have enough soldiers in Iraq to win a victory that even a hostile media will have to acknowledge and enemies watching must respect...."

BUMP!

[Blind Eye Jones]

The good life for the elites is also to reminisce about Vietnam and the moral anti-war stance taken then, knowing that nothing bad happened to America afterward, as nothing bad should happen now... therefore, relive the youthful, idealistic, Woodstock hippie days with impunity. It's all about recapturing that "feeling" and playing politics against the same bad, old Nixon party. Such luxury for history repeating itself.

[Valin]

"so many people don't think we're at war."

I keep seeing people say this here, but I don't see it. Everyone I know, knows we are at war. I think the thing is they would say "well what can I do about it"? This is a very good question, because when you get right down to it there's not much the likes of you and I can do, except show our support and try to correct the misconceptions about it. I mean I'm a 58 year old skinny slender white guy. It's not like i'm going to jump in a humvee and go tearassing around the streets of fallujah, or infultrate a sleeper cell here.

[Steel Wolf]

I keep seeing people say this here, but I don't see it.

I live in a big city, and believe me, the only war most people think we're in is Iraq. Once we get out of there, the war on terror will be over for a lot of people. After that, it will be a law enforcement issue, occasionally backed by the military in places like Afghanistan.

[Valin]

I live in MPLS (Berkeley with a wind chill factor) and while people I run into concentrate on Iraq (for obvious reasons), but they still understand that Iraq is not the be all and end all of this war. While they may not know what's going on in say Mali or Columbia they are aware that this war is more than Iraq. One of the valid criticisms of this administrations is not explaining this better. It may be up to the next one.

[MNJohnnie]

Maybe VDH like the rest of the Political-Media noise machine should try actually finding out the facts on the ground in Iraq rather then just regurgitate the Washington DC "Conventional Wisdom".

As Gen Abizaid told the US Senate this week. If you want to "fix" Iraq, get out of our way Dinocons. All this handwringing and hysterics back here does not help them get the job done over there.