The Surge and American Military Triumphalism

Right-wing pundit Michael Barone has published a column on the surge in Iraq that may be the clearest expression so far of the American triumphalism over the U.S. military and Iraq that emerged in 2007. The current popularity of that idea reflects the degree to which the apologists for war, having been discredited earlier on Iraq, are now on the offensive.

Barone's theme is he "lessons to be learned" from what he calls the "dazzling success of the surge strategy in Iraq". The first lesson, he suggests, is that "just about no mission is impossible for the United States military". A year ago, he writes, everyone thought that "containing the violence in Iraq was impossible", but not, "we have seen it done".

Intoxicated by the hosannahs bestowed on Gen. David Petreaus's strategy, Barone pushes the military triumphalist creed to a new level. He goes so far as to assert the inevitability of American military triumph, regardless of the circumstances of any war. Barone says it's simply a matter of finding the right general with the right strategy. He points to the examples of George Washington at Yorktown, Lincoln and the civil war and Roosevelt and World War II.

And then there was Vietnam. Many Americans have been under the impression that the United States did not prevail in Vietnam, mainly because a powerful nationalist movement had mobilized Vietnamese against foreign domination since the end of the World War II. For Barone and true believers in the efficacy of American military power, however, the United States actually won the Vietnam War, and it was all because of the brilliant strategy of Gen. Creighton Abrams. The only reason they can't celebrate that victory fully, Barone insists, is that Congress refused to "allow the aid the United States had promised".

That now familiar explanation of why the American defeat in Vietnam was actually a victory may be the most astonishing feat of rewriting history ever accomplished by the apologists for a criminal war. Let's just recapitulate briefly what actually happened: Nixon and Kissinger had begun withdrawn U.S. troops from Vietnam beginning in 1969. The North Vietnamese were not stupid, and they withdraw most of their troops from South Vietnam during 1970 and 1971 while that U.S. withdrawal was proceeding to reduce their losses. That relative North Vietnamese stand-down in the war allowed the United States and the Saigon regime to gain control over large areas of South Vietnam for the first time since 1960. The U.S. military and apologists for the war claimed that it was all because Abrams had followed such a brilliant strategy.

Then North Vietnam struck across the demilitarized zone in spring 1972, undoing most of that control and forcing Nixon and Kissinger to negotiate the Paris Agreement of January 1973. Two years later, the Saigon regime simply crumbled in the face of a second North Vietnamese offensive across the DMZ, despite the fact that the Army of the Republic of Vietnam had more assistance from the United States than Hanoi had from its Communist allies. That's why the "stab in the back" myth had to be invented by those who political fortunes were tied to the fortunes of the U.S. war.

That brings us to the alleged "dazzling success" of the surge in Iraq. Just as the triumphalist narrative on Vietnam turns a real defeat into an imagined victory, the narrative now being constructed by Barone and others on Iraq tries to make a pointless military occupation that cannot prevail in the end into a glorious triumph of U.S. military power.

Again, let's recapitulate. In 2003 U.S. military forces destroyed the Sunni regime of Saddam Hussein and installed a Shiite regime in its stead. The Sunnis predictably launched a military resistance, and the U.S. military began its own war against Sunni insurgents. The presence of a U.S . military occupation force in an Islamic country with some of Islam's holiest sites predictably incited much greater popular support among Sunnis, both within Iraq and in neighboring Sunni countries, for jihadi extremists aligned with al Qaeda.

Thus al Qaeda, which had practically no support in Iraq in 2003, quickly became a major force in 2003 and 2004. By 2005, however, the tensions between al Qaeda and the predominantly Baathist nationalist Sunni insurgents had reached the point of open warfare. That warfare had become even more violent during 2006. The main non-al Qaeda Sunni resistance groups tried to negotiate a peace agreement with the United States in 2005-2006, but Bush refused.

By 2007, however, the Bush administration had changed sides in Iraq. It was more concerned with Shiite forces they associated with Iran than with the Sunni resistance. The United States finally began allowing them to police their own cities - something the Sunnis themselves had been proposing since 2005 but which Bush had refused to approve. The nationalist Sunnis have shown they were perfectly capable of taking care of al Qaeda themselves if the United States would only stop attacking them and get out of the way, which is what they had been saying all along.

However the problem for the U.S. military is now Shiite resistance to the occupation in the form of the Mahdi Army. It is part guerrilla army and part government security force, and it is far larger than the Sunni armed resistance was when the U.S. military admitted that it could gain control over it. For all the brave talk by the Bush administration about bottom-up reconciliation, which suggests that end of resistance is coming, the Shiite struggle against the occupation led by Moqtada al-Sadr is still in an early phase of its development.

The triumphalist vision embraced by Barone and large segments of the American political elite and news media thus depends on an understanding of the conflict that omits all the facts that are inconvenient. Unfortunately for the triumphalists, those happen to be the facts that are most central to the problem.

The truth that the triumphalists can never accept is that, once a large part of the population is mobilized to oppose U.S. domination, U.S. military power becomes the main problem rather than part of the solution. Ironically, there is reason to believe that, after nearly five years of war in Iraq, the U.S. military leadership - including Petraeus himself - now understand that reality. It is the armchair triumphalists like Michael Barone who believe that it is really American military power that is winning in Iraq.

Unfortunately Barone has plenty of company in what Ari Berman once called "the strategic class".

Comments

[whimsicalpig]

what amazes me is everyone's attempt to ignore the 600lb gorilla in the room.

Until we squarely and surely place the legal blame for this mess on the shoulders of George Bush a Dick Cheney et al., there will not be a solution to this problem.

We have to, as a nation, hold them accountable so that we may look the rest of the worl squarely in the eye and apologize for what was allowed to happen on our watch.

We cannont leave or heal this mess until we, as a nation, do this.

WE owe this to the world and they are waiting to see if we have the strength to admit what the german's did after hitler.

[tsugury]

The surge was meant to give the Iraqi gov't some breathing room in order to get their act together which is something no one seems to remember, least of all the Iraqi's in charge

The Sunni bloc of gov't walked out, Maliki is holding on by a thread and the Iraqi military is light years away from being able to take over security

The surge, for all the lives it has cost, is a failure. Some sections of the population may be safer today, but while the Iraqi's are unable/unwilling to solidify their own institutions there is no guarantee of safety tomorrow

[Blitchard]

The "surge" has succeeded in the eyes of the Republicans and corporate cronies who are getting rich off this disaster. It has prolonged the end of the conflict and the longer the "surge" lasts - the more money they will steal from the U.S. treasury under the guise of protecting us. This nightmare should've been over yesterday!

[researcher]

the surge is working tells us about the mentality of the american people.

we are imperialists and have even become war mongers.

had to come to this with unchecked capitalism.

next for america? economy goes into the tank with huge national debt and trade inbalance then voters demand fascism. will not be called fascism but it will be.

karma time for america. it has happened to all so called great imperialist countries.

until we realize we are war mongers the decline continues.

note no front runner is taking on the war mongering machine.

even our pres canidates are imperialists.

[offred]

Why don't we call a spade a spade? A surge is an escalation. By using the administration's term, we buy into and perpetuate the spin. Any time a Huffington Post columnist or commenter uses the term "surge," I find myself wishing that an editor had done a search-and-replace with the word "escalation."

[llozano]

When the question is posed that if the surge has been such a success then why can't we start bringing our troops home? We are told that now is not the time; that we need to stay there longer to keep things stable. I hear this and can't help but remember that the same was said while we were in Vietnam. Is it no wonder most of us who remember Vietnam feel a knot in our stomach because we know what happened there. The longer we stayed the more soldiers were killed, the more civilians were killed and the harder was our defeat. This war is already about Bush's legacy as if that is what is most important. It is already about Congress not wanting to be blamed for its' failure to stop it before it began and for being unable to end it sooner. No one wants to take the responsibility for ending this war; they would rather let our men and women and countless civilians in Iraq die in the meantime.

[bluescat47]

The catastrophic decision to invade Iraq, with all its calamitous consequences, will haunt the U.S. for some time. But having said that, Democrats need to give Petraeus (and our forces)praise for helping to create more stability in Iraq. The counterinsurgency strategy of Petraeus, the surge, did help to destroy Al Qaeda elements and reduce the violence. Security is better than a year ago and many Iraqis are returning from abroad because of it.To acknowledge that obvious point is not an endorsement of the war, as some Democrats seem to fear.
However, this level of force deployment is untenable over the long run; and of course at the national level, there are no prospects of reconciliation on the major issues - oil, federalism, power sharing. The surge was to buy time for reconciliation, but obviously it has not happened, and most likely will not in the near future.
But to say the military occupation is "pointless" ignores the security dilemma for average Iraqis(yes, invading was pointless, but that is a moot issue now). We want to get out as soon as possible, but without leaving mass ethnic cleansing and violence in its wake, a carcass of a state for Iran, the Saudis, jihadists, and Turks to feast on.
I personally dont want that on my hands. Iraq can be more or less stable when we leave, more or less prone to violence. Unfortunately, we are the security there at the moment.

[Mutex]

Can anyone tell me why it is against the rules to call the Sunni Awakening, Shiite government or the Kurds collaborators?

Aren't they collaborating with the United States?

[tholin]

Ask the average Sunni Awakening Council militia conscript what the American 'surge' means and he's likely to say "Peace pact with the U.S. military, money and guns to fight the Shiite Governm - I mean al Qaeda, and $350 a month to feed my family."

What's lost in most discussion about the truce.. er, surge, is that while the U.S. was engaging in ( and officially denying ) negotiations with Sunni elements of the insurgency, it greenlighted Shiite death squads operating from the Ministry of the Interior, hedging that such atrocity might subdue the insurgency and hasten a truce.

Recall that Rumsfeld, in an '06 press conference with Gen. Pace, stated to the world that it would not be the job of U.S. troops to interfere with internal "Iraqi security operations". Aside from uttering the most heinous euphemism of the war, Rumsfeld had further codified the indifference to atrocity that marked the American occupation.

In any attempt to gauge the efficacy or longevity of the 'surge', it's instructive to examine the tactical and moral myopia present at it's inception.

[Mutex]

Mr Porter,

Could we please define some terms?

Who is al Qaeda in Iraq?

They couldn't be poor Sunnis fighting not only to force the U.S. occupying forces from their country but also to overthrow the previous Sunni elite could they?

Who is the Sunni 'Awakening' (or my favorite: 'Concerned Local Citizens')?

They couldn't be the Sunni elite (AKA collaborators) who were more afraid of poor Iraqis overturning the social order than they were concerned about the occupation and the selling out of their country could they?

How about the actual motivations of the Shiite and Kurd collaborators. Any student of history knows what drives collaborators...fear and greed.

The Shiite collaborators are being paid off with billions of dollars and the illusion of power while they sell out their country.

The Kurds want independence and suffer the delusion we will allow them any real autonomy.

All the while we keep pretending we are there to bring them 'freedom and democracy'.

Come to think of it, what could be a better example of the greed, corruption and lies we pass off as democracy than this?

[StillAmused]

"It is the armchair triumphalists like Michael Barone who believe that it is really American military power that is winning in Iraq."

... and then their mommies call them in for dinner.

[The Collinbrandt]

Even if there is no god, there may be some type of universal justice. We will pay for any crimes we have perpetrated over the last several years. It's just bad karma.

[certainot]

"the strategic class" would get laughed off the TV and papers if the GOP didn't have the uncontested repetition of their talk radio monopoly to do their groundwork for them.

"the surge is working" cud wouldn't get chewed in public if it wasn't prechewed by limbaugh and hannity to 50-70MIL americans first.

[desmirl]

What Barone and others miss is the fact that the United States of America is spending itself into bankruptcy because more is never enough for the military. Alone, we spend as much as the next twelve countries (down the list) combined, and a great deal (if not all) of that money has been borrowed from overseas -- mainly from China. Our economy is based on borrowed money, and our military prowess is based on that economy. If China should call in our debt, or revalue it's currency, we are on the ash heap of history with an economy in total ruin.

[texanna]

The Iraq war is a skillful use of the Victory Culture as a cover for the capitalist aggression on their oil reserves. The powers that be will declare victory the moment they can bully the Iraqi Parliament into accepting the noxious Oil Revenue Sharing legislation, wherein the Iraqis give away the rights and most of the proceeds to the multi-national oil corporations. Cheney via Bush didn't go to war for any altruistic purpose, since none of those reasons has been borne out with any evidence. And, he didn't go to war in Iraq to keep the oil flowing. He went there to achieve the maximum price per barrel for oil so that the oil & gas industry, of which he's a part, could maximize their profits. So far, he's been pretty successful. Not only has oil gone to dizzying heights, but America is all tied up with arguments about winning and losing and saving face ignoring the oil & gas industry's collusion.