|
||
The 82nd Airborne vs. the Brookings Institution: Who Do You Trust for a Real View of Iraq?
This Sunday, the New York Times published an op-ed that gave a harsh assessment of the situation on the ground in Iraq.
The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the "battle space" remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers' expense.
The piece strongly contradicted last month's optimistic analysis of the war by Brookings scholars Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack. Admittedly, their eight-day guided tour was handled by the Pentagon. But their years of study of the Middle East surely meant they wouldn't be taken in by a Department of Defense dog-and-pony show, right? And could yesterday's op-ed possibly come from a source more reputable than the Brookings Institution? What are the authors' credentials, exactly?
Buddhika Jayamaha is an Army specialist. Wesley D. Smith is a sergeant. Jeremy Roebuck is a sergeant. Omar Mora is a sergeant. Edward Sandmeier is a sergeant. Yance T. Gray is a staff sergeant. Jeremy A. Murphy is a staff sergeant.
This op-ed was written by seven American soldiers who are serving in Iraq right now. They describe themselves as "responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home." Sadly, one of the authors, Staff Sergeant Murphy, a Ranger and reconnaissance team leader, was shot in the head before the piece was published. (He is being flown to the U.S. and is expected to survive.)
Consider the tremendous amount of moral courage that it takes to put oneself on the line like this. Whether you agree or disagree with the stance these soldiers take, hats off to them for having the guts to write this piece. Only a person with exceptional love for his or her country would take this kind of risk. And because I know people will ask, I think these soldiers will be fine under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for two reasons: 1) they included a disclaimer, and 2) they didn't disclose any information that would compromise OPSEC (operational security). There is always room in the military for professional dissent.
And right now, we need their experience and opinions. These guys spent a year in Iraq, not eight days, which is why they can read between the lines on Pentagon statistics. For instance, when the Pentagon says, as they told O'Hanlon and Pollack, "more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable partners," the truth on the ground can be far different. As the soldiers recount:
A few nights ago, for example, we witnessed the death of one American soldier and the critical wounding of two others when a lethal armor-piercing explosive was detonated between an Iraqi Army checkpoint and a police one. Local Iraqis readily testified to American investigators that Iraqi police and Army officers escorted the triggermen and helped plant the bomb... The truth is that battalion commanders, even if well meaning, have little to no influence over the thousands of obstinate men under them, in an incoherent chain of command, who are really loyal only to their militias.
Bottom line: No scholarly articles can replace real boots-on-the-ground knowledge. Participating in a heavily secured, carefully orchestrated sight-seeing visit to Iraq does not make you a military expert any more than a trip to Yankee stadium qualifies one to be a baseball broadcaster for ESPN. That should be obvious by now.
But the media continually treats troops as wallpaper footage to run in the background while the latest talking-head pseudo-expert pontificates. And the White House hasn't learned the lesson, either, judging by the so-called "Petraeus report" coming out in September. The White House announced last week that this report won't actually be written by Gen. Petraeus. Once again experienced military leaders will be overruled by air-conditioned bureaucrats and Beltway experts.
So let's call the Petraeus Report what it is: Yet Another White House Plan. Of course, those don't have a great track record, especially when it comes to assessing the situation on the ground. In the meantime, as more Americans and Iraqi civilians die waiting for someone in power to listen to the troops on the ground, someone should call the Brookings Institution -- I can think of seven sharp 82nd Airborne soldiers who are getting back from Iraq soon, and they could use some comfy think tank fellowships.
Follow Paul Rieckhoff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/PaulRieckhoff
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
You want to end this war?
Start by consistently and continually showing the American public the daily effects of it on the Iraqi population.
Without censure.
Show the blown-up bodies.
Show the dead and wounded children.
Show the grieving families of the dead and wounded.
Anyone who criticizes this as blatantly indecent, should question the decency of what America has forced upon the Iraqi civilians.
I recently went to the Dominican Republic on vacation and was shocked to see 2-3 minutes of news footage of up-close dead bodies from a car accident. This is routine there. It is done to try and make people drive better by showing them the consequences of bad driving.
If the American public was truly exposed to the realities of what their government and politicians subject the peoples of other nations to, they would not be so quick to send their sons and daughters off to war, and they would think twice about the decency of their own morals and "Christian values".
The American mass media is party to this illegal, cruel and unjust war. Shame, shame, shame on them.
_
I served in the US Coast Guard for a number or years, primarily back in the 1980s during the era of Reagan and Bush 41---
We had Reagan come down to visit us at CG Base Miami Beach a few times, including one time to present some sort of medal to the ship and crew of on of the 210 foot, Medium Endurance Cutters for their work in "the war on drugs."
We had to work our asses off for a week at all of the units on base to paint, scrub and clean things up so we could make everything "squared away."
That was a "dog and pony" show for Reagan---make the ships and other equipment look all nice and shiny, all the while--most of the stuff was held together with chewing gun, duct tape and bailing wire and barely worked at all--
Not only did Reagan come to visit the base--we had all kinds of Coast Guard Brass, Congressmen and Senators, the national media.
We were told not to talk to them that much, but if we did--we had to tell that that we were so proud to have the President visiting and that life was hunky dory in the old Coast Guard--to say anything else would have put ya into deep do-do.
I honor this brave group of soldiers who were bold enough to speak truth to power--now those guys are real heros--but I do bet they will find themselves in some deep do-do!!!!
This comment is a little late but better late than never.
When are we going realize that the struggle in the Middle East is primarily a struggle that can best be seen as historically similar to the change of feudalism in Europe. CNN just ran a series attempting to provide insight into the rise of religion world wide. If we don't understand that the Arab world is really mad at its own form of governments more than anything else. Through a series of supportive relationships since end of WW1 we now find ourselves in a position of being locked in the position of being linked with the totalitarian governments that have dominated the mid east since the lines were drawn and the power bases were established.
Why are we not hearing about this in way that helps us understand were the history of discontent in the middle east truly lies. I don't have an answer for where we find ourselves, yet some honest historical foundations seem like a good place to start seeing things from a accurate historical perspective.
Insightfull
It is interesting to me how the public is so willing to accept the assessments about Iraq made by individuals who are supposed analytical experts, Yet will refuse to believe the truths told by the men and women who are in fact on the spot themselves. I served for 7 years in the Marine Corp during 69'- 76 and did my one year in Vietnam. The things I learned were truths to me and what I couldn't understand were all the lies being told to Americans at home. Most of the lies were explained away under the guise of National Security and therefore secret.
It came to me that most of the time these secrets were merely a convenient way for the incompetent to cover up their mistakes and hide them from the public. Officers for example who expect to make a career in the military want to look good so are prone to exaggerate their wins and downplay their losses. That is where a lot of lies come in to play. The Generals or Admirals in charge of the various branches of the military want to insure that their branch gets all the funding they desire if not more, and so are encouraged to exaggerate their importance. Therefore more lies come into play. Congressmen want to get reelected or win more funding for their own states and do their utmost to exaggerate, more lies. The President who started this war wants to insure that his party and his Corporation pals win big and so he lies all the time.
Call me a cynic, but I think our whole system is run on lies.
These guys who work for think tanks with their nice suits and beautifully coiffed hair and manicured nails remind me of the scum who called themselves the Home Guard in the movie "Cold Mountain". These scum may not look as filthy or smell as bad as the dregs who served in that Home Guard, but they too dream of plunder and pillage.Good men and women die due to these lies.
Excellent blog Mr. Reickhoff. I lost my brother to an IED in basra earlier this year and since then have been closely working with a lot of people in the military to sort out various issues for his children and widow. What i have found remarkable is not one person, be it one of his squad members, freinds, or even just different people in welfare division or up teh chain of command has anything positive to say about Iraq. The general concensus from every level is that whitehall and teh whitehouse have no clue, no direction and no plan and so the troops have no hope because the best army in the world cannot acheive an objective if they aren't given one. Random patrols playing wack-a-mole is not a military objective that our troops can acocmplish. The military objective in Iraq was to defeat the Iraqi army and remove Saddam: which teh troops accomplished excellently. The problem is that the objectives that followed are not military one but political ones and the troops have no ability to achieve those.
The bottom line is that anyone who in any way, fashion or form defends this war, or insinuates a hidden defence of this war is either an idiot or a republican conman pandering to their softheaded political base.
It would be interesting to know where O'Hanlon's Iraq Index funding comes from. In any event, it just seems to be anal-retentive fact collecting and compiling, with little judgement or real "scholarly" study involved. This guy just knows a lot of data, with none of the expertise say of Juan Cole.
Let's not just point the spear at Republicans. In light of Hilary's incessant kowtowing to her Republican masters, we should make her answer why she feels the surge is "working" when these gentlemen have clearly pointed out that it is not.
I have no idea why anyone supports the Clintons when time and time again they have shown that they will abandon anyone, even their own party, in their never ending search for power.
Has anyone seen Sir! No Sir!?
...a documentary about the GI Anti-War Movement during the Vietnam war. This movie needs to be seen by the of the men and women in the services who don't feel they can voice their feelings about the current war.
I enjoyed your article and it increased your sexiness by far...Men that are not full of IT.
Our troops do deserve more I agree-- they should come home- but we are in a mess- over false intellegence no doubt.
82nd Airborne of course
I wish we lived in a democracy not a dictatorship. Our soldiers are scared to speak up. That is ridiculous. We can't get what we the people want done. We can't really educate our kids because of government waging war. What the heck is going to happen to the USA ?
IT SEEMS THE U.S. TROOPS IN IRAQ ARE BEING USED AS GUINEA PIGS for Rumsfeld and Cheney's "new military" theories.Their is to be a program about how Rummy mission was to transform the military AND THE IRAQ INVASION IS THE TESTING GROUND, thereby making the troops sent their as THE GUINEA PIGS FOR RUMMY'S MILITARY TRANSFORMATION.
I'm sure Bill O'Reilly will soon have these seven guys on his show so he can scream at them and call them traitors.
As a former Navy enlisted Petty Officer, I agree with you 100%. If you want the facts, ask the mid-level NCO's and the grunts. Too many higher-up officers are lifers, and will only say what they know will advance their careers and not rock the boat. Especially not rock the boat. It took mucho gonads to do what this group did with their statement. I salute them, and I salute Paul Rieckhoff for speaking up for so many vets like myself. Keep up the important work that you do, Paul.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
