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

Comments

[frank67]

As a veteran of 28 years in the USAF, I say BRAVO to the 82nd guys! I'll take the enlisted man's word over a chickenhawk's squawk anytime!

[BigDan]

William Kristol made the same trip with these 2 "liberal" bozo's, too, I hope you realize...

[Mayme]

Hands down, I believe the troops on the ground!

I spoke to a gentleman the other evening who has done two tours in Iraq and his son is there now. He said he regrets that his son is not going to reinlist, but his son says the army has treated the soldiers so badly that he has no intention of uping his service.

[checkmoot]

If we are really staying in Iraq to fight Al Quada we are certainly defeating our stated goal. If we left it would take the Ieaqis about 30 days to get rid of Al Quada in Iraq. As of now, the Iraqis have to divide their time between resisting the occupation and trying to keep from being killed by Al Quada terrorists, who are partly accepted because some of them are helping the fight against our occupation. As far as the Iraqi army is concerned, the Brits hired Indians to maintain their occupation of India. Google Sepoy Rebellion. Do you really think Iraqis are going to have their hearts in fighting their own citizens to help us ?

[paulrieckhoff]

Thanks for all the comments. This piece seems to be sparking some good talk. I think that is probably what these soldiers intended it to do.

As for the question of whether or not the Army will slam these guys, it doesn't look like it.

MNF-I has issued a statement on the issue (trying to find a link and will post if I get one--a reporter passed it on to me). The statement quotable to Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, MNF-I spokesman:

"We are proud of the intelligence, determination and grit of our Soldiers, and we recognize they each have tremendous and unique insights borne through personal experience. We offer Soldiers a variety of means by which they can express their personal views, provided they don't compromise Operational Security or Army regulations. It is important to note that as individuals voice their opinions on matters, that those viewpoints are representative of their personal perspective. With approximately 160,000 Americans serving in uniform here in Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, you'll probably get that many different perspectives if you ask each of them. The individuals' perspectives expressed in the New York Times reflect their unique 'boots-on-ground' experience. While they are in their own right valued and important, each perspective is going to be different based on an individual's assignment. Ultimately, it is context in such a historic and monumental effort which remains paramount in conveying the significance of their contributions, service and sacrifice."

Keep the comments coming. And thanks for the support.

[only1Demvoter]

Mr Reickhoff : Thank you for ALL of your support of our Troops, and for your continued vigliance in presenting to the public the realities that face our returning Veterans. More to follow. -ralph

[VOTER]

It is nice to know you have read our posts. Please

send a copy to the leadership of the Democratic Party.

Keep up the good work.

Honestly if you organize a protest, for the first

time in ages, millions would show up.

AirForceVet/Vietnam

[BillWilliam]

What the guy's in the 82d are pointing out is that the Iraqi's do not like occupying armies. If the Iraqi army were occupying my country I would be doing everything I could to get them out. You people think there is something to win in Iraq. We lost when we attacked them without provocation. This is Bush's delusion and we were wrong to attack Iraq. How do we get out? Move our troops to the borders of Iraq to stop any of the neighboring countries from invading and let the Iraqi people form their own government. Then get out and go after the enemy, Al Qaeda! This time don't mess around use the full force of our military to destroy them.

[dscott]

Bravo, that would be bravo company first battlion company B a long time ago however the lessons from Viet Nam still apply, maybe even more so today. I seriously believe the officer core to be perfidously corrupted. In 1971 we did a battlefield assesment, literally counting chickens, pigs, goats, measuring the width of bridges to support tanks and artillery, taking core samples of river and creek beds for tanks agains. We submitted our report that the Ho Chi Min trail could support and sustain brigade size movements. Senior officers ordered us to change the report because Washington didn't want to hear that kind of nonsense. A year later we were bombing Cambodia. Bravo to the eyes and ears on the ground. Think tanks are just another extension of the Washington's need to be deluded and the senior officers to further their career.

[theroc5156]

Months ago, I was looking forward to the Petraeus report. Now I am not becuase it is already flawed. That being said, I have heard a lot of successes from troops as well (as you have noted in the beginning of your piece). It almost seems that we will never get the real truth of what is going on. It's like we hear a report (from the troops, not politicians or journalists) that is positive and then one that is negative.

The only thing I would be wary of regarding the report you cite is that it's taken from the NY Times which we all know full well has its own agenda and twists the truth.

[gardengoddess]

I think all media outlets "twist the truth" theroc5156. The Times twists in both directions. Remember, they let Judith Miller run rampant with her administration propaganda pieces in the paper in the runup to the invasion of Iraq. They also printed the oped piece by the 2 guys from Brookings.

They're agenda seems primarily to be selling as many newspapers as they can.

[coloneblog]

Mr. Rieckhoff, No contest; I'll put my money on the guys from the 82nd Airborne. Their's is an unfiltered report. US GI's are operating in a war zone with all kinds of negatives working against them: conventional armies just can't win gorilla wars, the Iraqi religious factions will never have serious political reconciliation and the Cheney/bush gang won't even acknowledge their failures in this vicious mess. So our guys, your comrades are stuck in the middle. Start bringing them home; it's long overdue.

[AlteredEgo]

And active and retired military here are dead-on when they lament that officers too often trade career gain for the lives of their grunts. Petraeus et al will commence the dog and pony show on Sept 15 and should be called out for it. Peeps, get up to DC and join the protest marches starting that day (a Saturday, so no excuses for many not to go). Lend your body and voice to create a massive crowd that will be more difficult for the MSM to ignore. Now is the time to fight for our country here at home, as well as for our troops abroad.

[AlteredEgo]

We should give these guys a medal for bravery!

And if they ever visit this post:
God bless you for your courage and I pray for your safe return home (and recovery) Buddhika Jayamaha, Wesley D. Smith, Jeremy Roebuck, Omar Mora, Edward Sandmeier, Yance T. Gray and Jeremy A. Murphy!!!

[AlteredEgo]

Norinrad10's post above really gets my goat:

"It's an incredibly scholarly piece of writing for a group of guys who probably didn't attend any college. Think they had any help? That's just my perception."

How presumptuous and arrogant Norinrad10 is to think these troops are too dumb and uneducated to come up with such an articulate report on their own! Reminds me of a high school English teacher who had to eat a little crow upon proof that I had not plagerized the paper she deemed me too artless to write.

Norinrad10 should open his or her eyes and look around. There are all kinds of soldiers in this big, wide world...Might open your mind if you looked around and got to know more of them instead of generalized from your own prejudices.

[gardengoddess]

All of these guys are sergeants or better, they're not privates. That means they have experience and they have brains, but aren't part of the military elite. They call themselves "grunts" which means they align themselves with the part of the military that actually does the work.

Norinad10 needs to remember that some of these people are National Guard people, and had productive, well paying jobs in their regular lives.

[footsore]

But Paul. O'Hanlon and Pollack are serious.
footsore

[rjcrane42]

While the soldiers writing this NYT piece were not commissioned officers, these are the soldiers who bear the brunt of everything bad that happens to our troops. So it is important to hear their voices and it took courage to write this excellent piece. I am so sick and tired of hearing Bush enablers provide "positive/hopeful spin" from either the safety of the Green Zone or surrounded by military protection on the ground and in the air in areas that have been swept for safety before their arrival. It should have been obvious from the first day of this war that no one speaking on behalf of the Bush Admin on Iraq could be trusted to give an accurate report on Iraq. Even independent reporters had to couch what they said in order to get their pieces into print and it was well known that conditions in iraq were always much worse than what any of them could report.

I always cringed when I heard Bush enablers blast the media for not reporting all of the good things happening in Iraq when the real truth is most of us could only imagine how awful it really was.

RJ Crane, editor
topplebush.com

[DLB]

A simple question to those on the left: If an equal number of soldiers in Iraq write an equally eloquent treatise opining that the surge of troops is having a positive affect, will those on the left embrace their conclusions as well?

[BronxBorn]

Before I answer your question, I would need to read their treatise.
Any links you could point me to?

[DLB]

I know what you mean. Hypothetical questions are too hard for those on the left to answer. They certainly have no problem asking them, but they certainly can't answer them.

[sabela]

Okay, military wise, the surge is having a positive effect, what these men are saying is that trying to deal with thousands of years of hatred with force is not going to work. That being said, if some non coms (certainly not the generals and such that hardly ever leave the green zone) can show us where this is helping POLITICALLY, then of course, I will listen to what they say and make my own opinion. Lets face the fact, Dick Cheney was correct in 1994. I said the same things in 2003 when this insanity started. That Iraq, a forced country, would go to pieces without a strong hand to force them to remain a country.

[DLB]

So you endorse dictatorship?