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
It will be interesting to see how Bush & Co's tries to recycle/re
General Betreus needs to cowboy up and speak the truth, report his findings regardless of the distilled version that the WH has decided to put out.
Maybe he needs to quit and get out of the kool-aid cult.
Gen Abizaid did. So did Gen Clark.
These men should get the Medal of Honor and pomotions to four star General NOW!!!!
We must stop the war and the intelligence, bravery, and courage these men display are the qualities REAL Americans who should be placed in charge of the redeployment NOW.
When the men (and women) on the ground cry out in pain to tell us we lost the war, we should LISTEN!!!!!
REAL Americans want the trops home NOW!
Strange isn't it. When the "liberal" press in the form of O'Hanlon and Pollack talked about how well the escalation was going, every traditional media outlet trumpeted this finding. However, when these soldiers bravely speak out, it gets very little coverage, even failing to note that their editorial reflects polls of the military and their families. That's why I turn to the blogs first for my news (OK and the Daily Show).
I actually first heard of it on Countdown or Morning Joe on MSNBC. I think it was on both.
How can the NY Times send people (O'Hanlon and Pollack) over there that do not even speak the language? How can you really understand what is going on over there if you cannot even read the local newspapers or speak to the people. Given the lack of language skills in the U.S. military I am not even sure the military knows what is really going on half of the time. Send reporters or writers over there who can actually speak the language and know something about the history and the people.
The NYT should send Juan Cole over there to write and assessment piece. He has studied the region, languages, and religions for years. He follows all the local region news and events like no other. He has had the best insight on the region since this war/occupation began. Check him out. http://www
"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"
Iraqi loyalty should be first to Iraq. Their primary problem is they are in danger of losing control of their oil fields to the occupation. How can they prevent this? I don't know whether or not it can be prevented, but until this is discussed any other discussion about conditions is Iraq doesn't mean much.
As in Vietnam 35 years ago, it is the average Joe Iraqi who wants us out. Fighting the U.S., for most of the people other than the Kurds, has become the honorable thing to do. As in Vietnam, we are forced to suffer casualties as long as we insist on putting our troops in their country. As in Vietnam, our army in-country can defeat any armed force that stands in the open and fights us, but that is not how we are suffering casualties. As in Vietnam, the troops are learning that their Leader has lied to them, and is incompetent.
The U.S. can continue to inflict heavy losses on "the enemy," but are we likely thus to convince them to stop fighting to regain contol of their own country? If we could after some indeterminate length of time convince them that we are the masters of their country (for that is how they would see it), and that they should stop fighting us, would that be the right thing to do?
Who are these war weary soldiers to contradict O'Hanlon and Pollack at the Brookings Institute? Don't the soldiers know that conservative think tanks should always have the last word on the war? Nothing could be worse than to damage the prestige of the Brookings Institute in a time of warfare, even a few hundred more casualties.
Mormomdude,
"Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." The Boxer, Paul Simon
As hard as it is to ascertain the truth, at some point the staggering result of death and violence has to sober even the most partisan.
Only the delusional can now believe that the American presence in Iraq can achieve anything but death and destruction.
SOLDIERS VS NEOCONS (The Truth vs War Profits)
The scoreboard has favored the neocons until now.
What will it take to make a change?
Your article and the words from the our soldiers printed
in the NYTimes is a good first step.
But who is reading their words?
Who is listening?
Where are the protests?
Why isn't this mess titled the Bush Iraq War by our
media?
Why doesn't the media begin each day with a death count of our soldiers and honor their service?
We have been blindfolded by BushCo. So much so
that some might say, "What war?"
How do we answer the question about how to get out when we have not tackled the truth about how we got involved?
Thank you to the 82nd Airborne!
"Why doesn't the media begin each day with a death count of our soldiers and honor their service?"
Good question. Instead, you had certain stations refusing to broadcast "Nightline's" tribute to our fallen soldiers a few years back.
Great article . . . I believe the 82nd Airborne . . .
Paul, I'm thinking if I were Strobe Talbott, I'd be getting some of my folks back to Iraq post haste to re-evaluate the Pollack/O'Hanlon findings.
Maybe an accurate study of the situation in Iraq would require more team members fanning out across Iraq and getting a few more sources of data for analysis than Pentagon mouthpieces and glad-handing Iraqi politicans, whose confidence and optimism derives from being dual citizenship holders with a confirmed escape route out of the country.
I'm not sure if Pollack or O'Hanlon speak any Arabic, but that might be a beneficial skill for researchers trying to get a handle on conditions within Iraq as well. The shortcomings of being ignorant of the language, culture, and history of a Nation, whose political stability, and "on the ground" status you are trying to ascertain was well documented in the novel "The Ugly American" in 1958 ... maybe Talbott should have his staff reread it before he deploys them in the field again.
Also, our troops on the ground are a great resource, maybe some candid conversation with them would widen the scope of the subject matter for a BI study as well ... as this Op Ed shows.
Strobe Tallbot should recognize the reputation of BI is under a cloud at this point ... he would be wise to act on clearing up any confusion Pollack and O'Hanlon may have inadvertently caused.
Keep the flags flying, Paul ... you do good work and we all appreciate it!
All GOOD soldiers and wargamers know that the first-hand account is the PRIMARY source of info. Somebody read Marine Chesty Puller's bio. Even Rommel led from the front - he even went out in a single armored car to reconnoitre. Guts? I guess, but I think he would've said "Intelligent" (or at least 'Prudent').
In WWI, Patton WALKED AHEAD of his tanks during an assault, to get better info on the state of the battle.
Forrest Mars (of M&M Mars fame) built a fortune of 400 millions (in a time of $.05 candy bars) by ceaselessly touring stores countrywide, inspecting the candy displays, and tweaking policies and displays, based on what he found at the points of sale.
Why would someone involved in a 'keeper' game NOT rely primarily on first-hand accounts?
Smells like the Rebugs have dug up Potemkin..
thanks Paul for an excellent heads up with the grunts from the 82nd, they've more integrity in the parings from their finger nails than the Cabal in the White House at large.
To the gentleman from the 82nd Airborne I salute your service and your honor to your country and to this humble citizen, many thanks for your contribution for a cause that is in doubt.
Hopefully your words of concern will circulate amongst us unvarnished by the emmpty suits that commanded you.
Heres hoping that what you did earns you the respect of your fellow countryman and their protection from what is sure to be an onslaught of chicken Hawk chicken sheit.
I will personally be contacting my State Senator with this story and encouraging to look into your well being, Patty Murray a freind of the military as well as Norm Dicks.
I encourage all the posters here to contact their state senators and representatives encouraging them to help these gentleman with what we all know is coming.
They did their jobs now you do yours.
vietnam all over again what more needs to be said.
americans love wars good for economy.
does anyone really think many americans are losing sleep over dead iraqis?
only gravel had guts enough to call it like it is. imperialists.
That's putting a hammer to the head of the nail, Mr. R, and it again also makes the connection between respect for OUR soldiers and THEIR notions of self-worth. For all of the preznutz talk of listening to his Army and battlefield commanders, that's all it ever is,...talk
Great piece, sir.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
