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

[kittycago]

I don't know Paul that Michael O'Hanlon looks pretty tough.I wouldn't want to wrest some arugula from him in the organic food market.

[wolf58]

I'll take the word of boots on the ground over chicken hawks in the hen house. It is so way past time to bring our brothers and sisters home, let Bush, Cheney and the rest of the chicken hawk corp go to fight....w­ait what was I thinking they are cowards never mind.

[laocoon]

I urge you not to go too far with the "trust the soldiers over the opinion of nonsoldiers" argument. It could be turned against you(us).

[boddhisatva66]

I am so proud that these soldiers came forward to speak the truth. I wish them a safe return to their loved ones.
I also want to thank them for their service. Unfortunately, they were lied to and sent to a country we should have left along time before this illegal occupation took hold.
Imperialism will be our downfall. As those before us fell...

[TJTelecaster]

Pollack and O'Hanlon are like those guys you use to hit with wet towels in gym class..!

See what I mean..?

[factanonverba]

I've read the 82nd Airborne's op-ed and it is well-thought out and articulately argued. This is not dismiss the O'Hanlon and Pollack piece nor the Warner and Levin report. The surge has had a measurable success but it is not sustainable. The solution to Iraq remains a political one, not a military one. The 82nd Airborne recognizes this. It is pity, if not a crime and betrayal of the public trust, that our leaders can not see this.

[Mormondude]

Who is to say that a surge cannot have a positive impact on political progress?

Why fight if fighting is futile? But if standing up to the terrorists in Iraq is demonstrated to work, then it is much more likely that Iraqis will do so in the future.

[Nighthawk]

What, exactly, do you define as "demonstrated to work"? Killing a dozen "terrorists", only to have three dozen immediately take their places? The Iraqis aren't going to "stand up" to anybody. 95% of the problems in Iraq right now are directly caused by our presence there. Iraq is an artificial country cobbled together by colonials and held together by a strongman dictator who we removed. Now there is NO leadership, no coherence, no universal community. Factions divide along tribal and family lines, form militias, join "terrorist" organizations (who didn't even exist in Iraq until we arrived) and do whatever they damn well please. Everybody hates everybody else and the only thing they agree on is that they hate us more, if for no other reason than we're occupiers (hard to blame them for that--I'd like to see how YOU would feel if, say, China occupied the US). WE are the cause of Iraq's problems, not some nebulous "terrorist" group, and while chaos reigns our "leaders" reap the kickbacks and rewards for making their contributors rich. When will Con supporters learn they've been had?

[dosch]

"But if standing up to the terrorists in Iraq is demonstrated to work, then it is much more likely that Iraqis will do so in the future."

What?????????

1) There WERE no terrorists in Iraq 'til we showed up! (Not to imply that Saddam was a great guy because he certainly wasn't. However, let's recall that the stated reasons for entering this war have been shown to be lies: no WMD and no connection whatsoever to 9/11.)

2) Has "...standi­ng up to the terrorists in Iraq [been] demonstrated to work..."??­????? Oh yeah, right! That's why the war is going so well!

3) You have written a conditional statement:
If ____, then _____.
Not only is your hypothesis bogus (that's the part that follows the "if" - see #2 above), but your conclusion (the part that follows the "then"
a)doesn't necessarily follow from the hypothesis even if it HAD been satisfied and
b) is contradicted by the article your comment is attached to:

"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."

The American people were talked into this war by liars using faulty logic. We've had more than enough of it!

[rmreddicks]

If you want to see Al-Qaeda in Iraq cut and run pull the us troops out. Non-insurgent "terrorists" in Iraq will die miserable and ugly deaths as soon as "we" are gone. Al-Qaeda in Iraq will be pushing their way in line for the last helicopter out of Baghdad. The Shia-Sunni-Kurd civil war will take on a new character and will probably peter out as people, wearied by an occupation that engendered terrorism, begin to talk to each other.

[Repub1icus2]

You know, Mormondude, Jesus talks directly to Bush. Isn't that enough, fellow religionist?

[cmaurand]

Who said we were fighting terrorists? The president? Do you actually believe him?

We're fighting insurgents not terrorists on all sides in a civil war that we created when we disolved the iraqi army and civil service in 2003. There is no winning this and the fighting is, indeed, futile. a military victory is not possible. This is a repeat of Viet Nam.

[delsop]

I recall that soon after the O'Hanlon/Pollack piece appeared, Cheney used their report when he characterized it as coming from liberal reporters for the NY Times, who usually have an anti-administration bias....so it must be creditable (you know, coming from that source).
Another example of how they snooker the media for their own propoganda.
In my 75 years and 62 as an avid follower of current events, this bunch of amateurs is the absolute worst. And it's not over by a long shot. My grandchildren will still be dealing with this mess long after we're all gone.

[laocoon]

The surge has had the same sort of success as the original surge ( called the invasion) for the same reasons and with the same limitations.
We can do this every so often as politically needed and then ...

[TitaniumAvatar]

Since all loyal Americans must support the troops; I trust the 83nd Airborne's view of the current situation in Iraq.

[JimReed]

"Since all loyal Americans must support the troops; "

Is that really true? They are not actually making America safer, in fact if anything, they are making us less safe by turning the rest of the world against us. They are involved (through no fault of the individual soldier of course) in a grab for oil. They need to be taught a lesson, you can't spread democracy by starting wars. If we cut our military budget in half, we would still be the only superpower backed up by most of the world's WMDs, and no other country would consider attacking us, and the smaller size of our military would make us less tempted to start wars, and that would reduce tensions around the world.

[TitaniumAvatar]

Jim,
Sorry you missed my use of one of the Republican talking points to bolster my statement that I trusted the 82nd Airbornes view (or at least 7 of them) of the current situation in Iraq.

By 'troops' I do mean the individual soldiers.

The 'they' you refer to that "need to be taught a lesson" are not soldiers are they? Bush/Cheney started this pre-emptive action against Iraq.

Supporting the troops does not mean supporting their use in a war of aggression.

[ScottR]

Even though they won't necessarily face military justice these soldier are done in the Army. They will get bad assignments, they will be punished for talking, one way or another. They know that. They are being good soldiers, nonetheless. They are speaking truth and I am glad the NY Times ran it. I haven't seen their situation explained as clearly anywhere else. As a veteran, they make me proud.

[Steve Petrisky]

I'm afraid you're right, Scott.

But these guys TRULY defended the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. May they be remembered and honored.

Great post by Rieckhoff and I read and copied the NYT op-ed by these soldiers.

This was my "Petraeus Report". Thanks.

[Julie24]

You got it right..aga­inst all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC. This administration is choc full of the domestic ones. (enemies that is.

[rmreddicks]

Absolutely! It would be a damn fine thing if Bush and his buddies emulated these fellows. They took an oath also. To them it just didn't mean anything. For them it's (as Borgnine said in 'The Wild Bunch') "It's who you give it to that counts!"

[MinuteMan]

If the brass gets really pissed-off they might even send them back to Iraq. Actually, the brass will probably send them back even if they loved 'em. What was the old grunt observation during the SE asia conflict: "What are they going to do, send me to Vietnam?"

[Townncountry]

Scott -- I wouldn't be so sure they will be vilified if they stay in the Army.

Before the Bush administration, there was a military ethos (at least in the US Navy) that sought out individuals with the moral courage to speak up and say what they saw, rather than what they expected superiors to want to hear. It didn't always go over well with top officers and it was a bit of a Democratic administration thing, but it existed and the Navy could be proud of that ethos.

Just ask retired CNO Admiral Jay Johnson or check the record of the late CNO Admiral Jeremy Boorda. Or listen to current CNO and future CJCS, Admiral Mike Mullen. Navy guys don't want to sail into a surprise and they despise anyone who will bilge a shipmate by providing them with false or "overly rosy" intel.

Now that there are so many people discovering that Emperor POTUS George and Co-Regent VPOTUS Cheney have no clothes, I believe that in DOD and intel circles the first ones to publicly come to grips with the truth (in a politically correct for a neocon administration way) and take the unvarnished facts and begin to deal with them instead of with the fairy tale reports going to the Executive Office will be elevated -- not squashed.

[klmebane]

ooh-rah. as a former marine i second that notion scottr. obviously boot camp didn't completely brainwash them.

[OrvilleHLarson]

Mr. Rieckhoff, my compliments on a fine piece.

When tough NCOs--not the Cutty Sark-swiggin' armchair commandos of AEI, Brookings, etc.--give you their no-bullshit opinions, you'd damn better listen.

The much-ballyhooed Petraeus report is bullshit. It's already been prepared, probably by the neocon
armchair commandos at AEI.

[Mormondude]

Which source do you believe? That's clearly a false dichotomy.

Nobody has a monopoly on the truth in Iraq. The fact that you would present it as right vs wrong exposes your own bias.

[braindeadsorry]

No, the truth is the truth. Truth has no bias. By definition, it is factual, without spin.

Anyone who's ever been in a business setting with a client coming for a visit knows exactly what a "dog and pony" show is all about. You show the best and brightest, you hide the flaws, and hope that no one looks too deep or goes off script.

I trust the men and women who have served in Iraq day in, day out for months or years to convey the TRUTH more that I trust the photo op visitors coming with a preconceived agenda of what they expect, or are expected, to find.

Listen to the Michael Ware on CNN. He's been in Iraq since the beginning of the "war", and he speaks the TRUTH, which directly contradicts the "smiling, happy people"...

PEACE