Surge is a Success!!

Back to the topic.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010188

1968 Redux
Echoes of Vietnam in Iraq--especially from the press.

BY ROBERT MCFARLANE
Sunday, June 10, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Thirty-nine years ago, halfway through my second tour in Vietnam, the Tet Offensive was launched by North Vietnamese and Viet Cong forces, who were soundly defeated on the battlefield. Two measures of that battle--both relevant to the situation in Iraq today--stand out for me. The first relates to an important lesson U.S. forces had learned after three years of conflict: the vital role of "winning hearts and minds" of the local population. The second concerns the power of the press to affect our ability to sustain violent warfare.

Concerning the first of these, by early 1968 Marines had conceived a plan for building mutual trust and respect among villagers in Northern I Corps built around the deployment of platoon-sized units that lived and worked each day with local Vietnamese peasants with no greater mission than to "make life better."

Each of these Combined Action Platoons (or CAPs as they were called) included a medic qualified to carry out "well checks"--including inoculations and treatment of minor maladies--as well as assistance with securing hospital care if needed for the families in each village. An engineer was also often sent along to organize repairs of fragile dwellings, drill wells, help organize perimeter fortifications, and to undertake a hundred other utilitarian tasks.

The results from launching the CAP program were enormous and measurable. Probably the most significant return from the good will earned by these enlisted Marines was the increasing yield in tactical intelligence. Specifically, throughout the weeklong Tet offensive in early 1968 not one village in which a CAP was deployed fell to the enemy.

Yet the press--notwithstanding the defeat of the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong on the battlefield and the complete failure of the enemy to provoke an uprising and rallying of southerners to their cause--portrayed U.S. forces as having been surprised, bloodied and having suffered a resounding defeat. That misrepresentation had a powerful effect in Washington and in our body politic. Support for the war, already declining, unraveled at an accelerating pace.





Though there are valid criticisms to be made of how our military leadership conducted the war for the first three years--blunders that were worsened by disingenuous or misleading briefings at headquarters in Saigon--there is no doubt that the military finally adopted effective counterinsurgency tactics and was turning the tide on the battlefield. By then however, the early mistakes and distortions of reality by both U.S. politicians and military commanders had so undermined their credibility with the press--a press that was only too willing to go with the flow of liberal sentiment here at home--as to make it all but impossible for the administration to secure funding for the war. Sound familiar?
There was another important and dispiriting loss in the segue from Vietnam to Iraq. Despite the obvious success of the counterinsurgency tactics adopted late in the war, when it was over that nascent doctrine was expunged from our field manuals and the leadership of our military re-oriented our focus toward grand-scale land warfare in Europe. As a result, there were precious few in the senior or enlisted ranks of the U.S. military capable of leading or carrying out a counterinsurgency campaign in Iraq.

Today, four years into the war in Iraq, we've come full circle to the point reached 40 years ago--unfortunately in both respects. On the one hand we've found military leaders--men such as Army Gen. David Petraeus and Marine Lt. Gen. Jim Mattis--with a solid grasp of what is needed to turn the military tide, and who are managing that task with early evidence of success. More money is going into winning hearts and minds. More resources are being devoted to quality of life fixes that are visible to Iraqis. Shuttered factories are being opened in a major new program launched by Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England and headed by his subordinate Paul Brinkley. A major agricultural program is about to be launched in Anbar province, again under Pentagon leadership.

The truly good news is that the results are being felt. Sheiks and tribal leaders watching the changes being made in Anbar are coming our way, and offering various kinds of support to help root out al Qaeda and deal with the insurgents. Yet news of these successes is very hard to find in our mainstream media. It's February '68 redux--with far greater consequences I fear.





I don't mean to imply that all is well in Iraq; the political situation remains a shambles. It is imperative that we rally the leadership of each of the leading factions in Iraq and make two things clear. First, we intend to stand with them for as long as it takes if they demonstrate a sober willingness to reconcile their differences over time through formation of a functional coalition government devoted to a fair distribution of political and economic power within the country. Second, our ability to sustain support for them at home is tied to their performance. Although this prescription for winning the war is easy to describe it is hard to accomplish, especially the fostering of political reconciliation. Yet it must be done. The good news is that there are experienced veterans who possess the requisite skills for the job.
The question remains, however: Should the Iraqis succeed in this crucial endeavor, how will it be reported? For the press this is yet another moment of truth. Will it continue to publish a distorted picture of this war as it did in Vietnam, and share responsibility for the same result?

Mr. McFarlane, a former Marine officer, served as National Security Adviser to President Reagan.

Two measures of that battle--both relevant to the situation in Iraq today--stand out for me. The first relates to an important lesson U.S. forces had learned after three years of conflict: the vital role of "winning hearts and minds" of the local population. The second concerns the power of the press to affect our ability to sustain violent warfare.

a plan for building mutual trust and respect among villagers ........ built around the deployment of platoon-sized units that lived and worked each day with local Vietnamese peasants with no greater mission than to "make life better."

I don't mean to imply that all is well in Iraq; the political situation remains a shambles. It is imperative that we rally the leadership of each of the leading factions in Iraq and make two things clear. First, we intend to stand with them for as long as it takes if they demonstrate a sober willingness to reconcile their differences over time through formation of a functional coalition government devoted to a fair distribution of political and economic power within the country. Second, our ability to sustain support for them at home is tied to their performance. Although this prescription for winning the war is easy to describe it is hard to accomplish, especially the fostering of political reconciliation.

Great article!

Pretty much sums up the path I want us to take. Make the Iraqis accountable and tie our presence there to their performance/benchmarks.

I suggested quality of life improvements as a good way to gain support in another thread - glad to see evidence that it has worked before.

Bob,
Meant to answer this earlier. I hope we never go to war for someone else's interest, so I'd say the US is the one that benefits.

John R,
I've found something I agree with you on other than your definition of female beauty. I would love to live in a world without violence, but it's as realistic as living in a world without life.

If you think the US is benefitting from this cluster... then you are indeed a contrarian.

If you think the US is benefitting from this cluster... then you are indeed a contrarian.

Long term, if we achieve what we set out to accomplish, the US will benefit. We set out to depose Hussein and foster some sort of representative government that would be less likely to fund and harbor terrorists.

if it was said that the goal was to "defeat and dismantle" the dictator Saddam and his henchmen and support the beginnings of an elected government in Iraq, would that objective be less worthy in your mind? I'm curious, if Iraq in the next decade, becomes a stable, democratic, beacon of light in the middle east, will you and St Joe disavow your peacenik rants?

I would be the first to say I was wrong if Iraq morphed into a stable, democratic ?beacon of light?. Does your definition of ?victory? specify a pro-American democracy or can the will of the people install a pro-Iranian majority Shia government? That would seem to be an important detail you left out.

But an equally relevant question (to the one you pose) is- ?If Iraq becomes unstable, and divided along religious and ethnic divisions, ruled by an oppressive Shia dominated regime aligned with Iran, -will you and 6thGen disavow your hawkish rants??

Long term, if we achieve what we set out to accomplish, the US will benefit. We set out to depose Hussein and foster some sort of representative government that would be less likely to fund and harbor terrorists.

Please explain if this is 'nuanced' position or are you literally saying that US policy should be simply to overthrow dictators (especially those that harbor terrorists), and foster democracy -period.

I'm asking this question because too many of the pro-Bush opinions expressed here seem to want to boil down the Iraq War to a simplistic set of accomplishments and ignore the greater context or implications of Bush's actions.

Please elaborate.

Please explain if this is 'nuanced' position or are you literally saying that US policy should be simply to overthrow dictators (especially those that harbor terrorists), and foster democracy -period.

I'm asking this question because too many of the pro-Bush opinions expressed here seem to want to boil down the Iraq War to a simplistic set of accomplishments and ignore the greater context or implications of Bush's actions.

Please elaborate.

Nice leap.

Nice leap.

Nice avoidance.

I thought we were there because of WMDs (still looking) and Iraqi involvement (no link yet) in 9/11. Isn't that what you said in an earlier post?

Nice avoidance.

You bring this up every single time. Why should I keep answering it?

Scooterbug,
I don't know why you are having so much trouble wrapping your mind around this, but Bush never said we invaded because Hussein was involved in 9/11. You said he said that. You've yet to point me to where he did. I gave you two books that might help you actually add something to the conversation, or at least prevent you from completely sounding like an idiot at the next cocktail party, but you said because I posted it, it must be skewed so it wasn't worth reading. I replied that one was written by the liberal hero who broke Watergate and on the NYT best seller list for a month and a half and the other was recommended by a liberal magazine. That's when you trailed off the board to talk about things that don't require as much mental activity.

You bring this up every single time. Why should I keep answering it?

Scooterbug,
I don't know why you are having so much trouble wrapping your mind around this, but Bush never said we invaded because Hussein was involved in 9/11. You said he said that. You've yet to point me to where he did. I gave you two books that might help you actually add something to the conversation, or at least prevent you from completely sounding like an idiot at the next cocktail party, but you said because I posted it, it must be skewed so it wasn't worth reading. I replied that one was written by the liberal hero who broke Watergate and on the NYT best seller list for a month and a half and the other was recommended by a liberal magazine. That's when you trailed off the board to talk about things that don't require as much mental activity.

I can't think of anything requiring less mental activity than having a discussion with you. I think it kills more brain cells than alcohol consumption!

I can't think of anything requiring less mental activity than having a discussion with you. I think it kills more brain cells than alcohol consumption!

OK. I'll make it easy. Where did Bush lie about WMDs? Before you answer that, look up the definition of "lie". Second, when did Bush say that Hussein was involved in 9/11. I hear this all the time, so a simple Google search should come up with examples fairly easy.

lie
Pronunciation: (lī), [key]
—n., v., lied, ly•ing.
—n.
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture
3. an inaccurate or false statement.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes.
In fact, the long-awaited report, authored by Charles Duelfer, who advises the director of central intelligence on Iraqi weapons, says Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq's nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War.
The Iraq Survey Group report, released Wednesday, is 1,200 to 1,500 pages long.

President Bush strode onto a stage in Cincinnati and told the audience that Saddam Hussein's Iraq "possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons" and "is seeking nuclear weapons."
"The danger is already significant and it only grows worse with time," Bush said in the speech delivered October 7, 2002. "If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?"
Speaking on the campaign trail in Pennsylvania, Bush maintained Wednesday that the war was the right thing to do and that Iraq stood out as a place where terrorists might get weapons of mass destruction.
"There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks, and in the world after September the 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take," Bush said.
But Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, seized on the report as political ammunition against the Bush administration.
"Despite the efforts to focus on Saddam's desires and intentions, the bottom line is Iraq did not have either weapon stockpiles or active production capabilities at the time of the war," Rockefeller said in a press release.
"The report does further document Saddam's attempts to deceive the world and get out from under the sanctions, but the fact remains, the sanctions combined with inspections were working and Saddam was restrained."

Presidential statements, particularly on matters of national security, are held to an expectation of the highest standard of truthfulness. A president cannot stretch, twist or distort facts and get away with it. President Lyndon Johnson's distortions of the truth about Vietnam forced him to stand down from reelection. President Richard Nixon's false statements about Watergate forced his resignation.

Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." United Nations address, September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."-Radio address, October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."-Cincinnati, Ohio speech, October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."-State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." Address to the nation, March 17, 2003

It's interesting to me UT that Iran is frequently tossed out as the boogeyman by those opposed to US actions in Iraq. Most of the Iranians I know personally are intelligent and moderate. Clearly, there are radical elements in the leadership that the US is trying to isolate without military force. Might it be that a moderate shia dominated Iraq would help to empower those same forces in Iran? The status quo was hardly acceptable. Time will tell if the alternative is better. By the way, it's hard to be hawkish when you have children.

You bring this up every single time. Why should I keep answering it?

I have never posed this question actually. And clearly you should avoid it because it creates so many difficulties for the pro-Bush position in Iraq.

Your silence is telling.

Are you hanging your support on Bush?s policies on a narrowly defined set of accomplishments or are you willing to consider the greater context?

It is a very simple question.

It's interesting to me UT that Iran is frequently tossed out as the boogeyman by those opposed to US actions in Iraq. Most of the Iranians I know personally are intelligent and moderate. Clearly, there are radical elements in the leadership that the US is trying to isolate without military force. Might it be that a moderate shia dominated Iraq would help to empower those same forces in Iran? The status quo was hardly acceptable. Time will tell if the alternative is better. By the way, it's hard to be hawkish when you have children.

I?m guessing most of the Iranians you know are living in or visiting the US. Then I am not surprised that you find them to be intelligent and moderate.

However, I would never label any element in Iraq as the ?boogieman? as I am not inclined to over-hype or dramatize any of the hurdles to be overcome as the reality is scary enough without embellishment.

And to address your question about a ?moderate? Shia government in Iraq helping to influence Iran, I think that you will need to define ?moderate?. Pro-American I assume? I think you have a way to go before we can conclude that there is any reasonable chance of seeing a ?moderate? Shia government in Iraq. Regardless, I think you will need to consider the role that a Shia Crescent would have on de-stabilizing the existing Sunni dominated US allies in the region. Anyone want to discuss a new Mid-East arms race?

Now lets turn to the un-answered, and highly relevant questions that I first posed:

1) Does a democratic Iraq, with an anti-American government still constitute a ?victory? for Bush?s policies in your opinion?

2) I have agreed that a pro-Western stable, democratic Iraq would constitute a ?victory? for Bush?s policies. Quid pro Quo- What would defeat in Iraq be?

Scooter,
You miss intent. That's the whole freaking point. Are you telling me that pretty much every other intelligence service in the world was lying? What about every Senate democrat that opened his or her mouth at the time, where they lying?

I have never posed this question actually. And clearly you should avoid it because it creates so many difficulties for the pro-Bush position in Iraq.

Your silence is telling.

Are you hanging your support on Bush?s policies on a narrowly defined set of accomplishments or are you willing to consider the greater context?

It is a very simple question.

It does not create difficulties to answer, it is just a completely asinine question, but I wouldn't expect less from you. You try to boil down the pro-war position to two things, while you proclaim brilliance and nuance and want to look at every thing in hindsight for your position.

I'm open to movement on Iran, but I don't think it's necessary because they have a populace ready to do so. The economy in Iran is slowing right now, and economic sanctions would help push a revolution. But, you have a limp wristed UN with conflicting interests on the Security Council, so you won't ever get sanctions. If you'll remember, we tried letting the populace do that with Iraq, remember?

YouTube - Al Gore Criticizing Bush 41 on Iraq in 1992

See, one of the things about not being taken seriously, and not being in power, is you don't have to be consistent, you don't have to be responsible, and you don't have to face consequences for your previous statements, speaches or policies.

It does not create difficulties to answer, it is just a completely asinine question, but I wouldn't expect less from you. You try to boil down the pro-war position to two things, while you proclaim brilliance and nuance and want to look at every thing in hindsight for your position.
.

More avoidance, on your part.

If you will notice, I have been very careful to ask you to explain your position so as not to be charged with the exact thing you are now claiming.

The following quote: ?Long term, if we achieve what we set out to accomplish, the US will benefit. We set out to depose Hussein and foster some sort of representative government that would be less likely to fund and harbor terrorists.? Is your language, not mine.


You have flatly stated a support for Bush?s policies based on a very narrow set of achievements, I am merely asking you if this is your position or are you prepared to consider the greater context.

Explain your position.

Scooterbug,

Well done. Great rebuttal. It has not gone unnoticed.

More avoidance, on your part.

If you will notice, I have been very careful to ask you to explain your position so as not to be charged with the exact thing you are now claiming.

The following quote: ?Long term, if we achieve what we set out to accomplish, the US will benefit. We set out to depose Hussein and foster some sort of representative government that would be less likely to fund and harbor terrorists.? Is your language, not mine.


You have flatly stated a support for Bush?s policies based on a very narrow set of achievements, I am merely asking you if this is your position or are you prepared to consider the greater context.

Explain your position.

Deflecting isn't an argument, Timmy. If you are too lazy to look up the many times I have discussed this, I'm not going to do it for you. I never said that those are the only reasons I have supported his policies, I even gave you reasons why invading Iran might not be the best move right now. I gave you your hero, Al Gore, talking about the need to invade Iraq, long before W was on the radar and "played on our fears".

As for scooterbug's rebuttal. Show me where he intentionally decieved. You cannot, because he didn't. And if he did, then he had every other intelligence agency doing it as well, even the ones that wouldn't support the invasion because of conflicting interests.

Deflecting isn't an argument, Timmy. If you are too lazy to look up the many times I have discussed this, I'm not going to do it for you. I never said that those are the only reasons I have supported his policies, .

Given your tendency to ramble (the latest post being an example) I often have no idea what point you are trying to make and would much prefer that you explain yourself rather than me do it for you.

The question is relevant because I continue to be amazed that people like yourself continue to support Bush?s policies in the face of such massive failures. I am trying to understand why this is. Do you believe ?victory? has been achieved because of an oversimplified set of achievements in Iraq?

And why do you support ?The Surge?- because of an equally oversimplified series of goals?

The ?surge? is not achieving anything positive by my assessments, but my assessments are very broad. If you are inclined only to see the ?surge? as providing a simple series of goals (ie ?a temporary improvement in security in some areas) then I guess you may feel it is a success.

Stop fencing with me and answer the question.

Not my words but I agree with the message:
The pro-war zealots' new justification for prolonging our occupation of Iraq indefinitely goes like this:
Back in 2002, we mocked and ridiculed anti-war critics who warned that our invasion of Iraq would spawn chaos and anarchy in that country, would allow Al Qaeda to operate freely, would trigger dangerous regional instability among Iraq's neighbors, and would unleash vicious sectarian tensions and lead to endless, violent civil wars.
As it turns out, the war critics were right about this and we were wrong. Even though we were snidely dismissive of these concerns before the war, this is exactly what our invasion has spawned. Just as they predicted - and just as we vehemently denied would occur - Iraq is a mess, a dangerous and unpredictable disaster.
For these reasons, we cannot leave Iraq any time soon and, instead, have to re-double our occupation and resign ourselves to being in Iraq for a long, long time.
Although they ought to be deeply embarrassed by this rationale - as it literally amounts to a bizarre declaration that they were entirely wrong about what would happen in Iraq if we invaded, and therefore we must keep following their path and re-commit ourselves to a prolonged and intensified occupation - they are unabashedly trumpeting exactly this reasoning.

I can't tell if the surge is working yet or not (I'm trying really hard to be glass half full). The numbers released by the Pentagon showed a significant increase in deaths and attacks and more widespread violence.

"WASHINGTON - Violence in Iraq, as measured by casualties among troops and civilians, has edged higher despite the U.S.-led security push in Baghdad, the Pentagon told Congress on Wednesday. The required quarterly report, which surveyed violence from Feb. 10 to May 7, found that the average number of Iraqi civilians killed or wounded each day was more than 100, nearly double the daily toll from the same period one year ago. The number of daily U.S. casualties was about 25, slightly higher than a year ago.
The average weekly number of attacks across Iraq for the reporting period surpassed 1,000, compared to about 600 weekly attacks for the same period one year ago. More than 75 percent of the attacks were aimed at U.S. forces, according to the report, which also examined political and economic developments in Iraq."

I hope those numbers are wrong, because that is just ridonkulous!

I'm also hoping the bombing of the Shi ite shrine in Samarra is a sign that the surge was working so they deliberately blew it up as a way to get people fired up again and divide the country, but know it is probably just a sign of how impossible it will be to get them to stop killing each other and whomever we send over to keep the peace. (For some reason I'd like to think that blowing up churches and architectural treasures is a last resort).

Given your tendency to ramble (the latest post being an example) I often have no idea what point you are trying to make and would much prefer that you explain yourself rather than me do it for you.

The question is relevant because I continue to be amazed that people like yourself continue to support Bush?s policies in the face of such massive failures. I am trying to understand why this is. Do you believe ?victory? has been achieved because of an oversimplified set of achievements in Iraq?

And why do you support ?The Surge?- because of an equally oversimplified series of goals?

The ?surge? is not achieving anything positive by my assessments, but my assessments are very broad. If you are inclined only to see the ?surge? as providing a simple series of goals (ie ?a temporary improvement in security in some areas) then I guess you may feel it is a success.

Stop fencing with me and answer the question.

I?ve made my case as to why we should invade. I?ve made my case as to what I see as a victory. Hell, if I go on about it you accuse me of rambling. Because some faceless internet person wants to boil it down to one statement and corner me on that to be an end all be all is not my fault, but his. I kept it simple because I know that you lack the willingness and capacity to consider the details. Look back and see where I posted the compromise we look to be reaching with Iran. I?d consider that worth our time and worth the lives of 3,500 men who volunteered to risk them.

As for your assessment of the surge, it is as limited and you were as open minded about it as Reid, Pelosi and Company. These things take time, Timmy. War isn?t as easy as one of your computer games. September is rather early to assess the results of the strategy, but that?s the timetable they agreed upon, so we?ll look at it then.