Senior Military Officials: We Are Losing the War in Iraq
I just read an extraordinary article. It quotes numerous sources who charge that the Bush team is blowing it bigtime in Iraq, failing to adapt its strategy to realities on the ground, heading straight for a Vietnam-style quagmire that will mean years of steady carnage and ultimate failure. Which isn’t exactly news; plenty of us have been saying that for a while now. What is extraordinary is who’s saying it: senior US military officials.
From the Washington Post: Dissension grows in senior ranks on war strategy.
Deep divisions are emerging at the top of the U.S. military over the course of the occupation of Iraq, with some senior officers beginning to say that the United States faces the prospect of casualties for years without achieving its goal of establishing a free and democratic Iraq.
Their major worry is that the United States is prevailing militarily but failing to win the support of the Iraqi people. That view is far from universal, but it is spreading and being voiced publicly for the first time.
Army Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., the commander of the 82nd Airborne Division, who spent much of the year in western Iraq, said he believes that at the tactical level at which fighting occurs, the U.S. military is still winning. But when asked whether he believes the United States is losing, he said, “I think strategically, we are.”
Army Col. Paul Hughes, who last year was the first director of strategic planning for the U.S. occupation authority in Baghdad, said he agrees with that view and noted that a pattern of winning battles while losing a war characterized the U.S. failure in Vietnam. “Unless we ensure that we have coherency in our policy, we will lose strategically,” he said in an interview Friday.
There’s lots more, and it’s all really interesting, if depressing. Like this part:
Even if adjustments in troop presence and goals help the United States prevail, it will not happen soon, several of those interviewed said. The United States is likely to be fighting in Iraq for at least another five years, said an Army officer who served there. “We’ll be taking casualties,” he warned, during that entire time.
A long-term problem for any administration is that it may be difficult for the American public to tell whether the United States is winning or losing, and the prospect of continued casualties may prompt some to ask of how long the public will tolerate the fighting.
“Iraq might have been worth doing at some price,” Vickers said. “But it isn’t worth doing at any price. And the price has gone very high.”
The other key factor in the war is Iraqi public opinion. A recent USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll found that a majority of Iraqis want the United States to leave immediately. “In Iraq, we are rapidly losing the support of the middle, which will enable the insurgency to persist practically indefinitely until our national resolve is worn down,” the senior U.S. military intelligence officer said.
Many of those interviewed point to Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld as the targets of their anger. Now, I know that Rumsfeld has stepped on a lot of toes in his time as Secretary of Defense, and that some of this is probably just normal bureaucratic in-fighting, with people going for the jugular now that Rumsfeld looks weak because of the Abu Ghraib scandal. But this goes deeper than that.
When our country experienced the particular constellation of bad judgement, hubris, and venality that resulted in the Vietnam war, it took more than a decade for us to come to enough of a national consensus to change course. But like an organism that has built up antibodies as a result of exposure to a particular pathogen, I don’t think it will take us as long this time to successfully identify and fight off the disease. At least I hope it doesn’t. And if I’m right about that, then the willingness of senior military leaders to speak up about the mistakes they see being made will be an important part of that process.
May 10th, 2004 at 8:14 am
The problem with the antibody comparison in terms of resistance to the Vietnam and Iraq wars is that while the opposition is more quick to respond to the bad decisions made by the administration, the administration is also better at predicting and attempting to defuse particular criticisms (in the minds of the American public)before the antiwar opposition can turn them into rallying cries.
I think the Bush administration’s obsession with public image and damage control is the one thing keeping poll numbers where they are now. Unfortunately, I worry that if it takes even half as long for politically significant opposition to develop against this war as it did for Vietnam, there may not be much in the way of democracy left to utilize by the time it catches on.
May 10th, 2004 at 7:45 pm
I take exception to the statement that the Bush administration is trying to achieve “its goal of establishing a free and democratic Iraq”. Rather it goals are to have the biggest embassy in the world in Iraq which will eventually be staffed by many CIA agents (currently under construction), to have permanent military bases in the nation (currently – I believe – fourteen of these under construction), to have an Iraqi government that will be cooperative (a puppet governemnt like is currently there with no power to pass laws), to be free of humanitarian responsibilities such as supplying food, water, medicines, and electricity (the June 30 “handover” will take care of that), to extract oil preferably with huge contracts going to US companies (i.e. Halliburton), to pave the way for US corporate penetration (such as the Pepsi bottling plant that opened on May 1), and to reduce the number of reported casulties. Bush is succeeding on all of these fronts except, really, the last one – although “contractor” deaths and Iraqi police deaths are not really reported, so lets call that a partial victory. Now if only the photos of GI coffins and tortured Iraqis would go away.
May 13th, 2004 at 1:47 am
Why Are We Still In Iraq?
This is a question being asked more and more. I really wish one of the pro-war/Conservatives/Bushies could explain it…
May 13th, 2004 at 1:48 am
Why Are We Still In Iraq?
This is a question being asked more and more. I really wish one of the pro-war/Conservatives/Bushies could explain it…
February 15th, 2005 at 9:20 am
The United states has now stopped its search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,the reason of which president George W. Bush declared this war. even though at the time the U.S invaded Iraq, 45 other countries had a greater chance of having weapons of mass destruction. North Korea, Isreal, syria, India, Pakistan, Russia, china, and the United Kingdom all have weapons of mass destruction.
Iraq never had any weapons of mass destruction, it was merely a right wing conspiracy that this unjust war was based apon, and even if they had these weapons of mass destruction, which they dont. How is it our
right to go into another country, try to force democracy onto them and take away weapns that our country, our government is allowed to possess.Their is now officially no reason for any rationally thinking indevidual,to be in favor of this war. the U.S has already lost so many troops because of President Bush’s igorance and his inane approach at fighting terrorism, and he lacks the compassion to attend any of the soldiers funerals who have so far died in Iraq because of his lies.Instead Bush Spent most of his first term on vacation, Golfing. Well I guess it isnt only President Bush’s Ignorance that has killed our troops, drove our economy,our nations dignity, its democracy,and its honor into the ground ,but the ignorance of the American people who voted for him as well, and when their children come home in coffins they can thank President Bush’s WONDERFUL GOD.
I have much respect for our Military, the U.S troops but I have none for the president,and I think that we need to get our troops out of Iraq.