Wednesday, December 14, 2005

The Other Side of the Story

Here is an Op-Ed by a Marine heading back to Iraq from todays WaPo. I think it shows some perspective on what is really going on. Conditions aren't great, but they are not nearly as bad as the image on the nightly news projects.

The Truth On the Ground

By Ben Connable

Wednesday, December 14, 2005; Page A29

When I told people that I was getting ready to head back to Iraq for my third tour, the usual response was a frown, a somber head shake and even the occasional "I'm sorry." When I told them that I was glad to be going back, the response was awkward disbelief, a fake smile and a change of subject. The common wisdom seems to be that Iraq is an unwinnable war and a quagmire and that the only thing left to decide is how quickly we withdraw. Depending on which poll you believe, about 60 percent of Americans think it's time to pull out of Iraq.

How is it, then, that 64 percent of U.S. military officers think we will succeed if we are allowed to continue our work? Why is there such a dramatic divergence between American public opinion and the upbeat assessment of the men and women doing the fighting?

Open optimism, whether or not it is warranted, is a necessary trait in senior officers and officials. Skeptics can be excused for discounting glowing reports on Iraq from the upper echelons of power. But it is not a simple thing to ignore genuine optimism from mid-grade, junior and noncommissioned officers who have spent much of the past three years in Iraq.

We know the streets, the people and the insurgents far better than any armchair academic or talking head. As military professionals, we are trained to gauge the chances of success and failure, to calculate risk and reward. We have little to gain from our optimism and quite a bit to lose as we leave our families over and over again to face danger and deprivation for an increasingly unpopular cause. We know that there are no guarantees in war, and that we may well fail in the long run. We also know that if we follow our current plan we can, over time, leave behind a stable and unified country that might help to anchor a better future for the Middle East.

It is difficult for most Americans to rationalize this optimism in the face of the horrific images and depressing stories that have come to symbolize the war in Iraq. Most of the violent news is true; the death and destruction are very real. But experienced military officers know that the horror stories, however dramatic, do not represent the broader conditions there or the chances for future success. For every vividly portrayed suicide bombing, there are hundreds of thousands of people living quiet, if often uncertain, lives. For every depressing story of unrest and instability there is an untold story of potential and hope. The impression of Iraq as an unfathomable quagmire is false and dangerously misleading.

It is this false impression that has led us to a moment of national truth. The proponents of the quagmire vision argue that the very presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is the cause of the insurgency and that our withdrawal would give the Iraqis their only true chance for stability. Most military officers and NCOs with ground experience in Iraq know that this vision is patently false. Although the presence of U.S. forces certainly inflames sentiment and provides the insurgents with targets, the anti-coalition insurgency is mostly a symptom of the underlying conditions in Iraq. It may seem paradoxical, but only our presence can buffer the violence enough to allow for eventual stability.

The precipitous withdrawal of U.S. troops would almost certainly lead to a violent and destabilizing civil war. The Iraqi military is not ready to assume control and would not miraculously achieve competence in our absence. As we left, the insurgency would turn into internecine violence, and Iraq would collapse into a true failed state. The fires of the Iraqi civil war would spread, and terrorists would find a new safe haven from which to launch attacks against our homeland.

Anyone who has spent even a day in the Middle East should know that the Arab street would not thank us for abandoning Iraq. The blame for civil war would fall squarely on our shoulders. It is unlikely that the tentative experiments in democracy we have seen in Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan and elsewhere would survive the fallout. There would be no dividend of goodwill from heartbroken intellectuals or emboldened Islamic extremists. American troops might be home in the short run, but the experienced professionals know that in the long run, quitting Iraq would mean more deployments, more desperate battles and more death.

Sixty-four percent of us know that we have a good shot at preventing this outcome if we are allowed to continue our mission. We quietly hope that common sense will return to the dialogue on Iraq. Although we hate leaving our families behind, many of us would rather go back to Iraq a hundred times than abandon the Iraqi people.

A fellow Marine and close friend epitomizes this sentiment. Sean has served two tours in Iraq as a reserve officer. During his last tour, he was informed of the birth of his baby girl by e-mail, learned his father was dying of cancer, and was wounded in the same blast of an improvised explosive that killed his first sergeant on a dirt road in the middle of the western desert. Sean loves his family and his job, but he has made it clear that he would rather go back to Iraq than see us withdraw.

Everyone in uniform does not share this sentiment. Thirty-six percent of military officers are less confident in the mission. But these officers will continue to work as hard as the rest of us toward success because they, too, are professionals. With men and women such as this, the United States has an excellent chance of success in Iraq. We can fail only if the false imagery of quagmire takes hold and our national political will is broken. In that event, both the Iraqi people and the American troops will pay a long-term price for our shortsighted delusion.

The writer is a major in the Marine Corps.


Blogger Germanicu$ said...

"Why is there such a dramatic divergence between American public opinion and the upbeat assessment of the men and women doing the fighting?"

Frankly, I'm surprised the divergence isn't more pronounced. Soldiers are trained to follow orders to achieve the objective of the mission. Moreover, since they signed up for our volunteer army, they're more likely to be predisposed to military-based solutions to conflicts.

Meanwhile, the general civilian population is constantly polled as to their political inclinations and satisfaction with their government, and relentlessly inundated with the results of this polling information. We treat our satisfaction with our government's decisions like our satisfaction with service at Stuckey's - if I check the box that says "somewhat satisfied," my voice will be heard, and they'll ban gay marriage, bring home the troops, and replace the paper towels in the bathroom.

A soldier has - and should have, if he is to be an effective soldier - all that free will beaten out of him. A soldier does not question the mission. A soldier carries it out. That 36% of our armed forces are against our presence in Iraq tells me we have a lot of terrible pansy-ass soldiers, or we have a serious morale problem on our hands.

1:36 PM  
Blogger mkchicago said...

2 quick reactions Germanicus:
1. I think you overestimate the degree to which soldiers are mind-numbed robots. A soldier is certainly trained to follow orders irrespective of personal opinion, but he still has an opinion. That is not the same as having "all that free will beaten out of him". Free will is still there, but there is far less oportunity to act on it in the military. He can still make up his own mind about policy.

2. "36% of our armed forces are against our presence in Iraq" is not stated in the op-ed. All that is actually stated is " Thirty-six percent of military officers are less confident in the mission". This could mean that 36% are totally opposed. It could also mean that 1% are totally opposed and 35% express no opinion or have varying degrees of doubt. It could mean a lot of things. I'd be curious to see the source of those poll numbers.

2:06 PM  
Blogger Germanicu$ said...

Hmm... anyone else raise their eyebrows at the name of the author of this piece? "Ben Connable" sounds like someone you'd call Moe's bar and ask for.

4:10 PM  
Blogger mkchicago said...

If I find out who this is, I'll staple a flag to your butt and mail you to Iran!

Maya Buttreeks

Moe calls

7:31 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home