24/09: The War
A few reflections after two nights (4/15ths) of The War, a film by Ken Burns:
So far so good. Perhaps it is not the Civil War--but, then again, it is not 1990, Ken Burns no longer has the advantage of surprise, and this war is full of moving images, which makes the narrative much harder to control.
Having said that, I am enthralled--waiting breathlessly to see how it all ends. Well done.
An obvious comparison between then and now is the role of public sacrifice during the time of war. If we did not know already, we see clearly how the WWII generation practiced self-denial and sacrifice on the home front as well as the battlefield. A critique of the Bush administration centering on this divergence has become so ubiquitous in recent days as to seem cliché.
For that reason, I have refrained from making the following observation in print, on the blog, or on other electronic media (until now). Long before I knew what a blog was, the Okie Gardener and I would converse over lunch in a mom and pop Mexican restaurant in Waco during the weeks following 9-11, agreeing that the President must address the nation and ask for sacrifice. Thinking as students of the American past, the reasons were obvious: to win we needed investment of body, soul and mind. Today, among the President's many errors in prosecuting this war, none looms larger than his incapacity to connect the citizenry to the military and the mission in a meaningful way.
However, the exclamation of exasperation most often hurled against President Bush, "instead of sacrifice, President Bush asked us to go shopping," while understandable, is patently off the mark. Quite frankly, America did need to go shopping after the attack. Consumer spending drives the twenty-first century economy, and a robust economy really is the key to keeping this war afloat.
Watching the Burns documentary reminds us that the United States did not prevail in the Second World War because of the wisdom of our leaders, the bravery of our soldiers, the genius of our generals, or the sincerity of our people. Undoubtedly, all those things were true--but they were also true of Germans, Italians and the Japanese.
We persevered and emerged victorious in the long and destructive war because we out-industrialized the great industrial powers of the twentieth century. In the simplest terms, the American economy was key to the American triumph. Shopping was not the basis of our economy during that war--but it may be now.
We are one economic downturn away from crisis—and one crisis away from defeat. That is, a major recession would make further prosecution of the war in Iraq, already unpopular, completely untenable.
So far so good. Perhaps it is not the Civil War--but, then again, it is not 1990, Ken Burns no longer has the advantage of surprise, and this war is full of moving images, which makes the narrative much harder to control.
Having said that, I am enthralled--waiting breathlessly to see how it all ends. Well done.
An obvious comparison between then and now is the role of public sacrifice during the time of war. If we did not know already, we see clearly how the WWII generation practiced self-denial and sacrifice on the home front as well as the battlefield. A critique of the Bush administration centering on this divergence has become so ubiquitous in recent days as to seem cliché.
For that reason, I have refrained from making the following observation in print, on the blog, or on other electronic media (until now). Long before I knew what a blog was, the Okie Gardener and I would converse over lunch in a mom and pop Mexican restaurant in Waco during the weeks following 9-11, agreeing that the President must address the nation and ask for sacrifice. Thinking as students of the American past, the reasons were obvious: to win we needed investment of body, soul and mind. Today, among the President's many errors in prosecuting this war, none looms larger than his incapacity to connect the citizenry to the military and the mission in a meaningful way.
However, the exclamation of exasperation most often hurled against President Bush, "instead of sacrifice, President Bush asked us to go shopping," while understandable, is patently off the mark. Quite frankly, America did need to go shopping after the attack. Consumer spending drives the twenty-first century economy, and a robust economy really is the key to keeping this war afloat.
Watching the Burns documentary reminds us that the United States did not prevail in the Second World War because of the wisdom of our leaders, the bravery of our soldiers, the genius of our generals, or the sincerity of our people. Undoubtedly, all those things were true--but they were also true of Germans, Italians and the Japanese.
We persevered and emerged victorious in the long and destructive war because we out-industrialized the great industrial powers of the twentieth century. In the simplest terms, the American economy was key to the American triumph. Shopping was not the basis of our economy during that war--but it may be now.
We are one economic downturn away from crisis—and one crisis away from defeat. That is, a major recession would make further prosecution of the war in Iraq, already unpopular, completely untenable.
18/09: The Murkiness of Blackwater
From the Washington Post:
IRAQ BANS SECURITY CONTRACTOR:
Blackwater Faulted In Baghdad Killings
"BAGHDAD, Sept. 17 -- The Iraqi government on Monday said it had revoked the license of Blackwater USA, an American security company involved in a shootout in Baghdad that killed at least nine people, raising questions over which nation should regulate tens of thousands of civilian hired guns operating in Iraq."
Get ready to hear a lot about Blackwater.
Blackwater is one of those unfortunate names that just seems to scream out dirty deeds done in the service of the darker side of government. Thus far, Blackwater has surfaced mainly among anti-war zealots as a line in the litany of mysterious but sinister elements linked to the war in Iraq.
Get ready to hear a lot more about Blackwater.
The Washington Post story in full here.
Thinking Out Loud:
I have not formed a fully developed opinion on Blackwater, as I have not spent much time reflecting on the private security firms employed in the theater. In fact, for years I have done my best to avoid this nagging question:
Why are we spending $10,000 per month per copy on individual hired guns, when we could spend one third of that on a United States Marine?
And:
In the Rumsfeldian rush to light and agile (and un-Vietnam-like troop numbers), did we paint ourselves into a corner in which we are paying way too much for personnel in addition to forfeiting military expertise and control?
Is this really the best way to do this thing?
Get ready to hear a lot about Blackwater.
IRAQ BANS SECURITY CONTRACTOR:
Blackwater Faulted In Baghdad Killings
"BAGHDAD, Sept. 17 -- The Iraqi government on Monday said it had revoked the license of Blackwater USA, an American security company involved in a shootout in Baghdad that killed at least nine people, raising questions over which nation should regulate tens of thousands of civilian hired guns operating in Iraq."
Get ready to hear a lot about Blackwater.
Blackwater is one of those unfortunate names that just seems to scream out dirty deeds done in the service of the darker side of government. Thus far, Blackwater has surfaced mainly among anti-war zealots as a line in the litany of mysterious but sinister elements linked to the war in Iraq.
Get ready to hear a lot more about Blackwater.
The Washington Post story in full here.
Thinking Out Loud:
I have not formed a fully developed opinion on Blackwater, as I have not spent much time reflecting on the private security firms employed in the theater. In fact, for years I have done my best to avoid this nagging question:
Why are we spending $10,000 per month per copy on individual hired guns, when we could spend one third of that on a United States Marine?
And:
In the Rumsfeldian rush to light and agile (and un-Vietnam-like troop numbers), did we paint ourselves into a corner in which we are paying way too much for personnel in addition to forfeiting military expertise and control?
Is this really the best way to do this thing?
Get ready to hear a lot about Blackwater.
13/09: Ten More Years?
Category: US in Iraq.archive.iv
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
From the Washington Post:
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused Bush of effectively signing off on a 10-year "open-ended" commitment [to Iraq]."
I actually agree with the Speaker (in part).
A few weeks ago I suggested that the mission to transform Iraq likely remains a ten-year project.
The calculus must not be how to get us out of Iraq as soon as possible. Rather, the fundamental challenge is how we adjust our strategy to drastically reduce the strain on American soldiers and Marines serving in Iraq, while we simultaneously support vigorously an inchoate nation whose success is inextricably linked to American security.
In arguably, the President made grievous errors from the very beginning, which continue to haunt every aspect of this operation.
The President disastrously underestimated the scale of the task in Iraq, tying the vital interests and future of the United States on an extremely difficult long-term mission. His initial fumbles place high stress on the military, the treasury, and American hegemony. His perceived weakness makes him (us) vulnerable to malefactors domestic and external. We find ourselves in a decidedly precarious national fix.
On the other hand, none of those past mistakes are reversible at this juncture. The issue at hand: what now?
The United States must stay and outlast our enemy. We cannot fail in Iraq. If we do, we will not have a place to hang our hat in the Middle East for a generation. Our perceived weakness will open us up to endless attacks. We cannot abandon our investment at this point. We must hold our ground.
What to do?
1. Re-commit to staying as long as it takes to finish the job.
2. Develop a real strategy that lessens the burden of US troops.
3. Take the necessary measures here at home to replenish and sustain the deteriorated military (more money, a larger force, more down time, less dependence on National Guard and reserves, and more diffused sacrifice).
4. Dig in.
Parting Thoughts:
--Baghdad will not be built in a day.
--The race is not always to the swiftness but, rather, to the runner who perseveres.
--Success is trying one more time than you fail.
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused Bush of effectively signing off on a 10-year "open-ended" commitment [to Iraq]."
I actually agree with the Speaker (in part).
A few weeks ago I suggested that the mission to transform Iraq likely remains a ten-year project.
The calculus must not be how to get us out of Iraq as soon as possible. Rather, the fundamental challenge is how we adjust our strategy to drastically reduce the strain on American soldiers and Marines serving in Iraq, while we simultaneously support vigorously an inchoate nation whose success is inextricably linked to American security.
In arguably, the President made grievous errors from the very beginning, which continue to haunt every aspect of this operation.
The President disastrously underestimated the scale of the task in Iraq, tying the vital interests and future of the United States on an extremely difficult long-term mission. His initial fumbles place high stress on the military, the treasury, and American hegemony. His perceived weakness makes him (us) vulnerable to malefactors domestic and external. We find ourselves in a decidedly precarious national fix.
On the other hand, none of those past mistakes are reversible at this juncture. The issue at hand: what now?
The United States must stay and outlast our enemy. We cannot fail in Iraq. If we do, we will not have a place to hang our hat in the Middle East for a generation. Our perceived weakness will open us up to endless attacks. We cannot abandon our investment at this point. We must hold our ground.
What to do?
1. Re-commit to staying as long as it takes to finish the job.
2. Develop a real strategy that lessens the burden of US troops.
3. Take the necessary measures here at home to replenish and sustain the deteriorated military (more money, a larger force, more down time, less dependence on National Guard and reserves, and more diffused sacrifice).
4. Dig in.
Parting Thoughts:
--Baghdad will not be built in a day.
--The race is not always to the swiftness but, rather, to the runner who perseveres.
--Success is trying one more time than you fail.
Sidebar
