Good Angel, Bad Angel
A few days ago, I posted a piece on why I think the Battle of Fallujah isn't going as badly - nearly as badly - as some think, including some who I'd think would know better.
Someone said my posting was "Baghdad-Bob-like" in its optimism.
Nah.
I wasn't being optimistic - I was being realistic, and looking at the most reliable information I had, filtered through my own knowledge of military history.
Viewed in that context, I have not a single doubt that CENTCOM will handle the battle at Fallujah properly, both in terms of the military operation and the theatre-level politics involved. I think that Fallujah was handled very badly at first - we kept our hands off to too-great an extent, allowing the terrorists and their foreign supporters (including, say some, Syrian or Iranian special forces) to turn the city into an armed camp) - but once the massacre of the contractors occurred, the Marines did the right thing:
- They didn't charge to the rescue because the incident was a carefully-staged provocation, intended to ambush the relief force; a company of Marines in Humvees would have been hammered in a Mogadishu-like morass
- The response since then - methodical, slow, squeezing the terrs like a python rather than like a monkey - has been vexing for stateside hawks, and a false sign of hope for anti-Americans at home. But from the perspective of an effective urban counterinsurgency, it's been exactly right.
- Politically? Andrew Sullivan is more dead-wrong on this issue than any other; the fact that the Administration has allowed this to happen this way - operationally correct without fussing extensively over the political fallout at home - is a testament to the administration's moral strength.
But am I optimistic?
For the first time in this war, not so much.
I think the miltiary will do the right thing. Likewise, I think the Bush Administration will do just fine, as long as they're in office
No, it's the American people I'm not optimistic about.
I worry that the media onslaught - the constant drumbeat of Quagmiritis coming from the horde of media that want to be remembered for the next Cronkite-y "...this war is unwinnable" moment - is starting to win over converts in the great middle; people who haven't drunk the blue-state koolaid, but still don't know better than to relentlessly fact-check the media. People who believe that the media isn't backing a horse in this election.
I worry that one of these next events - the next battle that doesn't play out like a Bruckheimer production, the next "scandal", the next time the news is manipulated, it'll be the tipping point that drives that critical mass of Americans around the bend.
I don't worry that the military will win. I worry that the great mass of the American public won't know the difference between foreign-instigated violence done to derail and discredit the handover of power, and genuine setbacks that will truly matter in five years.
I worry that, like the Tet offensive, the enemy will launch an attack (like they've done at Fallujah and Najaf and Ad Diwaniyah, and for that matter Mogadishu) that they know full well has no chance of affecting us militarily, but is enough to sway a media that is, in effect, an active participant in the campaign against George Bush - and that, like Tet, it'll work.
Posted by Mitch at
May 5, 2004 05:00 AM
Once again, I agree with your analysis here, Mitch. The difference is in the number of converts, as more Americans have access and desire for alternative forms of media. With the elctorate being divided as it is, the result COULD be sufficient to put us through at LEAST four years of unbridled liberalism and re-inforce the Arab sense that we have no stomach for conflict.
Posted by: the markman at May 5, 2004 10:27 AMI have a feeling, however, that the Arabs and the Big Media may be shooting their wad a little early here. By the time of the June 30 handover, I think we will have seen a couple of major victories by the Marines at Falujah, and a reaction to the Shiite clerics coming out yesterday agains the moron in Najaf, along with a few atrocities committed by the ragheads that may cause those of us who do NOT believe that America is the root of all evil to basically blow off the prisoner abuse story.
I do not have a lot of faith in the electorate in the blue states (having lived in several of them), but I think that as we get closer to the election in November we may see a lot higher turnout among the silent majority than we have seen before.
Spot on Mitch. Almost daily I break out the 'Left-sided fish wrapper' here in PC and read of defeats and crisises that just aren't so. Anyone with the smallest sense of history (military or otherwise) can shoot the stories more full of holes than an A-10 would a BMP, but the eye-catching headlines must always read "Crisis" "Set-back" "Defeat." Our foe is fairly poorly trained and equiped with rudimentary knowledge of actual combat operations. One of their best and (probably, strategically) most effective weapons is our own "free" press. Take away that weapon and the war would be over faster than John Kerry can hit the ground falling off his bike!
Posted by: fingers at May 5, 2004 11:41 AMMitch- I don't think any of us who have concerns about how the situation in Fallujah is being handled have any doubt that the military could take care of bidness quite effectively. The question is whether the military is being allowed to deal with the insurgents as they would like, or if due to political considerations, they are being forced to pursure other alternatives. I realize that nearly all actions in war have political implications and to give the military complete carte blanche is impossible, but I fear that we're drifting into dangerous territory in Iraq where the military mission may be compromised because of politics.
Posted by: the elder at May 5, 2004 12:12 PMMitch - I agree with this post wholeheartedly. At first look, the chances of another "Tet" (complete military victory which is a political loss) happening are rather large, but further thought makes me think it will be unlikely. The Islamists have a rather large supply of people willing to be cannon-fodder who would glady end their lives to humiliate the U.S. (or Great Satan). However, Tet was a highly organized, massive attack by a large number of troops (which was replused and then utterly destroyed by US forces). The Islamists right now are not organized and have bitter rivalries with each other.
I am an optimist on Fallujah because it sounds like the Marines are really trying a different approach to fighting an insurgent war. They are getting the loosely affiliated insurgents to fight one another. The more this happens, the better the chances of Iraqis standing up to fight for the freedom of their contry while lessening the odds of another Tet occurring. Insurgent war has almost nothing to do with military power. This war will only be won when IRAQIS ultimately decide that their freedom is something that is worth fighting for. The Marines get it, Andrew Sullivan does not.
P.S. Andrew Sullivan has been horrendously misguided recently. It seems like he is looking more for an excuse to blame Bush for failure, while still supporting the war!
Posted by: doug at May 5, 2004 03:53 PMRE:Andrew Sullivan
Posted by: the markman at May 5, 2004 04:09 PMAndy can't get past his hatred for the Marriage Amendment any longer. He has lost his mind since the Mass. Supreme Court decision, and is simply not readable anymore.
Mitch - great blog! Thanks for all the work you do.
Posted by: eric at May 5, 2004 07:08 PMI'm torn between believing your analysis is correct and fearing that the elder is on to something (above).
Hopefully GW has realized by now that the press is going to lean left regardless, so he may as well do the right thing and allow the US (and himself) to deal from a position of strength. Unfortunately we've seen too many instances of his trying to curry favor with Dems and the media (redundant, I know) such as letting Teddy write the education bill, only to have his outstretched hand slapped and his intelligence and integrity called into question.
Here's hoping you're right and collect on your bet from everyone!
Mitch - great blog! Thanks for all the work you do.
Posted by: eric at May 5, 2004 07:08 PMI'm torn between believing your analysis is correct and fearing that the elder is on to something (above).
Hopefully GW has realized by now that the press is going to lean left regardless, so he may as well do the right thing and allow the US (and himself) to deal from a position of strength. Unfortunately we've seen too many instances of his trying to curry favor with Dems and the media (redundant, I know) such as letting Teddy write the education bill, only to have his outstretched hand slapped and his intelligence and integrity called into question.
Here's hoping you're right and collect on your bet from everyone!
Oops! Sorry for duplication above.
Posted by: eric at May 5, 2004 07:10 PMYou can't separate the military from the political (was it Mao that said war is politics by another means?). I'm guessing that the decision was made that we couldn't do farther into Fallujah without an unacceptably high level of both US military and Iraqi civilian casualties. This would have both turned public opinion against the war and been poor military strategy. I have confidence in both the military and the administration to carry out the job. Like Mitch my concern is with the electorate. However I believe that the battlefield situation in Iraq will improve before the election, and that the inevitable pre-election offensive (on Iraqi or U.S. soil) will, unlike in Spain, harden the resolve of the American public.
Posted by: chris at May 6, 2004 01:37 AM