Overpowered By Wonk
By Mitch Berg
Eric Black, at his new blog, jumps into the battle to spin the upcoming Petraeus report:
The Washington Post reports this morning that a GAO report, due out Tuesday, will find that the Iraqi government has failed to meet 15 of the 18 benchmarks that Congress and the Bush Administration had established to measure military and political progress.
It’s hard to escape politics, selective perception and confirmation bias when discussing the question of progress in Iraq, especially during the current run-up to the big September presentations by Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker.
But if there’s anyone I would trust to call it straight, it would be the GAO.
Black went on:
When I read a few weeks ago that the GAO was doing its own study of the Iraq situation (at the request of Congress) I counted on it to be the unbiased assessment available. When I just read the Post story, I was disappointed to learn that the GAO will only be studying the 18 benchmarks.
As I previously fulminated, for those focused on the big question of how things are going for the U.S. mission in Iraq, these benchmarks are overrated. The benchmarks focus only on things the Iraqi government is supposed to do to facilitate the much-ballyhooed but not very visible national reconciliation among the various population groups.
Indeed – a casual study of counterinsurgency warfare shows that the GAO’s benchmarks, while of importance to those for whom the quality of a national government is the measure of success, are virtually meaningless in measuring success in the mission that will, for the immediate future, be the only one that really matters in Iraq; securiting the citizens; driving Al Quaeda out; cutting down on internecine ethnic/religious cleansing; killing or co-opting the religious death squads; getting the the point where “The Iraqi Street” doesn’t need to worry about being killed, having his children burned alive before his eyes, being gang-raped, for the crime of walking the street.
As in all counterinsurgencies, government factions can negotiate until the paint peels from the conference room walls; none of it means anything until the “street” believes it’s safe.
I’d be more impressed when the results are real in ways that affect the safety our troops and of the well being of the Iraqi people. For example, when the number of attacks on the troops is down, likewise the number of Americans and Iraqis getting killed, plus the unemployment rate in Iraq.
Black – knowingly or not – invokes an irreconcilable paradox.
Focusing on the “number of attacks on the troops” is what got us into this mess in the first place. Since Beirut and Mogadishu, the US military has focused on “force protection” to a degree that Robert Kaplan, quoting Special Forces troops in Afghanistan, called “debilitating”. For the first three years of the counterinsurgency, the US military became so focused on “force protection” that it would seem to have gotten neither safety nor victory; by going, essentially, on the defensive, we ceded control of much of the “Iraqi street” to the terrorists, death squads and thugs – which made most of Iraq a safe haven from which to…
…launch more attacks on our troops.
It’s only been by putting our troops in harm’s way, taking the initiative from the enemy, that casualties have dropped and, more importantly, people in places like Anbar are starting to sense the security that will give them, someday, the mental bandwidth to fuss about things like oil revenue and the Rights of Man. It’s also paradoxical that by taking the war to the enemy, one saves lives in the long run.
I’ll be impressed by measurable progress toward the reconstruction of the Iraqi infrastructure, an increase in how much oil is being produced and how many hours a day Baghdad has electricity.
And yet trying to get to any of that without making the people of Iraq secure is like trying to drive to Chicago before you’ve changed your flat tire.
It is a lamentable fact that the Administration – the Pentagon, really – allowed this to happen for three years.
It is to the Administration’s credit that things have finally changed.
That the Administration’s opponents have never had a better idea in either case shows their unfitness to lead this nation in a time of war.
September 5th, 2007 at 7:49 am
“casualties have dropped”
Wrong again.
Every single month of 2007 has a significantly higher number of military deaths than the same month in 2006. Since the surge began in February there have been an average 3.26 deaths per day, the highest for any period of the war other than the initial invasion. It is also a 36% increase over the rate during the previous period from the Iraqi general elections to the start of the Surge. See for yourself at icasualties.org/oif/.
September 5th, 2007 at 9:02 am
3.26 per day! Gawd Almighty, We’ve lost, lost I tell ya! We surrender, Osama! Head for the hills!
September 5th, 2007 at 9:34 am
I doubt the families of Staff Sergeant Andrew P Nelson, Specialist Edward L. Brooks, Corporal John C. Tanner, and Captain Erick M. Foster, to name just a few, appreciate your humor. I will take your lame joke as a concession of the point that casualties have not dropped.
September 5th, 2007 at 10:38 am
I never made that point.
People die in wars, RickDFL, whether you win or lose. You can look it up in the wikipedia.
September 5th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Oh, leave him alone. He’s just playing holier-than-thou.
Casualties have dropped. The very fact that we are more-aggressively fighting the war, rather than sitting in FOBs waiting to go on pointless patrols to serve as IED targets, is causing the decrease, something every good general throughout history knows; attacking saves lives in the long run, especially if you attack from a position of strength.
And Rick, I’ll try not to hold it over your head that the tactics that are working in Anbar right now – our troops living, working and patrolling among the Iraqis in small, even tiny numbers (see Michael Yon’s latest) are the ones that you called suicidal and an invitation to disaster within the past few weeks.
September 5th, 2007 at 11:03 am
I thought Rick’s endless wailing of doom, doom, we’ve lost, incompetent leadership, made a nice counterpoint to the casualty figure of 3.26/day. This must be one of the least bloody wars the US has ever fought.
September 5th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Three and a quarter daily? That’s gotta be in the Guiness Book, right?
September 5th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Yeah, Rick, as Mitch says, casualties have dropped.
Sure, not in the sense of comparisons to past similar periods, but in the sense of the number of our soldiers who surely would have died if Grossy Pelosi had hiked up her skirts for the islamo-fasciitis as the Saddam-loving left wants.
You’re just using the wrong model.
/jc
September 5th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
I present evidence backed by an external source. Mitch continues to insist the public facts must be wrongs because his reading of military history tells him the facts must be wrong. Facts will always beat delusional insistence on theory.
September 5th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Um, Rick?
I posted a link to an article – an “external source” – that showed casualties have dropped. It had nothing to do with “military history”, although your background would seem to be lacking there, as well.
It’s a “public fact”.
Want more?
Like here or here or here or here or here or here?
I think, Rick, that your only real criterion for “evidence” is “does it agree with your preconceptions”.
September 5th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
“I present evidence backed by an external source without context.”
Fixed that for you, Rick.
September 5th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
US KIA in:
WWI 91.4/day
WWII 216.4/day
Korea 29.9/day
Vietnam 14.4/day
September 5th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Rick must love Chuckie Schumer’s latest slander of our military. “The violence in Anbar Province has been reduced inspite of the surge, not because of it.”
Asshole.
September 5th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Just because I’m a WWI buff:
British soldiers KIA in the Battle of the Somme: 3458/day
September 5th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Chuck Schumer voted for the Iraq War. Forget ‘pecksniff’, we need to bring back the word ‘perfidy’.
September 5th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Here’s the more complete Schumer quote:
The violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al Qaeda, said to these tribes: “We have to fight al Qaeda ourselves.”
He uses the words ‘The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes . . .’, not ‘The inability of the surge . . . ‘ or ‘The inability of the President’s failed strategy . . .’.
To accurately describe Schumer’s speech we need a new word that combines the meanings of ‘perfidious’ and ‘feckless’.
September 6th, 2007 at 6:51 am
“To accurately describe Schumer’s speech we need a new word that combines the meanings of ‘perfidious’ and ‘feckless’.”
“Bush.”
September 6th, 2007 at 8:00 am
Mitch:
The articles you cite all point to the drop in casualties from May 07 to July 08. But such month to month fluctuations are common. Look for yourself at icasualties.org/oif/. There were similar drops in the casualty rate btw. May 06 and July 06 or May 05 and July 05. July / Aug 08 is still the deadliest July / Aug of the war, you know back when, according to you, troops were hunkered down. Hardly a case of ‘casualties are down’ in any important sense.
September 6th, 2007 at 8:09 am
Terry:
I hate to break this to you, but not only do American troops die (but apparently not often enough for you), but the also often fail to accomplish their mission. They did not hold Bunker Hill or New York in 1776; the 1812 invasion of Canada ended in disaster and surrender; during the Civil War U.S. troops failed to carry the Marye’s Heights at Fredericksburg and failed to break Lee’s line at Cold Harbor; and on and on. Soldiers are men, with all the limitations thereof. To assume they are Supermen is to invite disaster.
Schumer’s comments are insightful. In Anbar we did not break the insurgency, we joined it.
September 6th, 2007 at 8:58 am
You know what an “armchair general” is, RickDFL?
September 6th, 2007 at 11:57 am
May 07 to July 08
Wow. You are amazing.
Schumer’s comments are insightful.
I hereby rechristen you “Baghdad Rick”. Schumer’s comments were…well, I have a post coming out Friday on this.
In Anbar we did not break the insurgency, we joined it.
Proving forever either your crushing ignorance about the subject, or that you don’t know the difference between “join” and “co-opt”.
We “joined” the insurgency the same way we “joined” the Death Squads in El Salvador; the same way the Brits “joined” the Malays in the sixties.
September 6th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
“We “joined” the insurgency the same way we “joined” the Death Squads in El Salvador; the same way the Brits “joined” the Malays in the sixties.”
No, in both of those cases there was a clear strategic goal – anti-communism and clear local partners sympathetic to our goal. In Anbar we a siding with Sunni tribal leaders who share no U.S. objective, other than making sure al-Quada do not take away their local power. If they defeat al-Quada they will use the weapons and training we gave them to attack our troops and those of the Shia central government we created. Moreover whatever Sunni support we gain by this move, it will cost us more support with our current nominal Shia allies.
Current news bears this out. There is zero evidence that the Sunni are more willing to compromise with the Shia central government, in fact they are more allienated than six months ago. U.S. relations with the Shia central government have reached their worst point since the invasion. U.S. officials talk openly of a coup against Malaki and he openly criticizes the U.S. and hints that the Shia have other options. At best Anbar will gain us the support of the weaker sect and the cost of the stronger.