It’s been one year and two weeks since I got home from Iraq. I wanted to make a point of posting something on that anniversary, but I was on an annual training deployment to Virginia Beach. The 203rd RED HORSE Squadron is on their way to Iraq so we visited their station at the Camp Pendleton Military Reservation to do some concrete and asphalt paving for them while they were gone. This trip was supposed to be one of those cushy deployments where our teams showed off and practiced our skills, did good work for another organization, and still had some time to enjoy the location while we were there – sort of a “remember what it was like before Iraq” deployment. That’s pretty much how it worked too, except, just like Iraq, and most deployments I’ve been on, what we found when we got there was nothing like what we’d been expecting. The crew ahead of us apparently focused more on enjoying the location than on showing off and practicing paving skills or prep work. As I mentioned, I’m used to that, but not from members of my own unit! In the end, though, it didn’t matter. Our crew made up for the lost time and lack of adequate prep work and finished the slated jobs. We even did it on budget and we did manage to enjoy the location a little in the evenings. It turned out to be a satisfying deployment on most accounts. We left something we can be proud of and we practiced exactly the kind of work a RED HORSE unit does whether it’s two miles south of the strip in Virginia Beach or two miles outside of Baghdad. Paving is paving and with the jets flying training missions from nearby Oceana Naval Air Station, the sky often reminded one of a war zone – a nice added effect.
Now back to the one-year anniversary of my Iraq experience. As I mentioned, we were proud of our efforts in Virginia Beach. I’d been doing quite a bit of manual labor this summer (for an English teacher) but to jump onto a full-time concrete crew during one of the hottest weeks of the summer was a shock to my system. I have aches and pains I forgot were possible in a human body, but that’s not a bad thing. Manual labor is good for a person. It’s good for the soul. It was also very cool to see the immediate results of my efforts. In two weeks time, there was an obvious difference that my efforts made. I did construction work during summers while I was an undergrad, and that immediate gratification is something that I’ve missed ever since. Especially since becoming a teacher. Don’t get me wrong, teaching is one of the most satisfying jobs I’ve ever done, but it’s a wholly different kind of satisfaction. It’s based a lot more on faith than on any big results. But back to the point. Everyone on my deployment worked hard. Most did so in jobs they don’t normally do. For instance, four of my fellow mechanics went on the trip with me, but we all worked on paving crews and did very little vehicle maintenance. One of our admin managers was on the asphalt crew. There was a plumber from the 201st RED HORSE unit in Pennsylvania on my concrete crew... you get the idea. And we pulled it off! We did some good work. We left something that we can show our families the next time we’re in Virginia Beach.
After telling this story, there are probably a handful of people out there thinking, “ yeah,whatever, sounds like a bunch of guardsmen got paid for a two-week vacation in Virginia Beach.” And there’s a shred of truth in that as well. Similarly, my “vacation” in Iraq had some of that element also. It’s actually kind of interesting to think about it that way. My time in Iraq really did have a lot in common with my time in Virginia Beach. For one, I was away from my family. I didn’t think I’d miss them as much as I did in just two weeks. Another similarity is finding yourself in a strange situation that’s nothing like what you’ve been prepared to expect. Guardsmen routinely adapt to this kind of thing. Granted, in Iraq, this involved weekly mortar attacks and incredibly complicated logistics nightmares far beyond anything you’d find in the states, but a degree of adapting was necessary in both places. I think this is one attribute of guardsmen (and women) that the enlisted association undersells when convincing employers to hire guardsmen. The sense of duty and loyalty is obvious, but the ability to think on your feet and adapt to some pretty crazy circumstances is something invaluable that gets programmed into military members, especially guardsmen and reservists who routinely go back and forth from a civilian occupation to contingency operations.
But my real point is: we got a lot of work done in a short amount of time under some trying circumstances. Though the circumstances were far preferable to those in Iraq, people in both situations can be proud of their ability to do that. I met and worked with an Army maintenance manager in Iraq who was extremely good at what he did and continued to be good at it under nightmarish conditions in Iraq. I met and worked with an Army logistics officer who did the impossible getting parts and supplies where they needed to be in places where there was no AutoZone and very few UPS offices. I occasionally ate meals with an Army truck driver who delivered those supplies over roads littered with IED craters and car bombers almost every day. And I worked with hundreds of people in my unit, the 201st from Pennsylvania, and a handful of active duty engineers who all faced similar challenges, but worked their butts off day in and day out in order to do the job our unit was sent to do.
Like all members of the military, these folks should be proud of the job they did in Iraq. BUT as we’re often told, there’s no I in TEAM, and what I saw in Iraq convinced me that these people are all great players, but that the team they’re on still has no objective.
I’m happy to see the American public, according to recent polls, is finally starting to recognize that subtle distinction. It really is ok to support the troops but not the war and this is why. Our troops should be proud of the work they do. They don’t choose where they get to do that work, but the public that supports those troops should question where they’re doing it and why. How proud are you of the paving 15 members of the 200th and 201st did in Virginia Beach last week? How necessary was that mission to the safety of Americans? How much safer do you feel as a result?
One year after my return, the primary changes are that Iraq is now engaged in civil war and air travel is even more complicated and frightening than it ever was due to continued terrorist activity. While I was in Iraq, an election was held, a parliament of sorts was established, and the seeds of what might pass for a democracy were sown, but these steps have all proven to be gild one year later. While the individual and even unit level efforts of troops there is truly something to be proud of, to what do those efforts contribute? How does it add up to stability in Southwest Asia? That’s right, it doesn’t, any more than those troops’ efforts elsewhere.
Would it have been so bad to continue to surround Iraq with allies we’ve now alienated, keep a careful watch over Saddam Hussein, and allow the people of Iraq to mount their own revolution? Would it have been so bad to keep UN and international support in the region and save thousands of lives and billions of dollars? Would it have been so bad to sow the seeds we’ve sown through those channels rather than an invasion? Has the removal of Saddam been a contributing factor to any kind of success in Iraq? We’ve created a mess in Iraq now and the only beneficiary seems to be Iran – a country who freely admits to having or at least working on weapons of mass destruction. If the logic that took us into Iraq is applied, we need to invade Iran, and North Korea and Syria and a number of African nations soon. How do you feel about that?
The fact that we haven’t done so is as close to an admission that the Iraqi invasion was a bad idea that we’ll get from this administration. The tough talk and the exercise of might felt good in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, but “feeling good” falls a little short of the standard in the war clause. “Making Americans safer” and “getting them over there so they don’t get us over here” is empty rhetoric. I’m happy to see that the American public has finally sobered up enough to realize this. That’s about the only positive outcome I’ve seen so far.
Terrorism is a tactic, a concept, not an enemy, and the only way to fight it is to provide terrorist recruits with better options. As long as there are hungry people, desperate people, anywhere in the world, there will be terrorists. The Iraqi invasion, far from alleviating the circumstances that led people to become terrorists, added to them and came with the added bonus of making the U.S. a singular target for their efforts. I’m not convinced that the American public has completely arrived at this realization, but the growing dissent for the occupation of Iraq is at least an encouraging sign even if it came a good two years too late.
Americans can and should be proud of the members of their military. Given the bureaucratic hoops this giant organization must constantly jump through, it is an amazingly effective team, but don’t confuse this overall ability with success in a given operation. There is a difference between being proud of your troops and supporting every mission on which they’re sent. A few hundred yards of paving material successfully placed in Virginia Beach or in Iraq have about the same effect on terrorism. Although Joe Lieberman might not agree, it’s good to see the American public finally making this distinction.
15 comments:
Here's an interesting possible explanation for the lack of distinction...and it's up my alley (and yours Luth), what if the way the war was planned did not lend itself to the making of fine distinctions.
Consider this post about the unfortunate trend of Powerpoint as a war planning tool.
Here's a reproduced slide
Depending on your POV, we could point to McNamera as the beginning of this sort of push towards decontextualization in conflict analysis, though he seemed to embrace a scientific style in order to increase clarity and welcome in a broader range of opinion. This administration did not want facts or clear planning to deter anyone from the war that they wanted to start, but had not much of a plan about how to execute.
And, incidentally, no Democrat has ever actually advocated a plan to pull out and leave them to their own devices.
The Republicans and their media companions on the Right have done a good job making it seem like "cut and run" is an actual position that Democrats hold. Come on.
What's closer to a real position is what Kerry said all along - the way to fight terrorism and encourage democracy in the middle east does not involve using our military power in assymetric warfare. That tends to alienate the very people we need to help us engage in interdiction, intelligence, and law enforcement maneuvers that really work to stop terrorism. How do I know? Ask Scotland Yard.
That last bit of analysis, btw, is from noted liberal thinker George F. Will, writing in the Washington Post.
Us lefties and those PaleoCons are on the same page these days.
Bill, what about Rep. John Murtha? This is a news article from last fall, but I don't believe Murtha has changed his position. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/17/AR2005111700794.html It says initially Pelosi agreed with him, then backed off and said he deserved to speak his mind. It seems as we get closer to the next presidential election many democrats are professing their belief we should pull out, some immediately and some more gradually. But, they are trying to distance themselves from any previous support of the war thereby demonstrating they are not Bush by advocating pulling out the troops with no real plan for stabilization. Call it what you want, but it is not solving the problem. And encouraging democracy is not going to do the trick since so many radical Islamists think democracy is of the devil. Democracy is an invention of the Great Satan, they will only accept a theocracy.
I often agree with George Will and agree here that our military occupation is alienating many. When I was young I loved to beat up on my little brother but if someone else tried, I came to his defense. There are great schisms in Islam, but they can easily band together to fight a common enemy, which is what we often become. When our troops are guilty of rape and murder, we forfeit the high road. And no matter how many decent soldiers are over there doing as much as they can to help the Iraqis, one bad apple gets all the press and causes us to lose the moral battle. Continued occupation is going to further alienate them and immediate pullout will create horrific civil war.
I suspect the next president will be the one who provides the clearest plan to resolve the Iraqi problem.
Murtha, along with 12 other members of congress, issued a formal statement on their position on Iraq on July 31, 2006. You can read the
full text.
Here is the money quote:
"We believe that a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq should begin before the end of 2006. U.S. forces in Iraq should transition to a more limited mission focused on counterterrorism, training and logistical support of Iraqi security forces, and force protection of U.S. personnel."
There is no honest way to construe a "phased redeployment" and a "limited mission focused on counterterrorism, training, and logistical support of Iraqi security forces" as cutting and running or pulling out all together. Nobody believes that is a good idea.
I would personally like to see more detail about the way the "limited mission" would differ from the current military strategy, but I do like the details that are in the statement now:
1. amend the new constitution to ensure power sharing among the three factions, two of which are currently doing most of the fighting and are attacking one another (i.e. this is not the insurgency of a year ago)
2. disarm militias and ensure foces loyal to the national government (easier said than done, I grant, but this is a clear mission focus that seems to be lacking at present)
3. convene an international conference to persuade other governments to be more involved (we could start with that coalition of the willing we heard so much about)
4. secure international financing to rebuild Iraq's economy
It is patently false that the democratic vision for Iraq is nonexistent, or irrational, or weak. It is, on the contrary, quite public, quite rational when compared to the current strategy, and, in the end, still very much a military operation.
The media doesn't care to cover this, and the right is too engaged in hero-worship to notice that it is their values (and the U.S. interests) that are reflected in this plan. George Will is waking up. When will others?
3.
You are right, Ray. I painted with too broad a brush when I accused the right (all the right, at least) with hero worship. But I do think that there is a significant and troubling amount of loyalty to the man at the expense of conservative ideals that smacks of the worst sort of regimes we call enemies.
While it is true that for some on the left, Bush can do nothing right, this is ultimately less troubling for me than those on the right who believe he can do no wrong.
I see significan departure from conservative values in the administration's efforts to legalize torture, to increase the government's ability to monitor individual behavior, and to shift the role of government from providing a minimal infrastructure for safety, security, and prosperity to one that spends more and more on programs that benefit multinational corporations more than the citizenry, arguably threatening the sovereignty of our nation in the long term.
The preservation of individual liberty did not used to be a partisan issue in this country; it was a founding principle.
So if I seemed to roll you up with Sean Hannitys of the world, I apologize. I just get very worried when I hear Hannity and others get away with lying outright about folks like Murtha in blatant defiance of what Murtha himself has published in the congressional record. That, as Hanna Arendt warned us, is the primary tool of totalitarian societies - the big lie, told often enough that folks no longer question its veracity. George Will's column had it right. The ability to completely reverse *reality* is stunningly dangerous. And rest assured, this academic lefty has done all the postmodern picking apart of what that term - reality - means. I'm a professor of rhetoric, after all. But it is for this very reason that I recognize claims built atop faulty warrants and backed by shaky evidence as dangerous.
I appreciate your patience and thoughtful responses, Ray. I think we have similar ends in mind, even if we have differences about means.
I do not doubt that education, and higher education specifically bears some responsibility for the state of affairs that we are in. But as you might imagine, I wouldn't attribute this to educational liberalism.
If anything higher education in the U.S. is, with a few high-profile exceptions, a rather technical (as opposed to say, political) exercise for most students. They come with an explicit agenda: get a job. And for the most part, the curriculum has been shifting to help them do just that.
We might disagree on this point, but I suspect not: more rather than less true "education" vs. the sort of technical training that students actively seek might help, rather than hurt our situation. I guess I am saying that a "liberal education" is still a worthy goal, where "liberal" means broadly and fairly engaging ideas rather than narrowly acquiring skills in ways that avoid the ethical and political contexts in which those skills eventually play out.
As for white euro-centric culture, I can't say that there are not evil elements in this (my) tradition. Let's just stick to the U.S. for a moment. We (Americans of European descent)oversaw the creation of the world's strongest economy in the U.S. in large part because we seized vast amounts of territory rich in natural resources, displaced those who laid original claim to it, and then used slave labor, over the course of a century, to develop the land and commodify these resources. This legacy helped create the wealth and might (cultural and military) we enjoy the benefits of today.
I would hasten to acknowledge that the U.S. has been among the first (and fastest) in history to begin to acknowledge and reverse such wrongs. We can be proud of these moves, but only if we remain committed to making things right. We have only just begun. Being seperated from the origins of our priveleges - colonization, slavery - by generations has not prevented white people from enjoying their benefits. Neither should this historical distance prevent us from acknowledging and acting to correct the harm done.
My view of my culture is not one of condemnation, but of hope. I don't hate America. On the contrary, my view of America's future is quite optimistic. It begins with humility and calls for self-sacrifice for the good of others. It is grounded in the idea that people are good. But also that those who do wrong and benefit at the expense of others from it have a debt to repay.
I don't see how this sort of view could embolden radicals, but I suspect it is not the same as what you were considering educational liberalism. It is, though, one liberal educator's way of thinking.
I don't have time to give a complete answer, but I do agree with your view of liberal education in your third paragraph. I have a liberal arts education from a liberal arts school. My degree is in music theory, but my profession is human resources in a manufacturing environment. I did have a 2 year stint as a teacher back in the 70s, but I try to forget about that.
I can also agree with your short assessment of the history of the European incursion into the Americas. But, where would the world be if we had not done that? Where would we be today? Agreed, the end doesn't justify the means.
Gotta go.
Actually, I was referring to a philosophically liberal educational system. A philosophy that says the historical dead white men are the cause of all social ills. A philosophy that denies the existence of God and marginalizes anyone who holds to a biblical worldview. A philosophy that teaches that truth is relative, that it is anything you want it to be. A philosophy that preaches diversity by putting special groups on a pedestal and marginalizing the rest.
Yes, today's educational focus is often on the technical aimed at acquiring specific skills to get the highest paying salary as opposed to the classical liberal arts educational goal of producing well rounded and informed thinking human beings. The typical college course on diversity is not meant to broaden one's horizons, rather it is to instill a groupthink mentality and indoctrinate the students to believe previous generations screwed up everything and only by turning our concept of knowledge upside down can we begin to solve societies ills.
What is my point and why is this rant against education apropos to the discussion of the Iraqi War? We are teaching our younger generations that western society is corrupt. This creates an opening for radical Islamists to move in and justifies their terrorism - it is done in the name of fighting the Great Satan.
But, this is merely one piece of the puzzle. I surely do not condemn higher education and not all educators, liberal or otherwise, fit into my neat little box.
I hope Luth shows up again soon, he's missing all the fun.
I think the URL for that last link got cut off, Ray - I couldn't access the article. Maybe you could put in the title and author and I can run it down?
My reaction to this piece may surprise you, actually. I read it in the same way that I read many Democrats' lack of specificity about the way we ought to change course in Iraq. I think the problem is a fundamental misunderstanding of the conditions for war in the time we live in.
Hanson's piece rails against the frustrations of assymetrical warfare fought in a media-saturated age (these are things that he'd like to blame liberals for, but we didn't/don't make them come true). Through hyperbole and sarcasm, he yearns for a time when conflict was "simply" about physical combat.
But those days are gone. War has never only been about physical aggression, though it can be mostly fought that way if it is between sovereign states. When it isn't, when physical force is assymetric, the political aspects of war become more important than the physical.
As absurd as *that* may sound, it's true.
So, yeah, the rules are different. In some ways, Rumsfeld understands assymetric warfare (or appears to), but there are many in the military and many military contractors who are tied to an older paradigm for waging war. This is why he is unpopular even among generals.
If you read Hanson's italics without cynicism, a bit of truth starts to shine through. He comes close to WOPR, the computer in the old movie Wargames, in concluding that the only way to win is not to play. Right.
Waging war like we used to doesn't work. And if the reasons it doesn't work are that more people know when people die, more types of lives matter, there is less tolerance for violence and particularly for the use of assymetrical power...well those seem to me like signs that our world is a better, not a worse, place. Those are in part due to media coverage, but they aren't due to a liberal bias in the media. It's the broad reach of the media - it is hard to watch people die.
This doesn't mean that we don't have bad people to deal with, or that we should stop all kinds of conflict. I am not a pacifist. I only mean that war, like many things, ain't what it used to be. And it's a good thing...because war today calls for less killing, more political maneuvering, all because it happens in more daylight.
There is a name for this sort of approach to warfare - NetWar. I first read this piece right about the time Luther was deployed. It's smart and scary at the same time. Prepared for the secretary of defense, it is refreshingly free of political tilt. It is a strategy briefing.
This kind of thing assures me that Hanson's piece is not close to prevailing thought at the level of military decision-making. Though I do wonder what it will take to change enough minds in the military and in society about what war is becoming.
A slightly more digestible version of Arquilla & Rondfeldt's argument appeared in WIRED magazine in 2001.
Bill, there's only one difference between what you wrote above and my position. I do tend toward pacifism. War is justified as a defense and though I did not like this Iraqi war from the beginning, I was able to accept it based on the justification we were going after WMD and it was tied into terrorism. Ultimately, it was justifiable as defensive based on the information given us even though we attacked.
I agree with your assessment of that National Review article, I may not have seen the sarcasm you saw, but I read the same concept into it. All along I have equated this assymetrical concept of war with our American Revolution. Did not the British come here with the Old World concept of fighting in mind - the same style of warfare they had used for decades and centuries against the French, and the colonists (I initially said, we, bu my ancestors were still British until the mid 19th century) adopted the Indian style? Did not this confuse the British who were unable to adapt? We are the "British" today and will lose unless we learn to fight assymetrically, as the terrorists do. That will also mean we civilians will have to change our perceptions of warfare.
Hey dudes, I'm sure glad I could start this little confab. I think I saw some of those slides during my "desert warfare training" in the run-up to deployment. I also saw video of beheadings (not quite sure what that was preparing me for?!). One of the PowerPoint presentations I watched on room/building clearing techniques had background music titled "Let the bodies hit the floor" (actually a pretty catchy tune) by a band called Drowning Pool. I had to download it after "downloading" (with alcohol) most of the information from 6 weeks of those briefings.
All I know at this point is this: I'm scheduled to fill a "support role" in Iraq in early 2009. No one in my chain of command seems to think it will happen and I am eligible for retirment in 2007 so there's a lot to think about. If I felt I could make a difference, could represent my country in a positive useful way that contributed to some bigger mission, (oh, and if I could be assured I'd work for the Air Force- the only branch I ever enlisted with - and not the Army) I'd go in a minute. But unless somebody fills in the many blanks in that requirement that have been missing since we invaded, I'm done. I still love this country, but I sure don't feel like I served it over there.
Ray, you're not off the hook yet for those accusatory comments about liberal education. But I think I'll save that for a future post.
Post a Comment