| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Why Congress Should Embrace the Surge |
| 2007-05-02 |
| By Owen West WHEN the civilian hierarchy fails them, soldiers tend to seek solace in ClausewitzÂ’s observation that war is an extension of politics. But in 2005 and 2006 the reverse was true in Iraq: the battle churned in place, steadily eroding the administrationÂ’s credibility and AmericaÂ’s psyche, while most politicians stood on the sidelines, content to hurl insults at one another until the battlefield offered a clear political course. What was most remarkable, however, was the militaryÂ’s inability to grab the reins and articulate a realistic war plan for Iraq. At home, recruiting, supply and deployment crises were solved; but in Iraq the generals continued to offer assessments of the fight that were as obviously inaccurate as those trumpeted by the politicians. The goal was to put Iraqi forces in the lead, but as a consequence, large-scale battlefield adaptation was scarce. Today the civil-military relationship has righted itself, yet soldiers like me who believe that Iraq can be stabilized face a bitter irony. On one hand, the military is finally making meaningful adjustments to the complex fight. On the other, the politicians are finally asserting themselves. The tragedy is that the two groups are going in opposite directions. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #4 The problem, Verlaine, is that the two NPR stations here in Cincinnati play the music I like to hear while driving (although the trailing daughters have taken to snapping off the radio when I argue with it -- they seem to think that a dangerous behaviour). I quite agree that Mr. Koppel's argument is self servingly (ie Democrat-servingly) political, rather than a statesmanlike understanding of the Armageddon fight the world is involved in. However, even if the Democrats and their far-left yapper contingent only understand that they're shooting themselves in the head by pushing for quick withdrawal -- and act on that shallow understanding -- the War on Jihadism would benefit from the fact that they weren't working so hard against it. Should they subsequently have the epiphany that led them to become Jackson Democrats -- glory hallelujah! But the epiphany isn't necessary, only that they shut up for a while. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-05-02 12:20 |
| #3 Thanks, TW ("listening to National Palestinian Radio so we don't have to"). But sounds like Ted was, characteristically, pushing a tactical political line of argument. Nothing to do with national and strategic interest, much less integrity and a just cause. I'd expect no more from him or NPR. Meanwhile, those who can think straight on national security really don't care about the political parties or personalities involved, they just want success and support for our efforts. Your imagery of car crashes reminds me of the all-time NPR doozy that nearly caused me to drive off the road (it was late at night on an interstate, no traffic, and was actually NPR's broadcast of the BBC's first morning world news). I'll spare everyone the details, but it was hard to believe my ears. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2007-05-02 11:57 |
| #2 Ted Koppel (!!!) had a longish opinion piece on NPR (!!!!!) yesterday during the drive time segment. He argued that the Democrats are being really stupid and short sighted, setting themselves up to own all subsequent problems, regardless which way it goes or what Bush does. I don't normally push NPR or Ted Koppel, but you really want to listen to this one. I'm surprised there weren't reports of massive car pile-ups on highways across the nation, from Progressive brains melting down at being forced to hear that what they really ought to do is openly hope for a Bush win in Iraq, as the only way they'll be able to get their disengagement. It's the most comforting 3 minutes I've had in a while. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-05-02 09:12 |
| #1 In the New York Times, no less! Well, one in a 1000 is a kind of "balance". For them. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2007-05-02 05:46 |