The Dissatisfieds
By Charles Bird Posted in War — Comments (30) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
No, this is not a rock band or a spin-off of The Incredibles. The Dissatisfieds--and I'm one of them--is that group of conservatives who voted for Bush, supported the removal of Saddam Hussein, are in favor of keeping American troops in Iraq for as long as it takes, and desire to see a free, peaceful, non-theocratic representative republic take root. However, because of the lack of progress and the continuing lousy security situation, we are also increasingly concerned and increasingly frustrated about how things are going, and are looking for the Bush administration to push harder, smarter and faster. These three facts are not in dispute:
- • It's been 38 months since the end of major combat operations.
- • The security situation in Iraq is still bad, especially since the Golden Mosque bombing last February.
- • Donald Rumsfeld is still the Defense Secretary.
Instead of Powell-like overwhelming force, we've gotten Rumsfeld-like underwhelming manpower, with just enough forces to potentially lose this endeavor. So it went right after Saddam was removed (when we didn't have enough troops to secure the country), and so it is right now with the sectarian and terrorist violence in Baghdad. Max Boot:
To restore order in the capital, I suggested adding at least 35,000 U.S. troops — in line with Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez's comment in 2004 that he needed two divisions to control Baghdad. But that's not what Bush is sending. To bolster the 9,000 U.S. troops already in the capital, he is sending another brigade from northern Iraq, for a total of 13,000 U.S. troops, or less than one division. There will be an equal number of Iraqi troops — along with 35,000 Iraqi police officers, who are so sectarian and corrupt that they are more part of the problem than the solution.
If Bush thinks that a force this size can secure a city of more than 6 million people, he's not listening to the best professional military advice. An additional problem is that moving troops around Iraq, instead of sending extra units, may improve the situation in one spot but worsen the environment elsewhere. As a "senior American military official" in Iraq told McClatchy News Service, "You can't do clear-and-hold with the force structure we have."
Military historian John Keegan well outlines our troubles in his review of Thomas Ricks' latest book. There are small signs that the current operation in Baghdad will be successful, as Bill Roggio and Zalmay Khalilzad have detailed, but it's too early to tell. It looks like the Bush administration is aware of the tenuous situation, but it doesn't look like they've increased their efforts enough, and that is troubling. There should be a greater sense of urgency here. Our substandard performance in Iraq is the sole reason for Bush's low approval ratings, and it has hobbled his ability to push forward other parts of his agenda. A mid-term election is just over two months away, and if things don't change for the better, George W. Bush will be directly responsible for sending his party--my party--into the minority in Congress. If this happens, Bush will be the lamest of lame ducks. Here's what I'd like to see:
-
• Donald Rumsfeld fired, to be replaced with someone who can put together a workable and executable plan for helping deliver a free, peaceful, democratic non-theocracy in Iraq. Credit Rumsfeld for the successful first phase (removing the Hussein regime) and for helping usher in a new government, but he is the highest-ranking appointee overseeing operations in Iraq since May 2003, and he should be responsible for the multiple failures and mistakes that have occurred. There've been simply too many lapses. I'm reminded of the line spoken by Dan Ackroyd in Ghostbusters: "You don't know what it's like out there, you've never worked in the private sector. They expect results!" For Rumsfeld, results on security were expected and they haven't happened. Fire his ass. New ideas and fresh thinking are needed in the Bush inner circle.
-
• Enough troops (both Iraq and coalition) to mount successful clear-and-hold counterinsurgency operations.
-
• A more concerted effort to get Iraq trained to Level 2 status or better (background on the levels here).
-
• Better border security, keeping out Iranian infiltrators in the east and Sunni paramilitants in the west.
-
• A better information war. This lesson should have been reinforced in the wake of the Israel-Hezbollah War, where Israel was mostly unscathed militarily but took an embarrassing drubbing in the media.
The Iraqi ambassador to the U.S. has a worthwhile read, offering additional suggestions. Not all of the Dissatisfieds agree on all of the particulars, but we do agree that this is a critical time, that the likelihood of our losing this venture in Iraq has increased (not diminished) and that more productive steps need be taken. Who are the other Dissatisfieds? Here's a partial list:
-
• John McCain. He's been a strong backer from the get-go and has been to the right of Bush in regards to Iraq, urging more troops and a more aggressive strategy. His recent comments may be a tad unfair, but that's politics and he's running for president.
-
• Max Boot, as mentioned above.
-
• Rich Lowry on August 15th. "But what is that strategy? President Bush sometimes seems not to realize that having a fierce determination to see things through is only the precondition for a winning strategy. For too long, his administration has seemed content to do the bare minimum in Iraq, hoping to hold things together just enough to allow troop drawdowns that justify the administration’s assurances of progress. This hasn’t worked, since the violence in Iraq has belied the rhetoric of progress and prevented any reduction in troops. Bush would be much better served by forthrightly acknowledging Iraq’s distressing circumstances and backing an all-out push to secure Baghdad even if it takes thousands more American troops in the country.
"For there is one other similarity with Vietnam that should be avoided — the aching sense that not everything was done to win the war. By the end of Vietnam, we had essentially beaten the insurgency and could have helped the South Vietnamese hold off the conventional invasion of the North, if we hadn’t given up. In Iraq, too, we have scored some successes against the Sunni insurgency, but the insurgents have managed to create a new and different threat by stoking a budding civil war.
"It is not too late to tamp down that militia-directed violence, which hasn’t yet taken on an uncontrollable life of its own. But the clock is ticking, toward the hour when we will indeed suffer another Vietnam."
This reminds me of the words of a local talk show host who was in-country not so long ago, who said that "hope is not a plan". I would add that determination is not a plan, either. We know Bush is determined. What we don't know is whether Bush has the necessary combination of determination and ability to see this through successfully.
-
• David Frum, former Bush speechwriter, who is frustrated enough to consider an unpalatable backup plan (he has a follow-up here).
-
• David Ignatius, Washington Post columnist.
-
• Rick Moran, who has a piece that every conservative should read in its entirety, and its links.
-
• McQ at QandO.
As with the Harriet Miers fiasco, the conservative wing of the Republican Party can influence events. I'm hoping that enough Dissatisfieds can pull together to do the same.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Slow Reform at State — Comments (8) »
The Dissatisfieds 30 Comments (0 topical, 30 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
"Is there anyone left to send" [?]
Ever think of volunteering? Guess not, chickenhawk.
Or how about this...re-institute the draft. Except this time, there will be no excemptions from service other than medical (i.e., National Guard seervice defending the Alabama coastline during the Vietnem War years).
Bush's War will end pronto when the lives of HIS supporters (the fading 30%) & THEIR children are at risk in some hellhole in Iraq.
BTW, you know that Bush is going to get impeached. Admit it. It's less than a year away and it's not payback for your partisan & cynical impeachment of Clinton. It's going to happen & many, many, many Americans want to see it happen. Get used to it.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
The comment I left you informing you that you'd been axed -- with a fairly nifty Silver Bells takeoff -- got screwed up.
So, you're gone. I did it. Bye.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
Your ignorance is astounding. Where do I begin?
-"Chickenhawk." An impressive and uncanny witticism from someone who apparantly has to breathe through their rectal cavity. But, just a question, and I'll use the same knowledge I have of you that you have of us: have you served? Because, I can't speak for my friend Oz, but here's the peculiar thing: I actually have. In fact, a vast number of those who blog and post here have. And, just because someone chooses not to serve doesn't mean there is something wrong with them. Unlike you, many of those who are not in the military still find meaningful ways to contribute to society, and to the war effort.
-"Exemptions from service." So, let me get this straight. Someone does volunteer for Guard service, which, by the way, is not chickening out, you worthless and wasted excuse of human flesh. That person, by whatever means they use, happens to not get called up. It is then that person's fault? Connect the dots here, and I won't expect more than two, since I don't want to tax your brain too heavily.
-"Bush's war will end when the lives of his supporters and their children are in danger." Ah. The old "will you send your child to die" argument has been dusted off. Well, being from the Show-Me State, let me show you the examples of our two foremost statewide officials. In the Governor's Mansion, you have Matt Blunt, who, as Missouri Secretary of State, was the first statewide official to ever be activated from reservist duty to active duty as a naval officer. And, representing Missouri as our senior Senator, you have Kit Bond, whose son, Sam, is a 2nd LT in the Marines, who just got back in March from a yearlong tour in Iraq, and who is looking to get scout/sniper duty and go back. He understands the mission. And, by the way, he didn't come anywhere close to having to do this: Sam is a Princeton grad. And these are just a snippet for you.
-"Bush's impeachment." So, you still haven't forgotten about Clinton. Geez, do you people ever forget a perceived wronging? You're worse than the Mob. But, we did impeach Clinton. Nothing major, though. He just lied under oath to a grand jury, used the power of his office to avoid sexual harassment charges, and was caught in scandal from top to bottom. "But Bush has the wiretapping, the banks, the war. Remember, BUSH LIED, KIDS DIED!" There are scholars who are debating as to the legality of Bush's moves right now, and they are not for his own personal gain. While I know you think everyone cares about what set of Birkenstocks you are going to wear tomorrow, it doesn't rank on my list of concerns, much less the President's. Remember one point: Bush's so-called 'offenses' were to save lives. Clinton's offenses were to save one life: his. And, as far as "many, many people" want to see it, you are correct, in terms of a number. When you boil it down to percentages, though, it doesn't even rank.
Your abject ignorance is both laughable and saddening. Whenever I stroll over to DailyKos to wage rhetorical war, I always make sure to let people know that there is nothing personal. There never has been. I think that people should be able to disagree without making it personal. Unfortunately, that characteristic is lacking on both sides, but yours in particular. I lost my cool for a moment, but I tire of seeing partisan hack idiots like yourself spew talking points that stink about as much as the cavity that they came from. Next time, brush them off a little bit, use some thought, and for God's sake, don't sound like a spoiled rotten crybaby.
Don't be afraid to see what you see.-Ronald Reagan
SMC - your retort was wasted on a garden-variety baby troll who has long-ago been dispatched to The Pile™. He cannot answer from where Thomas hath sent him.
Pity - for as I said, this was a pretty good post.
Cheers.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
| The thing that I find amazing about the debate on Iraq is that it is obvious that the war's over. We don't have close to enough troops to pacify the country. Even today, we don't have a clue about how to reconstruct the country; our original goal was just to privatize Iraq's oil industry.
Where *do* you think we'd get 500,000 troops? What *do* you think they could do? They're not social workers, and they don't know [gosh darn doodley -- ed.] about reconstruction. Oh, BTW, the guys who won the last election? They're close allies with the Iranian fascists who run *that* country. Bush can keep soldiers, who volunteered to defend this country against real threats, not imaginary ones, in harms way. But he can't answer any of these questions. And so, the war is lost. |
So, ya been here an hour and just had to demonstrate that you are a complete idiot.
Thanks for stopping by. Don't let the door hit you.
On second thought, let the door hit you. It might knock some sense into you.
And BTW, about 350,000 of those "troops" are Iraqis. Already either in the army or police.
The army is quite adept at reconstruction. You'd know that if you got your news about Iraq from somewhere other than the NYT or Kos.
Your questions are offered without a scintilla of fact. You wouldn't know a military threat if it kicked down your door and chopped off your head. And we have rules about language, yours comes up short.
Bye...
-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Charles, I feel your pain here, because though we may have disagreed on which candidate in 2004 was going to get the Job Done, I think we agree on what a Done Job should look like.
That said, I doubt your critique is going to gain much traction. Here's why.
Donald Rumsfeld fired, to be replaced with someone who can put together a workable and executable plan for helping deliver a free, peaceful, democratic non-theocracy in Iraq.
Who? Names, please. The only person I can think of is John Abizaid, but is that even remotely going to happen? Maybe a question for the military roundtable... I'll pose it in a diary later.
Enough troops (both Iraq and coalition) to mount successful clear-and-hold counterinsurgency operations.
how many? numbers, please. Where do the troops come from? how soon can they be mobilized? Can present recruiting sustain them? What level of incentives are we prepared to offer? Are we going to lower or raise physical and mental standards for new recruits?
A more concerted effort to get Iraq trained to Level 2 status or better
Here I think you're being unfair. It seems clear that the best possible effort has already been made to do this. The problem is not lack of effort, its lack of resources.
Better border security, keeping out Iranian infiltrators in the east and Sunni paramilitants in the west.
utterly impossible, as pertains to the Iranian border.
A better information war.
Better? in what way? how is our information war underperforming? Specifically? Keep in mind that Hizbollah and the insurgency in Iraq have dramatically different organization and goals.
I believe that I have a single counter-proposal that would, if enacted, immediately improve the prospects for our victory in our long term project in Iraq. And that quite simply is, to be willing to treat each threat as a separable one rather than lump them all together. A refinement of terminology is the first step - especially given the damage that the present lexicon in use does for our prospects.
As Kevin Drum states, we don't have good options. I presently believe that despite popular opinion, keeping a significant troop presence in Iraq will lead to the less-horrible outcome. All outcomes are civil war at this point, though some forms of civil war are more uncivil than others.
I believe that the best we can do is to believe that democracy - even when it results in Islamist gains - is genuinely transformative in the long run. Our troops are, for better or for worse now, the only thing that can buy us that time. Maybe.
xposted to Nation-Building (http://nationbuilding.org).
--
Dean Nation is now Nation-Building: Purple politics, muscular liberalism, principled pragmatism
Abizaid is forbidden by law from becoming Secretary of Defense. From Title 10 USC
There is a Secretary of Defense, who is the head of the Department of Defense, appointed from civilian life by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. A person may not be appointed as Secretary of Defense within 10 years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of a regular component of an armed force.
i had a feelinng i was going to expose my rank ignorance on these matters by even making the suggestion. *embarassment*. Well, this is why I read redstate.
--
Dean Nation is now Nation-Building: Purple politics, muscular liberalism, principled pragmatism
... I keep reading this:
(Rumsfeld) is the highest-ranking appointee overseeing operations in Iraq since May 2003, and he should be responsible for the multiple failures and mistakes that have occurred. There've been simply too many lapses.
or something like it for the better part of, oh, about 40-months (basically since we were BoggedDown™ 6-days into major combat operations) - to the point that it is now Conventional Wisdom™.
However, I have been - to date - frustrated in my efforts to find someone - anyone - who is willing, or able, to spell-out precisely what were said "blunders".
So here's the deal: because that subject would be a threadjack of epic proportions, I'll be posting a brief diary shortly to give any and all the opportunity to demonstrate to me and to the rest of us precisely what were said "mistakes".
Spelling out what should have, in hindsight, been done differently would be helpful.
Be prepared however, to endure some counterbattery fire.
On point, briefly:
1) Fire Rumsfeld: And replace him with?
2) Enough troops: And they will come from where?
3) Level 2: And you're suggesting that we're not doing enough in that regard? (I'm reminded of a line from the movie "Arthur", something said by the butler early in the movie just as the millionaire is heading off for a bath...)
4) Better border security: Don't you think it is, after all, the Iraqis who have to most to gain by doing this?
5) A better information war: Couldn't agree more.
6) McCain "a strong backer from the get-go": Heh!
7) Rich Lowry: taking the cue from his boss - who bailed on Iraq a year ago
8) Frum: Ditto.
All that said, great piece - I would "Recommend" if it weren't already on the front page.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
Let's not forget the horrible way the Bush Administration has handled the PR war in this country. They have been totally unable to control the dialogue on any number of issues. The Left, and usually the extremists among them, have been able to dictate terminology, talking points, and memes nation wide for far too long. Why can't the Administration get out a clear, intelligent message that will give people something solid to counteract at least some of the lies being spread by the Left. It's like they don't care. I know Rove is supposed to be a genius and I'm clearly missing something, but I'm having trouble seeing it.
Let's also remember that Bush has done a pretty poor job of leading the Republican Party. Having Cheney as VP means the next Presidential candidate has to come from somewhere else, and nothing helpful has been done to help set anyone up as successor, with the possible exception of SoS Rice. Is McCain Bush's choice? I doubt it, and please don't let it be Jeb. That whole scene is just a mess, and it shouldn't be. Worse still, if Cheney had faded into the background and let somebody else be Veep for the second term, the election wouldn't have been anywhere near as close, and the Republicans would be in much better shape to focus on the candidate for the next election. I find it very hard to believe that Cheney couldn't have excercised just as much power as an advisory figure or whatever in the administration as he does now as VP.
The Bush family trope of loyalty trumping all else has also caused way to much trouble. No need to name names, I'm sure. Every administration at every level of anything, be it corporate or governmental is going to have its share of cronyism. After all, we're only human, and humans like to have their friends around them, so it's not necessarily a bad thing. But when loyalty is more important than competence, or more important than any damage done to the Administration or the country, something has to change.
With Powell-like overwhelming force. Things are a whole lot easier when you only need to complete the Powell-like bail-out-without-actually-finishing-the-job strategy. Of course, Saddam is still around... so it isn't too late to follow the Powell doctrine and give him back Iraq. Then we can do this all over again in 10 years.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
is what Charles was referring to.
Then again, you knew that and just wanted to get a dig in at Powell, didn't you?
--
Dean Nation is now Nation-Building: Purple politics, muscular liberalism, principled pragmatism
If we were going to bail out before we even got to Baghdad, we wouldn't have really needed any more troops, would we?
Not that I really buy into the "more troops" answer anyway. This is something that is always easy to second guess about and it is impossible to disprove that more (or even less) troops would've resulted in a better outcome. The people that know the most about it don't seem to have an issue with troop levels.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
As best I understand it, the Powell Doctrine says that the US should only fight a war when it is 100% certain of quick and easy victory.
Putting aside the obvious problems with this, when did we start allowing the CJCS to make this type of proclamation? Every other Doctrine I can think of has a presidents name attached to it.
Does anyone think WWII was quick and easy?
I don't think the standard for war should be "only what is quick and easy" but "how severe is the threat, and how severe will it be, if we do not go to war?"
my historical ignorance here, but haven't we fought the war on terro for longer than we did WW2 now?
(no I dont agree that the present threat is as existential as the Nazis, but of course Im a minority here in that view).
--
Dean Nation is now Nation-Building: Purple politics, muscular liberalism, principled pragmatism
given that I see the WOT as more comparable to the cold war, and we fought that one for 50 years.
We have been Iraq for 4 years, and Afghanistan for 5. We were in WWII for almost 4 years, but the Brist were in it for a good 2 to 3 years longer.
Also, I am not sure that militant Islam isn't as big a threat as Nazism/fascism was. Militant Islam is committed to the destruction of Israel and the West. We just like to pretend like their demands are much smaller than that.
Lasted four years and the rebuilding of Berlin and Japan long after that. We did not turn Germany back over until 10 years after the fact.
We were also alot harsher with "German insurgents" than we are now.
Victory is a long and hard road.
"Peace had a chance"
The idea that we need more troops is a defensible argument, but it seems to me that Rumsfeld is hardly alone as an architect of that policy, and you don't explain why - if Bush felt a different strategy were called for - Rumsfeld would not be the man to carry it out.
Nor is the fact that things have worked out to be more difficult than many war supporters expected, necessarily proof that Rumsfeld has failed. The unexpected does happen in war.
The Iraq War has been a complex enterprise requiring the making of scores of decisions. Unsurprisingly, the decisionmakers have made their share of mistakes. But I don't see what makes Rumsfeld more at fault than anyone else who would have held that job, or who would hold it in the future. And finding a better man is not going to be easy.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
And this post did not help.
He is, though, responsible for a couple of major gaffs, as others have pointed out, like over-purging the Baathists in the army, and, worse, basically disbanding it and letting them all melt into the populace so they could come back as Michael Moore's Minutemen. Sure, some of that would have happened no matter what, even if the Iraqi Army had been kept entirely intact, which also wouldn't have been a good idea. If Rumsfeld and Co. had kept at least some standing force made of Iraqi nationals, even if it was just a couple divisions in three major cities - the US and British forces would have had more time and troops to get busy doing what needed to be done. And there wouldn't be so much talk of not enough troops on the ground.
Also, the lack of serious air firepower nailing trouble at the Syrian border early on was a bad oversight.
Even so, I don't know that he should have been sacked for all this. At this point, though, his ideas aren't really much help. And I'm not happy with his performance back when all that noise was made about the lack of armor for troops and vehicles. Yelling at liberal reporters is fun, but he was not terribly convincing when I saw him trying to defend himself on the issue, and I think he failed to make sure things were taken care of fast enough.
The only really good reason I can think of for keeping him around to the end of Bush's second term is that it would be too much of a perceived victory for the anti-this-war crowd.
on all counts.
1. Keeping a Sunni Army in place was an obvious non-starter. The Shi'a were not going to accept it. If we had forced it upon them in May 03 then Allawi would have disbanded it himself. The army was incompetent and criminal.
2. What good would aerial firepower do in sealing hundreds of miles of frontier?
3. I don't see how Rumsfeld can be faulted on the armor decision because the HMMWVs were never intended for combat patrolling and the procurement decision on the mix of armored and unarmored HMMWVs was made in the late 1980s.
is total hogwash. Streiff is right.
With respect to defending himself to "liberal reporters", I thought he did well. The biggest problem is that most reporters today are complete, total, raving idiots when it comes to things military. I doubt most of them have even seen a military movie let alone served or deployed with a military unit.
-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
from those in charge of the post war Iraq, and turning it over to State.
I think a lot of the mistakes were actually made by Bremmer-especially some like allowing Sadr the ability to negotiate himself out of US military reprisals. Also, the Fallujah 1 was the action of the state department people in charge, which later led to fallujah II.
I think there should have been a US military person in charge, rather than the State department.
Why aren't we blaming Powell for some of the policy screw ups?
I don't see how anyone can claim that we didn't overwhelm the bad guys when we went in. Remember how those "elite Republican Guards" were, in the press, supposed to be so formidable and the Baathists were always on the verge of cutting off our supply lines and putting us in big trouble? Then, suddenly, that statue was falling down in Baghdad?
Once the major combat operations were over, I don't see how the Powell Doctrine is even relevant. Unless you wanted to re-play Dresden and Tokyo in Fallujah and Baghdad, overwhelming force just isn't applicable.
Total war just isn't an option, so I don't see how it's a mistake not to have tried it.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Well you lost me by listing "McCain" in close proximity to "has everything been done to win the war."
BUT, having said that, it may be true that we need to send more troops.
The next question is: Is there anyone left to send