Iraqification?
Article Source: Washington Post - http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Article Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64710-2004May28.html
Article Title: "An Iraq Pledge to Watch Closely," by Colbert I. King
Article Date: May 29, 2004
Any article that opens with a comparison of Nixon's "Vietnamization" speech of November 3, 1969, and President Bush's remarks at the US Army War College last week will be covering, such as it is, familiar territory.
As if the textual comparison was not enough:
As we observe this Memorial Day weekend celebration and the dedication of the National World War II Memorial, George Bush's pledge to prepare Iraqis to take over their country's security should not be overlooked. If ever a presidential declaration deserved close tracking and constant appraisal, especially by Congress, Bush's pledge to Iraqize that country's defense is it.
Richard Nixon said much the same thing about Vietnam during the first year of his presidency. 'Course, there's a world of difference between saying and doing. After the launching of Vietnamization, it took four years and an additional 15,000 Americans killed in action before U.S. troops were finally withdrawn from ground combat. And the troops came home only because Americans, war-weary and deeply divided, lost confidence in the White House and its Pentagon advisers, and demanded that Congress impose limitations on U.S. military action.
Source: Washington Post
And while the refrain is enough to make war advocates groan and cover their ears--or eyes, such as it is in print--King's article raises questions that, perhaps if taken out of the Vietnam-comparison context, might bear some weight with the weary bandwagoners.
In an appraisal that came in decidedly on the low side, Bush admitted to Monday's national television audience that "the early performance of Iraqi forces fell short." Fell short? "Some refused orders to engage the enemy," said the U.S. commander in chief. Mr. Bush was way too kind. Would that it were only fear on the battlefield.
What about those Iraqi police who cooperated with the insurgents? I'm referring to reports of Iraqis turning over their weapons and the buildings they were guarding. How about those Iraqis who turned their guns on us? Failures of that kind cannot be chalked up to lack of training or unit cohesion, as Bush suggested this week. Something else may be afoot.
Guns are as plentiful in Iraqi homes as sand in the desert. Yet, with a couple of notable exceptions cited in Bush's speech, Iraqis are not showing much stomach for taking on and dismantling the terrorist forces, illegal militias and Saddam Hussein loyalist elements that Bush brands as enemies. Could it be the other way around: that the Iraqi people see the Western occupation -- not Arab militias and guerrillas -- as standing between themselves and their future as a self-determining, Islamic nation? A tougher question still: Even if the Iraqis were capable of dealing with the insurgents by themselves, would they? Does the insurgency have their enmity or their quiet admiration?
Source: Washington Post
And war
critics ought to take note, as well, as former points of the war party turn up on our side of the aisle:
Not showing much stomach? Not long ago, that was a war-party defense of the slow progress; now it is a point of argument for criticism.
However, the similar arguments demand different responses. Poor initiative in building democracy? That's almost to be expected; the people have lived ... how long? ... under tyrants. They're conditioned against that kind of initiative; it will take some getting used to. I was particularly resentful of the idea that the Iraqis might in some way be lazy; perhaps, but we skip right past a known issue in order to call them lazy?
In the present, however, the response is simple, and still lends to hard criticism of the war:
They are deciding they don't want to die.
I admit I'm not a military expert, but isn't this what we call "poor morale"? Does the reluctance of some Iraqis in service reflect doubts about either the legitimacy of American-sponsored missions or perhaps a simple lack of faith in "the security situation"? Neither option is encouraging for Bush--is there a third? Sure, they're insincere cutthroats plotting for a future massacre "when we least expect it."
I suppose it's possible ... but at some point we need a bit more hopeful an outlook, don't we?
Lastly, I wanted to razz Mr. King for his closing appeal:
So we have another Memorial Day with U.S. troops far from home being killed and wounded as they provide manpower in another country's "defense." And what will be the killed-in-action total as of Memorial Day 2005?
Source: Washington Post
I'm not entirely sure we need to worry about the numbers-to-be come this time next year. At least not in that context. Certes, opinion columns live and die by such appeals to emotion, but relying on Memorial Day in such a manner is a bit thin.
Casualty numbers going in were lower than I expected. Since the Mission Accomplished stunt ... I'm still of the opinion that it's a war and we can expect casualties. At this point, I still feel that the luxury of arguing over Pentagon photo-release policies, such as the Silicio issue of recent days, is appropriate, and we can still muddle about whether or not Vietnam comparisons are accurate. But there's a transfer of authority scheduled, an American election coming up, and Iraqi elections allegedly in early '05. Depending on how those things go, I think it irresponsible to wonder what the casualty count will be come next memorial day because regardless of what it is, we might see the bulk of them coming after the political cycle. It may turn out that the period between June 30 and the Iraqi elections will be a comparative cake walk to the period that comes just after. Or it could be just the opposite. And that in and of itself is a huge obstacle to predicting casualty rates over a given period, and hinging that period on "Memorial Day" ... doesn't seem quite right.
____________________
• King, Colbert I. "An Iraq Pledge to Watch Closely." Washington Post, May 29, 2004; page A27. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64710-2004May28.html
