RANGER AGAINST WAR: Trying to Please Everyone <

Sunday, August 26, 2007

Trying to Please Everyone

Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation,
whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion,
and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose
to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose
-- and you allow him to make war at pleasure


America will never be destroyed from the outside.

If we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves


A friend is one who has the same enemies as you have


--Abraham Lincoln

______


Last Sunday, a group of seven E-4's through E-6's wrote a clear-headed assessment of the situation on the ground in Iraq, contrasting that with the "surreal" political debate in Washington. Their duty assignments weren't given, but I assume they are company-level soldiers.

I would like to revisit this piece, which, though eloquent, offers a troubling and dissonant conclusion. Before further comment, a summary of the piece.

They described the welter of actors who fill the stage, including the "Janus-faced"
Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, "which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers’ expense," who often "escort the triggermen and help plant" bombs. "Reports that a majority of Iraqi Army commanders are now reliable partners can be considered only misleading rhetoric."

These soldiers "operate in a bewildering context of determined enemies and questionable allies, one where the balance of forces on the ground remains entirely unclear."


The "vast majority of Iraqis feel increasingly insecure and view us as an occupation force that has failed to produce normalcy after four years and is increasingly unlikely to do so as we continue to arm each warring side."

"The choice we have left is to decide which side we will take. Trying to please every party in the conflict — as we do now — will only ensure we are hated by all in the long run."


"Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence."


"In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal."

They then suggest we retreat to the margins. "This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities."

So far so good, but their last sentence falters: "As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through." It is too reminiscent of the last messages received from elements of the German Sixth Army isolated in Stalingrad.

The message of the entire piece is "let's get the hell out" before we do turn into that cordoned Army. Yet they end on a chipper "Get 'er done" statement -- right out of the GWB play book.


It misses as protest, when they say morale is high, and they will keep on keepin' on. Why even bother writing, if you will not protest your continued participation in a futile and corrupt undertaking?

It earns a "D" for dissonant conclusion, as it does not correlate with the intent of the article.

Labels: ,

11 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

And the other lesson of Stalingrad is -- if you wait too long to get out, you won't be able to get out... Hopefully, we're not making a great historical mistake assuming that the "get the hell out" option has no time limit, no expiration date... GSJ

Sunday, August 26, 2007 at 4:44:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger The Minstrel Boy said...

here is an iraqi gut check. by layla anwar. . .

it hurts to read. she's angry, she's telling her truth out loud.

it's called Nausea

Sunday, August 26, 2007 at 7:02:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Lurch said...

I agree with much of your presentation, but saw the ultimate paragraph far differently. I believe it must be taken along with the preceding paragraph:


"...it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.

We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through"

Throughout they present the weaknesses of the present US policy in Iraq, viewed through their lens, and argue we must step back and allow the Iraqis to design their own political future.

I see the moral paragraph as an acknowledgment that moral is crappy, yet they will fulfill their oaths.

What else would "committed soldiers" do?

Sunday, August 26, 2007 at 7:24:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

lurch,

You always do present a compelling counter-argument.

I think Ranger has been jaded by all the hoorah camps out there. If one reads the final non-statement on morale in a more nuanced way, then you are correct--it implies morale is poor.

A perfectly valid reading, which would make the final about-face less jarring.

As to what "committed soldiers" should do, well, sometimes situations call for other than obedience. Some have suggested that even writing the letter amounts to an act of insubordination.

We'll let R. comment further...

Lisa

Sunday, August 26, 2007 at 9:13:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

m.b.,

Thanks, but that link is a little too angry for me.

We're sorry Iraq's upended, too; we wouldn't be writing otherwise. But once the attacks on Israel and the Jews start, it's time to click off.

Taking Saddam out hasn't exactly made life easier on the Israelis, and the destabilization of the entire region will only make life in that country more imperiled than it already is, due to the anger of the Layla's of the world.

Lisa

Sunday, August 26, 2007 at 9:27:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

lurch, i don't feel that morale is high. This is a cya statement made by carreer soldiers with their eyes on the next EER.This statement is disonent. jim

Monday, August 27, 2007 at 9:32:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger Lurch said...

Thanks, Jim. I agree with you that their morale is bad, and as I said, believe they admit it. Since other than the two E6's (one head-shot and possibly pending medical retirement) I'm dubious the others intend a career. If that is so, then pending EERs lose their relevance, don't they?

Monday, August 27, 2007 at 10:42:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger BadTux said...

I saw the weasel statements as an effort to avoid a court martial. Of course, there is the sentiment "we're already in Iraq, what worse can be done to us?" but there's always that niggling question in the back of your head when you're bucking your command chain to tell unpleasant truths, will he find some way to get back at me that I really, really won't like?.

Monday, August 27, 2007 at 3:17:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They don't say morale is good, they say there's no point in talking about it. My take on it was that those who blather about how talk of withdrawal will impact morale don't know what they're talking about, that the soldiers know they are not to blame for the poor policy that's put them in this situation and that they will continue to do what they're told (their job) whether their orders are to stay the course or withdraw. I felt they were saying that morale is irrelevant to the discussion of withdrawal, and that future policy should be based on a realistic assessment of current conditions and potential outcomes rather than nebulous concerns about the emotional state of the troops.

Monday, August 27, 2007 at 7:29:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

kootenay,

Of course, soldiers will always do what they are told, and emotions do not play into the matter.

However, there are occasions for refusing illegal orders, and a professional soldier must make that determination. Illegal invasions, torture; one is a 4-Star refusal, and one is a PFC. refusal.

Monday, August 27, 2007 at 8:23:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

badtux,

We can always bend their dog tags. there's nothing worse than that.

Monday, August 27, 2007 at 8:47:00 PM GMT-5  

Post a Comment

<< Home