The New Republic

It would certainly be nice if it could work. But reading Herf's article, and all the others in TNR's special Iraq issue, mainly convinced me that we have a Hobson's choice among terrible, immoral outcomes. I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt on the basis of hope, but it's clear that neither I nor the people who are actually supposed to do it thought through the consequences of non-optimal events. The entire venture has been based on the philosophy that good intentions create good facts, and they just HAVEN'T. No matter how hard we believe, I can no longer believe that Tinkerbell's gonna come back to life.

- DavidHNix

January 12, 2007 at 4:44pm

General David Petraeus has been the leader among the students, doing his best to push a military trained to fight on the planes of Europe or in the open deserts of the Middle East to focus on what it needs to do but did not want to do: engage in effective counter-insurgency warfare. Bush has just placed the same Petraeus in charge of the war in Iraq. This is an important appointment and should be recognized as such. Excellent point. One of the sad ironies of this war is that we are in many ways in far better shape -- both in terms of the quality of our assets on the ground and in our knowledge and capabilities to make use of those assets-- than we have been in at any point in the war. Petraeus's Field Manual of Counterinsurgency Warfare contains many brilliant precepts that, if followed, offer us hope on the tactical front of containing-- not eliminating, not matching and overcoming but containing the violence in Baghdad. On the strategic front, it seems obvious now to anyone looking closely that we must be even more, not less, engaged in the region in order to effectively contain Iran. So, while everyone is foolishly focused on the surge, or distracted by any of the Iraq Study Group's idiocies, Petraeus points the way to a new strategy and tactical approach that can achieve the crucial objective of containment. Change the footprint from a grunt-based, Baghdad-centric one to a an air-based and mible one that cordons off the toxic waste dump that is Baghdad; protect the Kurds and the southern shi'a as well as the borders and the airport; build an air base in Kurdistan and point the bombers at Iran. What a shame. Now that we've learned what needs to be done, and have every reason and opportunity to turn the mission outward, we remain obsessed about achieving the impossible in one city and dither over a few more grunts there. Sigh.

- teplukhin

January 12, 2007 at 6:05pm

The matter of a counter-insurgency strategy in Iraq and that of a containment strategy for Iran are very different problems, and activating the former may have little or no connection with achieving the latter. Indeed, a "successful" CI strategy in Iraq is very likely to secure a Shi'a government (Maliki or someone else) in Baghdad with strong sympathies toward Teheran, thus one might argue that the policies will tend to get in each other's hair.

- ironyroad

January 12, 2007 at 6:20pm

One of the sad ironies of this war is that we are in many ways in far better shape... than we have been in at any point in the war.

And one of the sad ironies of Vietnam was that the breaking point was the Tet offensive, which we won!

Parallels: The media in Vietnam sent back a fraudulent picture (embassy under siege, bodies, etc.) of the offensive, making us believe we were losing. The media in Iraq is fraudulently making Bagdad and Anbar synecdoches for Iraq, making us think we're losing. We may be, but I keep hearing that outside particular flash points there's calm, not the general chaos suggested by the media.

- jm_rice

January 12, 2007 at 7:04pm

Even if the media weren't as perfidious as I think it is, I still think by its very nature it undermines our ability to make war, because today's 24/7 coverage has us continuously second-guessing ourselves.

I think Tony Blair sees this. The "article" from which the text below is taken is full of self-serving rebuttals, which proves Blair's point.

"[Islamic terrorists] have realised two things: the power of terrorism to cause chaos, hinder and displace political progress especially through suicide missions; and the reluctance of Western opinion to countenance long campaigns, especially when the account it receives is via a modern media driven by the impact of pictures.

"They now know that if a suicide bomber kills 100 completely innocent people in Baghdad, in defiance of the wishes of the majority of Iraqis who voted for a non-sectarian government, then the image presented to a Western public is as likely to be, more likely to be, one of a failed Western policy, not another outrage against democracy."

Acknowledging the public backlash against the Iraq war, Mr Blair said: "Public opinion will be divided, feel that the cost is too great, the campaign too long, and be unnerved by the absence of 'victory' in the normal way they would reckon it.

But the Prime Minister added: "They will be constantly bombarded by the propaganda of the enemy, often quite sympathetically treated by their own media, to the effect that it's really all 'our', that is the West's fault. That, in turn, impacts on the feelings of our armed forces. They want public opinion not just behind them but behind their mission."

He warned that the terrorists had learnt how to use the media to undermine public opinion. He cited a website, called LiveLeak, showing "gruesome images" of the "reality of war" as the kind of propaganda weapon that was being used by international terrorism.

- jm_rice

January 13, 2007 at 9:38am

Recently, a member of my family died. It was, of course, sad and terrible. Efforts made to prelong her life were, at a certain point, despite the desperate desire of all of us, futile. The consequences of her death will be felt for many years. Nevertheless, there was nothing we could do. The banal, constantly reiterated argument, by Herf and others that the "consequences" of American withdrawal from Iraq will be grave is similar to those within my family who wept about the "consequences" of the death of our imminent loved one. True--but rather besides the point, in that there is no longer anything we can do to change the inevitable dynamic. And, in the case of Iraq, even more dangerous and harmful, in that we will continue to loves lives and treasure in a fruitless quest to do just that. So, yes, we get it: Leaving Iraq might produce very dangerous "consequences." But, as with my grieving family, we ought to think now about mitigating those consequences, rather than pretend we can forestall them.

- yeselson

January 13, 2007 at 11:18am

This assertion that the American media are to blame for the faltering and failed state of things in Iraq is preposterous. Anyone who has access to a wider range of media sources than the US newspapers and wire services would see that on a daily basis, across most of Iraq outside Kurdistan (and even on its borders and in some of its cities), there are violent attacks, killings, abductions, continued infrastructure problems, and so on. In southern Iraq, which the Bush administration refuses to talk candidly about and keeps telling us is pacified, "calm," and so on, the British and small allied contingents have come under repeated attack, to the extent that British commanders now believe their Shiite attackers are using Google Earth to pinpoint their positions and attack. Does anyone think that Britain, the US's closest ally in this debacle, is making these allegations up? Their soldiers are dying just like ours. The south of Iraq is not calm and has never been. Reuters, foreign reporters and the Arab-language media are all willing to document how bad things are over there, and as the Iraq Study Group's report showed, the Bush administration has been actively downplaying the problems. Yet you still have people like jm_rice claiming that it's the US media who're to blame. Psychological denial concerning one's personal issues is one thing, but we're talking geopolitics here. I will ask a basic question: if the rest of Iraq is so pacified, why don't American politicians who keep traipsing over there, and in particular I mean Republicans, actually tour the country? If things are so great and sunny outside the heavily fortified Green Zone, if it's only Baghdad and Anbar Province that are the problems, why don't McCain and Lieberman and McConnell and others who tout how great things are go on a walking tour of Najaf or Basra or Mosul or Kirkuk, and really speak with Iraqis who are enjoying the liberation? I think we know the answer, but let's see if Michelle Malkin, a frequently wrong, low-level right-wing operative, can demonstrate how our politicians and right-wing supporters, who are so eager to denounce the media for reporting facts on the ground, can do this if they're so willing.

- jrk3150

January 14, 2007 at 2:45pm

Dear jrk . . .

No one is saying things are great in Iraq. And no one is saying that the media is to blame in the operational fuck-up.

Psychological denial concerning one's personal issues is one thing, but we're talking geopolitics here.

Ironic, coming from one whose personal issues consist of lying about what others say and/or a literacy level that creates problems in reading comprehension. Not to mention questionable mental coherence.

As for your authorities, Reuters and the Arab-language media, I think that pretty well explains where you're coming from. Which means, not necessary to take anything you say seriously.

- jm_rice

January 15, 2007 at 3:06pm

...is entirely correct. One can wish for better, or even pretend it's not so bad, but if we look back on any war we've ever fought as a nation, there will be nothing to approach the level of sabotage, fear-mongering, disinformation, and undermining of leadership that now has become the norm for our press. I'm no kneejerk Bush supporter-rather the contrary. But Lieberman was making an important point when he cautioned that "those who work to undermine the credibility of the President in time of war do so at their, and the nation's, peril." It's one thing to point out real mistakes and legitimate dissenting opinions. It's another to lie about the facts in ways that attempt to undermine the legitimacy of our cause.

- Robert Powell

January 15, 2007 at 6:22pm

If my enemy is the US you had best BELIEVE that I realize the media is my first consideration and most potent weapon. Period. It is the beginning, middle and end when facing a clearly superior military force. If you don't think that the media is the prime consideration of generalship among those who would contend, you're nuts. And they are playing.....YOU....pal. You are my target. And I hold you in contempt all the while.

- boxofrox

January 16, 2007 at 6:05am