Awake Enough?

It looks like the first Washington Post reporter killed in Iraq may have been killed by a member of the "Anbar Awakening," the group of Sunni insurgents who we're now paying to stop attacking American soldiers. It's a poignant reminder of how crazy the current version of our policy -- basically help equip anyone who'll accept our help and kind of hope for the best -- has become. Since the "surge" failed to produce the kind of political reconciliation that was its goal, reconciliation and political objectives more generally have just been defined out of sight.

But a military campaign with no coherent political objectives is just a slow-motion disaster. It's not saying anything against our troops to observe that when their orders don't have any larger purpose beyond keeping the them deployed in Iraq that they can't possibly succeed. After all, what could they be succeeding at? Note the fundamentally paradoxical character of administration claims to have crushed al-Qaeda in Iraq. Since AQI was only ever a small group of people whose importance existed primarily in administration rhetoric, why shouldn't we be able to crush them? But at the same time, while Bush would like to claim a success on this front, officials are quick not to claim too much success, lest that success suggest that it's time to pack our bags and go home.

Basically, if the policy's failing, that means we must continue it. And if it's succeeding, that means we must continue it. Meanwhile, GOP politicians are all running in terror of Freedom's Watch where they want us to believe that "victory is possible." But what victory? For whom? For the insurgents who kill Post reporters? For the Shiite militias who are pushing Sunnis out of Baghdad? For the PKK?

Comments

Petraeus will offer himself to the Republicans in 2012 as the man who helped end a war that should never have been fought in the first place.

Posted by bob h | October 15, 2007 5:48 PM

surely, at this late date, matthew, it's clear what "victory" means to the dead-enders: the white hats beat the black hats.

when your worldview consists of comic books, action movies, rush limbaugh, and similar pop ephemera, that's all you can imagine "victory" as being: the frickin' nuances of iraq don't mean anything in this context, since it's a deracinated definition of "victory," unconnected from the realities on the ground.

Posted by howard | October 15, 2007 6:07 PM

Wow, the increasingly obvious success in Iraq must really be causing some cognitive dissonance... then again, what do I know, I'm just reaching the same conclusions as the Non-Reality Based Washington Post Editorial Page.

Posted by Al | October 15, 2007 6:44 PM

[I]ncreasingly obvious success in Iraq, says Al, who has been passing remarks on Matt's various blogs about our "increasingly obvious success in Iraq" since 2003 . . .

Posted by rea | October 15, 2007 8:24 PM

Well, Al's excuse apparently is that he's reading the WaPo Editorial Page - instead of, you know, real news...let alone intelligence estimates and the like.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 15, 2007 8:43 PM

Matt,

Note, from the Post story, the alternative explanation: that he was killed by a Mahdi-infiltrated Iraqi Army brigade on the scene. The (un)funny thing: your post, and your point is just as valid under that scenario.

Posted by Wendell | October 16, 2007 12:27 AM

Several months ago, a soldier told a reporter that his mission consisted of "riding around, waiting to get blown up."

That to me, is the defining statement of this war, parallel to the Vietnam-era officer who explained that he destroyed a village to save it.

Posted by Mark Paul | October 16, 2007 3:08 AM

I'm surprised Matt hasn't linked to Sullivan's post of an e-mail from a "reader in Iraq":

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/10/a-shiite-awaken.html

If we're paying interested parties to get along, what happens when the payments stop?

Another possibility: perhaps Sunni and Shia Iraqis are under the mistaken impression that if they reduce violence dramatically it'll give the US and excuse to leave.

Posted by Kurzleg | October 16, 2007 9:05 AM

"Several months ago, a soldier told a reporter that his mission consisted of 'riding around, waiting to get blown up.'"

Excellent point. It also defines the complete cluelessness of the Pentagon in fighting a counterinsurgency.

If you've ever seen the "Baghdad sniper" video, our troops LITERALLY are standing around with signs on them saying, "I'm a stupid American! Shoot me!"

Or they're standing around at checkpoints - checkpoints, the least efficient method of dealing with insurgents that could possibly be contemplated - with signs on them saying, "I'm a stupid American! Blow me up!"

This is not how you fight insurgents, especially urban insurgents. Running obvious patrols might be smart in the jungle, but not in an urban environment. Checkpoints are stupid in any environment. Do these idiots think a terrorist is going to drive up, let them search his car, then surrender when they arrest him? (And then, presumably, under torture, tell them all about his comrades?)

Simply moronic tactics...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 16, 2007 9:47 PM