« Fantasy Camp | Main | At Last! »

Meet The New Boss

21 Mar 2008 05:23 pm

Spencer Ackerman notes Michael Kamber's excllent account of what Spencer calls "the new imperial reality":

During the war in Iraq, young Army and Marine captains have become American viceroys, officers with large sectors to run and near-autonomy to do it. In military parlance, they are the “ground-owners.” In practice, they are power brokers.

“They give us a chunk of land and say, ‘Fix it,’ ” said Capt. Rich Thompson, 36, who controls an area east of Baghdad.

The Iraqis have learned that these captains, many still in their 20s, can call down devastating American firepower one day and approve multimillion-dollar projects the next. Some have become celebrities in their sectors, men whose names are known even to children.

One is never to speak ill of The Troops, but I don't think you need to be a hard-bitten anti-American to have some doubts about the soundness of this kind of set-up. Suppose we replaced the mayor of your town with a twentysomething foreigner who didn't speak English but did have a ton of firepower at his disposal and no real checks on his power. You'd probably feel that was a step in the wrong direction. And conversely, it's not genuinely reasonable to expect relatively junior Army officers to do this sort of job well. I find there's often an element of fantastical thinking in counterinsurgency doctrine, where if we establish that it would be desirable for things to work in such and such a way, then it also becomes possible for them to work like that.

But it's not an army of mutant superheros we've got, it's an army of soldiers. How's it supposed to suddenly be filled with people well-suited to the task of governing foreign towns? The British had a whole separate civilian agency set up to train and recruit their colonial administrators and make sure they had the right skills. If we're going to want to run foreign countries effectively, we're going to need to do something similar. An alternative, and superior, option would be to back away from running foreign countries.

Share This

Comments (34)

Well said Matt. You aren't dissing the troops. This is just the reality in Iraq that Iraqis have to deal with. Its the empire business but botched because we have to kid ourselves that we aren't running other people's countries for our own ends.

Never mind the Brits, the Romans way back when were also smart enough to employ experienced politicians as proconsuls rather than centurions. Really, US imperialism may be the most incompetent variety the world has ever seen.

Err, non sequitur; why are the fatigues pixellated? Is this a fashion or function thing?

If if this is the way we do things, its not a viable option in a culture which prizes wisdom and wisdom is associated with age. Count me in as one who thinks that if this is the way we have to secure an occupied population, it's a lousy way to do it.

Perhaps I am in defense of all my Junior Officer brethren out there (and therefore with no small amount of bias): these are the young people who truly believe that they are making a difference, are taking orders and will be punished severly and more quickly if not, and are within an organization (the military service) that does not allow them to "go native" to the same degree a civilian agency can and sometimes does. They remain our most stable element of control.
Knowing this, and that this level of officer makes up the widest part of the military pyramid, the strategist thought they were going with their best option.
Of course, the best option would not to occupy a country in the first place.
So, shorter colleeniem: Matt, good point.

Good point, although there's a nitpick:

It's not exactly like replacing our local government with a foreigner, because the existing situation is so much worse than ours.

Still, good post.

why are the fatigues pixellated? Is this a fashion or function thing?

Due to budget and deadline restraints, U.S. soldiers in Iraq are only texture-mapped with a single 512 x 512 image. It also helps with their screen redraw speed.

Suppose we replaced the mayor of your town with a twentysomething foreigner who didn't speak English but did have a ton of firepower at his disposal and no real checks on his power.

Well, that would be unacceptable, of course, because that hypothetical foreigner wouldn't be an Amurkin. But these captains are Amurkins, so there is absolutely no parallel with what's happening in Iraq.

Nice try, though...

mutant superheroes

Isn't the Green Lantern theory more applicable?

What happens when one of these "American Viceroys" is rotated out or reassigned and the next guy's idea of "fix it" isn't quite the same thing as the last guy's? One more depressing example of our troops being sent out and told to do stuff for which they haven't been trained. Guess who's always left holding the bag if things don't go quite right? That's right - the troops on the ground. The higher-ups that set this all up (that would be our government, who apparently still can't be bothered to put any effort into this whole Iraq thing) will skate by as usual.

One of my high school classmates found himself in just this position in Al Kut... he was 43 and a recently mobilized lt. col. in the reserves.

In '03, his situation was that the civil administration had vaporized. By default, he became the man in charge, and everyone looked to him for answers. He did his best to provide them.

In '08, in those parts of the country where the insurgency renders the government unable to function, it's not a surprise that our officer corps are still in the same boat. That won't change until we bug out.

So, Matthew is saying that we should allow twenty-something officers to have a lot of influence in a random Iraqi village, but it's perfectly OK for twenty-something political writers to have a lot of influence over our national policy?

Sorry, but Al wins this thread.

I think the even more interesting point is that a lot of Americans might initially support their local government being replaced by some dictatorial outsider, since many people view their local government as fundamentally corrupt and incompetent (as any The Wire fan should know). The real issue would come when that dictatorial outsider was not quickly replaced by a new local government, and the longer that lasted the greater the resentment would build, while at the same time those best equipped to form and support such a local government would probably be looking for a new home.

Check out this picture from 2006 that was featured on MSNBC's FirstPerson From the Frontlines. This is the image we're projecting. Our large, armored and armed men towering over unarmed and frightened kids.

And the soldier (its his picture) says he had to leave before he could explain to them what their picture of the signing of the Declaration of Independence meant. Hmmm...wasn't it something about civilians fighting against the occupation of a foreign army?

And conversely, it's not genuinely reasonable to expect relatively junior Army officers to do this sort of job well.
How dare you suggest our troops can't do something, you traitor?

So, Matthew is saying that we should allow twenty-something officers to have a lot of influence in a random Iraqi village, but it's perfectly OK for twenty-something political writers to have a lot of influence over our national policy?

I don't think there's any chance of a policy paper leveling a city block and killing dozens of people.

The British had a whole separate civilian agency set up to train and recruit their colonial administrators and make sure they had the right skills. If we're going to want to run foreign countries effectively, we're going to need to do something similar. An alternative, and superior, option would be to back away from running foreign countries.

The congressional candidate Iraq policy paper that you linked to and endored a few days ago basically wanted to train and recruit 'colonial administrators' vice just backing away. FWIW, I agree with the Iraq policy paper.

There is a smattering of reports from on the ground about how this works. How the young Americans are sent out into the field with a simple broad mandate to make things work. Every report I've seen or heard of it, this week Fresh Air had a reporter on describing this, it all sounds so very good.

It is good I suppose even though the Awaking Consuls comprise the guys who inflicted 80% of US casualties pre 07 and who are likely if not fated to turn their arms against us again when the money runs out. We are paying them.

Ooops, we are supposed to be paying them. Look at this, Is there anything we can't fuck up. They aren't being paid!!!!

http://haloscan.com/tb/attaturk/4152713045346957760

On the other hand, I have to point out that there's a big upside to all this from a literary point of view, which is that the novels of Joseph Conrad keep looking more and more relevant.

Contrary to initial reports, Mistah Kurtz is alive and well.

Contrary to initial reports, Mistah Kurtz is alive and well.

The Hoo-Rah. The Hoo-Rah.

MY - Suppose we replaced the mayor of your town with a twentysomething foreigner who didn't speak English but did have a ton of firepower at his disposal and no real checks on his power. You'd probably feel that was a step in the wrong direction. And conversely, it's not genuinely reasonable to expect relatively junior Army officers to do this sort of job well.

If the foreigner was competent, in the top 1% of intelligence, and incorruptable by nature of his position it would be a huge improvement over the Joker black mayor we have, or our two Lady Senators - one stupid, the other corrupted by her billionaire husbands Defense contractor dealings.

Matt also does not understand, as a civilian, we train young officers to be adaptable LEADERS first. Fluency in the language is desirable, but we unfortunately have not emphasized starting US children off with obligatory foreign language instructions that will give us global coverage on the 600 or so spoken languages out there, or even force a cadre to learn the BIG languages, as the Russians did in their public schools...That said, a US officer has a pretty formidable toolset.

As our military generally works, but civilian Feds are consistent fuck-ups, the answer might be to create a military branch of reservist civil affairs and civil administrators that report to a military chain-of-command.

As LEADERS, the US military officers have done far better than the "Iraqi Exiles", deranged militias, or the previous US attempts at inserting ex-cops and ex-Feds, ex-State officials into running towns or Green Zone ministries.

The LAST people you want in a war zone running foreign nations or towns or ministries are dumb civilians making hack decisions.

MY - it's an army of soldiers. How's it supposed to suddenly be filled with people well-suited to the task of governing foreign towns? The British had a whole separate civilian agency set up to train and recruit their colonial administrators and make sure they had the right skills. If we're going to want to run foreign countries effectively, we're going to need to do something similar.

So MY, with his distrust of the military would no doubt find someone with extensive education in IVY league, in France, years in the State Dept an ideal leader. Someone "unsoiled by military stupidity"...Someone like with this outstanding civilian resume:

"His father was president of the Christian Dior Perfumes Corporation in New York. His mother was a lecturer in art history at the University of Bridgeport. He graduated from Yale University in 1963, and went on to earn an MBA from Harvard University in 1966. He later continued his education at the Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris, where he earned a Certificate of Political Studies (CEP).

That same year he joined the Foreign Service, which sent him first to Kabul, Afghanistan as a general officer. He was assigned to Blantyre, Malawi, as economic and commercial officer from 1968 to 1971.

During the 1970s, he then held various domestic posts with the State Department, including posts as an assistant to Henry Kissinger from 1972–76.[2] He was Deputy Chief of Mission in Oslo from 1976–79, returning to the US to take a post of Deputy Executive Secretary of the Department of State, where he remained from 1979–81. In 1981 he was promoted to Executive Secretary and Special Assistant to Alexander Haig.

Ronald Reagan appointed him as Ambassador to the Netherlands in 1983 and Ambassador-at-Large for Counterterrorism in 1986.[3] He retired from the Foreign Service in 1989 and became managing director at Kissinger and Associates. "

L. Paul Bremer


Hey -- did Chris Ford just get through an entire post without once blaming teh Joooz??? Uh, oh, Chris, better watch out: maybe sanity's contagious!!!

One of "The Troops" is a family member. When he was home last month I talked to him and he said to me directly "Lobby them that I want to come home. Tell them." Every day I remember that.

I remember that.

That is my truth.

In Colossus, Niall Ferguson pretty much mocks the American hope for an empire akin to the British model because of this. Britishers in imperial days would go out to Malaysia or India or Egypt to help run things. Out neo-con imperialists just hang back in their pajamas and pontificate (like Al) or rake in mazuma on Wall St. A post in Baghdad -- or east of Baghdad -- is too damn dangerous to give up one's pajamas (or law firm) for. Imperialists with
Let George Do It" as their motto deserve all the mockery one can direct at them.

It's interesting that some people hear a rather unsurprising critique of the non-godlikeness of individuals thrust into nearly impossible positions as specific criticisms of military professionals being thrust into those positions.

The only question is whether such a reaction of pure dullard misinterpretation is a problem of an inability to think and interpret logically, or simply another hack tactic to turn any genuine thought into "wy du yu hayt tha trups an i bet yur fansee pntz colij peepul no do bitr".

It's even worse when your Captain has under his command a bunch of morons who hate their jobs and hate the locals and have been told by said Captain and his Lieutenants that the "Rules of Engagement" allow them to shoot up any civilian vehicle who doesn't stop a hundred feet away from them or who drive too fast (ever seen Third World drivers? Ever seen Italian drivers?) and who have been instructed that it's OK to plant shovels on dead civilians to make it look like they were bomb planters. Or and they are also told they ain't coming home for next fifteen months at least - when it was for only twelve months initially - and then after being home for six months, they get told they're coming back again - and again.

Or, and by the way, at least 20% of the people in that hypothetical American town are armed to the teeth with AK's and explosives looted from the nearby National Guard armory that wasn't sealed off by the invading forces, and they have been told that unless they knock you off, the other 70 to 80% of the population will massacre them or at least keep them in low-paying jobs - exactly like they were doing before you came.

I'd say the odds of the foreign guy doing a good job are minimal, to say the least.

In fact, one could make a good case for the entire enterprise being FUCKING BRAIN DEAD.

The guys doing the boot work with the locals in the context of the Surge and trying to bring some stability by working on the local level are from what I have heard doing a tremendous job. A very difficult job to say the least. Nation building one block and one town at a time. Especially when one considers that they are sitting down with the very guys who killed most of their comrades not long ago.

Think about it. Now our army is doing nation building and using diplomacy. In the bitterest of ironies if one questions the strategy behind this then one is accused of hating the military, by the same people who reliably went into rages over the very concepts of nation building and diplomacy a few short years ago. Both terms never mentioned without dripping contempt for years and years by the authors of the Iraq invasion.

All well and good, but I see no reason why we should change the way we do things now.
Changing things willy-nilly will only thrown a "bush" into the works and set us back a decade or so.

So, in this regard, we now occupy the position the Turks occupied when they ruled this region.

You neglect to mention that the military is ingrained with strict indoctrination and a rigid chain of command which ensures accountability and negative consequences for this cowboy mentality you mention. That's why the taxpayers have entrusted billion dollar ships, planes, and, yes, even the ability to ensure security in Iraqi villages to these Captains you mention. Sure, it's a temporary solution, but I'm not hearing a lot of other options out there.

The further reality is that building schools and digging wells has absolutely no effect on the guys with the guns and the grudges against the other guys with the guns.

While the population may like the school, when it gets blown up the following week - or more likely when it gets filled with sewage because the US contractor was corrupt and did a piss-poor job building it - anybody remember those stories from the LAST FOUR FUCKING YEARS? - then clearly your military efforts have been wasted.

"Nation building" doesn't work until you somehow get the factions with the guns to stop shooting at each other and instead deal. And that ain't happening in Iraq. Paying the Sunni $300/month is a band-aid that isn't going to last.

So again, it doesn't matter how much local assistance you do - it's meaningless in the national scheme of things.

Meanwhile, everybody STILL wants you out because you are STILL dropping bombs on civilians and shooting civilians.

Or didn't the Winter Soldier stories mean anything to anybody here?

"military is ingrained with strict indoctrination and a rigid chain of command which ensures accountability and negative consequences for this cowboy mentality you mention."

Bullshit. Listen to the reports of every soldier back from Iraq over the last four years. What part of "bad Rules of Engagement" don't you get? What part of 300,000 estimated civilian deaths (out of one million plus total) directly from US military action don't you get?

Chris Ford and Al tie for winning the thread.

Ford and Al win their usual moron-of-the-year award - which they win daily here.

Geez, Rich. Did Jane Fonda teach you those stereotypes about the military or were you just born with them. Love your website by the way.


Comments closed April 04, 2008.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.