War for War's Sake

Spencer Ackerman posted a powerful email from a junior officer currently serving in Iraq. I'll just nab an excerpt:

In my opinion, what everyone fails to realize is that this is not a counterinsurgency. If we wanted to stay in Iraq, then it would be a counterinsurgency. But it is clear that our goal is to turn over power and pull out. So, in building our strategic endstate, it's pointless to set goals that relate to our presence in Iraq. If the "insurgency" is a function of our being there, then it is not an insurgency in terms of our endstate. For example, if one of our goals is to stop IED attacks on US forces, that is pointless. When we leave, there will be no more IED attacks on us forces. So our endstate needs to be different. We need to ask "if we left tomorrow, what would happen in Iraq?" and from there, we need to determine which of those anticipated results are unacceptable to us. Then we must aim our efforts on making sure those unacceptable results do not occur.

When I look at the problem that way, it becomes almost impossible to find a purpose in what we do.

This is correct but of course the policymakers in Washington some time ago shifted to a crazy equilibrium where continuing the war became the war's own rationale. Initially, we invaded to depose Saddam and destroy his WMD programs. So when at first the programs weren't there, we had to keep some troops in the country to look for them. What's more, some kind of new government had to be created. But then, contrary to what the Bush administration had expected, an insurgency started against our presence. The insurgents were killing our troops. Then beating the insurgents became the goal. Our troops had to stay in Iraq and risk their lives in order to kill the people who were trying to kill them to force them out of Iraq -- we couldn't leave until all the people who wanted us to leave were dead.

From that point, the quality of the strategic thinking involved has only declined.

John McCain's supporters get very upset if you suggest he wants the war in Iraq to continue for 100 years. After all, he stipulated that first the war would end, and then 100 years of U.S. troops running around Iraq peacefully would begin. What this misses is that the U.S. presence is one of the main issues at stake in the war. It's not that peace would suddenly break out if we left, but peace is certain to never break out as long as we stay. Counterinsurgency requires, among other things, political conciliation and conciliation requires us to leave but the hawks' logic requires us to stay and fight for the right to keep staying and fighting.

U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Jason T. Bailey

Comments

...but what about the defense contractors? Will no one think about the defense contractors?

Posted by lh | April 1, 2008 11:32 AM

This is correct but of course the policymakers in Washington some time ago shifted to a crazy equilibrium where continuing the war became the war's own rationale.

Michael Ondaatje's beautiful book (Anil's Ghost) about the civil war in Ceylon has the heartbreaking summation, "The reason for war was war." As a blueprint for what we're seeing in Iraq, that war bears looking at: with its 3 sides, all committing terrible atrocities, the nameless dead, the nameless killers, and the unimaginable end game.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 1, 2008 11:39 AM

I do think this dynamic is at play to a large degree.

Although I opposed the war from the beginning, I did think once we were there, the military did have the responsibility to aid in reconstruction efforts and act somewhat as a police force to maintain stability, initially, while the country got its bearings.

But once the insurgency really got off the ground, we lost all sense of the endgoals. Reconstruction efforts were squelched due to violence, and so then squelching the violence became a necessity. So I think its fair to say the military has become stuck with treat-the-symptom, ignore the problem.

BTW...I find it rather disgusting that US was able to continue a massive construction project to build the largest-ever US Embassy, at the same time other important reconstruction efforts went ignore (and still do). Ugh!

Posted by AKBY | April 1, 2008 11:41 AM

This is pretty good.

Posted by mpowell | April 1, 2008 11:45 AM

Ninety years ago or so, another junior infantry officer wrote something similar.

I am making this statement as an act of wilful defiance of military authority, because I believe that the war is being deliberately prolonged by those who have the power to end it.

I am a soldier, convinced that I am acting on behalf of soldiers. I believe that this war, upon which I entered as a war of defence and liberation, has now become a war of aggression and conquest. I believe that the purposes for which I and my fellow-soldiers entered upon this war should have been so clearly stated as to have made it impossible to change them, and that, had this been done, the objects which actuated us would now be attainable by negotiation.

I have seen and endured the sufferings of the troops, and I can no longer be a party to prolong these sufferings for ends which I believe to be evil and unjust.

I am not protesting against the conduct of the war, but against the political errors and insincerities for which the fighting men are being sacrificed.

On behalf of those who are suffering now I make this protest against the deception which is being practiced on them; also I believe that I may help to destroy the callous complacence with which the majority of those at home regard the continuance of agonies which they do not share, and which they have not sufficient imagination to realize.

That was Siegfried Sassoon MC, Captain, 1st Royal Welch Fusiliers, in July 1917, who had come to believe that the war had become its own justification, and who later wrote: "our aims were basically acquisitive - what we were fighting for was the Mesopotamian oil wells."

Posted by ajay | April 1, 2008 11:48 AM

Damn. Quoting mucked up. Everything from "I am making this statement" to "sufficient imagination to realize" is the letter. The last paragraph is not.

Posted by ajay | April 1, 2008 11:51 AM

If we wanted to stay in Iraq, then it would be a counterinsurgency.

I have bad news...

Posted by ~~~~ | April 1, 2008 11:52 AM

I think the vicious circle you describe is apt, but you give too much credit regarding the decision to invade Iraq in the first place, particularly in light of all of this:

http://www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com

If the invasion of Iraq was a response to the attacks on 9/11, then we invaded the wrong stinkin' country, period. All that has happened since is simply further confirmation that we have lost our ability as a nation to respond to the basic facts of our circumstances in a rational way.

Posted by Bill in Chicago | April 1, 2008 12:00 PM

Of course The Right and most conservatives in general favor the option of killing everyone that doesn't want us there. "Can't they see we're there for their own good?" There are a variety of reasons they don't want us there. 1) We're infidels. So, they all need to be killed because they're antagonistic and unaccepting of Jesus Christ as their savior (see U.S. Air Force rules of being allowed to live). 2) They won't adopt the U.S. Constitution as the template for their form of government. So, they all need to be killed because they don't have Thomas Jefferson on their currency. 3) They want to sign long term petroluem deals with China, India, Russia and other Commies, Atheists and Non-Christians. So, they all need to be killed because they think the oil beneath Iraq is theirs and not ours. 4) They just plain want to live. So, they all need to be killed because blowing them all up is a lot more fun than putting firecrackers in frog's asses.

Posted by steve duncan | April 1, 2008 12:05 PM

It's kind of strange how the Iraq war has led to liberals sounding like realists and realists sounding like liberals. McCain is saying America must help rebuild Iraq, Obama is saying America shouldn't sacrifice its soldiers in a broken place...

The dichotomy between McCain and Obama's plans for Iraq is false. No one is pulling the troops out and no one is keeping them there for 100 years doing the same thing they're doing today. And that owes much to the fact that the situation limits the policy options. Obama says he'll have all the combat brigades out of IRaq in 16 months, but residual security forces will remain. From Obama's website:

"[Obama] will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

McCain meanwhile is calling for continuing direct American involvement in security and reconstruction. But if they're both keeping troops there, albeit in different capacities, and both committed to fighting off al Qaeda, then there's little effective difference in terms of when the troops come out.

They're not debating whether the troops come home. What they're debating is a strategy shift, and it seems Obama's made some major conciliations on the need for a stabilizing force.

I can't see how Obama can plan to have a standoff or over-the-horizon force without it being perceived as an occupation force or over time becoming increasingly involved in Iraq's security. Unless Obama pledges that America will not intervene when major violence erupts, then the political forces won't really feel the need to go to the bargaining table.

Posted by Andrew | April 1, 2008 12:17 PM

Look at the bright side.

Having the military bogged down in Iraq keeps it form being bogged down in Pakistan, in Somalia, in Columbia, or other such places.

Posted by McGruff | April 1, 2008 12:31 PM

Uh...far as I can tell, we are in Iraq now for three reasons, none of which can be publicly stated, and none of which has anything to do with Iraq itself:

1) we stay in Iraq so Bush and Cheney and their enablers in Congress can all cover their asses until Bush is out of office. This seems to be Job One at this point in the clambake.

2) the war is extremely lucrative to our defense and related industries. As long as that gravy train is making regular stops, there will be a lot of pressure to keep it going.

3) McCain has staked his entire campaign on the war. The GOP won't undermine that.

all in all, though, the first reason given seems most compelling. Bush and Cheney don't want to even think about what they'd face if they were forced to pull out and forced to acknowledge in some way just what they have wrought. So, we stay.

No wonder the troops haven't the faintest idea what they're doing in Iraq. The real reason is unspeakable.

And our MSM should be profoundly ashamed. They could have ended this war all by themselves, just by telling the truth of it.

Posted by LL | April 1, 2008 12:38 PM

Look at the bright side.

Having the military bogged down in Iraq keeps it form being bogged down in Pakistan, in Somalia, in Columbia, or other such places.

Posted by McGruff | April 1, 2008 12:31 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
They'll bring a few brigades home in October. About then Bush will announce he's staying put, what with having to deal with that dirty bomb al Qaida (cough, cough) set off in Manhatten. Continuity of command and all that, you know. Anybody gets the bright idea they're going to protest cancelled elections Bush will want some muscle around to dissuade them.

Posted by steve duncan | April 1, 2008 12:41 PM

Someone needs to ask McCain (and Bush, etc.) the following question:

Other than leaving, can you describe a circumstance that would mean that we failed in Iraq? How about if every last Iraqi either flees the country or gets killed? Would that be a failure? If yes, would anything short of that be a failure? What?

The warmongers (and never in human history has there been a more appropriate term for these people) have continually spun the course of the war so that whatever happens, we have never failed; and that, by definition, the only way we could fail is by leaving.

The most likely explanation for their behavior is that they DO see the war that way; namely, our presence there IS the goal. And considering that Iraq contains the second-largest known petroleum reserves on the planet, it appears likely that we are in Iraq to maintain the ability to control their oil - forever.

If that is NOT why we are in Iraq, I'd really be interested in find out out the real reason.

Posted by Doug Latto | April 1, 2008 12:49 PM

I knew there was a reason I subscribed to this blog. Nice post Matt.

Posted by How Insane Is John McCain? | April 1, 2008 2:31 PM

Our purpose for continuing to victory in Iraq is to prove that we can't be prevented from winning in Iraq. As they joke in the DoD (where I work), it is a self-licking ice cream cone. A gold-plated, 24-carat self-licking ice cream cone.

Ask any war proponent what our purpose there is and you get the same answer: Our purpose is to prove that we can win. Why? To not lose. Lose what? The war. What are we fighting for? To win.

It's a house of mirrors. The closest that even very smart people will come to an actual objective is to prevent unspecified by certainly very terrible things from happening when we leave. And when you point out that those terrible things have already happened and will continue to happen, they insist that nobody knows what will happen under any circumstances, except that things will certainly get much worse if we leave.

This is what passes for strategy.

Posted by The Puzzled Ibex | April 1, 2008 2:43 PM

"Someone needs to ask McCain (and Bush, etc.) the following question:"

Someone needs to ask Yglesias, etc. a question: Other than leaving, can you describe a circumstance that would mean that we failed in Afghanistan?

Sounds like a stupid question when you put it that way, no? When America goes to war, it should fight until it wins. When has a president ever said that we are going to fight until we win or until X years go by, whichever comes first?

Posted by Juan | April 1, 2008 2:55 PM

It's good to hear a soldier articulate this position so well. Our country could use more like him/her.

Posted by Ask and Tell please. | April 1, 2008 2:57 PM

from swimming freestyle:

"John McCain has admitted he's clueless when it comes to the economy. (Fear not - he's checked out Alan Greenspan's book from the library). He's made it pretty clear he intends to run on his military record and gung ho, never mind the facts, position on Iraq. That might be OK if he could just get the details right."

http://swimmingfreestyle.typepad.com

Posted by Jay McDonough | April 1, 2008 3:08 PM

Sounds like a stupid question when you put it that way, no? When America goes to war, it should fight until it wins.

You fight when it's reasonable to fight. Anything else is insanity.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 1, 2008 3:21 PM

Juan:

In answer to your comment:

"Someone needs to ask Yglesias, etc. a question: Other than leaving, can you describe a circumstance that would mean that we failed in Afghanistan? Sounds like a stupid question when you put it that way, no?"

Not to me it doesn't.

Bin Laden is probably not in Afghanistan any more - he's probably in Pakistan. Should we go to war against Pakistan? If not, why not?

Bush said that we would not distinguish between those who attacked us, and those who harbored them. What has that gotten us into? A war 6 years long, that no longer has ANYTHING to do with the original purpose. Harboring somebody is not the same as doing the deed, so it should not be treated in the same way.

And you haven't mentioned the justification for going into Iraq. CheneyBush say we went in due to mistaken intelligence. Most people believe that they lied us there. But either way, our original purpose is now meaningless. Why are we still there? You want victory, but you can't even define it. What's victory? Iraqis all decide to put aside their thousand-year animosities and play nice? What if they don't? We stay for another thousand years? Why? To prove a point? What point? We don't back down, no matter what the cost, no matter whether it makes any sense or not?

Posted by Doug Lattto | April 1, 2008 3:38 PM

Sounds like a stupid question when you put it that way, no? When America goes to war, it should fight until it wins.

Or until it gets its ass kicked and is forced to surrender.

Posted by mmualph | April 1, 2008 5:05 PM

"we couldn't leave until all the people who wanted us to leave were dead."

This is probably Matt's most brilliant statement ever made on this blog.

He really nails it here - at least in terms in what the war mongers argument boils down to.

Except that he doesn't draw the obvious conclusion: we aren't leaving because it was never our intention to leave in the first place.

It's not that we decided we had to "win" just to be "winning". It was that the original goal was to control Iraq's oil - which means controlling Iraq's government - which means controlling Iraq - which means occupying it in some sense - which means permanent bases at the very least.

Since the Iraqis aren't going to accept that, we have to kill every Iraqi who doesn't - or at least enough of them so they aren't a problem for those permanent bases and the oil companies those bases are there for.

And since that doesn't cost Bush and Cheney and their cronies in the oil companies and the military-industrial complex anything - since none of them are getting shot at - we're going to stay forever. None of those people give a damn how US troops get killed or injured in Iraq. None of them.

Actually, what's going to happen is that the US IS going to be forced out within the next two years by Iraqi nationalists fed up with this whole process.

And there's nothing Bush, Cheney, Clinton or Obama can do about that.

The only thing we can hope for is that when the Iraqi nationalists take power next year, and order the US out, Obama is President - and he agrees to do so. That's the only way US troops are coming home in other than body bags.

Any other outcome is going to mean the loss of the US military forces in Iraq. They will be decimated (at least in the official meaning of the term, i.e., one out of ten out of action) if we don't leave at that point. And it could be much worse.

What worries me is that after the US forces are forced out of Iraq, that Obama will send them to Afghanistan to beat the Taliban. He's said that the goal is to "finish the fight in Afghanistan" and "take the fight to Al Qaeda". And all that will do is make Afghanistan Iraq - and perhaps Pakistan as well.

It's as bad as Bush and Cheney "doubling down" by attacking Iran.

And when they do, sometime by the end of this year, what is Obama going to do about that when he gets in? Continue that war? He's certainly partial to being "aggressive" against Iran. Is he going to have the smarts to stop a war in Iran? I doubt it.
(For the record, we know what Hillary will do - let alone McCain - continue the war for AIPAC and Israel.)

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 1, 2008 6:36 PM

Sounds like a stupid question when you put it that way, no?

Bush's line over and over about Iraq is that the only way we can lose is if leave and yes, frankly it is stupid.

Posted by Ed Marshall | April 1, 2008 7:49 PM

Still no answer to my question:

"Other than leaving, can you describe a circumstance that would mean that we failed in Afghanistan?"

Posted by Juan | April 1, 2008 10:31 PM

"Other than leaving, can you describe a circumstance that would mean that we failed in Afghanistan?"

The taliban returning;
Warlords extorting land, jobs, and money from locals;
Insurgency-related violence;
The failure to rebuild schools, hospitals, and other vital infrastructure,
hostage taking;

Think about it for awhile and I'm sure you'll come up with some reasons of your own...

Posted by AKBY | April 1, 2008 10:52 PM

Silly me, I thought it was because they were fighting the Turks, who were allied with the
Germans. That was also the reason they worked with the Hashemites in Arabia; they ended up
turning it over to the Al Saud. The Brits didn't find oil in Iraq; till 1927. I know facts don't matter on this site. The fact that a stable Iraq; which has been destabilized primarily by Wahhabist
forces, and secondarily by Iran might have something to do with it.

Posted by narciso | April 1, 2008 11:02 PM

Juan asked
"Other than leaving, can you describe a circumstance that would mean that we failed in Afghanistan?"

Yes.

The current situation.

Neither NATO nor Karzai has a monopoly of force in Afghanistan. Neither is capable of sustainable, stable governance of Afghan territory.

After 7 years of fighting that is the definition of "epic fail".

Posted by BP | April 2, 2008 1:42 AM

The US failed in Afghanistan the moment we decided to invade it.

Overthrowing the Taliban just to get bin Laden was a seriously stupid move - only made more so by then failing to get bin Laden.

Not that it would have mattered if we HAD got him, since Al Qaeda per se would have continued to function. There's no way we would have got all of them, or even all of the top leaders, nor would it have mattered, as other leaders or even other organizations of the same stripe would have re-appeared.

Now we not only have a destabilized Afghanistan, we have destabilized the country next door.

Typical Bush "mission accomplished".

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 2, 2008 2:22 AM

Matthew,

Eventually you are going to have to jettison the pose of confused observer and start engaging the possibility that at least part of the reason we are in Iraq is because we want to control and profit from the natural resources there. You will never come up with a satisfactory explanation for why we remain there if you refuse to write the word oil.

A start would be integrating this blog into your feed....

http://iraqoilreport.com/

Posted by Scott | April 2, 2008 11:40 AM