CLICK HERE FOR THOUSANDS OF FREE BLOGGER TEMPLATES »

Thursday, May 31, 2007

Today's Reading List: 31 May 2007


WS. The Fourth Rail. Iraq Report: Kidnapped by Mahdi; Salahadin Salvation attacked. 30 May 2007.

Badgers Forward. MRAP is Just Fine or All Bombs are not Created Equal. New vehicle vs. new weapon. Context for USA Today article (which I did not read).

The Fourth Rail. Podcast with Military.com. Surge progress. Slow progress with Iraqi government, but progress nonetheless. On MSM: lack of understanding, laziness, playing to the lowest common denominator.

The Fourth Rail. Featured Report from Iraq: The Intellectual Grunt – Part One. By Gene E. Blanton, embed with 3/6 Marines in Habbaniyah. The insurgency in Al Anbar is fought in four distinctive elements: disruption, permanent persistent presence, transition, and handover.

* The Fourth Rail. Featured Report from Iraq: A look at the surge from Baghdad. By Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, embedded with the 2nd Battalion, 32nd Field Artillery in western Baghdad. The Strategy: strategic disengagement.
Virtually all the U.S. officials with whom I spoke feel that American strategy now boils down to a single goal: strategic disengagement. That is, the U.S. wants to strengthen the Iraqi government to the point that it is self-sustaining enough that the country will not collapse into chaos as U.S. troops are brought back home. . . .

U.S. strategy is not just military in nature. Rather, it is designed to eliminate some of the underlying conditions that sap the average Iraqi’s faith in the country’s civil society.

Conclusion:
Right now our country is embroiled in a critical debate about setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Unfortunately, this is one of the most intellectually impoverished political debates that I have ever witnessed, with both sides often resorting to sloganeering and demagoguery rather than substantive argumentation. One thing that my time in Iraq underscored to me is that, in looking at the country, many people see what they want to see. I would often think about the stories that journalists might write if they went where I went and saw what I saw. For example, after my first night on patrol—when the civilians we saw were clearly happy to see U.S. troops and felt comfortable around them—a conservative journalist might write a piece countering the stories about Iraqis hating us and wanting us to leave. Fine—but what about polls indicating that a shockingly high percentage of Iraqis think it’s okay to kill American troops? What about neighborhoods where U.S. troops would encounter a very different reception? On the other hand, a liberal journalist could write a very funny piece about the Iraqi army’s sloth and trigger-happy approach to the world, and conclude that we need to leave immediately because the Iraqi security forces are hopeless and at least a withdrawal will put some fire in their belly. Fine—but what about Iraqi soldiers’ improvements? What about the likelihood that pulling out would guarantee the Iraqi army’s failure?

There is some truth to both the right-wing and left-wing narratives above. But policymakers and analysts need to do better than having some truth to their positions. The Iraq debate is so important that politicians and opinion-leaders shouldn’t simply latch onto evidence that supports their pre-existing view. My intention in this report is to provide an objective assessment of a number of critical strategic trends in Iraq—and in that way help to advance public debate beyond where it currently sits.