Preserve, Protect and Defend
| Daily news reports highlighting the events in Iraq take us just so far and depending on the news network you watch or the newspaper you read, you may or may not be getting an accurate picture of what is, in fact, happening on the battlefields in the War on Terror.
According to those military members in the Iraqi theatre of operation, the U.S. decision to pour 30,000 additional troops into the fight has had an encouraging effect. General David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, said his senior officers and those on the ground in Iraq point to a sharp drop in Baghdad attacks, down to a quarter of what they were, as evidence of its effectiveness.
Recently, I held an in-depth discussion with author Richard S. Lowry (Marines in the Garden of Eden - The True Story of Seven Bloody Days in Iraq), who has discussed "the surge" of forces in Iraq with Gen. Petraeus and is privy to military communiqus highlighting the daily operations of our military troops in the fray of battle. "Upon arrival in Iraq, one of Gen. Petraeus' first recommendations to Washington was to send in five new Infantry Combat Brigades, and that addition of forces was quickly dubbed the surge. I was able to interview Gen. Petraeus about the time he went to Iraq to start that surge. It took the military about six months to get all the forces in place. They moved about one brigade a month. All the forces for the new plan were not in Iraq and available to do the job until the summer of 2007."
Many have asked why the surge was necessary; why not just continue to fight the war like it had been directed by senior military leaders all along Or was it because military commanders weren't doing the job effectively Lowry explained that some commanders have done better than others, but the military successes we are seeing in Anbar province today, for instance, is not due to any one commander or unit but rather is due to one long, hard fight by the Multinational forces since 2003. "Every soldier, every unit and every commander contributed a piece to the success we see today. Each success has helped build the next success to get to the point where we are today. The commanders in 2005 could not have had accomplished the achievements we're seeing with the surge because it was a different fight then. It would be like somebody asking, 'Why couldn't we win World War II in 1941' Because we first had to dismantle the German's military capability in Europe; the same is true in Iraq. We couldn't solve the problems of a generation living under tyranny overnight. We've had to do it one step at a time to get to the point in history we are today."
Many troops are now on their third and fourth deployments to Iraq, and some believe that we are stretching the morale and effectiveness of our troops wafer-thin. Lowry doesn't believe so. "Our guys are amazing! The Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines who I've spoken with are all itching at the opportunity to go back. They are all dedicated to completing this task. I'm talking in general; I would think there are some individuals who are indeed burned out, while there are others who will stay until the job is done. On average, our American military forces want the job done, and while it is an added stress on them and their families, they are professionals and know what needs to be accomplished and they gladly do their duty."
Now and again, we hear and see these Islamo-terrorists tell us how they will destroy our way of life in Iraq and at home in the U.S., in an attempt to frighten the population with their psychological endeavors. The results show that after the surge it was a different story; many running in the face of danger rather than meeting our forces face-to-face. Were these people ever a force to reckon with or was their bravado all a faade Lowry said, "I was watching a TV show last night, and an attorney on the show said, 'You're what we call in Texas 'all hat and no cattle.'' They realize the only way they can win against an American enemy is psychologically. So, they try to do all they can to win and level the playing field. I do speaking engagements about the surge, and there's a piece I always share with the audience. It's a portion of the new Counter-Insurgency Field Manual that Gen. Petraeus helped write. This is the first paragraph of the manual:"
"The United States possesses overwhelming conventional military superiority. This capability has pushed its enemies to fight U.S. forces unconventionally, mixing modern technology with ancient techniques of insurgency and terrorism. Most enemies either do not try to defeat the United States with conventional operations or do not limit themselves to purely military means. They know they cannot compete with U.S. forces on those terms. Instead, they try to exhaust U.S. national will aiming to win by undermining and outlasting public support."
"That's what they're doing when they behead an American citizen on television. Eventually, it started working against them when these terrorists received negative world opinion over their actions. But that's the kind of war they're fighting and that includes a lot of psychological operations; all this blustering and threatening they're doing.
"We have seen them take action; let's remember 9/11. They will do anything to defeat us, and it's not over yet. Gen. Petraeus has said to me time and time again, 'We're not stopping; we're not backing off and we haven't won this thing yet.' We haven't turned any corners and, at this point, there is no light at the end of the tunnel. Things are getting better, but we're not letting up yet. The enemies in Iraq, what are called anti-Iraqi forces, are being beaten down and they're on the run today. I believe that the ones who have gone to ground, right before they think they're going to lose, they'll stand up and fight again. When that happens, there'll be a resurgence in violence, but as soon as we defeat them that final time then the fighting in Iraq will be pretty much all over. That could possibly happen just before our Presidential election this year."
Earlier this month, the top U.S. commander in northern Iraq said that a nationwide operation launched against insurgents in Iraq was meeting less resistance than expected, but that troops would pursue the militants until they were dead or pushed out of the country. Maj. Gen. Mark P. Hertling told reporters in Baghdad that in his area of control alone 24,000 American troops, 50,000 members of the Iraq army and 80,000 Iraqi police were taking part in the offensive against al-Qaida in Iraq.
There has been talk on Capitol Hill and on the network news talk shows of whether the troops should leave or dig in for a lengthy stay in the region. Lowry believes we'll have a military presence in Iraq for many years to come, much like we still have American military stationed in Germany, Japan and South Korea. "They'll be there for a long time, but that's not the key. The main question is 'Will they be under fire' I really believe that within the next year, they will not be under fire. They'll be garrisoned and in support of the Iraqi government and military. One of the biggest challenges for the Iraqi military today is to develop a logistics capability; today they have none. In Fallujah, Iraqi forces showed up without food. They just went into the local homes and took what they needed. They slaughtered the livestock and ate it on the spot. They simply lived off the land; their idea of logistics is as modern as the 3rd century. So, that's one of the areas that will take some time to develop. Even if we have no combat forces there, we'll have to help them logistically for many years to come."
The surrounding nations offer a real challenge today and will continue to make the region volatile in the future. Lowry said those nations will continue to impact our presence, "That is the key to what our real strategy was in Iraq. The real strategy wasn't to find the weapons of mass destruction but to drive a stake in the heart of Islamic terrorism. Iraq is the center of Islamic civilization, the Fertile Crescent; it's the center of human civilization. The real reason we went to war in Iraq was to liberate the people from a tyrant and establish a foothold of democracy in the center of Islamic fundamentalism. By being successful at that, the hope is that democracy and freedom will flourish in that area. Most of the governments in the surrounding countries don't want democracy in the region; and they especially don't want it in their own country. The more they hate democracy, the more they will fight against our success. Historically, Iran and Iraq have been enemies and that will continue to be a problem area. Iran today is surrounded, and they feel threatened. There are American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and that paranoia isn't going away any time soon." There are other nations in the region we will be able to deal with; primarily Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Jordan that have traditionally held a pro-American sentiment. Lowry said the real problems will come from Syria and Iran.
During the Vietnam War of the 1960s, the American population's daily exposure to the network media reports made them mentally immune and desensitized them to the critical aspects of what was actually happening in that country. Progress seemed to be unattainable, and today's media reporting is very similar to what we experienced back then. The media isn't telling the American people any constructive stories about progress in the war so the population is becoming hardened. Lowry believes that there won't be much difference this year, and we need to be selective and relentless when educating ourselves about the current situation in the region. "The media won't touch it because violent action from the insurgents is starting to slow down as a result of the surge. The news is sensationalism, and if it is a story that doesn't 'explode or bleed' you won't see it on the news. Today's modern media is a business, and they have no charter, whatsoever; to inform the American people about what's happening. Their only goal is to get more viewers so they can charge more for the commercials they broadcast. That's it. You can't fault them for running a profitable business. As we have more success in Iraq, you'll hear a story here and there about a hospital opening or a soccer game in Fallujah. But if you don't hear much on the news about what's going on in Iraq, things are going well."
The surge has done more than simply add more fire power to the force already in country. More than just adding more boots on the ground, Petraeus' strategy called for the establishment of smaller combat outposts throughout the country to encourage soldiers to get to know the local population and get closer to the insurgency. In a press report from Iraq recently, a young solider was quoted as saying, "When we got here al-Qaida was able to walk right past us - we didn't know they were al-Qaida, it's not like they had a uniform. But now we do know them, and we can hunt them down." The fact that our forces are spending more personal time with the people in the individual neighborhoods has allowed them to gain trust and determine who the "good guys" and "bad guys" are.
As the 2008 political year progresses, the topic of the Iraqi conflict is debated now and again, but it's surprisingly not as big a topic as issues like healthcare or immigration policy. Just so you know, Washington has projected the withdrawal of five units by July, which would bring the number of US troops in Iraq down from 160,000 currently to about 130,000 -- the level before the "surge" was launched last February. The surge is apparently working. That's the good news; but whether it will be remembered as a turning point for our gallant military or just a pause in this violent period in Iraq's history depends on the Iraqis, not the American forces assigned to the region.
| | |
|
