"Hopefully this Buck won't stopone of the best damn MilBloggers to ever knock sand from his boots." -- The Mudville Gazette

17 February 2007


"C is for Congress, not good enough for me."
Specialist Dan "the Man" Walker and friend brandish their Victory Fists while taking a breather on an Iraqi sofa during clearing ops in Baghdad, fall 2006

There is hardly such a thing as a war in which it makes no difference who wins.
-George Orwell

They say on Capitol Hill if you don't like the bellwether, just wait a few minutes. It may be a congresswoman's prerogative to change her mind, but Thelma & Louise couldn't wait to take on Saddam Hussein's Iraq in 2002; though now that it's "George Bush's Iraq" they're worse than that guy in Memento with the perpetual short-term memory. Newspeak your mind, and the rest will follow.

We no longer support the war; we have never supported the war.

Big Brother, where art thou? 'O, there you are.

But just when it finally occurs to Iraqi leaders to start closing off their borders with Iran and Syria to staunch the constant influx of foreign illegals, President Bush's "first instinctual" is to "proposition a guest worker program for undocumented insurgence." What, no martyr left behind? Hmm, maybe not such a bad idea, really. Give us your poor, your tired, your befuddled masses yearning to eat hot lead from an AC-130 Spectre gunship...

Meanwhile back in Gotcha City, the World's Greatest Derivative Body spent three stemwinding days of debate over their unbinding nonsolution for Iraq. But really, what's to debate? Their firmness of purpose over the last four years has been about as resolute and binding as Army Lieutenant Watada's Oath of Allegiance. Ironically, one of my own New Year's resolutions (also nonbinding, mind you) was to quit being surprised by the utter uselessness of our elected profiles in discouragement.

But lest anyone forget, they support their tropes -- troops! They love the troops! Yay troops!

Unlikely as it seems, it turns out there is the occasional House Rep. with some actual timber in his member. "People don’t like losers," says Indiana Congressman Mike Pence, helping to explain the perpetually sour approval numbers of his colleagues. "But they like quitters even less." You know, I checked the latest Zogby poll and it turns out he's right. Here's the breakdown within the unpopularity vote:
  • Lawyers -- 23%
  • Losers -- 8%
  • Lobbyists -- 12%
  • Taxes -- 34%
  • Hurricanes -- 19%
  • Congress -- 38%
  • Quitters -- 9%
  • Lawyers who used to be in Congress but are now lobbyists -- 46%
  • John Kerry -- 11%
[Totals exceed 100% due to the patented Zogby Poll probability matrix that relies heavily on Tarot cards and Yahtzee dice.]

Actually, losers and quitters are pretty much in a statistical dead heat, which is fitting due to the fact that losing and quitting more often than not leads to the same result. When Orwell said that "the quickest way of ending a war is to lose it," he just as easily could have substituted "the easiest way of losing a war is to quit it."
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), that
(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and
(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on Jan. 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.
The measure passed 246-182, with the complicity of 17 House Republicans. Ouch. That last part stings.

So does this mean they do want us to succeed or they don't? Well hey, at least they're going to keep "supporting and protecting" us! Whew, that's a load off.

But did I miss something, or did 246 of our co-commanders-in-chief just preemptively censure a "troop surge" that has yet to even take effect? As my fellow Geronimo buddies used to say, too many Cochises, not enough Indians.

"This may become the first time in the history of the United States Congress that it has voted to send a new commander into battle and then voted to oppose his plan that is necessary to succeed in that battle." I'll allow that President Bush is no historian, but I'm pretty sure he's correct. If the Pelosi Bunch is so sure of their position, why did they not put their mouths where our money is and reject Gen. Petraeus outright, coax Wesley Clark out of retirement with a vintage "We Like Ike" campaign button, and then withhold funds and turn out the lights, roll over, and go to sleep?

I'm sorry, hon, is the war giving you a headache? Every time I hear Pork Chop Hillary delivering a speech in her trademark claws-on-chalkboard falsetto I retain a small measure of sympathy for Bill. I feel your pain, Bubba. Really, I do.

But the pigeonholing tonsilhawks in Congress see no contra in their diction. Love the postman, hate the mail. It's the same logic that underpins their entire foreign policy. If you ignore it, it will go away.

They're already wagging their fingers and wringing their hands over what they see as our mission creep into a war footing with Iran. But Iranian influence is already playing war footsie with our soldiers in the field, and has been for quite some time. Every street gawker and beat walker in Baghdad knows this, as well as anyone who's ever rode in convoys hit with Iranian-imported EFPs, less commonly known as Express From Persia's.

But don't expect any stalwart leadership on this thorny issue from the Hill, the majority of whom are clearly more concerned with CYOA than V-GWOT. Or as Confucius say, faced with what is right, to leave undone show lack of courage.

When viewed from home, war not determine who in right. War only determine who on Left.

09 February 2007


Another terrorist plot foiled! Insurgent prodigy Abu Assad al-Barney surrenders to coalition forces moments before releasing deadly Sentox nerve gas contained within his Improvised Explosive Diaper.
photo by Buck Sargent

If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will.
-Hillary Rodham Clinton

Just when you think we're finally turning the tables in Iraq, the timetables turn back. More troops (or rather, same troops, longer tour), increased commitment, same expected fit thrown by those who'd just as soon plug their ears, look the other way and chant la la la la la I can't hear you......

The President has since warmed to the idea of once again setting benchmarks for the Iraqi government. Senior administration officials who wish to remain anonymous (due to the fact that I'm inventing them out of whole cloth a la the MSM) insist that these new benchmarks are completely different from the old benchmarks because this time the plan is to actually hold the Iraqis accountable to them. And despite still being nearly two years out, the presidential campaign season is already under way with Iraq as public issue # wahed:

"This was his decision to go to war [nevermind that I voted for it -- twice] with an ill-conceived plan and an incompetently executed strategy," said the Woman Who Would Eat Her Young To Be President during a recent early campaign swing through Iowa. "We [meaning "I"] expect him to extricate our country from this before he leaves office," she added. "The president has said this is going to be left to his successor... I think it is the height of irresponsibility and I really resent it." [Since I'm so clearly going to succeed him in office -- have you seen my fundraising numbers?]

What's more, the latest polls show that if the presidential election were held today a majority of Americans would be too confused by this fact to vote. Though if held on the regular date, er... okay, same result. But as an old platoon sergeant of mine liked to say, what's changed? Possibly nothing, potentially everything. Ready or not, here we come. Again.

Sure, "clear, hold, and build" has been tried before: we cleared out previously rough neighborhoods one by one, but with virtually no enemy resistance because they knew we were coming and simply shifted their arms and operations elsewhere until we left. The "clearing" isn't the problem, it's the "holding and building" that requires a significant presence of (honest) Iraqi forces that simply have not yet been widely available. They may still not be widely available, but every day that goes by another young Iraqi soldier or peace officer gains valuable experience that cannot be bought on the cheap.

It required three long years for an American born, educated, and (relatively) young man such as myself to obtain the necessary training, maturity, and intestinal fortitude required to strive, thrive, and survive on the mean streets of Iraq and then make it home again to tell the tale. I needed every advantage in the Western world just to learn my job and perform it well under pressure. But the Iraqis are learning on the fly, their range time taking place at Adhamiyah Proving Ground rather than some posh government installation where the silhouette targets also pop up whack-a-mole style but lucky-for-them style don't shoot back. You cannot develop an NCO corps overnight, anymore than you can immediately conjure up 40,000 additional Special Forces troops with a wave of your Executive Wand (Candidate Kerry's words, not mine).

Sergeants are the backbone of any professional army, which is why Muslim armies have never won a conflict in recent memory except against other Muslim armies. (And even then, rather inconclusively). They've never had NCOs before precisely because NCOs limit your ability to do things like oppress your own people, wage wars of conquest, or spill actual blood for oil. (The clear difference between Mr. Hussein Goes to Kuwait and Operation Desert Storm).

But just as you can only learn by doing in Iraq, the only way you can continue to do is by learning. Up in Nineveh province last year we thought we were kicking ass and taking names--for the most part because we were. But we later made it down to Little Hades by the Euphrates in late '06 and realized that the Iraqi courts and political system was kicking those same names to the curb and handing them right back their asses. We'd been busting our own humps trying to inculcate the concept of rule of law (something their culture should be vaguely familiar with, especially considering they all but invented it) though we've seemed to have ended up cloning our own 9th Circuit Court of Appeasement instead. (Motto: "We serve to commute so criminals won't have to.")

Once you learn what works and what doesn't, it becomes easier and easier to fix the bugs, plug the leaks, and even game the system if you have to by necessity. Though two can play: it would also help to suspend the practice of Iraqi politicians and parley-ment members possessing the power of the perse', or what has often amounted to a line-item veto over critical aspects of our military operations in Baghdad.

Si vis pacem, perseverum per diem.

I can't begin to recall how many Sadr City raids and rescue attempts were scrubbed en route last fall due to disapproval that emanated from Mr. Maliki’s office in the final moments. Pretend as they may, our generals had not been calling the shots in the prosecution of the war to its fullest extent. You can fault El Jefe Arbusto all you want, but if his commanders on the ground truly had the flexibility to call the shots as they claimed to, then they deserve at least a Simba's share of the blame for the mess we're now a part of.

Maliki is showing signs of having learned his lesson the hard way, but we never should have allowed things to digress to that point. As long as American troops are on the ground, American commanders should be directing them. Giving the Iraqis full autonomy ASAP should be a priority, but it shouldn't be the priority. They've got to demonstrate they can handle it first. Your kid got his permit, great. Are you just going to toss him the keys to the 'Vette?

But lately it appears that positive developments are developing quite positively:

  • PM Maliki has been sounding off in interviews that the job he didn't really want in the first place isn't quite so fun anymore. "I wish my term was over" is a much healthier sign of future Iraqi democracy than "It's good to be king."
  • The codename for the latest Baghdad security operation is "Rule of Law," which is a step above the previous slogan "Pleased to Release You."
  • Corrupt ministry officials (redundant, I know) are finally being arrested and at least as of this writing are staying arrested.
  • The al-Sadrists are becoming disillusioned with al-Maliki as he no longer seems to be bending over backwards in order to win friends and make amends.
Speaking of the Sadrmasochists, one of the hallmarks of Jaish al-Mahdi has long been to emulate Chez Hezbollah by swaying the local Shiite populace to their side by offering public services and protection (racketeering to us; par for the course to Arab societies) that the new Iraqi government has struggled to provide from day one. And infiltration at the highest levels of the various ministries fits their al-modus operandi to a tee. Should this new hardball approach hold fast, expect to see other officials running for cover in the weeks to follow.It's possible Maliki has finally come to see that he can't have it both ways and play all sides against each other. Had this new attitude been in place in Baghdad last fall when my Stryker unit was still in country, it's likely we already would have gotten things under control. The deficiency lay not in military muscle but in sufficient levels of political spinal fluid to back it up. It doesn't do much good to roll up rogue elements if the Iraqi government is going to cave and make nice with them afterward, political will being the COIN of the realm or the sunni qua non of the entire counterinsurgency effort.

Which brings us to the ever-thorny issue of timetables: to set them or not to set them, that is the ?

[WARNING: Major deviation from conservative talk-radio pointy-talky to follow.]

The Bush administration has always been reluctant to set any hard and fast dates for downsizing the U.S. military force on the ground, even as we're now sprinting toward a finish line that's not quite yet in sight. As they've sought to avoid providing insurgents an impetus for their own strategic surge, their professed ideal has been for the enemy to wake up one day in the not-so-distant future all set for their morning anticonstitutional and come to the startling conclusion that despite all their best efforts and worst intentions of the last few years, ultimately they have lost their bloody fight for hearts and spines.

Sure sounds good on paper. But unless you love severe cost overrun -- which is what we currently have in spading traces -- we can wait around for Shia Happy People Holding Hands but all we're going to end up with is Stuck In the Middle East With Y'all. Every government project requires at least a working "complete-by" date or you end up building a Bridge to the 21st century to Nowhere.

While I am loathe to admit to agreeing with Sen. Clinton on anything not related to mutual disdain for her husband ("What in my background equips me to deal with evil and bad men?"), I must confess that the hands-down winner of American Midol is in my humble opinion ... (gulp) ... correct. She doesn't want this Iraq monkey on her back and neither do I, especially at a time when she'll be far too busy redesigning the shape of the Oval Office into a ♀, replacing all the missing "H's" in the West Wing keyboards, and beginning construction on Bill's leakproof and pressfree Underground Tailroad for White House interns. Who has time for terrorism -- least of all "wars on terrorism" -- dragging you under when there's universal heath care plans to forcefeed the public with? While her campaign calculus could change once she's secured the Angry Left nomination, currently she's running on a platform of "I win, Iraq loses." Personally, I think she means it.

Regardless, by that point I wouldn't want to find Hillary on her back any more than Bill would. I don't trust another Commander-in-Clinton with an issue of such vital importance to our future national security, and leaving this up to a 50/50 electoral coin toss is simply too much of a gamble. To anyone who thinks HRC is unelectable, recall just how close JJFHK ("Jengis John" Forbes Heinz-Kerry) came to occupying the wrong desk in the wrong place at the wrong time.

For this very reason, President Bush must either secretly or publicly convince the Iraqis that both his and their fates are intertwined: When Mr. Bush's time runs out, so likely will the American gravy train of ground troops. Other than the same air and logistic support we routinely supply our allies around the world when needed, U.S. combat forces at the present levels will return stateside when their ranking superior retires to his ranch.

To say so publicly may indeed embolden the bad guys to lay low and wait us out, but isn't that exactly what we need right now? Time? Time for the Iraqis to strengthen their foundations, time for their institutions to work out the kinks, time for the people to finally see that self-government doesn't necessarily have to mean self-immolation. And frankly, I don't see many in the Republican field possessing the political cojones to inherit right out of the gate the kind of poll numbers that these days come with having the courage of your convictions. ("Senator Lieberman, the new RNC chairman is on line five...") Taking the Neverending Story angle away from the opposition's rhetorical arsenal may be the only way of halting their advance and preventing a Congressional rerun of That '70s Show. Like it or not, we may have to preemptively abandon Iraq in order to ultimately save it.

Various Iraqi officials from Maliki to President Talibani have routinely made their own pie-in-the-sky predictions for full handover of responsibility, with the PM's latest professing the need for another six months to a year. Wait, but didn't they say "six months to a year" a year and six months ago? Really, who's kidding who here? If they're ever going to succeed on their own, they have to be allowed to fail on their own. You can't guarantee they won't stumble and fall, you just have to hope you've prepared them the best you could. "Training wheels are potentially the least painful way to learn," say cycling experts. "But can also be the slowest."

Remember what the Gipper used to say about our dealings with the Soviets? "Trust, but verify." It's a bit of an understatement that our Iraqi friends have more at risk than skinned knees or wounded pride, so we should allow them the additional time and breathing space for their government that they've asked for, reverse our light footprint strategy--footprints in which Iraqis weren't yet ready to follow in--and then start the clock. ("Alright fellas, you've got 1 year, 10 months, and 27 days... don't waste it.") Because regardless of whether we end up with the Hildabeast or even the Senior Citizen Senator from Arizona, unless we want to see this remain the enduring symbol for Iraq's security right up through the 2028 Baghdad Olympics, perhaps it's time we finally held them to their word and to their obligations as a free people.

Ready or not, there we go.

"Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed." -- Abraham Lincoln