What
You're Missing in our subscriber-only CounterPunch newsletter
Special Issue: the Collapse of America
Paul Craig
Roberts gives CounterPunchers the definitive data on what is
happening to jobs in America. Not just blue collar jobs. Middle-class,
white collar jobs. Roberts'
stunning probe is the first true picture of what the U.S. economy
is fast becoming and of the savage class wars that lie ahead.
Plus Mike
Ferner on what it really means to investigate war crimes in Iraq. CounterPunch Online is read by millions of viewers
each month! But
remember, we are funded solely by the subscribers to the
print edition of CounterPunch. Please support this website by buying a subscription
to our newsletter, which contains fresh material you won't find
anywhere else, or by making a donation towards the cost of this
online edition.
Remember contributions are tax-deductible.Click
here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please:Subscribe
Now!
The Iraq war is the first in American
history to steadily worsen our national security. Our generals,
through action and acquiescence, despite their sworn duty to
protect the nation, have played no small role in endangering
America. This is all the more paradoxical and alarming because
some thirty years ago they determined to go to war only if national
security was at stake. The military--and perhaps only the military--can
get us out of the calamity and reorganize the foundering war
on terror. They must bear in mind where their duty truly lies
and call for a rapid withdrawal from Iraq.
The effort to westernize Iraq
and the region has failed. Insurgents and foreign fighters are
as strong as ever and demonstrate a surprising ability to adapt
tactically. Meanwhile, the coalition grows smaller and smaller.
There is little chance that al Malaki's coalition will be able
to do anything but issue proclamations from a Baghdad fortress
to a heedless and increasingly violence-prone populace. Sectarian
violence has become so intense in recent weeks that it is likely
only a matter of time until one horrendous incident or another
triggers full and open combat between sectarian forces. Reports
are surfacing that Shi'as in the coalition are pressing for partitioning,
which would raise still more problems for our occupation.
The news on the overall war
on terror, now obscured by events in Iraq and Lebanon, is almost
as grim. Our ideology-based efforts to modernize Afghanistan
have led, predictably, to widespread anti-Westernism, which has
brought about a strong Taliban resurgence in the South, where
NATO troops are taking increasing casualties. There's little
doubt that voters back in Europe will look at their losses and
press to withdraw from a failing mission led by a ham-fisted
and increasingly reckless ally. Elsewhere, the group we back
in Somalia has been driven from the capital by an Islamist group
supported by Eritrea and opposed by Ethiopia. We may have yet
another war on our hands. The introduction of over a hundred
thousand US troops into the Middle East has breathed new life
into al Qaeda, and many countries in the region fear that skilled
jihadists, fresh from Iraq, are returning home to ply their trades.
Long-standing allies have seen
us as a bit haughty since World War Two, but now they see us
as irresponsible, and even dangerous. Our tactless policies seem
devised not to transform the Middle East into a peaceful, pro-West
region, but to bring about lasting enmity between Islam and the
West--a clash of civilizations by design. Russia and China, whose
antagonisms reach back centuries and even thrived during decades
of ideological affinity, look with concern upon the behavior
of the remaining superpower and seek rapprochement with each
other, including joint military measures--presumably not aimed
to deter Mongolian or Tajik aggression. We may be at the outset
of a diplomatic revolution in which the US is no longer trusted
with leadership, indeed many heads of state pursue policies to
contain the United States or, worse, keep us bogged down in the
Middle East.
Our generals deserve considerable
blame. They surrendered, with hardly a murmur, the principle
of going to war only when America's security was at stake, which
had enjoyed doctrine status under Weinberger and Powell. The
former is deceased, the latter disgraced. They stood at parade
rest though perhaps not at ease, as politicians who had adroitly
avoided military service--while they were chasin' Charlie -
told them that our invasion of Iraq would be welcomed and swiftly
lead to the flowering of democracy throughout the region. An
institution that assigns the writings of T. E. Lawrence and Vo
Nguyen Giap as routinely as a seminary assigns those of Augustine
and Aquinas could not produce generals or even many lieutenants
credulous enough to believe these think-tank scenarios. The military's
post-Vietnam writings abounded with assertions of the generals'
solemn duty to oppose unwise military ventures, through resignations
if need be. It became a credo in service academies and staff
colleges. In 2003, our generals had neither the courage of their
youths nor that of their convictions.
In Iraq, our generals put aside
the lessons of counter-insurgency and rely on massive firepower,
which even with precision guided munitions devastated large portions
of Fallujah and Ramadi, creating ruins reminiscent of Stalingrad
and Hue. They have made piles of rubble and called it victory.
They have allowed politicians in Washington to delay combat operations
in order to reduce casualties at election time. They round up
thousands of innocent Iraqis unfortunate enough simply to be
near a car-bombing, detain them for lengthy periods, and submit
them to systematic humiliation and torture. The ratio of future
insurgents to actual ones caught up in these sweeps is likely
appallingly high. Ably displaying the mordancy war imparts, GIs
call one detainment center, "Jihad University." We
are more despised in Iraq today than we were three years ago,
more than we ever were in Vietnam.
It is time our generals speak
out. Our politicians, with rare and estimable exceptions, spout
only insipid dialog from page-worn scripts. Most of the public,
urged on by media gunsels, simply cheers or hisses from their
seats, unable to feel personally involved in events and unable
to comprehend the unfolding tragedy--obvious though it is to
those who studied and participated in past ones. Having played
a leading and unappealing role in the unfolding tragedy, our
generals can offer hope for a bold reappraisal and a painful
recommendation.
Unfortunately, there are too
many junior and field-grade officers who entered the service
in the years of the great contest with the Evil Empire, men and
women filled with national pride approaching militarism and a
can-do spirit well into naiveté. They lack the historical
judgment and sense of limits that a previous war impressed, at
considerable cost, onto the minds of men now honored by three
or four stars on their epaulets. There are more than a few who
look back on past decades of civil-military harmony and wonder
if their partner has failing senses or is now enamored by another
and no longer faithful to America. Heretofore, a general or two
have spoken out, but only in timid words questioning postwar
planning, criticizing civilian meddling, and lamenting insufficient
troops.
Their demurrals are true, but
irrelevant and pusillanimous. It is difficult to believe such
men earned Combat Infantryman Badges. The war was a mistake from
the moment we crossed the Iraqi frontier three and a half years
ago, from its inception, from the moment the administration advanced
the preposterous notion that an American invasion of an Arab
country would result in anything but a vicious guerrilla war.
It is time for our senior officers,
active and retired, men who understand war and cannot be daunted
by the "cut and run" gimmick, to make it clear to the
public and the politicians, perhaps through a joint statement,
that the war in Iraq is lost, that we are squandering young lives,
and that we must withdraw in short order. Having done this, they
can help devise a thoughtful strategy to combat al Qaeda, a strategy
based on military realities and regional knowledge, not on ethereal
ideology or the schemes of think tanks.
Our generals owe this measure
of patriotic dissent--the term is not simply a leftist catch
phrase--to America's military institutions, which are badly overcommitted
and rapidly losing public trust. They owe it to the nation and
Constitution they swore to defend, which supersedes subservience
or acquiescence to any administration, let alone one as unschooled
in world politics and military matters as the present one. Most
of all, they owe it to the young men and women whose lives they
swore some thirty years ago never again to waste in an unwinnable
war. Failing that, they might have the decency to return their
Combat Infantryman Badges.
CounterPunch
Speakers Bureau Sick of sit-on-the-Fence speakers, tongue-tied and timid?
CounterPunch Editors Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St Clair
are available to speak forcefully on ALL the burning issues,
as are other CounterPunchers seasoned in stump oratory. Call
CounterPunch Speakers Bureau, 1-800-840-3683. Or email beckyg@counterpunch.org.
