[Mb-civic] THOUGHTFUL AND GREAT: Our Dangerous, Growing Divide - Michael O'Hanlon - Washington Post Op-Ed

[William Swiggard]

Our Dangerous, Growing Divide

By Michael O'Hanlon
Monday, November 28, 2005; A21

In recent months a civil-military divide has emerged in the United 
States over the war in Iraq. Unlike much of the Iraq debate between 
Democrats and Republicans, it is over the present and the future rather 
than the past. Increasingly, civilians worry that the war is being lost, 
or at least not won. But the military appears as confident as ever of 
ultimate victory. This difference of opinion does not amount to a crisis 
in national resolve, and it will not radically affect our Iraq policy in 
the short term. But it is insidious and dangerous nonetheless. To the 
extent possible, the gap should be closed.

In fact, objective realities in Iraq suggest that the military is too 
optimistic -- but also that the public and the strategic community are 
becoming too fatalistic. Neither of these outlooks should be left 
unchecked. To the extent that military planners see Iraq through a rosy 
prism, they may not favor making policy changes when they should. And if 
we somehow lose in Iraq, the military may collectively blame the 
national media and the American body politic for a defeat that occurred 
on the streets of Iraq. On the other hand, if the public becomes too 
negative about the war, calls for a premature departure could grow 
louder and louder -- and have a real policy effect, if not through 
George Bush directly then through Congress.

The military's enthusiasm about the course of the war may be natural 
among those four-star officers in leadership positions, for it has 
largely become their war. Their careers have become so intertwined with 
the campaign in Iraq that truly independent analysis may be difficult. 
But it is striking that most lower-ranking officers seem to share the 
irrepressible optimism of their superiors. In talking with at least 50 
officers this year, I have met no more than a handful expressing any 
real doubt about the basic course of the war.

Contrast that with the rest of the country. The polls are clear; the 
American public is deeply worried and increasingly pessimistic. The 
numbers are not (yet) abysmal; 30 to 40 percent still seem bullish on 
trends in Iraq. But even among those who strongly support the Bush 
administration, doubts are emerging. Among defense and Middle East 
analysts, my own informal survey suggests at least as negative an 
overall outlook, with decidedly more pessimism than optimism. Even among 
centrists who supported the war or saw the case for it, optimism is now 
hard to find. Many expect things to get worse, even much worse, in the 
coming months and years.

Members of both camps have plenty of evidence to support their view. But 
the risk is that each group is starting to selectively ignore 
information that does not fit with its increasingly firm conceptions 
about how things are going.

For example, military leaders (and many Bush administration officials) 
point to some good news on the economic front: growing gross domestic 
product, bustle on the streets, creation of small businesses, adequate 
availability of most household fuels, gradually improving national 
infrastructure for water and sewage, more children in school, more 
Internet usage, and lots more telephone service. They also note the 
gradual improvement in Iraqi security forces, with 30,000 or more now 
capable of largely independent operations. And they rightly observe the 
remarkable progress made in drafting the Iraqi constitution. A can-do 
military officer aware of such information, and also tactically 
succeeding day in and day out in finding and killing insurgents, is 
likely to see a trajectory toward victory.

But is that really what is happening? Growing GDP is good for those with 
access to the twin golden rivers flowing through Iraq -- not the Tigris 
and Euphrates, but oil revenue and foreign aid. The rest of the economy 
is, on the whole, weak. Unemployment remains in the 30 to 40 percent 
range, and the psychologically most critical type of infrastructure -- 
electricity -- has barely improved since Saddam Hussein fell. Iraqi 
security forces are getting better, but they are also losing more than 
200 men a month to the insurgency. Civilian casualties in Iraq from the 
war are as high as ever; combine that with the region's highest crime 
rates, and Iraq has clearly become a much more violent society since 
Hussein fell. Tactically, the resistance appears to be outmaneuvering 
the best military in the world in its use of improvised explosive 
devices. And politically, every move forward toward greater Sunni Arab 
participation in the political process seems to be accompanied by at 
least one step back.

In the short term, of course, this civil-military divide matters only so 
much. The Bush administration has great political leeway in how it 
prosecutes the Iraq war. Officers in the field are not so stubborn as to 
resist smart changes in policy when the need becomes obvious. And on the 
other side of things, even those members of Congress and the public who 
think we are stuck in stalemate generally oppose radical alternatives to 
present policy.

But the dangers of a growing divide are real. In a year we will have a 
new Congress, and if the public has become fatalistic about Iraq by 
then, Congress may assert itself in demanding rapid moves toward 
complete withdrawal -- be they prudent or not. By contrast, if military 
officers see the good news more than the bad, they may feel increasingly 
cut off from the rest of the country. They may fail to understand why 
their recruiting efforts are not always appreciated by parents. They may 
be too reluctant to change tactics away from overly muscular combat 
operations that have accorded insufficient emphasis to protecting the 
Iraqi population. They may not feel enough urgency about advocating 
changes in policy that are needed there -- like much better protection 
for Iraqi security forces, which remain badly under-armored, and a jobs 
program to directly target the high unemployment rate.

Penetrating and respectful civil-military debates are difficult to 
conduct, especially in a time of war. But we need one now.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/27/AR2005112700941.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20051128/040e2fdb/attachment.htm