Support the Troops by Supporting Their Mission

Recently a letter was sent from Iraq, written by a soldier currently deployed in Baghdad, to members of Congress who are publicly critical of the war effort. Read all of it here; but here are snippets worth reading by those who seek to gain partisan advantage by sniping at the mission of our deployed troops and their supporters.

As you persist with your thoughts that this war cannot be won, consider the notion of past military victories: The First War with Iraq, the defense of South Vietnam, the landing at Inchon, Iwo Jima, the Second Battle of the Marne, Gettysburg, New Orleans, and Yorktown. What made these battles significant for American forces was not only the skillful tactics of the troops, it also consisted of the support of a political entity whose primary goal was to win, not to participate in petty, partisan politics. Nobody questioned President Franklin Roosevelt's strategy by saying we needed to pull out of World War II because he did not foresee the intensity of the Japanese on the South-Pacific islands. There was no doubt about fighting the Germans, even though they did not attack the U.S. Absent were the calls that President Woodrow Wilson engage in self-defeating reflection by apologizing for the brutality of trench-warfare. General George Washington held firm over a period of seven years in his overall strategy, despite early defeats. Yet, they all believed in what was right and their persistence proved successful. The fight for freedom is a relatively recent phenomenon, therefore, it is not widely accepted and it is a difficult process.

The American soldiers are not concerned about arguments that Saddam Hussein's payments to terrorists did not contribute to September 11th. They do not want to hear that Hussein's acquiescence to the presence of the barbarian Zarqawi in Iraq in 2001 was not a threat to our country. They are not going to analyze whether Hussein's "secular government" would ever conspire with religious fanatics to attack the U.S. More importantly, they do not consider the war in Iraq as a "distraction" from the efforts in Afghanistan. Yet, this is the anti-war mantra heard ever since the Islamo-fascists had the temerity to attack American troops. These are the same people who crashed jetliners into innocent Americans and you want to withdraw because they shoot back. What did you expect? This is war. Unfortunately, we were going to experience losses. Each loss is tragic, but each loss represents the yearning not to allow another innocent American to be attacked on U.S. soil ever again. Their lives were not lost in vain.

Never has a nation invaded another for the purpose of improving the style of government in the occupied land, while simultaneously respecting the lives and resources of the people. Naturally, there is a self-serving national security concern that is the overriding issue; however, the American military truly believes that it is also improving the lives of the Iraqi people. After three successful elections never before witnessed in this part of the world, American service-members have much to be proud of.

However, you portray the war as an imperialistic adventure along the lines of Napoleon. As Camillus saved Rome, you play the role of a present day Manlius. Envious of success, along with a desire to contradict the President at every opportunity, you conduct yourselves in ways that reflect your self-centered, degraded pursuit of power. How shallow it must be to sacrifice the honor of the American military and all of its accomplishments in Iraq at the altar of the 2006 and 2008 elections.

You constantly refer to the "failure" and "defeat" of Vietnam to justify your criticism of the current war. It is an unusual thought that you revel in the so-called defeat in Vietnam and optimistically predict the same self-induced conclusion in Iraq. To paraphrase John S. Mill: War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The degraded state of patriotic feeling, which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. A man who cares about nothing more than himself is a selfish figure who has no chance at being free, unless provided by others better than himself.

When you criticize the President and the war effort, you are criticizing every service-member in this war. Please do not patronize the public with the often heard, "I support the troops, but I don't support the war." You cannot support the troops without supporting the war because their mission in life right now is to win the war, provide security for our country, and return home safely with honor.

However, you make that realization more difficult each passing day. Your talk of "there aren't enough troops", "the President lied", or, "we need a strategic withdrawal" is tiring and self-defeating, as well as contradictory. If you have legitimate concerns about achieving success in the war, perhaps you should discuss them with the President behind closed doors. Military exercises and combat operations require an analysis for lessons learned. Constructive criticism is expected and beneficial, but never is it acceptable when it is situated on the world stage for political purposes as it places the overall mission in danger.

The constant carping and criticism by Democratic leadership, who ignore the success stories coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan as related by military experts who see the day-to-day progress, is dangerously close to treason. Especially when journalists helpfully spin it some more. Cassandra, writing at TigerHawk's blog, cuts to the heart of this issue:

When Colonel Danny Bubp, himself a Marine, had the colossal nerve to express publicly to his Congresswoman what the vast majority of Marines think privately (that withdrawing from the field of battle and reneging on our promises would be a cowardly act incompatible with over 200 years of proud Marine Corps history) Rep. Harold Ford charged across the House floor in anger and had to be physically restrained. How dare one of those uppity military types voice an opinion? Who let him in here? House Democrats then tried to have his words stricken from the record before thinking better of it.

The media then launched a ridiculous smear campaign complete with unfounded allegations that Rep. ("Mean Jean") Schmidt "misquoted" Bubp. In reality, the only alteration between her remark and Bubp's quote was her substitution of Murtha's name for "that congressman who sponsored the bill" - a change that altered the meaning of Bubp's comment not one iota. They also tried to make hay of Bubp's statement that he never meant to imply Murtha was a coward. Well of course he didn't. Unless English is your second language, a plain reading of his comment (difficult, as most news accounts of the story omitted the quote and simply informed readers Schmidt had called Murtha a coward) makes it quite obvious that was never his intent. Schmidt and Bubp have agreed on this point from day one.

Transforming Iraq and Afghanistan, from rule by tyranny to the beginnings of democracy, in just a few years is a tremendous accomplishment. This has been accomplished, not by oil-for-food or appeasement, but by fighting Al Queda where they live and work. And, at the same time, engaging in nation building. Our troops have reopened schools and hospitals, supported local leaders as they identify infrastructure deficiencies, and gained the trust of local folks who defy terrorist death threats to vote in national elections. And, our troops have voices. If only our leaders would listen. And learn. JCS Chairman, General Peter Pace, suggested as much in a question & answer session following a speech last December:

QUESTION: Thanks for taking my question. Sir, it seems like the press and the media have one perception of how the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is being conducted. And on the other end of the spectrum we have our government and the military's perception of how the war is being carried out in Iraq and Afghanistan. In my view, there's a gap. In other words, those perceptions do not match. What are we doing about it? And specifically, in the victory outline, I noticed there could be a lot more reference to informational use as an instrument of power. And I'd like your comments, please, sir.

GEN. PETER PACE: Yeah. Thanks.

I think you are correct that we have not -- we, guys like me -- have not articulated well enough what is happening in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

We made a conscious decision in June of '04, when the Iraqi government took over sovereignty, that we would step back a little bit in the press to do the proper thing, which was to let the Iraqi government speak for itself publicly. And that was a good idea. But as a result of stepping back, I think we may have stepped back a little too far inside our own country with regard to explaining to our own people what we were doing. And I think you can do both; I think you can have the Iraqi government, properly so, speaking about what they're doing for their own country and their own people, and still have U.S. military leaders, in our case, talk about what the U.S. military was doing in a way that explains to the American public the progress that's being made.

So, it's incumbent not only on folks like me in Washington, but also on lieutenant colonels, and colonels, and captains, and lieutenants, and lance corporals and corporals. When they come home, we should be encouraging them inside their local communities to take the opportunity to talk to the local newspapers, to the local chamber of commerce -- just to be able to answer our fellow citizens' questions as openly and honestly as we can, understanding that PFC Pace's view of the battlefield is different than General Pace's view of the battlefield. But if enough of us are making ourselves available to answer questions publicly, then the American people will have a large enough buffet, so to speak, that they can pick and choose and read and listen and determine for themselves what's really going on.

If you remember back when the war first began, it was 24/7 coverage. You could watch TV all day long, you could read magazines, you could read newspapers. If you cared to, you could have all the information you wanted to determine for yourself what was really going on.

Understandably, we don't have 24/7 coverage anymore. Therefore, the amount of information out there for the general public is less than it used to be. Those of us who have the opportunity to put more on the table for more people to look at and turn around and decide for themselves what's right and what's not, need to take those opportunities. That's a reason why I mentioned upfront how appreciative I am of the press being here today. But it's also an answer to your question, which is not just the senior leaders of our organizations, whether they be civilian or military, need to be out talking, but all of us need to think through what do we know that we'd like our fellow citizens to know, and how might we have the opportunity to just sit with groups and talk and have a dialogue in a way that would help them understand what their military's doing.

If that happens, our military needs to be more proactive in finding opportunities to get their message out, to find those groups, to open those dialogues. And, while that message may be ignored by some media or politicians, if the stories are heard enough times they will be harder and harder to ignore. Or, spin. Predictably, General Pace's comment was mischaracterized by John Roberts at CBS. As related by Brad Wilmouth:

Roberts began his story by introducing Pace's comments as part of a "campaign of contrition to win back the public trust in Iraq," as if the Joint Chiefs Chairman were repenting for some grave misdeed. Roberts then asserted, "Today, it was the Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff who admitted mistakes have been made," followed by the below clip of General Pace:

General Peter Pace, Joint Chiefs Chairman: "We, guys like me, have not articulated well enough what is happening in Iraq and in Afghanistan."

After also citing a Bush speech from the day before, which is covered in more detail further down, Roberts maintained that, "The change in tone is an answer to critics who claim the President won't acknowledge errors or learn from them. The new candor won praise from some Democrats..." which gave the impression the administration was admitting to errors in the way the war has been conducted since Democrats have frequently made that criticism.

The quote from Pace was therefore misused to add credibility to charges that the Bush administration made mistakes in conducting the war, rather than conveying the full scope of the problem Pace's comments were actually referring to: the negative portrayal of the Iraq War's progress by the media. Notably, Pace, who was responding to a question from an audience member, chose not to frame his comments as an attack on the media, but instead referred to his own failure to be more proactive in conveying the message to the public. Pace also did not himself use the word "mistake," as this was Roberts' choice of words.

This would have been clear to anyone reading the full transcript and the obvious conclusion is that Roberts deliberately misinterpreted General Pace's words to make his negative point. Cassandra finishes up her essay with the following observation:

But it's so much easier to control the dialogue if we can just keep those troublesome military folks (you know - the ones who are actually fighting the war) away from the megaphone and let the press control public perception. Just trot out a few worn out and disaffected vets, and if anyone dares to disagree with them - even active duty folks who actually know something about the subject - either refuse to cover what their remarks, mischaracterize them, or call them partisans.

And sometimes, all of the above.

Posted by Deb at 06:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 05, 2006