POST: Debating Dr. Barnett
Comment 8:
eric writes: Wednesday, August, 29, 2007 3:58 PM
A further discussion would be useful
Hugh, I think you guys are talking past each other a bit. His argument is three-fold: 1) If we don't push the diplomacy side of things in conjunction with the surge, the killing is virtually inevitable. 2) President Bush is not inclined for whatever reason to push the diplomacy side of things. 3) Given (2), pulling back in the near-term to the Kurdish areas and Kuwait is preferable and will cost less lives in the long-run than continuing as we are. This is because the slow-motion Suni/Shiite war will eventually fatigue the American people's will to do anything in the Persian Gulf and the resulting total pullout will cost a lot more lives, both Iraqi and American.
If (2) were to change, we can avoid (3). I think his 'small chance' you refer to is more along the lines of Dumb and Dumber "so you're saying there's a chance...?!" If (2) doesn't change, the only options long-term are to partially pull back now and try to preserve some progress, or pull back completely down the road and face disaster.
I don't necessarily agree, but that's what he's saying.
This guy Eric heard me very clearly and he's right: Hugh and I are clearly talking past each other on the subject. Iran is pure evil to Hugh. I see a state on par with a bunch of other scummy regimes in that larger region (you want to name the main source of terror, you'd have to pick Pakistan based on all the data, but that's just the facts that India's had to suffer for years on end): you can condemn them all and start bombing tomorrow, but that's not a realistic long-term strategy for anything other than sending the entire place up in flames. Iran is fighting just like any weaker power would in this strategic situation: we call it "terror" because that's our definition, but a lot of people in that region consider our operations in Iraq similarly, so getting overemotional in the use of terms is unhelpful. Powerful states don't have to use asymmetrical means, weaker opponents do. Unless you're reading to occupy 70m Iranians soon, you're going to have to find a way to deal with them in the context of Iraq.
But that's why the debate is getting so dysfunctional on our end: all name calling and cries of traitor if you discuss our options in anything less than totally unconditional terms (to be against Bush is to hate America and its military and be a surrender monkey). It is highly unrealistic and approaching infantile to restrict our conversation so, not to mention full of hypocrisy (Anyone give a shit over 400,000 dead in Darfur? Don't plan on it anytime soon. And yet, if Bush and Co. plan the postwar better, we could have been there and back by now. And please don't remind us of what the hardcore righties declared when Clinton finally took us into the Balkans, leading them to back Bush in 2000 because he promised outright never to engage in such craziness, only to then make Clinton look small in comparison).
We're losing our ability to discuss Iraq with any perspective--at least in the public realm. I discuss the issues and strategic choices with none of this hyperbole or name-calling on a daily basis in professional realms (yes, that vast world of reality beyond the blogs, where I earn a real living working with actual people with actual names), and there heads remain quite cool on the subject, despite many schools of thought existing.
But frankly, this is why I'm not political and readily advise players in both parties with little care for which "side" they're on. The zero-sum rhetoric is just too silly ("If our side loses, all is lost! But if we win, all is preserved!"). After working with the first Bush, then two Clintons, and now two Younger Bush administrations, I will admit I've never really encountered that imaginary world of dungeons and dragons that seem so real in so many partisan minds).
But perhaps 18 years of regular interactions throughout the military and government have left me incredibly naive on that subject.
In the real world beyond the name calling, the drawdown and pullback are being planned by our own military. Casey, for example, thinks we should be down by half in Iraq by the end of 2008, something I recently argued in a column could happen by the second half of next year. Petraeus wants longer, some senators like Warner want some symbolic drawdown to begin by Christmas. No matter how you slice it, this is going to happen. In the real world we're arguing over months, but in the white-hot debate world, there are only two choices: "cut and run" or "give the surge time to work." Fine and dandy, if it's all about who rocks your boat next October. So let the finger pointing continue, but I'm telling you, we're drawing down across next year. Already been decided.
As for the shift from direct action to more advising and training and focused SOF, that's also in the works. Debate all these claims of genocide-in-the-making-or-no, but I'm telling you, that's also just going to happen. Again, we can argue which month we perceive this or that shift in, so we can declare it a "clear vindication of the surge" or "a complete defeat for America," but it's going to happen. Our military wants it, needs to do it, the administration is prepping for it, and it's just plain going to happen.
That's what I mean by "inevitable." It's been in planning for a while and it's moving toward unfolding whether Dems demand it or Repubs condemn it--or the other way around. It's mostly a product of troop overuse--pure and simple.
But we're surfing through all this vitriolic debate on do we "give it time or not?" when, in reality, that clock's already in motion: we have to dial down. We can debate it, but troop reductions are coming.
As our role evolves as a Vietnam-done-backwards (not my "strategy" but a simple reality), we're faced with the challenge of Bosnia-done-backwards (again, not a "strategy" of "allowing genocide" but my simple observation that when you put 2 and 2 together [our inevitable drawdown and pullback, combined with the reality that the Sunnis and Shiia are nowhere near exhausted and the progressive separation of those groups continues], you're basically watching a Bosnia-done-backwards). That's my professional observation. You can tell me I'm wrong, but condemning it as "my strategy" (Hugh's take) simply confuses my analysis with a political stance.
And that's essentially where the disconnect with Hugh (listener Eric's point about us talking past each other) begins: I make observations from a professional standpoint and they're cast as strategies "advocated," that I must "defend" like they're something that sprang out of my rear-end instead of being logical outcomes of years of U.S. choices on the ground.
And I guess that's where I feel--and felt--uncomfortable on Hugh's show yesterday. We're not conducting a discussion here. He's battling perceived straw-man versions of my professional observations like they're enemies of the state of affairs he advocates.
I don't "advocate" these observations like they're choices easily made or discarded, which seems to be Hugh's belief. I'm just telling you that that is where we're inexorably headed, like it or not.
I don't like it. But I can't make unpalatable things disappear by declaring them "bad."
In sum, I don't find this sort of hyperbolic finger-pointing useful. Because when I wade into such politicized environments, I end up sounding just like anybody else, which is fine in Hugh's world, because he needs bodies galore. But in my world, this is a bad use of my capital. No one I need to deal with professionally increases their respect quotient on the basis of such appearances.
I enjoyed going on Hugh's show over PNM. But when posting my analysis of the reality of a Bosnia-done-backwards gets me the privilege of defending my "genocide" strategy for Iraq, it just seems useless, because I'm getting sucked into other people's definition of debates that I find--on average--to be counterproductive simply because the whole purpose is to generate "heat."
I just don't get paid or respected in my world for that. Truth is, you get ridiculed if you indulge in it too often.
Let me give you an example of this dynamic: I say Iran's already achieved a sloppy MAD-like deterrence, whether we like it or not. Getting as far as they are and dispersing their facilities so widely and putting them deep underground, we can either bomb them conventionally and push them back a bit (but we ultimately can't stop them unless we invade and occupy a la Iraq (ain't gonna happen any time soon)) or decide to nuke them outright, meaning pre-emptively. We're not going to do the latter, for a lot of reasons I wouldn't have to explain in a professional setting.
Now, when I make that call, you can certainly dispute it, but to ask me--as I often am--to defend my "strategy" of "giving Iran the bomb" and "supporting the idea of a nuclear holocaust" ... well, that's a fairly asinine argument to have with someone you probably shouldn't bother wasting your time on. And yet, if you go on the media, that's the conversation you're stuck with most of the time. They're really not interested in your analysis. They just want to straw man your views and discredit them.
Fine, I get that process. I just have found it completely useless for my career and life's work.
Now, you can say, "Have the courage to debate me, dear sir!" And I'll tell you I debate this stuff non-stop on a professional basis, with--canubelieveit!--real professionals!. We just don't talk like talkingheads do on TV or radio. Political parties aren't mentioned, for example. I get asked all the time by media about my party preference, but I've never been asked that question--ever--by anyone in the government or military with whom I've interacted all these years (and I'm talking tens of thousands of people).
I know, so very boring compared to the Hollywood version.
So yeah, I do sometimes get taken quite aback by having to defend my professional analysis like I'm just another politico, armed with both asshole and opinion, because--again--I just never interact with people professionally like that, not even Hill staffers or members of Congress (most of the time, I'm unaware which party they belong to--again, my indefensible naivete).
In the end, I just don't need the gotcha stuff to get anything done. At the end of the day, it just doesn't make me any smarter or change anyone's mind worth changing..
Today, I keynote a fixed rotary craft (helo) conference in Pax River. I spend the morning interacting with all these professionals, civilian and uniform, US and foreign. I say all my stuff the usual way, and I don't get asked to defend my "support for terrorist Tehran" or why I'm a "commie sympathizer" vis-a-vis China, or why I "advocate genocide in Iraq" ("Give us a number, please!!!").
And you know what? I got my message across, got plenty of positive and negative feedback, and got smarter.
Something to remember the next time. The further I go, the more I learn to say no.
Friday, August 31, 2007 at 8:22PM 
