Big Heel

Phillip Carter's coverage of Iraq continues to be enlightening, though his rhetorical pitch is far too kind. Consider this:

Gen. Petraeus and his brain trust have devised the best possible Plan F, given the resources available to the Pentagon and declining patience for the war at home. But the Achilles heel of this latest effort is the Maliki government. It is becoming increasingly clear to all in Baghdad that its interests—seeking power and treasure for its Shiite backers—diverge sharply from those of the U.S.-led coalition. Even if Gen. Petraeus' plan succeeds on the streets of the city, it will fail in the gilded palaces of the Green Zone. Maliki and his supporters desire no rapprochement with the Sunnis and no meaningful power-sharing arrangement with the Sunnis and the Kurds. Indeed, Maliki can barely hold his own governing coalition together, as evidenced by the Sadr bloc's resignation from the government this week and the fighting in Basra over oil and power.

The point about Achilles' heel, as you'll recall, is that he was invulnerable everyplace else. What Carter's talking about here is as if Achilles were a totally normally person. A nice guy, smart maybe, kind to kids and his "Achilles heel" was that he dies if you stab him. Political reconciliation isn't part of Petraeus-style counterinsurgency, it's the whole thing. His counterinsurgency field manual is all about trying to design military operations that can effectively support an effective political process. The "surge" is, at best, such a military operation. But if the political process isn't effective -- which, by all accounts, it isn't -- then there's nothing there.

4/23/07 9:03AM del.icio.us this incoming links

Comments

Everything I read about Iraq paints a picture of Hell on Earth. It was Hell before we invaded also, what with the sanctions the U.S. was enforcing. Who is talking about the fact Iraqi lives are worse for our interventions and agggressions, not better?

Posted by: steve duncan on April 23, 2007 09:23 AM

"Maliki and his supporters desire no rapprochement with the Sunnis and no meaningful power-sharing arrangement with the Sunnis and the Kurds."

Is this really true? It seems more likely that it's politically impossible for Maliki to propose more rapprochement on days when Shiites are picking up their body parts after another Sunni car bomb (i.e., most days). Maybe if there's a lull in those car bombings, he will have the space to reconcile with the Sunnis. That's the whole point of the surge. Unfortunately, so far the surge has done more to reduce Shiite militia killings than Sunni car bombs.

Posted by: Fred on April 23, 2007 09:30 AM

People will rarely use the word "flaw" if they think they can use "Achilles heel" instead. Ditto with replacing "analyze" with "deconstruct". Its all about trying to sound sophisticated.

Posted by: Jim W on April 23, 2007 09:35 AM

If maliki is so beholden to his shiite backers then why did the sadr bloc resign? Phillip carter appears to believe the surge is a purely american operation. Does the poor fellow not know maliki's government has contributed 1000's of extra troops also? Likely he does not care since the man clearly has his fingers crossed for failure.

Posted by: pimp hand strikes! on April 23, 2007 09:45 AM

"Likely he does not care since the man clearly has his fingers crossed for failure."

You might want to check Phil Carter's bio before going down that path.
He's a Captain in the Army, was in the Reserve and volunteered to
return to duty to serve a tour in Iraq. He's risked his life to try
to make this work, and has seen some of the problems first-hand.

Posted by: Richard Cownie on April 23, 2007 09:58 AM

Oh, Richard Cownie, I'm sure pimphand has also risked his life to make things work in Iraq, given his super-patriotism.

Posted by: JP on April 23, 2007 10:01 AM

Philip Carter is a typical lying left-winger when it comes to Iraq. He writes: But defining the current surge as a "Plan A" is a dangerously dishonest move that ignores the history of the Iraq war to date.

Who defined the current surge as "Plan A" - uh, hint, Philip, it's not the Administration! It was the left-wing MSM, which posed a question to the Administration using that frame, and then wrote a gigantic article about it in the paper the next day. Another day, another lie about Iraq from the left wing.

Posted by: Al on April 23, 2007 10:18 AM

Achilles was invulnerable except through a single weakness that happened to lead to his death when exploited.

The surge, according to this, might work militarily but can't possibly succeed because of other factors. Terrible metaphor.

I haven't had enough coffee and can't think of a good one off the top of my head, but in the future, perhaps we'll call things that can't possibly succeed "invading iraq."

Posted by: dbt on April 23, 2007 10:43 AM

Who defined the current surge as "Plan A" - uh, hint, Philip, it's not the Administration!

MR. SNOW: Let me put it this way: Plan A is barely underway. And it is always -- the idea that the administration would talk freely about a Plan B is -- it's silly. But you also know, as you have long experience with the Pentagon -- that people have lots of plans, and continue to plan for every imaginable contingency. But as Secretary Rice said, the real secret right now is making Plan A work. And Plan A is -- we've got about 15 percent of the troop complement on the ground. As I said, we have seen encouraging signs, but there's a lot of work yet to do. And before people start casting about for Plan B, Plan A first has to be implemented.

Tony Snow, apparently powerless to counter dishonest frames.

Who should we trust on Iraq, Al? The same people who have been constantly telling us "we're just now starting to see signs of success" for the last four years? Are those the folks that deserve our trust?

Posted by: Steve on April 23, 2007 11:57 AM

Somebody asked what blogs I read. Phil Carter is another one, with a fine crew of commenters. He was there, I think Baquaba, in one of those clear-hold-hand over-watch everything go to hell cycles.

I could link, but hell. The Wall has been stopped by Maliki. Good to know Petraeus/Odierno are on the same page with the Iraqi gov't, with a co-ordinated plan. Oh, and Sadr has said no to de-de-Baathification. I don't know why Sadr pulled his ministers out and not his MP's. My guess might be to avoid contagion when Maliki goes down in flames. Gates visits to tell Maliki "Get it right or else." Or else fucking what?

I vote for unconditional surrender, to any and all interested parties. I bet Sadr and Anbar will let us walk out of Iraq in exchange for the body armor and Hummers.

Posted by: bob mcmanus on April 23, 2007 12:04 PM

Tony Snow, apparently powerless to counter dishonest frames.

He could counter it, but as usual the White House doesn't feel that's a good thing to do. I disagree, but whatever. But don't tell me (as Carter does) that it is the White House that's being dishonest here; it is the lying media that came up with that frame because they wanted a (typically dishonest) story about how the WH lacks "Plan B".

Who should we trust on Iraq, Al?

I have no idea. But obviously not Philip Carter.

Posted by: Al on April 23, 2007 12:16 PM

He could counter it, but as usual the White House doesn't feel that's a good thing to do.

Well, it's probably not a good thing to do when the alternative is pointing out that we've been through lots and lots of failed plans before arriving at the present one. The fact is, Tony Snow is tremendously effective at puncturing frames and assumptions that he doesn't agree with. To presume that he let this one slide because someone higher up in the White House said "Tony, don't dispute the Plan B frame" is just silly.

Rather than whine about left-wing media framing, Al, why don't you tell us what the accurate framing of the current plan would be, and how we're allowed to refer to the idea of a contingency plan without saying "Plan B"?

Posted by: Steve on April 23, 2007 12:32 PM

One doesn't have to get too analytical to understand that Iraq is lost.

Consider for a moment how bizarre it is that we are committing a trillion plus dollars and sacrificing our soldiers for a "victory" that it is not within our control to achieve. Bush himself has said on many occasions that "victory" is in the hands of the Iraqies. Why is there no reporting on this?

Bush met with Maliki last year and proclaimed that he knew that Maliki could get it done. Presumably just as he knew he could trust Putin after looking into his heart, that Rumsfeld was the best man for the job and many other examples right up to having full confidence in Gonzales.

In short, victory in Iraq has been left to blind luck and a Republican talking point that as long as we have one chance in a million-billion of "success", it makes sense to keep pouring money and lives to avoid defeat; "defeat" being defined as withdrawal.

So the big picture is one that everyone can see, and it is incredilbly bleak. We continue to spend gold and lives with the "strategy" of trusting in luck.

Posted by: GPS on April 23, 2007 01:14 PM

Re "His counterinsurgency field manual is all about trying to design military operations that can effectively support an effective political process. "
-------
Hmmmm. In the past,I've spent 20 years working as a contractor to military and intelligence outfits. Had clearance to up to 4 SCI areas plus Top Secret DOD.

So how do I explain this to young Matthew. The military doesn't put everything down in unclassified Field Manuals. There are often classified documents to supplement SOP.

Instructions like "If you grab them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow".

Or
"Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice Doggy' 'Nice Doggy' while reaching for a big fucking stick"

Or
"Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill".

Go ask the Indians about where negotiating peace treaties with Great White Father gets you.

Posted by: Don Williams on April 23, 2007 07:19 PM

mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar