TigerHawk

'... when lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom the gentler gamester is the soonest winner' - Henry V

I admit it. The half-vast punditocracy is right: the whole thing is a hopeless quagmire. A traveshamockery.

Oh, not the war . We're winning that hands down. It's the endless bloviation about the war that's messier than the La Brea tar pits.

Everywhere I turn, another toffee-nosed policy wonk informs me the U.S. has always been a ruthless global hegemon. Witness the endless stream of Third World nations we've bent to our Imperial Will: it's a virtual pax Americana! I'm afraid to open the local fishwrap for fear of being assaulted by some member of Congress who just learned to his horror that the Army is fishing leftover Happy Meals out of garbage cans to feed the troops.

None of this - none of it - squares with what I hear every day from my husband, or from the people who are actually fighting this war. But why on earth would anyone listen to them? Far better to get the truly objective viewpoint from that NYT reporter emeritus currently occupying the Jayson Blair chair at the bar of the Hotel Baghdad. After all, the way we really know things are going to hell in a handbasket is that he finds it far too dangerous to venture out and get the opinion of your average Man-on-the-Wadi.

Strangely enough, my husband isn't the ooh-rah type. He's rather an odd duck for a Marine: very much a pessimist by policy and not at all given to bouts of irrational exuberance. He's the type of guy who can tell you everything that will go wrong with a plan well in advance. But he's also the kind of person who can take a flawed plan and find a way to make it work anyway. This is what the military do all the time: adapt and overcome. It is what they excel at.

It's an old wartime adage that no plan survives contact with the enemy. I often wish this little bon mot were chiseled in stone on Capitol Hill where certain pontificating members of Congress would have to confront it each day before opening their stately blowholes to blast the White House with their latest blindingly obvious hindsight. If I had a dime for every pundit who suddenly flashed on the stunning insight that we aren't really controlling events in Iraq: that we are, in effect, running alongside a bicycle from which the training wheels have just been removed, I'd rich far beyond the dreams of avarice.

The control freaks in Congress don't seem to understand that if we do all the steering, the Iraqis will never learn to ride. And if we let go too soon, they will fall. And judging just when to let go is not an easy process: there is some give and take involved, especially when there is a gang of big, mean kids throwing rocks onto the path.

Why are we still so conflicted over the war? Why, in the face of all the progress that has been made, are we still having arguments about whether we are winning, or whether our military is up to the task? Have we learned nothing from history? It is pretty much admitted wisdom even among the press and academia that the war in Vietnam was all but won on the battlefield when we withdrew in the 1970's. The political will was not there, and so when public opinion turned against the war we withdrew and 55,000 Americans lost their lives for a mission that was abandoned. They died for no reason.

The final indignity, as Melvin Laird wrote so eloquently, is that the South Vietnamese were holding their own militarily after we withdrew our troops. But they couldn't survive a faithless Congress that reneged on its commitments and withdrew funding in 1975. Given the shiftiness and inconstancy we've seen recently on Capitol Hill, it requires little imagination to see how Iraq could truly become another Vietnam if Rep. Murtha gets his way and we "redeploy" our troops safely to the rear.

Why are we having so much trouble gauging our progress? Some say it's the relentless rain of negative press coverage, and there is some truth to that theory. But I think there is another aspect that is often ignored, and that is that we're fighting a different kind of war here. A limited war. It is oft said that war is just politics by other means, and nowhere is this more apparent than in modern warfare, which more than ever is clean, precise, almost surgical and balances warfighting with nation-building, politics, and humanitarian relief. It is entirely a different beast from the wars of yesteryear; and because of its complex nature, declaring victory is far more difficult than it once was. We're not in Kansas anymore.

Gone is the "It's the job of the military to kill people and break things" mentality; at least to a large extent. The outrage over General Mattis' innocuous remarks a few months ago proved that beyond all doubt. More attention was focused on a few words spoken in jest than on the man's stated command philosophy, or on a phrase I've heard him use on more than one occasion: the need "to balance ferocity and chivalry". The Department of Defense issued a directive recently that seems to be getting little attention:

"Stability operations are a core U.S. military mission that the Department of Defense shall be prepared to conduct and support. They shall be given priority comparable to combat operations and be explicitly addressed and integrated across all DoD activities including doctrine, organizations, training, education, exercises, materiel, leadership, personnel, facilities, and planning."

The directive is titled "Military Support for Stability, Security, Transition and Reconstruction Operations."

Jeffrey Nadaner, deputy assistant secretary of defense for stability operations, said the policy draws lessons from many military operations, not just Iraq. It is required, he said, because a major Bush-administration goal is to prevent al Qaeda and other terrorist groups from setting up shop in so-called ungoverned areas, or failing states, around the world.

Mr. Nadaner said planners rejected the idea of dedicating specific military units to stability missions. He said the Pentagon wants all deployed forces trained in nation-building to make a smoother transition from major combat to humanitarian work.

"They need to rapidly be able to jump back and forth," Mr. Nadaner said.

This will undoubtedly be hailed as some new shift in policy, but it really reflects what the military has already been doing for some time. Several years ago, my husband's command was sending volunteers to Iraq and Afghanistan to augment civil affairs units already in theater - this was clearly already a priority to DoD.

But the more important aspect of this directive is that it makes official what many in the military have known for some time: that what they are being asked to do is quite different from what the general public imagines they do on a daily basis. And the American public is very ill-educated and ill-informed about the nature of exactly what it is we are doing in the MiddleEast. It's not an easy task - not a cut-and-dried job with well-defined wickets one can neatly check off with a mechanical pencil or tick off in some spreadsheet. It may not even be what we were set up to do. But the fact remains that in an age of embedded reporters, 24/7 news coverage, and global critiquing of every move we make, the very nature of warfare has changed irrevocably. What we break, we must now mend. When we fight, we can no longer fight without regard for so-called 'collateral damage'. In a very real sense, we are fighting with one hand tied behind our backs while our enemy fights with both hands free.

This conflict is by no means limited to the military. My son is a police officer. I've had several discussions with my daughter in law about this topic. We're both bemused by the sensitivity training my son undergoes with great regularity. He has been taught how to 'share his feelings'. They have to go to the country to practice weapons training... with paintballs. And most telling of all, his department are no longer allowed to pursue fleeing criminals: apparently it traumatizes the good citizenry to see the police actually attempting to apprehend and arrest perpetrators. She and I often wonder how officers are supposed to cope with stress when they are constantly urged to "share their feelings". Tried and true coping techniques such as a stiff upper lip or even compartmentalizing are no longer in vogue in this kindler, gentler force, but I often wonder how long the officer who is encouraged to break down and cry at the office will last?

The remarkable thing is that even with all the restraints we put on them, both our modern police and our modern military manage to rise to the occasion. I am still safe in my bed each night when I turn out the light. And despite the constant stream of negative news stories, progress is being made in Iraq. A Marine Major writes:

Sixty-four percent of us know that we have a good shot at preventing this outcome if we are allowed to continue our mission. We quietly hope that common sense will return to the dialogue on Iraq. Although we hate leaving our families behind, many of us would rather go back to Iraq a hundred times than abandon the Iraqi people.

A fellow Marine and close friend epitomizes this sentiment. Sean has served two tours in Iraq as a reserve officer. During his last tour, he was informed of the birth of his baby girl by e-mail, learned his father was dying of cancer, and was wounded in the same blast of an improvised explosive that killed his first sergeant on a dirt road in the middle of the western desert. Sean loves his family and his job, but he has made it clear that he would rather go back to Iraq than see us withdraw.

Everyone in uniform does not share this sentiment. Thirty-six percent of military officers are less confident in the mission. But these officers will continue to work as hard as the rest of us toward success because they, too, are professionals. With men and women such as this, the United States has an excellent chance of success in Iraq. We can fail only if the false imagery of quagmire takes hold and our national political will is broken.

This is the Marine Corps I have known and loved for almost a quarter of a century. They will never falter, and they will never give in to the likes of John Murtha. Another Marine writes lyrically of the bravery of the Iraqi army, and of his men:

...there are many signs of success here. One of the most notable is the Iraqi Army. I have operated with them and argue that the issues of administration and discipline they face are not fatal but merely endemic as in other Third World militaries I have trained beside. Not that our own military history has always enjoyed the same spirit of volunteerism, high morale, low desertion, rigid discipline and extraordinary combat efficacy as now. The Iraqi Army battalions here are very brave, almost to recklessness. They are always eager to tangle with insurgents and bring an enthusiasm for combat rivaling that of my Marines. The most valuable capability they bring though is their understanding of the cultural context of the people. Where we might search a home for hours or interact with a village for several days before we comprehend the inner workings of the village, an Iraqi Army patrol, as Iraqis, already know where to look for hidden weapons, they can quickly sift out the wheat from the chaff of information, the "head man" from the "loud mouth" and the "poor illiterate farmer" from the "local man of esteem."

I leave you with a uniquely Marine portrait - one that may surprise some of you who tend to see warriors as uncomplicated souls. During the brouhaha over General Mattis' remarks, I was fortunate enough to have just heard him give a talk, during which he casually referenced Pindar. As I heard General Mattis reviled as a brute and a monster, I remember thinking to myself, "How many of his critics even know who Pindar was?". This is from that same gentleman who wrote (above) of the courage of the Iraqi army. He has time to reflect right now, as he received a wound to the right thigh last week after his vehicle was ambushed inside Fallujah. He seems resigned to being on crutches for "about a week" until he can "finally return to duty"... an eternity!

An example of the impact and heroism that these NCOs have is Sergeant Isaac Luna of Kansas. Sgt Luna is a vehicle commander in another platoon in the Company. In the last month we have had sniper attacks on stationary units. Several have been killed and injured by this threat. A few weeks ago while operating in the city, Sergeant Luna's crew came under fire from a sniper. Private First Class Kimungu of New Hampshire was wounded across from his vehicle, the round penetrating his helmet. Though the shot was followed with a burst of small-arms fire, without a moment hesitation and with complete disregard for his own safety, Sgt Luna rushed into the open street, administering a pressure bandage to PFC Luna. Though completely exposed, Sgt Luna did not abandon his position until relieved by the platoon corpsman, HM3 Cruze from the Bronx. Throughout, Sgt Luna remained in the street, securing the wounded Marine. This courage under fire is what NCOs bring to the fight.

Examples like Sgt Luna's are important to me because they defy the alleged norm of human conduct. A recent essay I read contrasted the artwork of Mary Cassatt, glorying in simple beauty, with the more aesthetically erratic work of Joan Miro. The author sought to disprove the theory of critic Theordo Adorno that the horrors of modern war, exemplified by the Second World War, had forever thwarted the ability of art to convey the wonder of everyday human existence. This argument, carried to its logical conclusion, would point that in the face of brutality, the triumph of the human spirit over evil is now rendered impossible; that no action or expression can ever again convey humanity's finest qualities. I bring this relatively obscure argument to light because I think it is emblematic of the mindset that no good could come of what we do here. I will not lie, there are days where the things I see, the things I do, infest my heart with doubt.

No one said war was a pleasant thing. Time and time again though, it is Marines like Sgt Luna who cleanse my soul. They have seen death at its ugliest, in the face of the wrecked body of a child. They have seen their brother in arms carried away in their final moments. They have faced fatigue, fear, boredom, complacency, a lack of personal space and home-sickness. Yet for all their adolescence of years, they continue to soldier on as "warriors for the working day" with the dark humor of combat infantry. I don't know whether they understand or care about the politics of this war. I have never asked them. All I do know is that I have seen them at their best and worst, as they have me. As much as they would rather be home, enjoying Holidays with their family (for most of us this is our third Holiday season away in three years), they seem demigods when they can see the difference they make. Whether it is fighting the enemy, protecting the innocent, aiding the weak or defending one another, they are at their highest when most directly challenged. While I cannot paint, I wish I could because in those often unheralded moments, I see something approaching the sublime, despite what all the naysayers, cynics and critics might claim.

If we find it difficult to judge our progress in Iraq, perhaps it is because the nature of the task is so grand and the goal posts so distant. But consider the mettle of the participants in this grand contest. Think of the dedication they, and their families, bring to this task. This is, truly, a different kind of warfare. But war has always been an ugly thing. If we must fight, and it seems that as long as there are men like Saddam Hussein in the world, we must, is it not fitting that we try to do so in a way that limits that damage?

And if we fight limited wars, we must of necessity rely on politics and nation-building - reversing the old adage that 'war is politics by other means' to, in effect, win the war by effecting and employing political solutions as an adjunct to warfighting. It is a far more sophisticated method of warfare, requiring far more skill and craft.

And it will require from us far more patience and willpower if we are to see it to a successful conclusion. But we must adapt and overcome.

Or retire from the world stage in disgrace, and take our ball, and go home.

UPDATED: Moved to the top by TigerHawk.