Michael Yon's latest dispatch

[Undertoad]

I said in this IotD, about Michael Yon's blog, that "It's kind of politically neutral, because all Yon does is tell the full story. All sides will find points for their schools of thought."

Righty blogs embraced Yon for reporting the successes in Mosul. They were less happy when he was the first to describe the situation as "civil war". Yon's response is priceless:

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/of-words.htm

Since posting a reminder of that dispatch, I have been subject to some interesting attention. I’ve been shunned by radio interviewers and dropped from planned television appearances; I’ve been called so many contradictory things that I have to chuckle. Of course there have been the obscene and threatening communications, along with others pointing out that when I say “civil war” certain media will use my statements to push for early withdrawal, and so I should refrain from saying the truth. That will not happen. My readers deserve and expect the good, the bad and the ugly from me.

I do not report this because I harbor animosity for the current administration, or to magnify any mistakes it has made, but only so that the American people, and readers around the world, can be presented with at least one set of eyes and ears that are reasonably politically color-blind and tone-deaf. If the truth helps the administration, so be it. If the truth damages the administration, so be it. More important is to provide information people can use in their own decision cycles. Whether or not anyone agrees with the reasons for starting this war, we invaded Iraq, and should complete the mission, and that needs to be defined clearly as a stable and democratic Iraq, and not as a date on a calendar. We have to stop treating the truth like a work in progress or a lump of clay that we can shape into an image or icon.

I’ll say it as clearly today as I said it more than a year ago from my perch in Baquba: the civil war is real. It is not abating, it is growing. And it’s growing in part because we have been spackling over the truth about where much of this violence derives, and not addressing the true nature of the enemy.

In describing the situation from a military POV (Yon is ex Spec Forces), Yon abhors the political, correctly identifies both success and failure, looks at things from the standpoint of accomplishing the mission, and understands the historical nature of conflict. Anti-war, but convinced that war is sometimes occasionally necessary; I understand that this is is the approach they teach at West Point nowadays.


Yon's latest is really effing long and I don't recommend you go read it... unless you have a free half-hour and want a better understanding of Iraq. Some of Yon's points:

- Iraq IS in civil war.
- But not the old blue-gray, well-defined war lines we are familiar with.
- It is NOT largely cross-border insurgents.
- Though we don't disrespect our soldiers, we have forgotten them, as their mission becomes politically confused and something we don't care to look at.
- The pols and media have let us down, big-time.

[Beestie]

Gooooooooooooooooooooooooood Morning Vietnam.

[Elspode]

You meant "Goooooood Morning Iran!", didn't you?

[xoxoxoBruce]

The Truth? They can't handle the truth. The truth doesn't fit our political agenda.
I got an email last weekend from a guy I lived with for three years but rarely see anymore. Ex Navy, gung ho, John Wayne movies and a flag he flies every day, that once flew over the capitol building in Washington.

His son is in Iraq now and he's been forced to check reality vs his fatherly compassion vs his historical values. He's very twisted.

[warch]

Great read.

[tw]

Yon makes many fundamental points - heavy and must reading. He claims that Iraq is in civil war - that comes in varieties beyond blue and gray soldiers. His same statements were made by other pragmatic leaders including Egypt and Saudi Arabia. As posted here long ago, even George Sr's close friend - Brent Scowcroft - had been predicting civil war (which is why Charlie Rose would love to know George Sr's real opinions).

Ok. Maybe Iraq is not in civil war - technically. Fine. How much worse is needed to officially be civil war? Those who deny civil war exists - George Jr and Tony Blair administrations - will not answer. They simply deny civil war - pretend it will go away. What they don't say is damning. Not just refuse to define civil war. They ignore reasons for civil war and they make no changes to avoid civil war. Somehow elections were going to solve all this ... as it did in S Vietnam. What does every general say who commanded troops in Iraq and who is now retired? Not enough troops. Even if Iraq is not technically in civil war, it soon will be. For anyone who is honest with himself, Iraq is in civil war.

Current George Jr strategy obviously is not working. "Stay the course" is what we also did to lose Vietnam. Expressions such as "light at the end of a tunnel" apply to Iraq. But since we now know what that sound byte really means, then the administration must use different sound bytes to say same; to avoid admitting what Yon has reported. Status quo means Iraq will only get worse.

Retired General Brent Scowcroft was talking about civil war in Jan 2005:

With Iraq, we clearly have a tiger by the tail. And the elections are turning out to be less about a promising transformation, and it has great potential for deepening the conflict. Indeed we may be seeing an incipient civil war at the present time.

Brent Scowcroft is the same person with so much grasp of reality as to write - from The Economist of 24 Aug 2002:

So when Brent Scowcroft, George Bush senior's national-security chief, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal on August 15th called “Don't Attack Saddam”, it was the first sign of serious political debate. Mr Scowcroft argued that there was no real evidence tying the Iraqi dictator to terrorism. An attempt to overthrow him could destabilise the region and distract America from its real target, al-Qaeda.

Scowcroft is another retired general, a National Security Chief, and close friend of George Sr who knew long before 'Shock and Awe' that the war was wrong. BTW, go back and look at those posts back then. A damning future we accurately predicted back then in The Cellar.

Well we ignored Scowcroft, Brzezinski, and so many others. Having ignored them in September 2002 and prediction of civil war in Jan 2005, today, some still just know that Iraq is not in civil war? Does it really matter? Civil war is now inevitable The administration 1) insists a civil war does not exist because they cannot define civil war, and 2) have changed nothing to avoid civil war. Even still have too few troops.

In May 2004 were Cellar discussions about no exit strategy for Iraq. Years later and what have we? Still no exit strategy for Iraq because we still have not even defined a strategic objective nor an exit strategy. And yet, all this time, some actually proclaimed we were ?winning? this war? So much now in Iraq and discussed by Yon was defined and posted in The Cellar throughout 2002, 2003, and 2004.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Bush has it right....he has no exit strategy so he's not going to exit.

[tw]

In Vietnam, major cities were relatively safe for servicemen. In Iraq, foreigners are at risk most everywhere outside of the Green Zones. Where else do we have problems? These news reports have long left me totally confused what we are doing. From the Washington Post of 2 May 2006:

Iraqis Begin Duty With Refusal
The graduation of nearly 1,000 new Iraqi army soldiers in restive Anbar province took a disorderly turn Sunday when dozens of the men declared that they would refuse to serve outside their home areas, according to U.S. and Iraqi military authorities.

The graduation ceremony at Camp Habbaniyah, a base about 45 miles west of Baghdad, had been going well. The 978 soldiers, most of them Sunni Muslims, had just finished nearly five weeks of military training and were parading before a review stand to the sounds of martial music. They took an oath of service while U.S. and Iraqi officials delivered speeches hailing the event as an important step toward the formation of a national army.

Then some soldiers started tearing their clothes off to demonstrate their rage.

The protest was triggered by an announcement that the new soldiers, all residents of Anbar province -- widely considered the heartland of Iraq's Sunni Arab insurgent movement -- would be required to serve outside their home towns and outside the province as well. ...

The incident appears to echo an event in April 2004 when a battalion of the Iraqi army was ordered to deploy to Fallujah to help U.S. Marines fighting there. The troops refused. During the following weeks, more than 15,000 other Iraqi soldiers and police officers deserted, ...

Army graduation ceremonies have often been troubled. In late 2003, according to Kalev Sepp, a retired Special Forces officer who has advised U.S. commanders in Iraq, U.S. trainers of one Iraqi unit so distrusted their students that they carried loaded pistols at a graduation ceremony in case of mutiny.