As the title of his book implies, Ricks thinks the planning for and conduct of operations in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad has been a major disaster. However, he thinks there is still a possibility (although not a very good one, rather obviously) of "success" in Iraq if we redefine "success" to mean a result that is minimally compatible with U.S. national interests. However, he thinks that is impossible without a major change in our approach, and that it's probably impossible to achieve anything approaching our original goals. I gather that he hasn't totally given up on Iraq largely because he thinks the consequences of simply withdrawing would be truly horrendous.
Wilkerson has of course been very critical of both the strategy behind the war in Iraq, and of the planning for and conduct of operations that have followed the fall of Baghdad. But although I've heard him speak a couple of times previously, I've never heard Wilkerson be as pessimistic as he was yesterday. He rather clearly thinks that Ricks' fairly pessimistic view is, if anything, too optimistic, and that things are getting worse there very rapidly. He also very cogently points out the immense negative effects tht the Iraq adventure is having on the Army, and especially on the Marine Corp. On this last point, he is echoing what a friend of mine said when he found out that the Marines were going to be assigned essentially to garrison and counter-insurgency duty in Iraq. My friend, who is a Marine veteran of Vietnam and the son and grandson of Marines, was absolutely apoplectic at this news. His point was that the Marine Corps is trained and constituted for capturing a particular military objective, be it a beach, or a hill, or whatever, and that's it's excellent at that function. But he said that it's NOT trained or constituted for sustained garrison duty and counter-insurgency operations, and that to some degree, those tasks are inconsistent with what the Marine Corps IS trained to do. I gather that Wilkerons agrees.
He said that he regularly gets emails from military personnel serving in the Middle East, and that it's been months since he got one that had a positive view of how things were going there. He also said that the reports he's been getting from Afghanistan have been getting much worse. His description of the effects that the Iraq adventure is having on our military is absolutely devastating.
You can watch or listen to the entire session at this link. It's a little less than an hour and a half, and it's well worth the time.
If any of us still has the slightest doubt about why it's IMPERATIVE that we do well this November, and that there be a major change in this country's approach to the world, just listen to Wilkerson's remarks. The sad thing is that Wilkerson, who is a lifelong Republican, gives a more cogent criticism of this administration's foreign policy than most Democratic politicians have managed to make.
And on a somewhat related subject, Steve Clemons reports on his blog (it's in the July 28 entry) that Chuck Hagel said yesterday that he is undecided on whether he will vote to confirm John Bolton. Bolton may not be a shoo-in yet.
Comments are closed on this story.