Comments on Obama inaugural address

A post by Professor Nacos on her blog last month, Lebanon Election Outcome and Obama’s Public Diplomacy, reminded me of my responses to Professor Nacos' January post about President Obama's inauguration, The Promise of America's and Obama's Patchwork Heritage.

My comments sandwich a response by Professor Nacos:

The issue at stake is perception, not reality. Obama expressed the same message as Bush. If anything, Obama's expressions of Christianity, American primacy, and leadership with American ideals in his inaugural address were *more* aggressive than Bush, in effect out-Bushing Bush. There was quite a bit of 'either with us or against us' sentiment in it, just not as plainly spoken as his predecessor.

The Bush administration made a dedicated effort to make clear that the War on Terror is not a war on Islam. While the enemy has used an unambiguous radical religious construct to sell their war since before 9/11, and (continue to) commit atrocities and sabotage our peace-building efforts since 9/11, President Bush responded by promoting Islam as a peaceful religion that can co-exist with Western modernity. However, President Bush was an uncharismatic public spokesman in the face of media and self-serving politicians who undermined our war and peace-building missions.

In reality, the ideology underpinning our War on Terror has not been religious, but progressive liberalism, where Bush was the inheritor of Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Truman and Kennedy (although one can argue that, while secular, the roots of progressive liberalism are Christian). Unless President Obama has been extremely duplicitious, he will continue Bush's progressive liberalism, which means the reality of how we conduct the war won't change. Nor will it calm our enemies and other leaders tangibly threatened by American primacy and the newest 'Washington agenda'. This is, after all, a competition with real stakes.

Potentially, perception will change due to the transfer of power from the uncharismatic Bush to the charismatic Obama. But will the media help Obama in the same places they undermined Bush? That remains to be seen. It also remains to be seen whether Obama, with or without media help, can make a difference in the regions where we are competing for the war and peace.

Maybe, if we Americans are truly deterministic agents, then in the bottom-line, it matters less what they think of the war; it only matters what we think of it. In that case, President Obama's value will not be changing the war itself or how it's perceived by our competitors, but changing how we collectively think of it.

Posted by: Eric January 24, 2009 at 09:44 AM

Ah, Eric. You and I must have listened to different speeches on inauguration day.
The "war on terrorism" a la ex-president Bush is over. One cannot fight a war against non-state actors, indeed, such a declaration alone elevates terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda to a level they do not deserve.
As Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has repeatedly stated, military might will not defeat terrorism--what is needed is a mix of hard and soft power. Secretary of State Clinton called that recently smart power.

Posted by: Brigitte January 24, 2009 at 10:17 AM

Again, a perception problem. Those who believe the War on Terror is over with the change of administration have failed to grasp its continual evolution since 9/11. What Gates, Clinton and many others (including Bush) have said is perfectly compatible with Bush's, and now Obama's, evolving War on Terror.

We only have to read the on-going discussions about 4th or 5th generation warfare, based on events, to understand the notion of "war" as applied to the War on Terror is very different than the traditional state-vs-state (or 3rd generation) definition we grew up with. The traditional understanding of war doesn't fit the War on Terror, and therefore, has been a stumbling block for people who've persistently misunderstood this war.

The War on Terror is and has been full-spectrum, while peace-building is and has been a cornerstone of the war ... at the same time, war is and has been a cornerstone of the peace-building. I agree the war/peace should involve many more agencies than the military, but the military's dominant role has been less due to policy preference than reality. The State Department, for example, which is based upon government-2-government negotiation and nation-state dominance, has been ill-suited for the current war. (That said, the War on Terror has proven fluid in that regard, eg, State presence in Iraq, under Ambassador Crocker, has been restored to prominence concurrently with the increasing stability and reach of the Iraqi government. Using what we learned in Iraq, we can hope for similar progress by State with the Karzai government in Afghanistan.) As we've discussed before, until traditional soft power agencies are able to operate in failed state or even stateless non-permissive environments and adjust their capabilities to it, then by default, our military will be the main applied soft power *and* hard power agency. We shouldn't prefer a full-spectrum role for the military, and the military certainly does not, but that's been dictated by reality, not a dogmatic choice by the former President. Our alternative? We witnessed our alternative in Somalia and Rwanda.

The evolving War on Terror is anything but over, but perhaps, it has become unrecognizable to proponents of traditional war. If the war requires renaming for more people to understand its full-spectrum nature and the realities of the agencies involved, then maybe we should rename the War on Terror. I just don't know there is a better descriptive term for it. Until we invent a better term, I still prefer "war" just for the level of commitment implied by the term.

As far as Obama's inaugural address, the beauty of it is that it offered something for most everyone. And yes, in places, it out-Bushed Bush. Re-read Obama's speech then go back and re-read Bush's speeches. Then consider how much of the content is effectively the same. Consider these examples:

"Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred."
-- Did critics once accuse Bush of a simplistic bipolar framing and lack of nuance in the War on Terror?

"But in the words of Scripture ... This is the source of our confidence -- the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny."
-- !!! - as a non-religious American, I understand presidents routinely cite Christianity, notwithstanding ahistorical accusations of Bush, but Obama struck an eyebrow-raising fundamentalist, even evangelical, tone that I don't recall in the presidents of my lifetime.

"In reaffirming the greatness of our nation ... the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things ... This is the journey we continue today. ... Those ideals still light the world"
-- Invocation of the vigorous, even expansionist, progressive liberalism that underpinned our westward expansion, post-Civil War Reconstruction, entry in the world wars (v Fascism), Cold War compare/contrast (v Communism), the pre-Bush accusation of the US as a meddling ideologue hyperpower, and the current War on Terror. Obama fairly well dispelled any doubt that he, even more than Bush, is a liberal idealist.

"... to all the other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born, know that America is a friend of each nation, and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity. And we are ready to lead once more."

"We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense. And for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken -- you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you."

I can go on, Professor, but when I verge on quoting half or more of a speech, I may as well just refer you to the speech itself. Am I saying Obama is merely the logical continuation of Bush? In important ways, it appears that way so far; in other important ways, no, and I hope for the best in those areas, too. I agree with Obama that we do need to assess, innovate and re-invent ourselves so we can evolve for the 21st century, and not just rely on 20th century conventions. Under Bush, it appeared that the only significant areas of evolution were the military, our war/peace strategy, and possibly intelligence-gathering. It's up to Obama to build upon what Bush did right in those areas and be wary of the reactionaries who've opposed those changes, while also setting in motion changes in the important areas that Bush neglected to address.

I stand by what I said. The themes of Christianity, American primacy, and world leadership with American ideals in Obama's inaugural address out-Bushed Bush. I actually found it difficult to pull out a concise 'with us or against us' quote, because it was the basic premise of the foreign policy section of Obama's address. (It's a misperception that Bush preferred unilateralism, and we have hardly 'gone it alone' in any case; he was just unwilling to abandon the mission for want of sufficient multilateral consensus; even universal consensus, as we've learned to our frustration in Afghanistan, does not equate to sufficient multilateral commitment and investment.)

Obama's inaugural address was unreservedly liberal-hawkish. What stood out the most in the speech was that Obama was hardly circumspect about an aggressive transformative interventionist international role for America, what was called neo-conservative or liberal imperialism when pursued by the last administration. It appears President Obama, even more than his predecessor, desires that we change the world in our ideal image of ourselves. That's okay I guess, as long as folks, both the changers here and the changees abroad who were unwilling to change for ex-President Bush, are now willing to make the same change for a better American spokesman, the "patchwork" President Obama.

Posted by: Eric January 24, 2009 at 02:25 PM

---

Also see Gripe: "expedience sake" and Closer reading of Nobel speech: Obama redefined "just war" and justified Iraq intervention.

Gripe: "expedience sake"

For a while, I've been peeved about something President Obama said in his inaugural address:

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers -- (applause) -- our Founding Fathers, faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man -- a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience sake. (Applause.)

The intelligence and security measures undertaken under President Clinton in the years leading up to 9/11 and then under President Bush in reaction to 9/11 were not due to "expedience sake". While it's proper to critically and continually review those measures, 'necessity's sake' would be the more appropriate characterization. As well, the choices can fairly be called a 'difficult balance', but they have not been "false". The new president's dismissive characterization of his predecessors' execution of their critical duties seems arrogant, naive about the threat, and dangerously disrespectful of the enemy. It's worrisome.

---

Also see Comments on Obama inaugural address and Closer reading of Nobel speech: Obama redefined "just war" and justified Iraq intervention.

Comment on Israel-Hamas war

I left this comment on Professor Nacos' blog in response to Israeli-Palestinian Clash: Who is Winning the PR War?:

One of my favorite quotes about Operation Iraqi Freedom is relevant for Israel's current campaign:

"... war is undertaken at the risk of the national soul. The moral certainty that makes war possible is certain only to unleash moral havoc, and moral havoc becomes something the nation has to rise above. We can neither win a war nor save the national soul if all we seek is to remain unsullied—pristine. Anyway, we are well beyond that now. The question is not, and has never been, whether we can fight a war without perpetrating outrages of our own. The question is whether the rightness of the American cause is sufficient not only to justify war but to withstand war's inevitable outrages. The question is whether—if the cause is right—we are strong enough to make it remain right in the foggy moral battleground of war."
- Tom Junod

As we've learned - and needed to learn - in Iraq, for modern liberal Western nations, of which Israel is one, it's insufficient to defeat the enemy on the battlefield and declare victory. In modern liberal Western politics, and for the media that deliberately frames our politics, the perception (fair or not) of being the victimizer is politically debilitating and victims are granted political power. That's good and right in principle, but also exploitable by those who do not share our principles. Therefore, for the stronger side, when that side is a modern liberal Western nation, victory requires not only defeating the enemy, but establishing a tangible long-term better state in the defeated enemy's domain. The non-liberal 'weaker' enemy - whether Hamas or the Iraq insurgents - understands this as a vulnerability they do not share and the more they can promote suffering among the people, and use the media to blame their liberal enemy for the suffering, the stronger they are.

As President Bush's stubborness (which, hopefully, President-elect Obama will inherit) and the Petraeus-led counterinsurgency strategy also has taught us in Iraq, the modern-day guerilla strategy you discuss in this post can be defeated, but it requires more intimate engagement - not less - and a long and patient, intelligent, full-spectrum, and expensive commitment by the occupier to build the liberal peace. These peace-building efforts must endure even when the mission becomes protracted and ugly due to our own entering incompetencies and learning curve, the inevitable circumstances of change on this scale, and the sabotage of a ruthless calculating intelligent enemy. They must endure even when the mission becomes unpopular and misunderstood within the liberal societies of the occupier, and used cynically for political gain by competitive political entities within those societies.

How can Israel win this time? Move beyond 20th century thinking and learn from America's 21st century strategy in the War on Terror. Do more than win on the battlefield. Stay to work for liberal security. Israel must not be cowed by the media-driven protests within the modern liberal West that aid the non-liberal enemy and, therefore, perpetuate the suffering that empowers the enemy. Israel must first decisively defeat and disenfranchise the non-liberal enemy. Then, Israel must not settle for being a realist occupier for the sake of maintaining a security buffer for Israel proper; Israel must be a liberal occupier, as we've been in Iraq, and endure the costs in order to transform the region by building towards a modern liberal peace.

One can hope the media will choose to err on the side of the forces that work for long-term solution through liberal reform rather than continue to synchronize their efforts, deliberately or not, with the non-liberal enemy's open strategy of perpetuating a destructive status quo.

Glimpse inside President Bush's decision on the "Surge" or the real "3 am call"

To set the stage, first see 06OCT05 President Discusses War on Terror at National Endowment for Democracy and the 12JUL07 Press Conference by the President on the counterinsurgency "Surge".

Then, via the always excellent Small Wars Journal, see Troop ‘Surge’ Took Place Amid Doubt and Debate by NY Times reporter Michael Gordon. The article is a fascinating look inside the sharp debates, disagreements, and decision-making process that led to the present COIN strategy in Iraq.

In the same vein, also see Bush's Lonely Decision, the Wall Street Journal review of Bob Woodward's The War Within: A Secret White House History 2006-2008. Excerpts from Woodward's book are serialized at the Washington Post: part 1, part 2, part 3. (h/t)

My biggest criticism of President Bush has been his reliance on delegating, which is not necessarily a poor leadership style, but in a war demanding evolutionary institutional changes, we've needed a President more like FDR who was more of a micro-manager. Excerpt from the Gordon article:

But Mr. Bush’s penchant to defer to commanders in the field and to a powerful defense secretary delayed the development of a new approach until conditions in Iraq, in the words of a November 2006 analysis by the Central Intelligence Agency, resembled anarchy and “civil war.”

I don't believe my criticism, albeit matching Michael Gordon's criticism, is right in this case, though. Primary benchmarks of the initial post-war plan were being met. Situation reports from commanders in Iraq were not providing a clear picture to the leadership in Washington of what was happening on the ground. Incremental adjustments that developed into the counterinsurgency "Surge" were being made under Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. Until the need became obvious as Gordon points out, it was not obvious that a drastic change beyond the incremental adjustments was warranted. A timeframe of three years is reasonable in terms of allowing enough time to prove the success or failure of the initial post-war plan and drastically changing course with the COIN "Surge" when the initial post-war plan failed.

When the crisis point was reached, President Bush did take the necessary action. For the most part, Bush is made out in the Gordon article to be a competent, committed leader who made a tough choice from among a set of strongly held diverging 'expert' views.

President Bush is often maligned as a bumpkin whose strings are pulled by a neo-con cabal, a view reinforced by his less-than-stately public demeanor. And an argument can be made that Bush could, if not should, have made the call for the COIN "Surge" sooner had he been more of a micro-manager rather than a delegator.

However, the Gordon article and Woodward's book show President Bush chose a risky course of action under great pressure to do otherwise, with great deliberation, and so far at least, the course of action has been the correct one. In fact, the group that included GEN David Petraeus and advocated for the course of action that President Bush eventually chose — over the proposals of commanders in Iraq and top military and administration officials — does not seem like it was the most influential faction in the debate.

The Hillary Clinton presidential campaign featured an ad touting her as better qualified than Barack Obama to answer the "3 am call" and make a tough decision with far-reaching international implications. President Bush made his "3 am call" decision with the COIN "Surge".

How will Senator Obama or even Senator McCain fare when they face such an enormous decision without a clearly correct answer, when a decision must be made, when different factions are calling for radically different courses of action? Can either of them be as (eventually) decisive, committed to mission success, and deliberate as President Bush? As much as President Bush is degraded today by popular political culture, I would not be surprised if historians with access to now-classified records treat him much more kindly. Bush's decision for the counterinsurgency "Surge" is an exemplar of resolute principled American presidential leadership.

Add: George W. Bush is smarter than you and Bush ended financial crisis before Obama took office -- three important truths about 2008 by Bush senior economic advisor Keith Hennessey and Dubya and Me (backup) by Walt Harrington.

David Petraeus . . . my man

The always excellent Small Wars Journal posted a Times Online article, General David H Petraeus: The general's knowledge (archived), by Charles M Sennott, profiling General Petraeus, military commander of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

I already admired GEN Petraeus for the obvious reasons, but this quote from the article struck a chord:

“If we are going to fight future wars, they’re going to be very similar to Iraq,” he says, adding that this was why “we have to get it right in Iraq”.

I believe this deeply. With this quote alone, I feel as though GEN Petraeus represents me on the issue of Iraq better than any elected official. He gets it.

It seems obvious to me that our success or failure in Iraq will have far reaching implications. It will define and set the baseline. Operation Iraqi Freedom, as much as anything else, is a critical evolutionary learning curve for us in 4th Generation Warfare. Before OIF, even before 9/11, when I was a MI soldier, I realized we would have to confront our deeply entrenched phobias about guerilla war, moreso as it has evolved with globalization. I didn't invent the notion: over 40 years ago, President Kennedy announced that learning counterinsurgency was the American priority for the 20th Century. Unfortunately, we were hurt badly by the Vietnam War, which proved his point. Our defeat simultaneously provided a blueprint to the world for defeating us and made us phobic about engaging guerilla warfare. We are now struggling to catch up, evolutionarily speaking, in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm reading John Robb's Brave New War at the moment and Robb has only further reinforced my view that our Iraq mission has long-term consequences. Add: Along the same theme of the need to be ready to compete with other forms of martial competition, see Science of Resistance by Paul Tompkins and Robert R. Leonhard.

President John. F. Kennedy – Remarks at West Point to the Graduating Class of the U.S. Military Academy, 6 June 1962

Listen to President Kennedy explain the Iraq intervention to West Point graduates in 1962. It's captivating, a must-listen. The transcript of Kennedy's speech is here. Kennedy's copy of his prepared speech is here. (h/t)

Kennedy was only President from January 1961 until his assassination in November 1963. His main accomplishment in that short time was to set a firm direction for the young liberal superpower with eloquently and powerfully stated ideals and ideas.

Where his 1961 inaugural speech laid a foundation of American ideals, President Kennedy's Special Message to Congress on Urgent National Needs on May 25, 1961 built upon that foundation a set of clear goals and ideas. Most striking is Kennedy's grasp of the evolving nature of geo-politics and warfare, the kind of military we need, the challenges they face, and the kind of missions they need to perform. His speech to West Point's Class of 1962 was formed in the context of his 1961 inaugural speech and special message to Congress on urgent national needs.

Since we are in the midst of the type of war for which President Kennedy sought to prepare our nation, pay special attention to that part of his speech. I won't excerpt from it because the entire speech is worth listening to and reading, especially for any American politician who fancies himself or herself a successor of JFK and a champion of his legacy. Anytime you forget what it means to be a liberal, go back to President Kennedy's inaugural speech, special message to Congress on urgent national needs, and his remarks to the West Point class of 1962, and refresh yourself.

Snapshot of early challenges with and our hope for Iraq

In the excellent Belmont Club, an anti-war commenter referred to a wonderfully instructive snapshot from the Washington Post of the early challenges and our hope for Iraq: Occupation Forces Halt Elections Throughout Iraq by William Booth and Rajiv Chandrasekaran, June 28, 2003. (Article at commondreams.org) The article has been widely cited by anti-war people as proof that the liberal American promise for Iraq was a lie. I understood the article differently.

My reaction:

Thank you. That Washington Post article, in its entirety, is a highly worthwhile read as a snapshot of both the challenges we faced and the justification for our hopes at a critical early stage in the post-war. The WP piece agrees with stories told to me by a friend of mine who served in OIF I (as a soldier, not a CPA civilian). He was an EOD team leader whose jobs were the WMD hunt and destroying ammo stockpiles. He told me how local Iraqi leaders sought out any Americans in leadership positions — even him, an EOD SSG on a non-diplomatic mission — to start the process of building the post-Saddam Iraq. The problem was, while our soldiers were the only practical interface with Iraqis, it was not their job (as it is now) to manage the transition. It was the CPA's job, but they were absent on the ground.

It's terrific reporting by the WP. The Bush admin has been widely accused of being unaware of the conflictual complexities of Iraqi society. If anything, the record shows that the Bush admin was, perhaps, overly sensitive and cautious about those complexities (eg, Bremer's fear of Baathists and Sadrists filling the vacuum).

Given the internal conflicts, missing the right political structure, the Bush admin clearly didn't trust the Iraqi factions to avoid a civil war. In hindsight, perhaps we should have taken a step back from the outset, focused on security, and simply helped the Iraqis while they took the initiative in building their post-Saddam civil society. We would have needed to trust them that they could make that leap from their own history.

In any case, the WP piece captures the caution by Bremer over the complexities of Iraqi society, the desire to avoid the risks of local factions undermining national reconciliation, and the desire by Bremer for a deliberate controlled transition to a stable post-Saddam Iraq. He didn't want a nation-building project doomed to fracture due to a rushed transition cracked with instrinsic structural flaws.

Remember, we had recently watched Afghanistan and Yugoslavia fracture with bloody civil war. We didn't want that to happen in Iraq on our watch, and it was Bremer's job with the CPA to make sure it didn't happen.

The choice of Iraqi military leaders wasn't about creating a puppet government and keeping popularly elected leaders out of the political process, as was expressed by the disillusioned Iraqis in the article. Those generals were supposed to be interim managers who were trained to take orders, top-down, while the CPA organized a national political structure, according to a blueprint, that could incorporate democratically chosen leaders without the nation fracturing.

Sensitive tasks. On their face, Bremer's decisions made sense. In a more 'laboratory' setting, if Bremer had fewer variables, fewer destructive agents, more time, and better constructive agents, he maybe could have done his job.

Unfortunately, we know what happened. Bremer failed. He could not implement his blueprint for post-Saddam transition in Iraq in the deliberate controlled fashion he — and most of us — wanted.

The WP piece backs up my ex-EOD friend's experience that Iraqis did, in fact, trust Americans and were willing to work with us in the early post-war. Clearly, however, that trust was (understandably) conditional and it had its limits. The enemy successfully moved to exploit those limits at the same time Bremer and the CPA, while well-intentioned, were insufficiently competent to accomplish their mission.

Some say that the Iraqis had to go through the bloody turmoil of the last 5 years, a cruel learning curve, to arrive at where they are today. I can't be certain that view is wrong, but I disagree. I believe if GEN Petraeus and his COIN warriors had been in charge in Iraq immediately in the post-war, we would have a far different story in Iraq today.

As is, the Iraqis gave us a real chance to fulfill the American promise in 2003, and we failed them then. If they've given us another chance, I hope we don't fail the Iraqi people again.

Again with realists and Iraq

I chimed in on a neoneocon post about Barack Obama. Regarding the Iraq mission, Obama strikes me as a more-palateable redux of John Kerry in 2004 in that he holds promise for both Iraq mission supporters and opponents.

From the comments thread:

“The various anti-war factions, from the incredibly harmful right-wing realist camp to the isolationists to the leftists, are illiberal. “

Thats interesting. Which faction are the “harmful right-wing realist camp”? Are you talking about those conservatives too anti-McCain to either vote for him or vote against him? Im not sure what you meant there. Other than that, the only truly anti-war Republican Im aware of is Ron Paul camp, and he strikes me more libertarian than right wing.

My response [with some copy editing]:

President Bush, 2004: “Some who call themselves “realists” question whether the spread of democracy in the Middle East should be any concern of ours. But the realists in this case have lost contact with a fundamental reality. America has always been less secure when freedom is in retreat. America is always more secure when freedom is on the march.”

Google ‘realist Iraq’ or a similar variation, and you will find many articles by the top proponents of realism explaining their opposition to our Iraq mission. They have been prolific in their opposition of the mission since the first day the Bush admin made it a prospect. Indeed, it would almost seem that the vindication of their fundamental beliefs as relevant in the 21st century, ie, after the Cold War in which they made their mark, relies upon a defining failure of liberalism in Iraq. It’s been a symbiotic relationship between right-wing realists and radical anti-war protestors. You find few realists stridently protesting the Long War with guerilla theatrics, but their opposition has provided much of the substantive material and legitimacy for the anti-war movement, which in turn, has obliged the realists by applying theory to practical use. Why? Due to their Cold War legacy, realists are highly respected and entrenched authorities in the academic, military, and political (foreign policy) establishments. For its part, the anti-war movement is highly adaptable, because while most of it is ostensibly leftist, it is able to freely adopt and sample the right-wing realist opposition to the Iraq mission. Doing so is not a contradiction for them. The “anti-” of the anti-war movement means their standard of judgement is less about upholding an affirmative belief than whether something can be practically used to attack our nation’s strategy or more specifically target the Republican party or this Bush administration. As such, the realists have been eminently useful in fueling the anti-war movement.

In sum, the realists oppose the Iraq mission because it has been shaped as a Wilsonian progressive liberal mission. Much of the prevailing anti-war argument against the Iraq mission as a (liberal) “fool’s errand" is realist-based. However, Barack Obama presents himself as an enthusiastic, even aggressive, Wilsonian progressive liberal who wants the US to be a proactive, leading liberal change-agent in the world. So, how can Obama’s classically liberal principles square with his professed allegiance to the illiberal anti-war movement? Well, the hope — my hope — is that those principles cause him to be the enthusiastically liberal CinC upholding the Iraq mission that we’ve needed all along. Or, he could be anti-war. Much like John Kerry in 2004, Obama holds forth both promises.

BTW, I had close access to realist thinking as a recent Poli Sci/IR grad from Columbia University, where the realist school is dominant. As a campus activist, I also had close observations of the anti-war movement.

GEN David Petraeus' year-end letter to the troops

GEN Petraeus' letter is copied from the excellent Small Wars Journal.

HEADQUARTERS
MULTI-NATIONAL FORCE – IRAQ
BAGHDAD, IRAQ
APO AE 09342-1400

28 December 2007

Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, and Civilians of Multi-National Force-Iraq:

As 2007 draws to a close, you should look back with pride on what you, your fellow troopers, our Iraqi partners, and Iraqi Coalition civilians have achieved in 2007. A year ago, Iraq was racked by horrific violence and on the brink of civil war. Now, levels of violence and civilians and military casualties are significantly reduced and hope has been rekindled in many Iraqi communities. To be sure, the progress is reversible and there is much more to be done. Nonetheless, the hard-fought accomplishments of 2007 have been substantial, and I want to thank each of you for the contributions you made to them.

In response to the challenges that faced Iraq a year ago, we and our Iraqi partners adopted a new approach. We increased our focus on securing the Iraqi people and, in some cases, delayed transition of tasks to Iraqi forces. Additional U.S. and Georgian forces were deployed to theater, the tours of U.S. unites were extended, and Iraqi forces conducted a surge of their own, generating well over 100,000 more Iraqi police and soldiers during the year so that they, too, had additional forces to execute the new approach. In places like Ramadi, Baqubah, Arab Jabour, and Baghdad, you and our Iraqi brothers fought—often house by house, block by block, and neighborhood by neighborhood—to wrest sanctuaries away from Al Qaeda-Iraq, to disrupt extremist militia elements, and to rid the streets of mafia-like criminals. Having cleared areas, you worked with Iraqis to retain them—establishing outposts in the areas we were securing, developing Iraqi Security Forces, and empowering locals to help our efforts. This approach has not been easy. It has required steadfastness in the conduct of tough offensive operations, creative solutions to the myriad problems on the ground, and persistence over the course of many months and during countless trying situations. Through it all, you have proven equal to every task, continually demonstrating an impressive ability to conduct combat and stability operations in an exceedingly complex environment.

Your accomplishments have given the Iraqi people new confidence and prompted many citizens to reject terror and confront those who practice it. As the months passed in 2007, in fact, the tribal awakening that began in Al Anbar Province spread to other parts of the country. Emboldened by improving security and tired of indiscriminate violence, extremist ideology, oppressive practices, and criminal activity, Iraqis increasingly rejected Al Qaeda-Iraq and rogue militia elements. Over time, the desire of Iraqis to contribute to their own security has manifested itself in citizens volunteering for the police, the Army, and concerned local citizen programs. It has been reflected in citizens providing information that has helped us find far more than double the number of arms and weapons caches we found last year. And it has been apparent in Iraqi communities now supporting their local security forces.

As a result of your hard work and that of our Iraqi comrades-in-arms—and with the support of the local populace in many areas—we have seen significant improvements in the security situation. The number of attacks per week is down some 60 percent from a peak in June of this year to a level last seen consistently in the early summer of 2005. With fewer attacks, we are also seeing significantly reduced loss of life. The number of civilian deaths is down by some 75 percent since its height a year ago, dropping to a level not seen since the beginning of 2006. And the number of Coalition losses is down substantially as well. We remain mindful that the past year’s progress has been purchased through the sacrifice and selfless service of all those involved and that the new Iraq must still contend with innumerable enemies and obstacles. Al Qaeda-Iraq has been significantly degraded, but it remains capable of horrific bombings. Militia extremists have been disrupted, but they retain influence in many areas. Criminals have been apprehended, but far too many still roam Iraqi streets and intimidate local citizens and Iraqi officials. We and our Iraqi partners will have to deal with each of these challenges in the New Year to keep the situation headed in the right direction.

While the progress in a number of areas is fragile, the security improvements have significantly changed the situation in many parts of Iraq. It is now imperative that we take advantage of these improvements by looking beyond the security arena and helping Iraqi military and political leaders as they develop solutions in other areas as well, solutions they can sustain over time. At the tactical level, this means an increasing focus on helping not just Iraqi Security Forces—with whom we must partner in all that we do—but also helping Iraqi governmental organizations as they endeavor to restore basic services, to create employment opportunities, to revitalize local markets, to refurbish schools, to spur local economic activity, and to keep locals involved in contributing to local security. We will have to do all of this, of course, while continuing to draw down our forces, thinning our presence, and gradually handing over responsibilities to our Iraqi partners. Meanwhile, at the national level, we will focus on helping the Iraqi Government integrate local volunteers into the Iraqi Security Forces and other employment, develop greater ministerial capacity and capability, aid displaced persons as they return, and, most importantly, take the all-important political and economic actions needed to exploit the opportunity provided by the gains in the security arena.

The pace of progress on important political actions to this point has been slower than Iraqi leaders had hoped. Still, there have been some important steps taken in recent months. Iraq’s leaders reached agreement on the Declaration of Principles for Friendship and Cooperation with the United States, which lays the groundwork for an enduring relationship between our nations. The United Nations Security Council approved Iraq’s request for a final renewal of the resolution that authorizes the Coalition to operate in Iraq. Iraq’s leaders passed an important Pension Law that not only extends retirement benefits to Iraqis previously left out but also represents the first of what we hope will be additional measures fostering national reconciliation. And Iraq’s leaders have debated at length a second reconciliation-related measure, the Accountability and Justice Bill (the de-Ba’athification Reform Law), as well as the 2008 National Budget, both which likely will be brought up for a vote in early 2008. Even so, all Iraqi participants recognize that much more must be done politically to put their country on an irreversible trajectory to national reconciliation and sustainable economic development. We will, needless to say, work closely with our Embassy teammates to support the Iraq Government as it strives to take advantage of the improved security environment by pursing political and economic progress.

The New Year will bring many changes. Substantial force rotations and adjustments already underway will continue. One Army brigade combat team and a Marine Expeditionary Unit have already redeployed without replacement. In the coming months, four additional brigades and two Marine battalions will follow suit. Throughout that time, we will continue to adapt to the security situation as it evolves. And in the midst of all the changes, we and our Iraqi partners will strive to maintain the momentum, to press the fight, and to pursue Iraq’s enemies relentlessly. Solutions to many of the tough problems will continue to be found at your level, together with local Iraqi leaders and with your Iraqi Security Force partners, in company and battalion areas of operation and in individual neighborhoods an towns. As you and your Iraqi partners turn concepts into reality, additional progress will emerge slowly and fitfully. Over time, we will gradually see fewer bad days and accumulate more good days, good weeks, and good months.

The way ahead will not be easy. Inevitably, there will be more tough days and tough weeks. Unforeseen challenges will emerge. And success will require continued hard work, commitment, and initiative from all involved. As we look to the future, however, we should remember how far we have come in the past year. Thanks to the tireless efforts and courageous actions of the Iraqi people, Iraq’s political and military leaders, the Iraqi Security Forces, and each of you, a great deal has been achieved in 2007. Thus, as we enter a new year, we and our Iraqi partners will have important accomplishments and a newfound sense of hope on which we can build.

As always, all or your leaders, our fellow citizens back home, and I deeply appreciate the dedication, professionalism, commitment, and courage you display on a daily basis. It remains the greatest of honors to serve with each of you in this critical endeavor.

Sincerely,

David H. Petraeus

Violence works

"Violence works" was Professor Thad Russell's repeated mantra in his Barnard history class, "American Civilization after the Civil War". His point was about American activist history and that diplomatic means of political advocacy could not match the change wrought by insurgent tactics.

My gut reaction is that the removal of humanitarian people and organizations from places like Afghanistan and Iraq is devastating to the greater political process because they — perhaps more than our military civil affairs and government-based aid/development orgs — embody the positive (progressive) promise of the Western relationship in its most interactive form.

Further, I believe their introduction, relationship-building, and then removal under threat has been more damaging to our mission and empowering to the insurgents than if they had been absent from the beginning. The tactic of targeting "non-combatants" has been repeatedly validated as effective, and more significantly, the gap left by the aid groups' removal has severely undermined the full-spectrum interactions necessary to bring about the so-called "political" solution in the peace-building process.*

Read this and despair: YONHAP NEWS: Afghanistan kidnappings keep Korean missionaries from going overseas

Excerpt:

Rev. Park Eun-jo of Sammul Church in Seongnam, south of Seoul, to which all the hostages belong, said Monday that the church will stop volunteer services unwanted by the Afghan government and is taking steps to pull the remaining volunteers out of the war-torn country. "Some already began preparations to return home," a church official said.

In Afghanistan, volunteer workers affiliated with about 10 nongovernmental organizations were to soon close their medical and educational aid activities and return home. "The South Korean Embassy in Afghanistan sent a public document recommending we immediately leave the country, but we have yet to decide when to leave," a medical aid worker operating in Kandahar told Yonhap News Agency by phone, requesting anonymity.

According to the Middle East Team, a Seoul-based Christian group working to help evangelical missionaries and volunteer workers abroad, seven teams had plans to leave for Afghanistan and other Islamic countries in late July, but three cancelled the planned trips and four postponed trips indefinitely in the wake of the kidnapping.

"They already finished reserving air tickets between April and May, but cancelled or indefinitely postponed their trips after learning about the Taliban's kidnapping of Koreans," said Kim Do-heon, a manager of the group. "We persuaded them to make the decision to cope with a possible recurrence of the kidnapping crisis even if they intended to stay in relatively safer regions."

Four Christian evangelical churches in Seoul and its suburbs also changed their plans to dispatch missionary and volunteer teams composed of 10 to 20 members each to such Middle East countries as Egypt, Turkey and Pakistan, according religious sources.

* Update: For what it's worth, the SMEs at Small Wars Journal assure me that the actual impact by private aid groups like the Korean missionary group has been minor to the point of insignificance.