Army Community - Army Discussions - Army Times

Backtalk

A group of battle-hardened enlisted infantrymen from the 82nd Airborne Division wrote an opinion piece for The New York Times recently that provided an assessment of the effectiveness of American operations and prospects in Iraq, based on more than 15 months of hard fighting at the local level.

Their view of the situation on the ground in Iraq was essentially the opposite of other assessments that have come out of Baghdad over the last few months.

These American infantrymen argued that American military operations have not produced any meaningful effects in terms of real, on-the-ground security at the local level for the Iraqi people. They pointed out the inability of American military forces to affect the complex problems that plague Iraq.

They pointed out the futility of trying to create security at the local level by arming the Sunnis, since doing so only inflames the ongoing civil war and reduces the possibility of it being resolved. They also pointed out a most disturbing observation: Many American soldiers are now being targeted and killed by Iraqi security forces in cooperation with local militias.

Overall, their observations are not optimistic about the prospect of reconciliation in Iraq. In a rendering of the situation there, these infantrymen do state that, in time, reconciliation will come to Iraq, but it will be on Iraqi terms and only after the current Shiite government has been able to consolidate the gains that it has won.

Reconciliation will come, but with the price of much more blood from the other groups in Iraq that currently oppose the Shiite government. Civil wars are usually fought in this manner and ended in such ways.

The bleak assessment from these infantrymen is the opposite of much rosier views presented in assessments by others who have recently toured Iraq under the sponsorship of coalition forces. Notable examples include a July opinion article in The New York Times by Brookings Institution scholars Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, along with repetitive positive assessments by pundits from the American Enterprise Institute.

It is curious that proponents of the “surge” have not commented on the infantrymen’s piece to the extent that they did with the O’Hanlon and Pollack article. I wonder why. Is it because these experts place greater credibility in their own officially sponsored and limited tours of Iraq battlefields than an assessment by battle-hardened combat soldiers who have spent the last 15 months on the ground in Iraq conducting combat operations at the local level?

Is it because these infantrymen are lower-enlisted soldiers and lack the perspective of how things in Iraq look from the top?

Americans in general, and experts in particular, should pay attention to reports like the infantrymen’s because they viewed the world from where security matters most — deep inside Iraqi neighborhoods.

It would be interesting to get a response from O’Hanlon and Pollack on the infantrymen’s assessment, especially since it so fundamentally contradicts their July report. O’Hanlon and Pollack believe that the “surge” has the potential to produce the conditions for a war in Iraq that “we still might win.” The infantrymen argue that American military power no longer can effectively influence events on the ground in Iraq.

Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer argued on Aug. 24 that the surge is, in fact, working on the ground at the local level and should be given more time. Krauthammer cites the O’Hanlon and Pollack piece but does not consider the contrary argument made by the infantrymen.

I am not sure what to think. I spent 2006 in command of a cavalry squadron in west Baghdad. The infantrymen’s most recent assessment reflects my personal views of the situation in Iraq when I left in December 2006. But much has changed, and much effort has been put forth since then.

Positive assessments about the situation in Iraq from experts such as O’Hanlon and Pollack cause me to consider my own assessment, especially since many months have passed since I dealt personally with the death and destruction that appears to have become common on the streets of Baghdad.

Perhaps the American people should receive more views like the infantrymen’s. Such views can help Americans and their political leaders decide the course for Iraq in the upcoming months.

Sadly, of the infantrymen who contributed to the opinion piece, one was seriously wounded by a sniper before their article was published, and two others, Staff Sgt. Yance T. Gray and Sgt. Omar Mora, were killed last month in a vehicle accident while returning to base from a combat mission.

I think the American people owe it to these men to hear and seriously consider what they had to say.