Time is the Devil to Success

Fire of Liberty

James Joyner has a good piece over at Tech Central Station that points out that while folks in the Dean Squad and certain segments of the American public are slowly beating their drums for our withdrawal from Iraq, the American forces have actually begun to gain some ground in their counter-insurgency fight but as with past experiences, the effort will take time. Now if you ask the countless generals and soldiers in our military if they'd rather fight a neat, quick and bloodless war or achieve a complete and lasting victory over their opponent, you'll have 10 out of 10 of them agreeing for the latter. Though the carnage of our counterinsurgency fight against the Islamo-fascists in Iraq is broadcast in our homes each and every night thus pulling at the heart-strings of the American people and the people who send these fine young soldiers off to war, our soldiers still want to achieve a lasting victory and know that the only viable solution is through a long hard slog in Iraq. I'd say that Joyner pretty much summed up the desire of our soldiers to finish the job in Iraq in the following paragraphs:

Regardless of the institutional preferences to the contrary, though, the United States military has had great success fighting small wars. The Army has a long history of doing so, from the French and Indian War to the War for Independence to the Indian Wars to the Spanish-American War to Vietnam to Afghanistan. The Marines have made it their specialty. Even in Vietnam, which was both the longest war in our history and the biggest loss, the military did an excellent job of adapting to an enemy that fluctuated between conventional and guerrilla tactics. The Army's Green Berets and the Navy SEALs were specialists at this type of warfare, but the conventional Army and Marines fought it well, too.

The problem in Vietnam and Iraq is not so much that the U.S. military is bad at counterinsurgency but that insurgencies are incredibly hard to defeat. Whereas a conventional force fights in the open and can be taken on directly, an insurgency fights piecemeal and hides among the civilian population. This puts the counterinsurgency force -- especially a foreign power -- at a great disadvantage. On the one hand, they can go in full force to kill insurgents and almost certainly kill innocents, alienating the local population whose support is desperately needed. On the other, being too patient allows the insurgents to continue their reign of terror, not only killing friendly soldiers but also creating the impression that the host government and/or its foreign backers cannot keep order.

A professional military can defeat an insurgency despite these obstacles but, unfortunately, they can not do it quickly. In a society that demands fast results, that time is usually not a luxury the military has. This is even more true in an age of 24/7 television and the constant clamoring of pundits on the tube, talk radio, and blogs. Add to that an increasingly hostile partisan atmosphere and a never-ending campaign cycle, which means that politics no longer end at the water's edge, the pressure is even stronger.

I just hope someone can convince the American people about the desire of our soldiers to "finish the drill" in Iraq rather than the "cut and run," policies being advocated by Murtha, Pelosi, and Dean. From the 5 point bounce that President Bush has garnered in the NY Times/CBS, Ipso/AP and other polls, I'd say that they're getting the message.