Lieutenant Colonel John Nagl joined the Washington Post and their online visitors this afternoon for a The War Over the War Q&A.
Readers joined U.S. Army Lt. Col. John Nagl, author of " Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife: Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam," on Tuesday, April 22 at 1 p.m. ET to discuss the latest developments and the debate in Washington among government, military and intelligence officials about what course to follow in Iraq...
Here's the first question and answer.
Detroit: Lt. Col. Nagl, as an American trying to make sense of Iraq I find it troubling that the administration and the media to a great extent try to simplify the relationships and polarization that exists in Iraq. Good vs. evil hardly can be the subtext to this story. It is my understanding that all political groups of any size have their own militias, not just Sadr. Is this true? If so, what of the joyous recent pronouncements from Rice that the Iraq government is banning militias? Why are they moving on him now, and what is the implication given the upcoming elections?
Lt. Col. John Nagl: Detroit, Iraq is indeed a complicated place; I think General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker did a good job last week of laying out just how fragile the progress we've seen over the past year still is, and how many parties have an interest in the future direction of Iraq. There are in fact several political groups with affiliated militia movements, although Sadr's is among the most worrisome, and has the potential to significantly affect the course of the elections this fall. In this light, I think the decision by the Government of Iraq (GoI) to move against not just Sadr's militia, but all of them, is a step in the right direction. How well it is executed remains to be seen.
Also check out SWJ friend Andrew Exum's Strategic Miscommunication over at The Guardian. Key quote from the subtitle - The Pentagon's spinning of military analysts isn't an illegal propaganda campaign against the American people - it's just savvy PR.
In a third-party counterinsurgency campaign pitting a strong, industrial democracy against a poorly-armed guerrilla group, the weak underbelly of the democracy carrying out the campaign is the popular support it must have to continue its war efforts. An authoritarian government can start and stop wars when it decides - democracies ostensibly require the will of the people to initiate and then carry out any type of sustained military action. As such, maintaining the enthusiasm of the populace for the war effort is both desired and necessary in a counterinsurgency campaign. That said, the potential for excess on the part of the government is readily apparent, and checks on abuse of power must be firmly established...
If you just glanced at the front page of Sunday's New York Times, you could be forgiven for thinking reporter David Barstow and his editors had uncovered a real scandal at the Pentagon: had the department of defence been waging a propaganda campaign against the American people in the early years of the Iraq war?
In the end, though, all the 8,500-word article revealed was that the department of defence had (very cleverly) manipulated popular opinion by targeting opinion makers - in this case, the retired generals who often turn up on television news as "military experts" - with the same kind of positive "spin" everyday Americans are subjected to every waking hour during a presidential campaign...