Iraq: Political Posturing on a Grand Scale

The President's State of the Union Address has come and gone amid much fanfare. Unfortunately, those in opposition to our efforts in Iraq didn't really listen to the speech. The events which transpired after the speech followed the current action templates for both political parties. Aspiring presidential candidates postured for politically viable positions on the war. Now, the Senate Foreign Affairs committee has passed a non binding resolution which opposes the current surge of troop strength into Iraq. Minds have been made up, paradigms constructed, and the entrance of new data obstructed. How small we all are at times. The most obvious example of political expedience is the current visit to Iraq by Speaker Pelosi and her entourage. If I'm not mistaken, prior to even getting their feet dirty in Iraq, both she and her brethren have already made up their minds. My guess is that they believe photo opportunities in the combat zone will provide a requisite authenticity to their argument.

No matter how you feel about Iraq, we can all agree on two basic principles. First, the war has not followed the template envisioned by the President's national security team, the Pentagon, nor the theater commander. Secondly, those of us residing outside of the combat zone formulate opinions about the current state of affairs in Iraq with limited data.

Warfare never follows a predictable pattern of events. The initial operations plan is only accurate until the first shots are fired. All operations plans are implemented in order to achieve the commander's objectives and mission end state. All commander's objectives support the end state of the Commander in Chief. In Iraq, President Bush's end state is quite clear. Mission success is defined as a self sustaining fledgling democracy in Iraq. Commander's in theater rely on an information gathering process known as IPB or, the intelligence preparation of the battlefield. Once operations have commenced, they rely on daily intelligence estimates. These estimates provide the raw data they require to complete their objectives or, serve as warnings when operations need to be adjusted to realities on the ground. In order to provide for force protection, none of us back here in the States are privy to this data. Neither is the Congress. In reality, we all formulate our opinions based on second hand information. Select congressional committees get briefed but only on a post operative basis. If I'm not mistaken, our Constitution is quite specific. We are a representative democracy in which, the President leads our forces and Congress funds them. If Congress no longer supports operations in Iraq, then they need to grow a set of cajones and stop the funding. Of course, we all know that they lack the backbone to do this since their end state is the White House and should the President's surge lead to success in Iraq, they do not want to be seen by the American public as stumbling blocks to progress in the Middle East.

Wars are never fought with popularity polls as a guideline for success. Real people get injured or perish. The possibility for calamity exists in both camps. Military will is never an issue when well trained, well equipped forces are led by a unified chain of command with a common objective. The weak link in the chain on a national scale is political will. When the political will falters, our foundation weakens and the whole structure will soon come tumbling down around us. As a former soldier, I have no problem admitting that I have insufficient data with which to aggressively support or oppose the President's new Iraq policy. Most assuredly, I have an opinion however, as a member of a representative democracy, I will provide him with the latitude to conduct this war in a manner that he believes will lead to success. Wars are never fought and won by committee. One would think our congressional delegates knew this already.

De Oppresso Liber