One Man's Transformation on Iraq Worth Considering

By Andrew Cochran

On this anniversary of the entry of U.S. troops into Iraq, it's instructive to look back on the changes in opinions on the war as the nature of the conflict changed. Last month, "Army Magazine" published "The Modern Seven Pillars of Iraq," an essay by Lt. Col. Craig Trebilcock, U.S. Army Reserve, who served as a Judge Advocate and coordinated reconstruction of the Iraqi legal system, during a one-year deployment. Writing before the "surge" in U.S. troops into the region, Col. Trebilcock wrote pessimistically on the use of additional military force and recommended a political strategy based on what he views as seven "pillars" of Iraqi culture, one of which is: "The primary concern of Iraqi officials is not democracy or the political evolution of a successful Iraqi nationstate. It is the use of their position in government to gain personal wealth, as well as benefits for their extended family, tribe or sect." Trebilcock has come to the conclusion that the American ideal of democracy is simply not and will not be a part of Iraqi culture. "As the concept of democracy does not have significant value in Iraqi culture, the people’s willingness to fight and die for its success is virtually nonexistent. Instead, consistent with their cultural expectations, Iraqis will tend to use their official or security positions to gain personal and family advantage, even if “Rome” burns about them. The daily involvement of corrupt Iraqi police in kidnappings and extortion reflects this." (If this looks familiar to readers, see my recent post about the Iraqi police.) He concludes with a prediction of strategic defeat, "In the end, by ignoring the cultural and internal political realities of Iraq in favor of a one-dimensional approach based upon military remedies, the civilian leadership of our military will likely win the battle and lose the war."

His current views contrast sharply to his views in October 2003, seven months after the beginning of the war, when he wrote an op-ed for the Washington Times titled, "Why War in Iraq?" Then, it was all about rescuing Iraqis from Saddam Hussein's own rule of terror: "Those who fought to liberate Iraq shake their heads in wonder that President Bush and Tony Blair are still under attack as to whether a particular piece of intelligence regarding WMD was good enough to justify military action when the lives of millions have been saved from murder and oppression. Although the fighting continues, the groundwork is being laid every day for Iraq to emerge as a free and stable country in a region characterized by oppression and instability. On the strategic scene, these are issues in the vital interest of the United States worth fighting for." A lot of us shared those views then.

It's true that since the surge, the numbers have changed in our favor. Let's see it as it is, a short-term indicator of tactical success, and not a predictor of the final strategic outcome.

TrackBack