Still waiting …

[aadler]

 
Various deadlines, but the overall situation remains up in the air. With one thing and another, it’s beginning to get frustrating.

First Cut — Military issues

My team may be leaving Guantanamo very soon — as early as next week — or we may not. The orders still haven’t come in, the people tracking them haven’t received any definitive word, and our REFRAD date (release from active duty) would have required us to leave two days ago, to give us adequate time for out-processing.

Paradoxically, the same confusion and urgency could work to our advantage: the larger Joint Task Force under which we’re working, confronted with the prospect of losing an on-scene asset with no indication whatsoever of when it will be replaced, may kick the matter upstairs with a strong suggestion that our tours be extended until the issue can be settled in one way or another.

I’ve reached a balance point on that. If we go home now, fine. If we’re here another six months, fine. Either way, though, we should stay until our replacements arrive. Everybody concerned in this wants us to do so; the problem is that the decision is in the hands of people who have no stake in the matter. (Or maybe their stake consists of budgetary and paperwork tidiness, whereas on our end it’s about getting the job done.)

Close First Cut

Second Cut — Political observations

Back in March and April, the proposed troop surge in Iraq was prounounced a failure by left-leaning pundits and Democratic office-holders, even before it began. As recently as five or six weeks ago, it was still being dismissed as too little, too late, and reports of growing success in Iraq were simply ignored. Now the cumulative progress there has become too obvious to ignore or deny, and the detractors are having to find new ground from which to argue.

They’re discovering what should have been self-evident: playing to lose is a losing game. Democrats lost two Presidential elections by playing to lose in Vietnam; once they forced a defeat in Southeast Asia, they took one election (which gave us the Iranian Revolution, thank you very much) and lost the next three. It was a dozen years before the American nation would again trust a Democrat in the White House. He rewarded that trust with tough talk and little action in the face of mounting aggression by Islamic radicals, and we’re still cleaning up the resultant mess.

One side looks at a war and says, “We can win, and it’s important that we win, so let’s do what’s necessary to win.” Legitimate questions are raised about how well they’re doing the job, but that’s the job they’ve set themselves. The other says, about the same war, “We can’t win, not really, and anyway it’s not that important, so we need to figure out how to quit as soon as possible.” And they do what they can to turn their pessimistic vision into fact.

I picked my side in this. And I didn’t make the choice I did, just to watch it be pissed away by people who need for us to lose, in a larger goal, so they can win in a smaller one.

Close Second Cut

Maybe the next few days will bring some resolution to our mission status here. By this point, any resolution would be a relief.

Comments

[http://users.livejournal.com/opalescence_/]

I hope you get some resolution quickly. No matter how flexible and agreeable one is, it's nice to know what your life will involve in the near future!

I agree with your opinion about the troop surge. But prepare yourself for those who oppose the war in Iraq to do whatever they can to throw suspicion and/or negativity on any good reports.

Hang in there.

[aadler]

It’s as I said, I really am at a point where I’m prepared to go either way. I do hate to leave without having briefed a replacement team, though. That’s just not the way it’s supposed to be done.

As far as negative spin on good reports, most of the naysayers seem to be shifting their ground: rather than try to deny the results we’ve achieved, they point instead to perceived faults in the Iraqi government. The desired goal is the same, however; they want us out, they want all Bush policies to be perceived as failures, and any argument that will achieve those ends is a good argument regardless of its truth or lack of same.

[kokyu.livejournal.com]

Just a note to say I appreciate your hard work and jeopardy. Thank you.

[aadler]

Less jeopardy here than elsewhere. Still, it’s always good to know someone considers the job to be worth doing. Thanks.

[tessarin.livejournal.com]

The playing to lose comment feels like the Brown cabinet's view on the war. Mind you it is a bit like their seesawing in Afghanistan. One minute the media is all doom mongering the next you hear about another Taleban defeat in Helmand or Kandahar.

[aadler]

‘Playing to lose’ was perhaps not the ideal phrasing. A better way of saying it is that they’ve staked their fortunes on America’s defeat. Not a good thing for any American — and certainly not America’s leaders — to be doing.

As far as problems in Afghanistan, that’s probably being underreported; Taliban resurgence there has been mentioned (and criticized), but Iraq still dominates the headlines. The claim has been made, by people whose opinions I respect, that we’ve lost as much initiative in Afghanistan as we’ve gained in Iraq. I’d hate to believe that’s true … but if it is, we’ll just have to regain that ground. In this war, any defeat — like any victory — must be followed by a renewed commitment to winning.