'Mission accomplished' ... not
Avoiding Defeat
By ANDREW J. BACEVICH
Book Review, NYT
THE ENDGAME: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Iraq, From George W. Bush to Barack Obama
By Michael R. Gordon and Bernard E. Trainor
Illustrated. 779 pp. Pantheon Books. $35.
MY SHARE OF THE TASK: A Memoir
By Stanley McChrystal
Illustrated. 451 pp. Portfolio/Penguin. $29.95.
Two graphs introduce the text of “The Endgame,” Michael R. Gordon and Bernard E. Trainor’s instructive yet analytically shallow account of the Iraq war after the fall of Baghdad. The first depicts weekly attacks in Iraq from early 2004 to mid-2010, the second civilian deaths from January 2006 to May 2010. The graphs present identical images: bad news getting worse until early 2007, then pronounced improvement. The message is clear: In early 2007 a decided turn occurred. As with the Civil War after Gettysburg or the war in the Pacific after Midway, a conflict that had been going badly suddenly started heading in the right direction.
In early 2007, of course, Gen. David H. Petraeus had arrived in Baghdad to assume command of all coalition forces. Petraeus brought a revised strategy known as counterinsurgency, or COIN, that he himself had played a key role in formulating (or at least rediscovering). Soon thereafter, additional United States forces began deploying to the war zone. All of this — a new commander, revised strategy, more troops — formed what has since become enshrined as the “surge.”
Groups and individuals invested in the proposition that the surge “worked” — many members of the officer corps, most Republicans and virtually all neoconservatives — will welcome “The Endgame” as an account sustaining their conviction that the Iraq war, however belatedly, ended up in the win column. While by no means overlooking the egregious blunders occurring along the way, Gordon and Trainor grant that claim a qualified endorsement. Not insignificantly, they title their concluding chapter “Mission Accomplished.” Yet to accept any such verdict — no matter how narrowly defined the mission — is to misconstrue the war’s outcome and significance.
(More here.)
Book Review, NYT
THE ENDGAME: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Iraq, From George W. Bush to Barack Obama
By Michael R. Gordon and Bernard E. Trainor
Illustrated. 779 pp. Pantheon Books. $35.
MY SHARE OF THE TASK: A Memoir
By Stanley McChrystal
Illustrated. 451 pp. Portfolio/Penguin. $29.95.
Two graphs introduce the text of “The Endgame,” Michael R. Gordon and Bernard E. Trainor’s instructive yet analytically shallow account of the Iraq war after the fall of Baghdad. The first depicts weekly attacks in Iraq from early 2004 to mid-2010, the second civilian deaths from January 2006 to May 2010. The graphs present identical images: bad news getting worse until early 2007, then pronounced improvement. The message is clear: In early 2007 a decided turn occurred. As with the Civil War after Gettysburg or the war in the Pacific after Midway, a conflict that had been going badly suddenly started heading in the right direction.
In early 2007, of course, Gen. David H. Petraeus had arrived in Baghdad to assume command of all coalition forces. Petraeus brought a revised strategy known as counterinsurgency, or COIN, that he himself had played a key role in formulating (or at least rediscovering). Soon thereafter, additional United States forces began deploying to the war zone. All of this — a new commander, revised strategy, more troops — formed what has since become enshrined as the “surge.”
Groups and individuals invested in the proposition that the surge “worked” — many members of the officer corps, most Republicans and virtually all neoconservatives — will welcome “The Endgame” as an account sustaining their conviction that the Iraq war, however belatedly, ended up in the win column. While by no means overlooking the egregious blunders occurring along the way, Gordon and Trainor grant that claim a qualified endorsement. Not insignificantly, they title their concluding chapter “Mission Accomplished.” Yet to accept any such verdict — no matter how narrowly defined the mission — is to misconstrue the war’s outcome and significance.
(More here.)
Powered by Blogger
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home