The Belgravia Dispatch: The Perils of Over-Optimism

April 12, 2006

The Perils of Over-Optimism

David Rieff, reviewing Cobra II in TNR:

The problem of optimism lies at the heart of what went wrong both in the planning stages for the war and subsequently on the ground in Iraq. Recently, the U.S. Army journal Military Review published an essay by Brigadier Nigel Aylwin-Foster, a British officer who had served in Iraq alongside U.S. forces. His criticism was sharp, and for the most part it concerned strictly military matters. But he, too, came back again and again to this question of what he called "damaging optimism"--the refusal of American commanders to accept the possibility that things might go wrong. And lest this seem simply like the usual British sour grapes about America (Greece to their Rome and all that jazz), the worry about overly optimistic thinking is one of the key recommendations of a recent Department of Defense study cautioning that the tendency of U.S. officers to take their wishes for reality has created huge problems for the American effort in Iraq.
Aylwin-Foster wrote that "self-belief and resilient optimism are recognized necessities for successful command, and all professional forces strive for a strong can-do ethos. However, it is unhelpful if it discourages junior commandeers from reporting unwelcome news up the chain of command. Force commanders and political masters need to know the true state of affairs if they are to reach timely decisions to change plans: arguably, they [the Americans] did not always do so." In a somewhat more discreet echo of Gordon and Trainor's blunt talk about "the dysfunction of American military structures," Aylwin-Foster described the American military establishment in Iraq as seeming to be "weighted down by bureaucracy, a stiflingly hierarchical outlook, a predisposition to offensive operations, and a sense that duty required all issues to be confronted head-on." In other words, a military admirably configured to mount a lightning campaign against an inferior foe, but not a military (let alone a political leadership!) prepared to fight a prolonged semi-guerrilla war, particularly in a context of mounting sectarian violence in which the United States can obviously take no side...

...It is a commonplace that wars always surprise, and that hindsight is 20/20, and so on. But Iraq was never the mystery that administration apologists and other supporters of the war now insist that it was. To the contrary, what Saddam wrought in almost thirty years of rule was abundantly clear to anyone who cared to look. He had destroyed the communists and long ago sent the liberals into exile--so much so that they did not recognize Iraq when they returned; so much so that, with the exception of some exemplary figures such as Kanan Makiya, who has largely fled politics, many have left again. The exiles were away too long. And what was left in this increasingly pious and re-tribalized Iraq? Sciri, the Dawa Party: in other words, the groups that have captured the overwhelming majority of the majority Shia vote; the former protégés of Tehran. Did one have to be the second coming of Clausewitz to figure this out? No, one simply had to be willing to examine some preconceived notions.

These realities are obviously not the subject of this splendid book, nor should they have been. But without this larger historical and political context, and without any explanation of why Bush and his team were so sanguine about postwar Iraq, the book sometimes can read like a joke without a punch line. The distinguished Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld was doubtless being hyperbolic when he argued last year that the invasion of Iraq was "the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C. sent his legions into Germany and lost them," but he, like most critics of the war and the postwar, is only an informed outsider. Gordon and Trainor are insiders. With Cobra II, they have performed an invaluable service by cutting through the nonsense that the Bush administration and its echo chamber on Fox, the columns of the New York Post, and blogs such as Powerline and Hugh Hewitt continue to peddle about Iraq.

Read the whole thing.

P.S. For a telling example of the sycophantic world-view Rumsfeld evidently likes to surround himself with, read this account (prominently displayed at the Pentagon's website) about how Iraq is on the "cusp of greatness." I harbor no ill-will to the Colonel who believes Iraq is on the cusp of such auspicious things. He is there, it is his right and prerogative to so feel, and his sentiments are doubtless heartfelt and genuine. But it showcases a deep ignorance about the historical forces that have been unleashed in Iraq, and the many pitfalls that await. It's not serious, but rather evocative of the over-optimism Rieff highlights in the passage I quote above. Anyway, put this little example in the time capsule too, for another small window into the delusional, faith-based war-making that Donald Rumsfeld is presiding over. Fantasy-land, as Fareed Zakaria put it Sunday on This Week.

Posted by Gregory at April 12, 2006 03:39 PM | TrackBack (1)

Comments

Saddam may have "destroyed the Communists" but in fact they are there on the ground in Iraq, and are in fact part of Allawi's block. They dont have the strength they had before Saddam, but they have certainly not given up. You say it was obvious what we would find there, and yet speak approvingly of Kanan Makiya, who, if memory serves was rather more optmistic himself, pre-war, about the prospects for liberalism in Iraq. To a considerable extent the weak prospects for liberalism have been the victim of the events since the March 2003, more than the cause. (and yes, the victim of poor planning, poor management of the CPA, etc)

We are, as you rightly point out, going through a very bad time in Iraq (and shame on Rumsfeld for not being more forthright about that) But this is providing an opportunity for I told you so's from pre-war pessimists, that may not serve us well in the future in other places. Indeed, they may not serve us well in Iraq, right now.

Posted by: liberalhawk at April 12, 2006 07:19 PM | Permalink to this comment

Maybe you should admit that you were wrong and the logic you used to get into this mess will not be the logic to use, to get out.

Posted by: rs at April 12, 2006 08:48 PM | Permalink to this comment

Greg: "He is there, it is his right and prerogative to so feel, and his sentiments are doubtless heartfelt and genuine."

I disagree. If he is factually wrong, then he is wrong. It's his responsibility as an officer and commander to know what's going on; to separate his desires from the facts.

Posted by: Barry at April 12, 2006 09:42 PM | Permalink to this comment

But this is providing an opportunity for I told you so's from pre-war pessimists

I believe David Rieff was pro-war.

LH, they are essentially destroyed. I don't think Rieff meant 100% obliterated. Non-existent. But functionally speaking, he is correct. They are a small part of a small bloc that didn't get much support from the population in several rounds of elections. What does that really amount to in the end? Considering their prior popularity?

You say it was obvious what we would find there, and yet speak approvingly of Kanan Makiya, who, if memory serves was rather more optmistic himself, pre-war, about the prospects for liberalism in Iraq.

First of all, I think Rieff spoke approvingly of Makiya, not Greg. Though I don't doubt Greg would back up Rieff's sentiments. But this praise of Makiya is not for his foresight, predictions or vision. In Rieff's excerpt, the praise is for Makiya's decision (unlike many other returned exiles) to stay in Iraq and continue working toward his goals despite the remarkable hardships, setbacks and, perhaps, futility.

In that sense, he cuts a kind of tragic figure. But I don't think it should be black and white. Makiya is neither all good nor all bad. He was fantastically misguided regarding his vision of his once-and future homeland and what a post-invasion Iraq would look like. But I don't doubt his intentions or his heart. So it should be possible to praise the latter traits without ignoring, excusing or endorsing the former.

Posted by: Eric Martin at April 12, 2006 11:39 PM | Permalink to this comment

Thanks for the clarification Greg.

I thought I read somewhere that he was. Or that he was, generally speaking, more amenable to humanitarian interdictions than he is now. Maybe that latter point is what's pinging around in my mind. That he has lost faith in our ability to intercede for humanitarian reasons.

Posted by: Eric Martin at April 12, 2006 11:48 PM | Permalink to this comment

eric: had coffee w/ david rieff recently. he was never for the war, he relayed, rather convincingly. i think he got looped in w/ the so-called 'liberal hawks' like ignatieff or wieseltier or beinart erroneously.

Posted by: greg at April 12, 2006 11:50 PM | Permalink to this comment

OK, that's really odd. I saw your comment, then responded. But somehow mine got queued ahead of yours.

Posted by: Eric Martin at April 12, 2006 11:59 PM | Permalink to this comment

Greg

Very nice extract, rather matches my impressions when I was 'next door.'

As to "liberalhawk"'s comment:

First, there is really pitiful nitpicking as an attempt to make a point.
Saddam may have "destroyed the Communists" but in fact they are there on the ground in Iraq, and are in fact part of Allawi's block.

Yeah. A handful of bloody outdated has beens as a minority inside a minority. You might wish to count the 'Allaoui Block' and reflect on the meaning of marginality.

They dont have the strength they had before Saddam, but they have certainly not given up.

They're clowns. They're bloody clowns. A sideshow. Is that supposed to be a point?

It was obvious to any informed observer. Bloody hell, I'm in finance and I could have bloody well briefed the US Administration on the idiocy of believing Iraq was the 'secular well educated blah blah' image the American Administration and its simple minded fools of enablers were pimping.

I personally have no idea if Makiya was 'rather more optimistic or not' but it has no fucking bearing at all on the point if he were - Djerian was merely applauding the bravery (one might well say mad optimism) of one liberal in the wilderness. That has fuck all to do with Makiya's presumed views being well-founded.

Profoundly stupid hand waving distraction as a pseudo-argument in rebuttal.

To a considerable extent the weak prospects for liberalism have been the victim of the events since the March 2003, more than the cause. (and yes, the victim of poor planning, poor management of the CPA, etc)

Rubbish.

Utter rubbish.

There was never (and I am quite the fan of liberalism - presuming we're speaking of classic liberalism, not US center leftism) good prospects for the kind of Liberal (again classic not US center left) paradise that the US administration was pimping as a vision for the Middle East. Never.

At best, had CPA-Iraq not been so stunningly, jaw-droppingly incompetent, and had plans drawn up by informed parties been followed, one might have ended up with maybe some foundational experience for political liberalism (although I think one was always bound to head towards a Ben Ali type), and some foundational movement towards economic liberalism as Iraqi mentalities slowly moved on from the old State centered mentality. Slowly.

What the bloody fuck is this supposed to mean?

Had others (not the Looney Left in the US and UK, they're never pleased by anything at all) held feet to the fire back in 2003 - above all in the US case since the US was running around like a bull in a china shop - then perhaps problems may have been fixed. This namby pamby cowardly "shush you give aide to the enemies" tripe is both intellectually dishonest and the height of idiocy.

The current US government is grossly, dangerously incompetent and it bloody well needs to have its feet held to the fire to prevent further acts of senseless incompetence. Better it be done by honest, clear thinking sorts on the Right like Greg, than the baying loons on the hard left. The US Right's clinging to the fantasy that it is the "Media" that is causing the problem and running behind the tattered skirts of a completely inappropriately framed 'loose lips' scare campaign does nothing but make the US look rather more foolish, lose yet more prestige and frankly allow incompetents to run the ship.

Idiocy, complete and utter idiocy. There needs to be more Djerejians around to get accountability and correct course, not more bloody "Winds of Change" and related drooling ideological gits

Posted by: The Lounsbury at April 13, 2006 12:21 AM | Permalink to this comment

If you want accountability, you're not going to get it from blogging. Your vote is what counts.

If you're going to wish really, really hard that Bush replaces Rumsfeld, you're not going to get that - at least not in terms of "someone who can fix what's wrong with our strategy in Iraq." Because Rumsfeld isn't the only reason, or even the chief reason, Iraq is a cock-up.

Bush and Cheney are the chief reasons Iraq is a cock-up. And they're not going anywhere until 2009.

So if you want accountability, if you want "someone to hold [their] feet to the fire," you have to find some other way than dreaming for Rumsfeld to go away, or dreaming for Bush and Cheney to have some kind of epiphany that entirely changes their character and mentality. You have to vote for a Congress that will hold the Administration responsible.

And you will not get that if you vote for Republicans.

Let me repeat that: You will not get a Congress that will hold the Bush Administration accountable if you vote for Republicans.

Because the Republicans have had three years to hold the Bush Administration accountable for Iraq. The Republicans have had three years to demand that the Bush Administration tell the truth, see the truth, and stop living in Fantasy Land. And the Republicans have not done so. The Republicans have fought every effort to hold the Bush Administration accountable for its Iraq strategy. On the contrary: the Republicans have been right there in Fantasy Land with the Bush Administration.

That is not going to change if the Republicans keep their majorities in Congress.

You are going to have to stop saying all Democrats are members of the Loony Left; you are going to have to stop repeating all those stale, shallow, inaccurate talking points about Democrats, and you are going to have to realize that the only hope in hell of salvaging anything from the Iraq cock-up, and the only hope in hell of preventing an even worse cock-up in Iran, is to make sure that, in 2007, the Bush Administration faces a Democratic majority in Congress.

Republicans have a proven track record of enabling, excusing, defending, and covering up for the Bush Administration.

Only a Democratic majority has any chance of holding the Bush Administration accountable.

Posted by: CaseyL at April 13, 2006 01:56 AM | Permalink to this comment

Well, my dear Casey, I don't vote in the USA, however the US dem party rather needs to get itself together and put a lid on its looney left. If not, afraid you will continue losing elections

Posted by: The Lounsbury at April 13, 2006 07:09 AM | Permalink to this comment

Well, my dear Casey, I don't vote in the USA, however the US dem party rather needs to get itself together and put a lid on its looney left.

Ah yes, the mythological "looney left". That vague sinister boogeyman that keeps the Democrats out of power. If they just abandoned the base and acted like decent upright citizens - you know, like Republicans. Well, not the Republicans who are in power because they keep winning elections by appealing to their own "looney right", but the honorable upstanding Republicans that really win elections. Really.

Posted by: Doug H. at April 13, 2006 12:53 PM | Permalink to this comment

Greg: "I harbor no ill-will to the Colonel who believes Iraq is on the cusp of such auspicious things. He is there, it is his right and prerogative to so feel, and his sentiments are doubtless heartfelt and genuine. But it showcases a deep ignorance about the historical forces that have been unleashed in Iraq, and the many pitfalls that await. "

In other words, what he feels is in contradictions to the facts on the ground, of which he's ignorant. For that, I harbor a great deal of ill-will towards him. He wants to wear the eagles, he'd d*mn well better face facts, no matter how unpleasant. Grunts in Iraq checking out every piece of trash on the road as a possible IED certainly don't have the luxury of refusing to face facts.

Posted by: Barry at April 13, 2006 04:20 PM | Permalink to this comment

Remember that our soldiers are obligated to risk their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" for the cause.

Colonel Grimsley has sacrificed his sacred honor to do his job.

He deserves some kind of memorial for that.

Posted by: J Thomas at April 13, 2006 05:35 PM | Permalink to this comment

Thanks, Greg, I've read the rest of Rieff's review of "Cobra II" in the April 17th issue of the New Republic. It is a magnificent, angry and eloquent indictment of the reckless Bush Jr. Administration in general & Rumsfeld & his cronies in particular. The review closes with Zeyad of Healing Iraq's heart-breaking description of Baghdad today. For anybody who thinks Iraq is not in Civil War or (as the Historians will say a generation from now, Sliding into Civil War) see today's story on CNN on line at http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/13/iraq.main/index.html

The Lead Paragraph states:
"BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN)-- The number of Iraqis fleeing their homes for safer parts of the country has more then doubled in two weeks to 65,000, the Iraqi Ministry of Displacement and Migration said Thursday.

A ministry spokesman reported a twofold jump from the 30,000 internal refugees estimated on March 30. The ministry put the number of families on the move at 10,991."

The internal separation of Shias & Sunnis has hit full speed.

Posted by: David All at April 13, 2006 10:59 PM | Permalink to this comment