Max Boot: Name That 'War'
Admiral William Fallon has just made his first major move as Central Command chief. He's begun his tenure by ostentatiously banning the term "Long War" that was coined by his predecessor, Gen. John Abizaid. Yet, so far at least, he has not offered up any superior alternative to describe the "whatchamacallit" that we're in the middle of.
The change of nomenclature was first reported by the Tampa Tribune, Centcom's hometown newspaper, which quoted an email from a spokesman, Lt. Col. Matthew McLaughlin, who wrote that the old vernacular gave the impression that the U.S. was planning to keep forces in the Middle East for a long time. This is at odds with Adm. Fallon's determination to make progress fast in Iraq and presumably to start withdrawing ASAP. Any suggestion that the U.S. is in for the long haul has also been deemed offensive to Muslim sensibilities. "One of our goals is to lessen our presence over time, [and] we didn't feel that the term 'Long War' captured this nuance," Lt. Col. McLaughlin explained.
Trying to achieve results as fast as possible in Iraq is all well and good -- at least in theory. In practice, however, the "results now" mindset has led the Defense Department and Centcom in the past to slight some time-consuming steps, such as conducting a census of Iraqis or enlarging the U.S. Army, that would have borne major dividends by now, because no one thought that we would still be in Iraq in 2007.
The reality, as we're learning, is that there is no such thing as a quick counterinsurgency. The average full-blown insurgency takes 10 years to defeat; many last decades. (FARC has been battling the Colombian government since the mid-1960s.) It would, of course, be possible to end American involvement in the Iraq War in a few months' time -- but only at the cost of defeat. And American withdrawal wouldn't end the fighting; it would probably expand it.
It's hard to see why dropping the "long war" label would speed up the agonizing, time-consuming process of pacifying Iraq. In fact, the more we speak of our desire to leave, the less likelihood there is that we can do so, because it causes friends and enemies alike to doubt our resolve. This is something that senior administration officials and senior generals have a hard time understanding. For years they've been talking about plans to start withdrawing troops. Even though those plans are always shelved, their very public existence does serious damage to American credibility.
Talk about drawing down the U.S. presence in the entire region is just as counterproductive as talking about exit strategies from Iraq....
Read entire article at WSJ
The change of nomenclature was first reported by the Tampa Tribune, Centcom's hometown newspaper, which quoted an email from a spokesman, Lt. Col. Matthew McLaughlin, who wrote that the old vernacular gave the impression that the U.S. was planning to keep forces in the Middle East for a long time. This is at odds with Adm. Fallon's determination to make progress fast in Iraq and presumably to start withdrawing ASAP. Any suggestion that the U.S. is in for the long haul has also been deemed offensive to Muslim sensibilities. "One of our goals is to lessen our presence over time, [and] we didn't feel that the term 'Long War' captured this nuance," Lt. Col. McLaughlin explained.
Trying to achieve results as fast as possible in Iraq is all well and good -- at least in theory. In practice, however, the "results now" mindset has led the Defense Department and Centcom in the past to slight some time-consuming steps, such as conducting a census of Iraqis or enlarging the U.S. Army, that would have borne major dividends by now, because no one thought that we would still be in Iraq in 2007.
The reality, as we're learning, is that there is no such thing as a quick counterinsurgency. The average full-blown insurgency takes 10 years to defeat; many last decades. (FARC has been battling the Colombian government since the mid-1960s.) It would, of course, be possible to end American involvement in the Iraq War in a few months' time -- but only at the cost of defeat. And American withdrawal wouldn't end the fighting; it would probably expand it.
It's hard to see why dropping the "long war" label would speed up the agonizing, time-consuming process of pacifying Iraq. In fact, the more we speak of our desire to leave, the less likelihood there is that we can do so, because it causes friends and enemies alike to doubt our resolve. This is something that senior administration officials and senior generals have a hard time understanding. For years they've been talking about plans to start withdrawing troops. Even though those plans are always shelved, their very public existence does serious damage to American credibility.
Talk about drawing down the U.S. presence in the entire region is just as counterproductive as talking about exit strategies from Iraq....