Voices from the Field

When my son was in Fallujah he would share some observations from the field of action. He made many sorties into the plentiful hot zones around that beleaguered city; and, as a corpsman he was in a unique position that brought him in contact with a lot of other troops who were in those hot zones day after day. He would share their opinions about what was working and what wasn’t; about which Iraqi leaders were reliable and which weren’t; about what would have happened or would not have happened if they had or had not done this or that. As an E-5 corpsman, he obviously wasn’t privy to the strategic planning around a particular military evolution, but he and the others around him were able to assess the tactical application of that planning and could see the results firsthand, good or bad. There are a lot of bright people in those uniforms and flak jackets.

The interesting thing is how often the observations of the troops would become the fodder of discussion by military and political analysts in the coming days, weeks or months. It’s not that the troops are necessarily insightful in ways that others aren’t – it’s that they serve as a kind of early warning device about what’s coming and an overnight accounting of what succeeded or failed the day before. In other words, they know stuff. These voices from the field are a valuable contribution to the national awareness. That doesn’t mean they have all the answers from a policy perspective or even from an overall strategic perspective. But, we should listen to them nonetheless.

A recent Zogby International poll brings us a message from the troops on the ground in Iraq. A whopping 72% of the troops polled in a statistically valid poll said that the U.S. should leave Iraq within the coming year. Surprisingly, almost 30% of them said we should leave immediately. Only 23% supported the administration's position that we should stay as long as necessary. Why? It appears that these men and women have concluded that the war in Iraq is not winnable. Two-thirds of the troops said that, in order to win the war there, the U.S. would have to double its troop strength and bombing missions – something they and the rest of us know isn’t going to happen. In other words, if we keep doing what we’re doing right now, we can’t win this thing. And if we can’t win it, then it’s time to come home.

In the past, anyone calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq has been accused of wanting to “cut and run” and, in more damning terms, accused of undermining the morale of the troops in the field. I appreciate that latter comment, because I believe that there can be a connection between the debate and dissent at home and the morale of the military in the field. However, at some point in time the balance in that argument shifts in the other direction, meaning that we will eventually have to confront the distinct possibility that the insistence that we “stay the course”, no matter how long, no matter the cost in American lives, will become the source of damaged troop morale. If these brave and dutiful men and women are asked to stay, and return again and again into a conflict that they believe cannot be won and should no longer be pursued, what will be the impact on them? At what point do they begin to feel like expendable pawns in a politically-charged game of Middle East chess?

We must avoid the partisan penchant for reductionism in which this issue is summarily reduced to the binary choice of “cut and run” or “stay the course”. Bishop Thomas Wenski, speaking for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said it this way:

"Our nation cannot afford a shrill and shallow debate that distorts reality and reduces the options to 'cut and run' versus 'stay the course.' Instead we need a forthright discussion that begins with an honest assessment of the situation in Iraq and acknowledges both the mistakes that have been made and the signs of hope that have appeared.... Our nation's military forces should remain in Iraq only as long as it takes for a responsible transition, leaving sooner rather than later."

The answer is almost certainly to pursue neither of the polar extremes. Rather, as Bishop Wenski suggests, we should begin to form and articulate a reasoned and responsible withdrawal plan with measurable milestones along the way to a targeted end date. While no one desires to send the wrong message to the leaders of the insurgency (i.e., “we’re leaving soon; so just hang on”), we must also make sure that we send the right message to the leaders of the new Iraqi government (i.e., “we’re not staying indefinitely; so get your act together now”).

The troops in the field can see farther down certain roads in Iraq than the politicians in Washington, DC, and they can see certain outcomes with greater clarity than the military brass in the Pentagon. So, when they speak, we should listen. One poll does not a hallelujah chorus make; but we should continue asking our troops for their opinion, because they may be the only ones singing in harmony with reality on any given page in this hymnbook.