What do you mean by "mobilize the population?"

And I think the administration has certainly communicated the stakes to the nation, but not managed the war like they believe the stakes are high. Constant undersestimation of the insurgency has led them to disasterous mismanagement of the war. At least, that's my impression, and I look forward to reading your reports from Iraq.

jpok -

I was speaking to a co-worker today, and she said that she had never understood the motivation for the war until she heard Newt Gingrich explain it on a radio show recently. With regards to the administration's efforts to directly communicate, the President himself and various other WH spokesmen have failed to effectively elucidate the complexity and severity of the situation. And their official comunications have an outsized megaphone vs. pundits like Gingrich, as they are parroted (even if sometimes distorted or noncontextualized) by all mainstream press outlets on the planet.

I just don't think Bush ever had the capability to sell a difficult war for any extended period. Others would fare better (Giuliani is particularly effective at this, IMO).

Now that aside, I also agree with this 100%:

but not managed the war like they believe the stakes are high.

And I half agree with your next statement ...

Constant undersestimation of the insurgency has led them to disasterous mismanagement of the war.

From what I've read/researched, the Pentagon did indeed terribly, arrogantly underestimate the possibility of an insurgency and dissolution of civil order after the invasion. But as we've been fighting this conflict for some time now, I'm not so sure they still underestimate it as much as don't have the resources to fully address the problem.

And that brings me to answer your first question ...

What do you mean by "mobilize the population?"

Americans are barely, if at all, inconvenienced by this war. Defense spending as a % of GDP- even with the funds funneled through emergency appropriations and not just the Pentagon's regular annual budget - is less than it was during Korea, Vietnam, the Reagan Administration and the first Gulf War (and of course WWII).

So when I say "mobilize the population," I mean, for starters (in addition to the effective communication mentioned above), take advantage of a Republican Congress for these past years and sell the idea of expanding defense expenditures, thus expanding our military capability to win this long war and face the next one, even if it grows the deficit.

Why are we spending less than Reagan did on defense at this pivotal time in history? On a hot war footing with all of America's prestige in the balance?

As you said, the Bush Admin is not playing the game like it believes in the (often poorly) communicated stakes.
I hope that clarifies my admittedly vague position in the post. Thanks for the opportunity to answer your question.

I think I would have to disagree regarding mobilizing the population. Although our defense spending isn't extremely high in terms of percentage of the GDP, it's still an astronomical amount of money. It seems that our only lack is in manpower, but what are you going to do about that with a volunteer army? We're already utilizing the back-door draft.

We needed far more troops than were available all along. I don't see any good options for the U. S. now.

Fair points. But effective communication mobilizes recruitment, as does rexamining standards (I have a friend who went through college ROTC but was denied entrance to the Army because he had childhood asthma; guy was a natural soldier) as does increasing incentives (which boils down to $$$).

I'm not talking about netting 500,000 people, but since estimates on an adequate force for Iraq have ranged from +30,000 to +75,000, not to mention additional troops required to adequately rest and refit current forces (and thus sustain status quo indefinitely) I don't think such a target is out of the range of possibility.

Much of it centers around the perception of the war's import.

Re: the war's import.

My perception of the chilly calculus of the war's worth that you mention in the original post has shifted with time. In 2003, I was worried that Saddam's WMD program posed a significant threat to the U. S. so I supported the war. When it was discovered that Iraq's WMD program was all but defunct, I still supported the war based on a sort of domino theory: if Iraq became a free country, others like Iran would surely follow. When progress seemed nonexistent, I thought it was that the MSM was just ignoring the progress in Iraq in favor of negative headlines. There are elements of truth in each of these, but in early 2006 I began to realize that it's not just the way the media is framing it; Iraq is seriously fucked right now. And the Bush Administration is extremely reluctant to recognize its errors and adapt.

It seems doubtful to me that Iraq can ever stabilize enough and protect minority rights enough to be "a beacon of freedom in the ME" that will be a domino to other ME countries and thus reduce terrorism. Even if that is still the goal (is it? I'm on my 2nd beer, I might be getting a little lost . . .) I don't believe U. S. presence in the country is advancing that goal. About 70% of Iraqis want the U. S. to withdraw, and success on any front other than seeing Saddam hang is far from certain. I'm not certain the result in Iraq will differ significantly whether or not we stay. I think we need to cut our losses and go home.

But, as I mentioned earlier, as a reader since almost the beginning of this site, I look forward to your dispatches from Iraq.

"as a reader since almost the beginning of this site"

And a huge fan of ferret-blogging, too.

jpok -

So you've lost faith in the ME Democratic domino theory, realized that Iraq is "f'ed" and decided that we need to go home. That's not an uncommon or unreasonable perspective by any means, but review my post.

A. I think we have a moral obligation not to abandon a country to a slaughter worse than ever encountered under Saddam after effectively removing civil order. Even civil order that was bloody and dictatorial.

B. The status quo right now, as bad as you perceive it, moving sideways, messy, etc., is leagues better than leaving the country of Iraq to essential takeover and expansion by Iran and as a homebase for terrorists.

And that is a larger point of the post. the instinct is to say, "ok, we didn't succeed like we'd intended, time to lick our wounds and build more prestige." But in practical effect, the problems that are occurring and affecting our national interest do not go away once we leave. They just get worse. You just won't have to pay as much attention to them on the news. Shrug.

Thanks for the kind words re: coverage.

I haven't given up on the democratization of Iraq, but I do think we need to start getting tough with their gov't. I wouldn't be surprised if that leaked memo was a "leaked" memo.

We can't stabilize their country, we can only impose peace if we take over and ignore their gov't. They need to stabilize their country. All we can do is help them.

It appears to me, from thousands of miles away and trying to get an accurate picture through the distorted lense of media coverage and through milbloggers in the area, that the Iraqis appear to not have much of a problem with their terrorist-types, only the other guy's terrorist types. So Sunnis are allowing Sunni terrorists to "float in the sea of the population" while Iranian backed Shiites are doing the same for their brand of terrorists and non-Iranian-aligned Shiites are doing the same for theirs. It's not a civil war, it's a multi-sided blood-bath/proxy war by Iran and Syria.
They need to take control of their country, America can't. Unless we become real Imperialists, not the faux kind we keep getting called where our blood and treasure flows into our "possessions" instead of out.

There was a good interview with the authors of Ethical Realism on NPR this morning.

I too cannot wait to read your dispatches from Anbar. Too bad it is winter as you could do a flora and fauna thing (like your D.C. photo essay) and cross post over at the Llamas (I make the funny)!
I agree with your points that it is morally repugnant to leave the nation of Iraq with a less stable gov't and more slaughter than what took place under Saddam (before we barged in). But, you are also absolutely correct that a vast number of Americans do not want to pay attention anymore, which they will be allowed to do if we pull out. Shrug, indeed...
I am old enough to remember the aftermath of Vietnam. The slaughter and suffering that went on in Southeast Asia was phenominal. Americans turned their back to it. Only now can we read accurate accounts of what happened; 2 million dead in Cambodia, etc.
My problem all along has been with the prosecution of the war in Iraq not the numbers of troops. The R.O.E.'s that our military are operating under, while it makes sense on paper, make no sense in the field.

Good comment.