Stabilization...
or Pacification?
By SEAN HANNON

October 16, 2003

A page from history, you fill in the blanks:

“1. Analysis of the present situation . The situation in [distressed country] is deteriorating. Even before the government sank into confusion last week, the course of the war in  [distressed country] had been downward, with [resisting enemy] incidents increasing in number and intensity and military actions becoming larger and more successful, and with less and less territory meaningfully under the control of the government. Successful ambushes had demonstrated an unwillingness of the population even in what were thought to be pacified areas to run the risk of informing on the [resisting enemy]. War weariness was apparent. The crisis of the end of August--especially since the competing forces have left the government largely "faceless" and have damaged the government's ability to manage the pacification program--promises to lead to further and more rapid deterioration.”

 That bleak analysis might easily describe the situation we find ourselves in, with Iraq substituted for the “distressed country” and the “resisting enemy” being everyone from die-hard Baathists  and jihadists down to ordinary Iraqi citizens enraged to action by the indiscriminate loss of family members by liberation forces.  It was, in fact, an excerpt from The Pentagon Papers, Gravel edition, Vol 3, written in September 1964, with South Vietnam and the Viet Cong filling in the brackets. It is a relevant comparison that may not end there.

 Pingponging to the present, I read a NY Times report that, in response to the president’s growing frustration over the lack of progress in Iraq and Afghanistan, the White House has decided to assume more direct control of the mess through the creation of the “Iraq Stabilization Group”.  Headed by national security advisor Condoleeza Rice, this new group was devised by Ms. Rice, Vice President Cheney, and Secretaries Powell and Rumsfeld. We appear to have a corporate shakeup of sorts coming from the tiptop. The Bush administration is rolling up its sleeves, ready to engage with a fresh new initiative. So what does this “stabilization” group have in mind to try that hasn’t been tried so far?

 Pingpong one last time back to 1968, when a U.S. President, plagued by a festering Southeast Asian sore and worried about his legacy and his re-election, launched an "accelerated pacification program” in Vietnam.  The following excerpts are from a Newsweek article, dated June 19, 1972:

“.... In support of that campaign, the U.S. Ninth Infantry Division mounted a six-month operation code-named Speedy Express, focusing on the Mekong Delta province of Kien Hoa.  

....Thousands of families made a living from the flat rice land that makes up most of the province. But to the U.S. command, the areas under Viet Cong control were a theater of war, "Indian country": where any suspicious movement was justification for opening fire. The residents were "enemy supporters" who could become "citizens" only after an area had been pacified.”

 Does this not sound analogous to how we are presently being trained to view the region north of Baghdad, the so-called “Sunni triangle”? And it leads me to wonder if the “Iraq Stabilization Group” intends to pacify the region in a manner similar to Speedy Express, with impressive body counts of “terrorists” to show faux progress in the war on terror. Perception of progress against the enemy was the goal of Speedy Express, which showed that a staggering 10,899 "enemy" were killed. Never mind that the operation yielded an embarrassingly small number of enemy weapons captured – only 748, despite nearly 11,000 "kills." It was explained by division officers that the Viet Cong were shot from helicopters in the open fields "before they could get to their weapons.”

 I offer this peek at an old tattered roadmap charted a long time ago, conceived under the pressure of political frustration and expediency, as a cautionary tale and an appeal for vigilance. There’s more than a hint of desperation coming from the Oval Office these days, and a wounded animal is a dangerous thing. My insinuation that this administration is capable of callously wracking up numbers for political gain is not made lightly. And I’m not just dredging up ancient history either. Last spring, we sat and watched the ultimate reality TV show as seven thousand innocent Iraqi citizens died at our hands during a rain of shock and awe, presented as a glorious fireworks display over which the Fox News channel played stirring orchestral music. We pacified ourselves with a mock show of triumph over terrorism, with our leadership knowing the whole time that these people had no complicity in 9/11 and possessed no WMD that threatened us. At the very least, we owe it to them to be vigilant against the next superpower demonstration at their expense.