Guardian of misrepresentation

Dave Kilcullen:

...

There is a real country called Iraq, where a real war is going on, with real progress but very real challenges. We are not going to "win the war" in six months -- nor would anyone expect to. But the Guardian seems to be describing some completely different, (possibly mythical) country, and some imaginary group of harried and depressed advisers bearing no resemblance to reality. As counterinsurgency professionals, we take a fact-based approach and we are well aware of the extremely demanding task we face. That makes us cautious realists -- but we are far from pessimists, as the Guardian's anonymous source seems to imply.

The article is littered with inaccuracies:

• the “advisers” are not bunkered down in the Green Zone, but in another location, and frequently out on the ground.

• the article (incorrectly) describes me as a serving military officer – I’m a civilian diplomat, as any source truly familiar with the team's thinking would be well aware.

• while recognizing the severity of the challenge, the team's mood is far from pessimistic. Success will take months or years, not weeks or days, and although early signs are somewhat encouraging it's really far too early to say how things will play out. The war has been going for four years, the new strategy for less than four weeks. Give it time.

• the State department is not failing to meet its personnel targets. On the contrary, more than 90 % of civilian positions in Iraq are filled, and we will grow to 20 Provincial Reconstruction Teams soon.

• the coalition is far from disintegrating – British redeployment from the South reflects improved security, not lack of will, and the same day the British announced their move the Australians announced a force increase in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

• The plan is not “unclear” or “constantly changing” – we all know exactly what the plan is. The article seems to be mistaking the freedom and agility which have been granted to us, allowing us to respond dynamically to a dynamic situation, for vacillation.

...

The Guardian is entitled to its own view of the war, and reasonable people can differ on these issues. But the Guardian’s view is not ours, and the anonymous source misrepresents our views. It is really too soon to tell how things will play out, though early signs are encouraging so far, and the advisers as a group remain cautious realists, not pessimists.

...

As lawyers like to say, the Guardian is not entitled to its own facts. Dave Kilcullen is part of the Baghdad "brainstrust" that Gen. Petraeus has asked to advise him. He makes clear that he is speaking for himself and not for the others he works with. However, his statements ring true when taken with other reports on the situation in Iraq. The suggestion that there is a six month window for success is probably based on several false assumptions some of which are included in the article, such as a deteriorating situation. Most reports suggest significant improvement in the situation in Baghdad. The leftist Brit paper has been invested in our defeat in Iraq from the beginning of the war and looks for any dark clouds it can find. In this case it used one anonymous source whose agenda we can only guess at, but talking to the Guardian suggest one possibility.

The Belmont Club has some comments on the story. Zenpundit also posts on the story at Chicago Boyz.