Col. Steve Warren, the top U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, has the unenviable task of convincing a distracted American public and skeptical press corps that the U.S. is winning its war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, without the benefit of spectacular battlefield successes.
Warren briefs at least once a week via teleconference from a tiny studio in the heavily-fortified green zone in Baghdad, waging a sometimes lonely battle against the growing narrative that after some initial success in pushing the Islamic State back, the counter-offensive has stalled.
A former boxer, Warren enjoys sparring with reporters, pounding at them with facts and peppering his commentary with quick verbal jabs.
When announcing that a coalition has killed a mid-level Islamic State commander, Abu Hamza, a former al Qaeda member who planned attacks against U.S. troops during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Warren can’t help but gloat. “He was sort of a cheerleader for the local forces here. And he’s a cheerleader who will cheer no more [pause for effect] because he’s dead.”
Warren’s argument is that while progress may seem frustratingly slow in Iraq and Syria, the trends are moving in the right direction.
“Eighteen months into this campaign, we continue to pressure ISIL across the depth and breadth of this battlefield. Our devastating air power is chipping away at our enemy,” Warren says with confidence.
Being a spokesman for a war when all is going well is relatively easy. But when you have to rely on small incremental gains, and nuanced arguments, it can be a tough sell.
Warren likes to give out lots of numbers: Islamic State leaders killed since last year, 120; territory lost in Iraq and Syria, 35 percent; oil production reduced 30 percent, with revenue down 50 percent.
Recently in Iraq, Islamic State fighters have changed their tactics, focusing on truck bombs and suicide attacks to kill hundreds of civilians in the Baghdad.
The tried-and-true PR spin for explaining how an enemy that is supposedly losing is succeeding in killing large numbers of innocents in deadly attacks is to portray it as a sign of desperation, to say in effect, “They are attacking our success.”
And that’s just what Warren did Wednesday, as the former pugilist once again resorted to a boxing metaphor, “This is an enemy who has not found success in some time, so what they are trying to do is find a way to throw a punch that actually can land.”
The square-jawed colonel isn’t much for verbal bobbing and weaving. Instead he tends to stand his ground eschewing euphemisms in favor of straight talk. “They’re terrorists. That’s why we call them terrorists, because they like to create terror,” is how he described the shift in Islamic State tactics.
Warren was one of the first Pentagon spokespeople to say without equivocation that U.S. troops were in combat in Iraq, which sources says drew the ire of some in the White House.
He’s also found himself toe-to-toe with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s propaganda machines, quick to call out the Russians for lying about attacking the Islamic State, and for antiquated tactics, which involved unguided bombs in attacks that killed hundreds of civilians.
But Warren has a big challenge in not only explaining what the U.S. and its coalition partners are doing, but also the slow-motion pace of Iraqi operations, something he once referred to as the “Iraqi way of war.”
It’s why Warren won’t be pinned down on key questions of timing, such as “when will the ISIS stronghold of Mosul in Iraq, and Raqqa in Syria be liberated?”
The standard response: Mosul will be taken when the Iraqis are ready, on their timeline. Raqqa will fall “eventually.”
