Thoughts on the Iraq Fallout

[UMD TSAR]

The following are some observations and concerns about the Iraq War:

1. Intelligence. There is no question the US and Israeli intelligence agencies made a gross error in their assessment of Iraqi weapons. The long-term fallout I see from this is a SERIOUS dent in our international credibility in terms of intelligence. As Iran is emerging as a self-proclaimed nuclear-power, and US claims - no matter how accurate - are subject to scrutiny. It will be painful to see China able to raise doubts in American intelligence - even when China knows the reports to be accurate - and make traction with those doubts.

2. "Exit Strategy". The public rhetoric has been that "Bush had no exit strategy". This is pretty much talking-point bullshit. The exit strategy had always been "US troops will draw down as the Iraqi government stands up". The valid criticism is that "Bush was too optimistic. He had no oh shit strategy." Obviously, the minds behind the campaign had not put adequate consideration into the potential that the Iraqi government would not stand up, or would take more than a half-decade to do so. We're stuck in a position where it is costing us dearly to stay, and the prospects of "cut-and-run" are potentially catastrophic.

3. American military. Our difficulties in combating a guerrila force with our conventional force remain deep-seeded. This is leading Iran and others to pursue asymetic warfare extensively. Clearly nobody can stand up to us for even a week in a "conventional" campaign, and this allows us to blow up everything and anything we desire, but there remain deep challenges in combating guerrilas. Rumsfeld's refinement into BCT's (Brigade-Combat-Teams with lifecycles) is a revolutionary and a big step in the right direction, but the process remains slow.

4. Nation-Building. During Kosovo we saw the difficulties in this. A then-member of the Joint-Chiefs-of-Staff (JCS), pointed out, "We're the Army. We break shit and blow stuff up. We don't rebuild things." This is just as true today as it was then. "Peace-keeping missions" are a major area of concern for our national capabilities. You could argue that Iraq has become a "peace-keeping mission".

5. "Over-Extended Military". This is a big argument domestically. People tend to thing we are "bogged down" in Iraq, and incapable of handling other threats. I assure you, this is not the case. We have demonstrated our ability - to those outside the blogosphere and talking-heads - to wage a major extended operation in Iraq and remain capable to project significant power elsewhere. While we couldn't put 200,000 boots on the ground for an extended period in another region, the Navy and Air Force remain fully-capable of devastating any aggressor in another theatre. North Korea, China, and Iran have not become too beligerrent, precisely because they respect the fact we have 7 carrier groups and a dozen Air Wings fully capable of utterly decimating any conventional force.

These are just my personal academic observations on a handful of issues. None of it is "groundbreaking insight" amongst the academic community, but some certainly runs contrary to the public rhetoric. I figured bouncing it here could spark some interesting conversation.

[karl0092]

Two major problems with our current conflicts:

First off, we didn't finish the job in Afghanistan. Instead of saturating the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan with our soldiers we used a relatively small force (perhaps because the ground forces needed to be kept in reserve for another conflict?) in combination with the militias that existed in the region. The result of this is that we haven't nailed Bin Laden, the beast behind 9/11 (and a man that Bush says that he isn't worried about) and Al Qaeda and the Taliban not only continue to exist but are making a resurgence in the region.

Secondly, when we were preparing to wage a war in Iraq the Military leadership was silenced by Rumsfeld and his other civilian fucks like Wolfowitz because what they were saying and warning about Iraq was not convenient. A prime example of this can be seen in the public denouncement of the then Army Chief of Staff Gen Erik Shinseki by Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld when he told congress that a substantial force would be needed to complete the mission in Iraq and provide stability. He was forced out soon after. Small, well-trained and equipped units may work fine for toppling an army like Saddam’s, but don't do so well for keeping the order after the fact. Because of this miscalculation and others (like disbanding the Iraqi army) we're sitting in one hell of a shit hole that gets deeper by the day.

A question that I have is why are men making so many military decisions with no combat, or for that matter military experience?

[krosch]

Gen Erik Shinsek had less than a year left in his term when he was "forced out". Basically what happened is like 8 months before his term was up and a new person was going to be appointed anyway. In the end Rumsfeld appointed someone further in advance than normal which according to many people undercut General Shinsek's authority in the final months of his term.

There are also many reports of his disagreements being so agressive they bordered on insubordination on many issues not simply the Iraq one. There is more than reasonable possibility this had more to do with it than anything he said on Iraq. Obviously we can't discount the possibility he was forced out because of disagreements but there is other evidence that should be considered in this case as well.

There is a reason civilians make choices in military manners and its called Democracy and elections. President Bush was elected to leadl the country and that makes him the military leader. It can be a problem but it is also a check on military power.

In Afghanistan I never heard a single military officer make a statement that they don't have enough troops to run operations in Afghanistan. There was a much bigger force of Aphgan soilders to assist our operations there than there was in Iraq. Something so many people seem to forget when talking about the Taliban Hunt.

[UMD TSAR]

First off, we didn't finish the job in Afghanistan. Instead of saturating the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan with our soldiers we used a relatively small force (perhaps because the ground forces needed to be kept in reserve for another conflict?)...

But this is how we should wage a campaign against guerrilas. 10,000 soldiers from the 10th Mountain Division and Special Forces A-Teams can be far more effective than 150,000 IED-magnets. There is debate that we should have used a similar model in post-combat Iraq.

A question that I have is why are men making so many military decisions with no combat, or for that matter military experience?

Samuel Huntington wrote a groundbreaking work on this in the early Cold War, The Soldier and the State. His argument boils down to a few points.
1. The military-state that emerged in Germany and Japan was a product of the military gaining too-much sovereignty from the government.
2. The military will always overstate the threat and request more resources than needed to win a campaign. History holds this as one of the few rules in warfare.
3. The civilian government will always view the potential war too optimistically.
4. To prevent military domination in government, such as Germany and Japan (as only the recentmost examples), civilian leadership of the military is required to strike a balance.

The point is that the government needs to retain strict civilian control over the military. You could argue, and you did with the Shinseki example, that in this case, the civilian government became too heavy-handed over the military. But the solution is NOT military sovereignty - it is simply to respect the balance and remain vigilant in walking that fine line.

[ron28]

Secondly, when we were preparing to wage a war in Iraq the Military leadership was silenced by Rumsfeld and his other civilian fucks like Wolfowitz because what they were saying and warning about Iraq was not convenient. A prime example of this can be seen in the public denouncement of the then Army Chief of Staff Gen Erik Shinseki by Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld when he told congress that a substantial force would be needed to complete the mission in Iraq and provide stability. He was forced out soon after. Small, well-trained and equipped units may work fine for toppling an army like Saddam’s, but don't do so well for keeping the order after the fact. Because of this miscalculation and others (like disbanding the Iraqi army) we're sitting in one hell of a shit hole that gets deeper by the day.

Bravo!

[DeeMan]

i feel the biggest problem is here at home. the gov't is limited in what they can do because of how they will look in the general publics eye. until the civilians of the US can come to terms with the fact that civilians will die no matter what in a country where a war is taking place,we will never win. war is fucking ugly and humanity's best side isn't going to shine through it. we have to forget about being PC and humane during the fighting, get the fucking shit done, then rebuild and work on the rep. talk to any vet from the world wars, the majority will tell you the same. accept the fact that war brings out the worst in humanity, but worry about accomplishing the mission first.

[UMD TSAR]

DeeMan, I agree 100% - the question of "how do we domestically sustain a war" is a massive issue we're tackling.

In the past, the issue of "restricting liberties" hasn't met nearly the resistance it is now. In the past (with the exception of Vietnam), the issue of "no blood for X!" hasn't had the traction it does now.

There are serious questions about the ability of a modern liberal democracy to wage an effective war - to sustain it abroad and make effective domestic policies.

While it certainly emboldens the bin Ladens and Jong-Il's with the notion that "liberal democracies are weak and cannot fight well", whether or not that is correct is probably yet to be seen. (note: historically, the "liberal democracies are weak" theory has been torn to shreds)

[gribble]

Tsar, your point about a smaller force to fight guerrillas is brilliant. Here's what I think about the whole War in Iraq at this point: We are in the middle of an Islamic civil war over there. At this point our mission should be to protect the freely elected government from attack and disintegration. It is not our duty to protect the Iraqi people from themselves and from Arab Muslims worldwide who migrate there to kill them. If they want to kill eachother, that's their problem. We don't need to be stuck in the middle of it refereeing everything.

So here's my idea,
1. Cut back forces in Iraq
a) Leave forces for government security and
b) forces to train Iraqi soldiers
2. Let the Iraqi police and military do the majority of the work in rooting out guerrillas and terrorists. But obviously, supply experts to help those forces strategize.

Other than that, what else do we really need to be doing there? I think the time has come where we are free of any obligation to police the area.

Also, as far as people not forseeing the Iraqi government taking up to a decade or more to become fully functional, people need to read a history book every once in a while. I don't know of any democracy in history that took less than ten years to gain complete legitmacy. It isn't an easy form of government to adopt.

[karl0092]

As to Rumsfeld (with Bush’s backing) not pushing people out, what then of White, the former secretary of the army? What of Powell?

Yes, Bush was elected as a civilian to make military decisions. One of these is to put people of competence in the key decision making positions. Rumsfeld has proven time and again that he is not competent. This catastrophe we call Iraq is a prime example. There is also something to be said when high ranking commanders that were in the field in Iraq are publicly and privately calling for Rummy to step down. When a soldier breaks his silence about his commander that is a rather profound statement

10,000 soldiers from the 10th Mountain Division and Special Forces A-Teams can be far more effective than 150,000 IED-magnets.

IEDs aren't being used in any great number in the mountains of Afghanistan. I trust an American soldier who is well trained and loyal over some Afghani warlord’s loaner thug any day. An expanse as great as the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan can't be covered the way 150,000 soldiers could as apposed to 10,000.

There was a much bigger force of Afghan soldiers to assist our operations there than there was in Iraq

I think the Iraqi army was of substantial size and could have been very useful in Iraq.

Tsar, you mention Germany and the Military state that it became....wasn't Hitler a civilian? Wasn't one of the big reasons why they lost the war because he didn't listen to his commanders? (Lets not get into comparisons to the facists of old, the current administration gives far to much fuel for that flame)

In no way was I arguing for military sovereignty. Of course heavy oversight is needed. But as was said, Bush is the commander of our military, so when he fails to effectively execute this responsibility it is HE and his cronies that needs to be scrutinized, not the men that actually know their ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to military matters.

[karl0092]

I like what you say about exiting gribble. I don't believe that at the current juncture upping the troops in Iraq will do anything positive, it was at the onset, before the guerilla fighting that they would have been effective.

[UMD TSAR]

10,000 soldiers from the 10th Mountain Division and Special Forces A-Teams can be far more effective than 150,000 IED-magnets.

IEDs aren't being used in any great number in the mountains of Afghanistan. I trust an American soldier who is well trained and loyal over some Afghani warlord’s loaner thug any day. An expanse as great as the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan can't be covered the way 150,000 soldiers could as apposed to 10,000.

Welcome to modern warfare. We have reconaissance teams, drone aircraft, satelitte imagery, and a plethora of toys to identify hostile forces. The idea in Afghanistan is to use our complex array of surveillance to identify hostile forces, and when we do, rapidly insert small teams to engage. It's a much bigger bang-for-our-buck, and has been met with astounding success - a 10,000 man force routed and continues to mitigate a Taliban force estimated between 50,000-150,000.

Tsar, you mention Germany and the Military state that it became....wasn't Hitler a civilian? Wasn't one of the big reasons why they lost the war because he didn't listen to his commanders? (Lets not get into comparisons to the facists of old, the current administration gives far to much fuel for that flame)

First off, props for avoiding comparisons to "fascists of old". Nothing is more counterproductive - it deteriorates into a debate of whether or not the comparison fits and works.

Hitler was a civilian, technically. But he intertwined himself so as to the military being ENTIRELY dependent and subservient to him and him alone, then used that vessel to subjegate the civilian authority. A few beers has me thinking less-than-clearly to develop the argument, but essentially Hitler "became one with the Wehrmacht", and in affect the military was not subservient to civilian authority.

[Ranger]

So here's my idea,
1. Cut back forces in Iraq
a) Leave forces for government security and
b) forces to train Iraqi soldiers
2. Let the Iraqi police and military do the majority of the work in rooting out guerrillas and terrorists. But obviously, supply experts to help those forces strategize.

Your idea is currently in stage 2 of the Military's 3 stage plan for Iraq handover. The Iraqis are taking over the lead more and more everyday. This is allowing us to pull our forces to more remote bases and provide logistical and intelligence support as well as QRF. Once the Iraqis build a logistical base, get their intelligence network refined, and increase the competancy of their forces, then we can stop nearly all combat operations in country.

Source: Sprint On Demand news, 31 Aug 06. No, I don't have a link. I read the report by a US General on the cell phone, while on lunch.

Karl, we disbanded the Iraqi Army as it's leadership was likely to be infiltrated by Saddam's intelligence network, and loyal to Saddam. The last thing we needed was to tell the enemy where we would be so they can target us. Not to mention the fact that incorporating a piss-poor Army into our war plans would have caused massive logisitical and intelligence nightmares.

[DeeMan]

Welcome to modern warfare. We have reconaissance teams, drone aircraft, satelitte imagery, and a plethora of toys to identify hostile forces. The idea in Afghanistan is to use our complex array of surveillance to identify hostile forces, and when we do, rapidly insert small teams to engage. It's a much bigger bang-for-our-buck, and has been met with astounding success - a 10,000 man force routed and continues to mitigate a Taliban force estimated between 50,000-150,000.

but that doesn't make good News for ABC, CBS, and NBC. they are more in favor of the death tolls and IED attacks so they can push their own agenda.

[gribble]

People like Karl and Ron are really pissing me off. All they do is complain about how the war was managed incorrectly early on. They say nothing about how we can improve the current situation. It's honestly fucking ridiculous. I say just shut the fuck up if you aren't going to contribute anything useful to the conversation. That's just a general statement for everybody across the country who blabbers on about how "this administration has failed the american people." The attitude doesn't help, and the rhetoric definitely doesn't help.

[ron28]

I've posted several times about what I think can be done to fix the situation. Shithead.

[gribble]

No, no. All you do is bitch and make unreasonable demands. So fuck you.

[ron28]

No, no. All you do is blah blah, the administration, blah blah..so blah blah fuck you blah.

[karl0092]

I say get the fuck out, I think that would be great for the country.
Such abrasive writing does no good for a forum in which free ideas and thoughts are supposed to be exchanged, but I suppose you dislike adversity when it comes to your beliefs. People like you who shut down ideas that differ from your own are the ones that are counter productive.
So, to continue the conversation, please tell me how this war in Iraq has been conducted correctly? I can't help it that I feel mostly negative about our maestro, he is a libertarian's worst nightmare.....so please, give me some positives.

[UMD TSAR]

I say get the fuck out, I think that would be great for the country.

Um...no. It would be, possibly, the lesser of two evils. But I'm pretty sure that's what you meant.

On one hand, we stay in the region with a dwindling prospect of success. On the other, we leave and allow another Taliban regime to be created. There's a reason that some of the anchors of the Democratic Party (Kerry, Clinton) are still speaking of the "dire importance of victory", and unwilling to withdraw troops, and offer instead "new strategies for victory" (though these are always ill-defined).

So, to continue the conversation, please tell me how this war in Iraq has been conducted correctly?

See, this is where I get confused. You hear people on the left saying we needed more troops in the beginning, but we had a force of around 200,000. And the left was opposed to any troops at all in the beginning. Now they're saying Bush messed up by not sending more troops, but now they want them all back home too? I really have trouble understanding the left's argument of how exactly Bush blundered.

I think the Iraq campaign is definately in trouble. But I don't see what Bush personally has done that's fucked-up (other than the obvious rebuttal that he went to war). I mean, if Gore or Kerry or Dean or whoever were in office, assuming they also went to war, what would they have done differently? 500,000 troops in the beginning? Every time I try to draw this out, it kind of comes clear that alot of the valid Bush-critiques are overshadowed by leftists simply trying to bash a Republican President without a thorough justification.

[krosch]

Well basically it boils down to that whether or not Iraq is successful right now and there are obviously good and bad things happening almost daily there. The war is unpopular at the moment so the Democrats can say something was done wrong without being exact which allows me an election issue. (though getting slightly less unpopular going hand in hand with Bush's numbers going up according to recent gallop polls).

Republicans have obviously done the same so don't get me wrong I am not calling dirty politics but that's how it works. If possible you can win easier by simply restating things your opponet has done "wrong" and try to as best you can to say nothing productive of your own. Because if you have your own ideas they can be attacked wheras more voters have been shown to vote against people than for candidates making this a very good and proven election strategy.

Even if they have new ideas on how to run the Iraq war most campaign managers are likely urging their people to stay quiet and just attack Katrina, Iraq, and Gas prices and not offer an alternative idea which would dilute the effect of the attack.

[karl0092]

Let me start by making sure that it is clear that you don't have to be from the left, a liberal, to disagree with this administration and this war.
This was a war that should have never been started. It is both the left and the right's fault that we are there right now. In the war frenzy before the bombs started to drop it was both sides that failed to voice opposition to the administrations plan. It would the administration that failed to execute.
All the jokers in DC need to pay the piper for their critical errors and lack of fortitude in regards to standing against the war they now so loudly decry.