The Surge Against the Surge & I was wrong on Rumsfeld

Posted By Uncle Jimbo

First I will state that I had the highest hopes for Sec. Rumsfeld, and I credit highly his work on transformation and his work ethic. But he missed the most important aspect of post "Mission Accomplished" Iraq. We faced an insurgency for almost two years without enacting a counter-insurgency doctrine. That was his choice and he was wrong, as was I once I recognized the insurgency and continued to support him and the policy of "Iraqification". This has set us behind with the tactics and doctrine we should have employed then, and the other side is trying frantically to lose this before the surge works.

I hear from many folks more informed than the defeatists daily, and they are having trouble ducking success. We are only losing the information war, so tighten up your shot groups and saddle up, Game on eh?

Oh and there is no prompter, I'm riffin'.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2819/19916250

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Surge Against the Surge & I was wrong on Rumsfeld:

» Uncle Jimbo at BlackFive Commits "Mea Culpa" and Agrees with Me from The Command T.O.C.
One thing I find very interesting is when UJ says that he knew Rumsfeld was wrong but he vocalized public support for him so that he could "support the troops". UJ, that is cowardly! Imagine all the troops that died while you "knew the battle strategy ... [Read More]

Comments

[Michael in MI]

Game on is right, Uncle Jimbo. I want to see all the blogs and talk radio hosts who want all out to call the Congressmen to defeat the Amnesty Bill to put as much effort into calling the Congressmen to make sure they don't lose their spines on Iraq and the overall war against the global Islamic jihad. After seeing what that national uprising did to affect the elected representatives, there is no excuse for Americans to not do the same regarding the war.

[jordan]

From what I read and hear, at some levels those who are surging against the surge know they're not doing right by the troops, or the American people.

Joe Klein recently recounted an exchange he had with senior Democrat on the Intel Com. Jane Harmon. She told him that when the bill was presented and defeated last May that she would love to cast a vote against Bush, but that she had just returned from Iraq on a transport with a number of young soldiers. She told Klein that voting against it would be "voting against body armor and (other things) for these troops, and I just couldn't do that." TIME mag.

She knew it wasn't right. (My conjecture.) She knows this one's not right either, as do many of the others, I'm sure. I wonder if the Democrats think anyone will trust them at all on anything after this. I wonder if they think they'll command the loyalty and respect of the military when one of them gets the WH.

President Hillary or Obama, this is essentially your first act as President. How will you vote?

[jordan]

P.S. agreed with most of what you said. A good throwing down of the gauntlet.

[Frogg]

We definately need to rally behind Patraeus and the current surge plan that is showing progress. However, I see some things a little differently from you.

The surge operational doctrine plans have actually only been in place for going on three weeks. The period prior to that was laying the groundwork and preparing the battlefield as well as moving troops into the area (Patraeus clarified this).

It should also be pointed out that the Iraqification plan was showing progress until the bombing of the Golden Mosque (al Qaeda's attempt to incite more violence and a civil war).

Small Wars Journal had an article not too long ago that we didn't even have a counterinsurgency military doctrine in place since we trashed the stuff that didn't work right after Vietnam.

Rumsfeld had Patraeus working on the counterinsurgency doctrine in 2004. Many great minds got together to study this and make the plan. The first draft was complete in 2005 and it was finalized and put into military doctrine in the fall of 2006.

The surge was Rumsfeld's plan B if Iraqification didn't work. I think he was listening to his General's on the ground on whether to continue Iraqification or switch to the surge. Wasn't Gen Abizaid against the surge?

It is easy to look back in hindsight and say the Iraqification plan (clear an area and let Iraqi's take control right after) should have been tossed out for a surge plan two years.

However, I am not sure the surge plan would have worked two years ago. So many things are different on the ground and in the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. What started the success was actually during the troop surge buildup period where the 200 Anbar Shieks joined together to kick al Qaeda out (and asked for US support). It worked. And, it worked in an area that six months prior had been written off to al Qaeda.

The same types of success are blossoming in this current surge operation in al Qaeda's last stronghold, Baghdad and Diyala province, in much the same way that the Anbar awakening worked.

However, what makes it work now could be that the Iraqi people have had enough of al Qaeda's death and destruction and are receptive to both partner with the US to squelch the insurgency; and, not only support the Iraq government but become part of it (they are forming a political party). Its platform includes opposition to al-Qaida and cooperation with the government.

There is clearly movement in Iraq in the right direction. The surge needs to be given its chance to work.

What can we do to get Congress and the American people up to speed on this?

BTW, the BBC just did a report that concluded that US tactics in Iraq may be beginning to work just as Washington prepares to give up. You can read about it here:

http://britainandamerica.typepad.com/britain_and_america/2007/07/bbc-reports-tha.html

[Frogg]

I've been reading through some other military bloggers (ie. Pat Dollard, etc). You guys seem to be on the same page. Can't you put your heads together, rally some vet groups, and tell us little people out here what we can do to get Congress and the American people back on board toward victory?

You got me fired up with your 'surge against the surge against the surge' talk. Game on, indeed. Just tell us what you want us to do!

[Gmo]

I once know'd a Lt Wpns man named Serge. Serge the Sarge. I refused to call him "Sir Gay". Rummy was a failure sez you. Well lets break it down simple style. Who you gonna hire to paint your two and haf miles of picket fence; The men who say this the price, you buy the paint an material, pays us haf now an full when job complete. Or the union paintin company which makes a career of whitewashin? Lots of folks know'd that Rummy was a military corporation machine man way back. We liked him cause he pimp slap the pushy, rude MSM. Jaime you a good man to stand up an say you left azimuth an now we's got to git under the poncho an red lens this siti'ation. Nobodies red pencilin your OPORD. Let the daylight give us far recognition. Walkin that compass in a dark is lucky work. Break a heat tab an lets share a mocha.

[Tim]

Good Post Jimbo!

[ToliverFive]

OldSoldier54,

What do you suspect Iraq [and the region] will look like in 2008 if we leave in 2007?

[Ymarsakar]

Supporting Rumsfield himself, meant supporting his resignation attempts, Jimbo. If you didn't support his resignation when he attempted to resign after Abu Ghraib or the various other times he tried and was stopped/convinced by Bush not to, then you didn't so much support Rummy as support Bush. That's a different issue going on there, Jimbo.

Oh I'm pretty sure the Left wants to dominate a large piece of the globe, 2, Jimbo. They have a better chance to after the winning the WH if they didn't have to deal with Iraq at the same time. They could just bury it with silence, Main Sewer Media silence.

[Ymarsakar]

It is easy to look back in hindsight and say the Iraqification plan (clear an area and let Iraqi's take control right after) should have been tossed out for a surge plan two years.

Any plan well done can avoid the toss out factor if they are able to counter the enemy's actions to disrupt the plan. In this case, the only solutions were to get the Iraqis operating on a disciplined and loyal basis, without US troops. But to do that, you would have to use Sun Tzu's disciplinary methods if they didn't follow orders. Without that, and with terrorist infiltration/assassination/intimidation going on, and you're just not going to have an effective force. So that means the US is down to doing the job themselves, there is no "Iraqi face" to it, there is no inherent virtue in having an "Iraqi face". The only thing that matters is endurance, will, and strength. If the people don't see that, then it doesn't matter if it has an "Iraqi" face or an "American face" or an "occupation face".

They were operating on bad principles in 2004/5. But some of it was right, in the sense that you needed US forces to work with Iraqi forces, meaning in the sense the US has to lead in order to get the Iraqi forces to follow, and the US has to protect the Iraqi forces both from their own internal threats as well as external threats; although they were going about it the opposite way. The whole Iraqi Face idea of shoving the Iraqis out front while the US forces take a backseat had the problem of being totally opposite the way their culture works. I never really liked the generals talking about that in 2004/5 precisely because I thought it was bad on general principles.

The responsibility has always been with the US forces because that is where the power lies to shape the future. And I think the US leaders got stuck on this bumper sticker saying about how the Iraqis must win the war, not the US, for too long. Iraqis can't win the war if the US just sits around talking. There is a fundamental flaw, on an insha'allah level, in thinking that the Iraqis can do certain things better than the US. Such as providing law and order, or peace making between groups as an ombudsman. Given the level of corruption in Iraq and America's own brand of insha'allah concerning not meddling in the affairs of foreigners, it delayed the adoption of the American Sheik strategy for years. I remember that first story about the American Sheik some time ago, but I never got the sense that High Command ever really thought it was all that important to emulate as a strategic vision. They certainly never talked about it. The American forces should never have allowed politics in Baghdad or Shia PMs to interfere with the personal alliances they made on the ground in Al Anbar. Whatever obligations we had to the people there, were our obligations, they could not be fullfilled by Maliki or any other Iraqi from Baghdad; at least not without the US being in a leadership role.

I approve of the idea that America is an independent power, acting as a party that you can take your disputes to against the Iraqi government. This doesn't undermine the power of the Iraqi government, as some folks might have believed when they attempted to disarm neighborhood watches of their weapons because they were seen as militias. Local neighborhoods feeling and being safe from attacks actually empowers the Iraqi government. And it doesn't really matter where that safety comes, whether it is Shia, Sunni, Kurd, or American.

I suppose it is a good jury rigg if the problem of Iraqi corruption and bureacracy aren't going to be tackled from the top down. A bottom to top solution works just as well, I suppose.

Plans not surviving contact with the enemy is true of this plan as it was true of any other plan that came before, in my view. The ability to correct problems on the fly is far more important than any plan purity.

[jordan]

Frogg, Politico.com has an article outlining the Democratic strategy to stop the surge, including the Congressmen and Senators they've targeted. "Liberals Slam Surge" or something like that.

Some of the Senators they've targeted, who would benefit from hearing an alternative view, are Susan Collings, Olympia Snow, Norm Coleman, John Sununu, George Voinovich, Chuck Grassley, John Warner, Mitch McConnell and Arlen Specter. I'm sure they'd like to hear from everybody about how undercutting the surge at this time isn't a good idea.

[Ymarsakar]

The backroom deals between Senators and Congressmen are always interesting, in the sense that the general methods used by the media on the American people are just that, general, but the methods used on individuals must be tailor specific to the individual. I am always curious to know more about an individual's strengths and weaknesses, which would be illustrated by what kind of deals they are making, giving, or considering.

[tom]

Kudos for having the balls to admit that you made a mistake and recognizing Rummy as the inept piece of shit he is.

and kudos to elect Rage Against the Machine for your music. They hate the bush admin, and they rock! nice choice.

[Gunner]

Donald Rumsfeld was informed that a "Surge" was needed BEFORE the war.

Rumsfeld was informed that after winning the War a troop level of at least 400,000 would be needed to maintain the peace.

Rumsfeld and many others knew this before going into the war.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200401/fallows

"Almost everything, good and bad, that has happened in Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime was the subject of extensive pre-war discussion and analysis. This is particularly true of what have proved to be the harshest realities for the United States since the fall of Baghdad: that occupying the country is much more difficult than conquering it; that a breakdown in public order can jeopardize every other goal; that the ambition of patiently nurturing a new democracy is at odds with the desire to turn control over to the Iraqis quickly and get U.S. troops out; that the Sunni center of the country is the main security problem; that with each passing day Americans risk being seen less as liberators and more as occupiers, and targets. "

========================================================================================
"Many NGO representatives assumed that postwar recovery would not be so automatic, and that they should begin working on preparations before the combat began.

"At the beginning our main message was the need for access," I was told by Sandra Mitchell, the vice-president of the International Rescue Committee, who attended the USAID meetings. Because of U.S. sanctions against Iraq, it was illegal for American humanitarian organizations to operate there. (Journalists were about the only category of Americans who would not get in trouble with their own government by traveling to and spending money in Iraq.)

"Our initial messages were like those in any potential crisis situation," Mitchell said, "but the reason we were so insistent in this case was the precarious situation that already existed in Iraq. The internal infrastructure was shot, and you couldn't easily swing in resources from neighboring countries, like in the Balkans." The NGOs therefore asked, as a first step, for a presidential directive exempting them from the sanctions. They were told to expect an answer to this request by December. That deadline passed with no ruling. By early last year the NGOs felt that it was too dangerous to go to Iraq, and the Administration feared that if they went they might be used as hostages. No directive was ever issued."
=====================================================================

==========================================================================
"The war games run by the Army and the Pentagon's joint staff had led to very high projected troop levels.

The Army's recommendation was for an invasion force 400,000 strong, made up of as many Americans as necessary and as many allied troops as possible.

"All the numbers we were coming up with were quite large," Thomas White, a retired general (and former Enron executive) who was the Secretary of the Army during the war, told me recently. But Rumsfeld's idea of the right force size was more like 75,000. The Army and the military's joint leadership moderated their requests in putting together the TPFDD, but Rumsfeld began challenging the force numbers in detail. When combat began, slightly more than 200,000 U.S. soldiers were massed around Iraq."
============================================================================

Why did it take 4 years to surge and do this the right way? Bush put his trust in Rumsfeld who has cost American lives. I blame Rumsfeld the most, also, Uncle J.

[William hazen]

Not buying any of it Uncle J. beating up on Rummy is one thing but you forget about Tommy Franks, Ricardo Sanchez, John Abizaid, and a host of other Generals without a clue. Now you admit you're wrong. That's great..."More informed that the "defeatists"????LOL Hardly...Some of us Real Deals knew this was a disaster in the making as soon as we invaded.

It only took some of you 5 years...Keep up the "good" work.Any War needs the support of our Nation behind it and that was Bush's First and Key fatal mistake. He thought he could fight it on the political cheap with a few lies and Media Spin... All this has done has play itself out for the last 5 years to it's inevitable conclusion...And you guys have only yourselves to blame...Still instead of finding a way to build a consensus for strategic victory and unite folks Uncle J is desperately trying to blame anyone who does'nt share his worldview as "defeatist" and those defeatists make up more and more of the country. If only the facts and smart folks like us would shut up... Well hell things would be just fine. I mean according to the Vice President, Rummy, and a few others FOR YEARS they stated The fight for Iraq would soon be over in 2004??? With the final defeat of the "dead enders"??? If they really wanted to win they would have put War Fighters in Charge ( Quote:There was "NO PLAN TO DEFEAT THE INSURGENCY":UnQuote General Jack Keene former Army Chief of Staff),and let SF run the COIN/FID with a free hand but it was more important for them to have Generals who kowtowed to the Party Line, and kept the forces separated from the locals in big bases, and let the SOCCOM Direct Action Guys run amuck instead of letting the real SF Mission COIN/FID folks have a say. You reap what you sew brother. On a Macro Leval for years we've heard things are great... things are great... the next six months will be key (The now famous Friedman Unit LOL)... Blah Blah Blah but the body bags keep coming...And yet some here blame the media for reporting the facts???

12 Billion a month and growing...

No forget about a consensus or pragmatic plan...Just blame the other Americans (70% and growing) if you fail. It's thier fault they don't want to continue on for another tens years of blood and treasure even though our Armed Forces are at the breaking point now...

It was a Democrat who wanted to bring back the draft remember. LOL

William Hazen

[Mommynator]

Michael in MI, you are asking the question I've wanted to ask everyone - why can't we put the same effort into doing what's right for our troops and eventually Iraq as we did against the amnesty travesty?

That is the ONLY way I see forcing those pieces of slime on Capitol Hill to do right by our troops and our country.

[Casey]

Maybe I'm just an old Army mule, but I was against Rummy for the reason that he wanted to "transform" the Army. Let me put it simply, "The sun and the moon change, but the army never does," John Wayne in She Wore a Yellow Ribbon.
Maybe if we had a few more of those Indian War era fighters around, the counter-insurgency would've gone better earlier.
The army's ultra-conservative structure is there for a reason: history and experience dictate the best way to win wars. A bigger initial war force (and force structure, CONGRESS!) would've boughten us the flexibility to put a heavy hand on insurgents earlier.
There's another principle at play here, and I coined it myself years ago. There's good, and there's good enough. Rummy may have been the former, but not the latter.

[Keone Michaels]

Well, well. Rumsfeld was wrong? The whole Iraq debacle was wrong. We are and have been going in the wrong direction. We need a serious change of foreign policy.

By the way as long as I am at it: A "professional army" is wrong. It is the loaded gun in the closet. Too tempting to use. A citizen soldier army would more truthfully reflect the mindset of the American people. You can bet that if we had a draft we would not be in this stupid mess in mess-o-potamia.

America's foreign policy is wrong. We don't use our armed forces for "defense!" We use them for OFFENSE. We use our armed forces as a tool to expand economically.

And even if you don't agree with some or all of the above you must be a fool if you cannot see that the emergence of China as a superpower has put an end to any advantage we have had previously by overpowering other folks with overwhelming force. That era is done. China owns us lock stock and barrel. They carry more of our paper than all other nations combined. Our manufacturing base has migrated to China. We don't even produce the materiel needed to wage war.

We need to forge a new direction on the world stage. The way we are doing it is no longer working.

[Allan]

Uncle J,

My opposition to this thing in Iraq has little to do with opposition to this endevor on principle. About the time we were ramping up for the invasion, I had the sick feeling that the administration was not preparing for the post invation process. That was confirmed after Baghdad fell.

I truly have no feelings one way or another on whether we should have gone in. My problem was with the way we went in and the way this administration ran (runs) the war.

At this point, I think it is a lost cause. I do not think our country has the political will to give the military what it needs to succeed. It did once, in March 2003, but Bush did not use it.

This administration has shown a great propensity for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Perhaps Gates, Petreaus and company can turn things around, but I think not.

I do hope I am wrong and the surge works. But, I shall not hold my breath.

[otcconan]

Keone Michaels...

What do you think would REALLY happen if China called us on all those debts. I mean, if they REALLY called those debts? I don't think it would be, "hey, we can send you a payment next month, would that be alright?" I think it'd be more along the lines of "no more oil for you." And believe you me, we can enforce such a thing.

The problem, as I see it, is having a limp-wristed hippy-lover in the White House who will not play the brinksmanship that is needed with China.

The whole China thing is very simply resolved by acting this way: You call their bluff. Every time. You are not bluffing. You cannot be. If they threaten to nuke NYC, you tell them you WILL NUKE BEIJING. You are not bluffing. There is no question about it.

That's the point....the Chinese do not bluff. And so we should not. You need someone strong enough (obviously Clinton was perfectly suited for their needs) to tell them to go to fuckin' hell.

Fred Thompson would do that.

[arrowhead]

Gunner - "Why did it take 4 years to surge and do this the right way? Bush put his trust in Rumsfeld who has cost American lives. I blame Rumsfeld the most..."

Yes, I blame Rumsfeld, but I also blame the President. He put all his stock in his defense secretary and continued to back him - stubbornly, one might say - even though the facts did not warrant his continued support.

Why did the President wait until the day after the 2006 Congressional elections to replace Rumsfeld? Apart from the fact that I believe Rumsfeld should have gone long before that (after Abu Ghraib would have been the first opportunity), this just didn't make sense.

My biggest gripe: Where the heck is the President NOW? He's the leader of the Country. Why isn't he out there more in support of the War effort? Day after day, he, the surge in Iraq, our overall military efforts in the region get pummeled in the media, yet the President seems to be using some bizarre Rose Garden strategy. Why, during the most critical time in the War, did the President throw all of his political capital (what remained of it) behind "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" (read Amnesty), a controversial loser of an issue if I've ever seen one?

[arrowhead]

Correction:

I see that the President is out there right now - speaking about the War, why we are there and what we must achieve.

Good. I hope we see more of this!

[John Ryan]

All the warriors seem to want to talk about "victory" in Iraq but they never want to define "victory". The main problem in Iraq is political, after 4 years of occupation there is essesntially NO Iraqi government. Well at least one with any credibility. Warriors always seem to want to go heavy on the firepower end and forget about the hearts and minds thing.
"oh we just need to give them some stability so that the government can come together" Look Iraq is more divided politically now than it ever was. The Maliki government is an artificial creation that exists only because of American forces. The Iraqi people have little loyalty to it.

[arch]

The target of the surge-aganist-the-surge crowd has always been a US Victory.

Okay, Rummy made mistakes. The direction he (we) took initially was countered by our enemies - Saddam loyalists, Al Qaeda foreign fighters, Sunni tribes, Shiite militias, Iran. Plans always change once the fight's on. Who knew that al Qaeda would blow up a sacred shrine and conduct a savage war on innocent civilians to insite a sectarian struggle and undermine the government? Rumsfeld spun up Petraeus and his COIN plan two years ago, well before the Iraq Study Group recommended it in. I think Rumsfeld should have remained to fix it.

The democrats are deathly afraid of two scenarios. (1) Bush wins the war in Iraq and gets credit for it. (2) The war lingers on into a democrat administration where it will certainly widen to include Iran.

Our best hope is making the surge work for an American and Iraqi victory. My worst fear is #2 above.

[arch]

John Ryan:

Didn't the Iraqis vote in three free elections to select delegates, write a constitution and elect these leaders?

Are you advocating a return of a Saddam-style regime?

President Bush defined victory at the Army War College on May 24, 2004, "There are five steps in our plan to help Iraq achieve democracy and freedom. We will hand over authority to a sovereign Iraqi government, help establish security, continue rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure, encourage more international support, and move toward a national election that will bring forward new leaders empowered by the Iraqi people."

When these goals are met, we will declare victory, pack up and leave.

[Ymarsakar]

Victory should be defined as anything that defeats Hazen, John Ryan, and Co.

I remember shortly after the stream of media comments by folks about an Iraqi Face (from Admin ), there came to be a change in rhetoric, namely being "as the Iraqis step up, we shall step down". Now I thought they were talking about the time when we would withdraw years into the future, when the Iraqis were capable of conducting security and what not, and then the US would step down and redeploy to Iran. However, based upon Jimbo's Iraqification comment, it seemed that they were really talking about short term gains such as US forces stepping up by taking over an area, and then stepping down to allow Iraqi security forces to fill the gap because the US forces were leaving.

How are the Iraqis going to step up when they can't find any Americans to help them and tell them what is what? LTC Crissman was the guy folks asked to help take out a problem inside the Iraqi forces, without US forces on site, who are the Iraqis going to get help from in order to "step up" to the plate? AL Qaeda? Probably.

I thought that was an interesting continuation of the "Iraqi face" strategy. The weird thing was, somebody behind the scenes was continually attempting to solidify US-Iraqi relationships via dual deployments, operations, and patrols. That someone might have been Petraeus actually, since he was in charge of training Iraqi security forces in the beginning.

There was no doubt that with more Iraqis working the streets, that we would get more intel and what not. But was "more intel" enough to keep an area safe or was it just enough to evade ambushes and IEDs?

Now we have a new rhetoric, which I define as a consistent description of Iraq by the military or Bush admin. This new rhetoric is "clear and hold". Which seems to include taking an active leadership role in leading Iraqi forces against our mutual enemies. In point of fact, we could already have had that had we placed American officers and NCOs in charge of Iraqi battalions. This has been historically how you've worked with sepoys of a foreign country; the Gurkhas also worked well under this system. However, America seems to want to reinvent history for some reason.

Iraq has a bunch of cultural obstacles that prevent progress, but let there be no mistake, the US also has a bunch of cultural problems that have prevented progress as well and little of it has to do with Bush, Rummy, or even the Army. Iraq has a domestic insurgency that seeks to endanger civilians and sacrifice millions, but then so does the US. Even if we assume Rummy got the Sunni insurgency problem solved, he could not have solved the American domestic insurgency problem.

[arch]

The democrats have only 16 months to surrender and pin it on the republicans. If they cut off funding, the democrats will take the blame not just for the loss, but also for the consequences.

There must have been a special on sodium penathol in the UK. The BBC just reported that the surge seems to be working. One might think they have a reporter in country.

[Action Hero Sock Puppet]

OK. I've been reading Blackfive since 2004. And this is just getting idiotic.

While I might have every belief that the so-called "Surge" is having an effect in Baghdad, Blackfive's longtime point of getting all the points wrong can't be disregarded.

I decided to take a trip in the Internet's Wayback Machine, stopping at random days Blackfive was going strong on the "Good News Express." You know, not so way back when, when SecDef Rumsfeld was a genius, the generals in Baghdad and Kabul were brilliant, and the only thing standing between victory was a gaggle of liberals, all those pesky journalists and al-Qaeda.

It is no great joy, however, for me to report that on Aug. 23, 2004, it was "Good news from Afghanistan," and a shake at the ol' "MSM" for not doing stories about all the, ahem, "good news."

Xmas, 2004, gave us the eternal complaint, again, that the "damn media" failed to cover "any of the good things that occur in Iraq."

17Feb05 gave us "still more truth from Iraq," wherein a particular clueless colonel deduced that he was seeing oodles of "great victories" and the emergence of the "competent, professional" Iraqi Police near Fallujah.

Obviously these weren't the same IPs we caught detonating IEDs that killed men I thought actually were pretty competent and professional, including more than a dozen IAs, several Marines and a few of my buddies only a few miles from the COL's pos.

This muddled thinking, lacking in virtually any reality we could detect in Anbar or Baghdad, continued up until the hagiography of SecDef Rumsfeld in October of 2006 by Uncle J, who let it be known that "Sec. Rumsfeld has been unfairly painted as too set in his ways or convinced he is correct."

Not a glowing review of his years at the time, but hardly the stern stuff that would have taken a long and hard look at three years in Iraq that, frankly, weren't going well.

To put it mildly.

His replacement? The man who endorsed the current "Surge" strategy, even asking the military if they could give more men to the fight (we couldn't)?

SecDef Gates, the man at OSD whom Blackfive determined was "a good guy, from what I hear, but someone without the ability to separate administration policy from military strategy to actually win the war."

This from the bloke who linked to a "Let's Get Rummy" spoof critical of, well, anyone who was critical of the then-dominant war "policy," and who consistently, without fail, derided former generals and veterans critical of OIF or OEF as "liberals" or "has beens" or frauds.

Now, some might suggest that those with the most concern about the ongoing war policy were those of us working COIN and watching a certain number of fairly incompetent men in civilian and military roles dick up this war. We were cast as the "no men" because we saw continuing efforts, at best, to be counter-productive and, more typically, deficient in any understanding of warfare, insurgencies, the diverse linguistic, kinship, tribal, theological and caste fault-lines of Iraq.

What this blog consistently has failed to provide for its readers is the sense -- within the military -- that the so-called "no men" were right, that the strategies employed by SecDef Rumsfeld, Gen Casey, your colonel poster, et al, were disastrous; that there seemed to be little accountability for the debacle; and that milblogs that purported to be on the side of the warrior were in fact quashing a frank and painful debate within our ranks by raising questions of patriotism or competency anytime someone cast a dissenting view.

Rather than discuss how HR McMaster's work in Tal Afar might inform debate about the ongoing war "strategy," this blog consistently criticized critics like him.

Rather than analyze how the USMC regained its form in Anbar, working to limit atrocities and win over the people by careful, prudent and by no means unheroic efforts, we got prattle about "liberals" and "reporters" and "ex-generals."

This is important because these acts were actually done to mitigate policies that you had long championed and didn't realize were just plain wrong.

The reality is that this blog, which now begs its readers to take its "surge" commentary seriously, has been wrong about most aspects of this war. In fact, a betting man so morally debased that he would wager against his own nation's war policy could not have had a better cheat sheet over the past three years than Blackfive.net -- just bet against anything the columnists predict will come true.

Now, I'm not going to question the spirit in which this blog was formed. I have no doubt that every man who takes the time out of his life to boost the morale of troops in the field, and seeks to champion their cause, is a decent human being who means well.

I think Uncle J's most recent column (above) was both painful for him to write, but necessary, because he is a thoughtful man who cares deeply about those who fight this war and wishes for the ever-shifting mission(s) to succeed.

What I think would be fitting, however, would be for Blackfive.net to take a more aggressive tone, even if that tone is addressing yourselves, other milblogs and military and civilian policymakers you have endorsed in the past.

By your patriotism, you have earned the right to be critical. There's nothing either unpatriotic or disheartening to men in the field about hosting an honest but thorough debate about what is best for our nation and our military.

From now on, as a reader, I ask that Blackfive become an arsenal of ideas, canvassing a wider number of troops, and letting them earnestly discuss what has gone wrong and how we, as a nation and a military, can rise from this.

Just my two cents.

[Action Hero Sock Puppet]

Oh, and I'm still a fan. Just a grumpy one.

[Maggie]

You are right on all counts. I am right there with you. I was a Rumsfeld supporter long past the time when I knew he should go. But we can't let that stand in the way of future success.

[Blues]

When did Iraqifacation and COIN become mutually exclusive? Petreaus’s number 1 lesson learned in counterinsurgency is, “ Do not try to do too much with your own hands”. Aren’t about 2/3rds of the troops engaged in the Surge Iraqi? Did we even have the 400 troops called for by the Pentagon Generals. The surge is more about timing and conditions than changes in strategy.

[Uncle Jimbo]

Lots of excellent thoughts folks. I will have more tomorrow on the fight against the surge.

Cordially,

Uncle J

[Blackfive]

Carl - First, it's a group blog with varying opinions.

Check your six on some of your claims. Most of my posts about good news are there because no one else was writing about any good news, any combat effectiveness, or any other matter that might actually be positive. Basically, you're saying that there was no good news at all to come out of Iraq or Afghanistan or that the good news was accurately told by your profession. Come on.

Check out our opinions on HR McMaster. I think you'll find that milblogs have embraced him (especially Mudville). Hell, I even tried to get a publisher let me write a book about him. I don't think that you are being very fair about that.

Last, I guess you have read none of Grim's pieces at all...

I'll let Jimbo respond for himself.

From now on, I ask that you ask the same of your profession that you ask of us. That is fair, after all, isn't it?

As for the war, do you think it can be won or not?

[referman]

This country has become a country of inches and days,when you get into feet and weeks the attention span decrease by the hour.How many people don't have a computer or a cell phone,all our questions or problems are solved in minutes or days..When things work out quickly everybody wants a piece of the credit,but if not then we look for the person who is to blame.Now all the politicians voted to go to Iraq,and we know most politicians had a fall guy to cover their pathetic asses probably before we set foot in the sandbox.As quickly as the 91 gulf took Rummy figuring, how beat up saddams crew was, he couldn't have much left to fight with,and as our brave military showed the world we were just so good.What general said excuse me but what do we do when we get there.We hear politicians crying about how they were lied to,but what general said or had plans for the day after..All the ret. or fired generals said we didn't have enough troops,but who had the war plans that said we needed a hundred thousand cops!And why didn't a polotician say hey,WTF are we going to do after,did they think it was going to take years to get to baghdad.I mean when we were half way there some general should of figure out that there was a boat load of weapon warehouse scattered all over.The boots on the ground and even embeds called and said what about all the weapons.Who ordered them not to secure the warehouses,and race to baghdad.When we heard saddam cut loose all the prisoners,and everybody in the military and political ranks were taking off the uniforms and becoming civilians,nobody scratched their ass and said Hm!If all these botched decisions were made by Rummy than what the hell were the generals doing?I don't remmember any politicians say what about the weapons left behind,or what are we going to do about all the scumbags who melted into the landscape?Rummy should have stepped down,but so should of all the politicians who dropped the ball and especially the generals.And who has been in the middle of the past four years of this cluster,our military.These brave warriors have done all that was expected,and their thanks from home is,a bunch of BS from their government and their country..The insurgency has done a media job on this country,and alot of americans have fallen into their trap.And a whole bunch of poloticians chasing their tails.Semper Fi

[Rich Casebolt]

You can slam the President and SECDEF Rumsfeld till you are black and blue ...

... but the important thing is, they ACTED to confront this enemy and put this enemy on the defensive.

Something that simply cannot be said for the other, "electable" alternatives to their leadership ... nor would it be likely that it would EVER be said about them.

Saddam & Sons, with every terrorist they harbored ... every suicide bomber they "supported" ... every UN official they corrupted ... every arms and technology deal with Russia/France/Germany ... and every bit of doubletalk from their mouths regarding no WMD/WMD ... attacked the foundations of world peace and our civilization, just as Al Quada has.

That is what you critics don't seem -- or want -- to get.

Iraq is just one battle in a war against those who would like to tear down our civilization by any means they can, and replace it with their totalitarian vision of the world.

The Saddams and bin Ladens, alike, chip away at the foundations of our civilization ... they, and all of like mind, must be STOPPED from doing so -- operational ties or not.

They will not stop on their own, until access to any means to leverage their disdain for life and liberty is permanently denied them ...

... but the 20th-Century practices of pinpricks and constrained conflict against only those whose malfesciance could be proven while complying with the Exclusionary Rule and Miranda rights turned this war into the ultimate game of Whack-a-Mole -- well before 20 January 2001 -- because we always left one or another safe haven for such as these to regroup ... or for a new thug to gain power.

This Administration perceived this ... and decided to change the rules, so this game of Whack-a-Mole could be ended by eradicating more and more thugs over time.

But then you critics started whining ... and we got "Iraqification", bending over backwards to show the world that that America wasn't a big bully.

Yes, that's right ... once again, as they had done throughout the 20th Century, our leaders responded to the stupidity of their critics, and we got a mess.

And those like me, signed on too ... because the alternatives to this Administration had shown themselves by previous INACTION to be totally unsuitable to the task at hand.

*****************************************

You critics say that it is not our place to stand up and defend our civilization from these barbarians.

If not us, who?

You critics say that we must build international consensus before we act to defend this civilization.

Without sound principle, held by all involved, the only consensus you get is the consensus of lemmings, if you even get consensus at all ... no matter how good your persuasive and oratorical abilities are.

You critics decry the mistakes of this Administration.

You sat around for DECADES, and discouraged our leaders from acting decisively to put an end to this threat.

You preached the sufficiency of "containment", which maintained a wall of national soverignty from which Saddam and his ilk could chip away at the peace that is essential for our civilization to thrive ... and plan and plot in relative peace to do even worse.

You worried more about American error, than thug intent ... more concerned about some American that might shred paper, than about thugs who were already shredding people.

You critics demand their removal.

History shows that the likely replacements would be worse ... and so far, no critic has proposed a better alternative with respect to decisively confronting these enemies than our current President and his Administration.

You critics say they can't be believed.

Given the track record of what you have advocated since WWII, why should anyone believe you?

[Tom W.]

Forgotten (or ignored) by those who don't want a professional army, or who smack their lips in satisfaction at every American in a body bag, or who write eye-glazingly long posts congratulating themselves on their enlightenment...

Is the fact that much of what has happened was inevitable. Saddam laid the groundwork for the insurgency in 2002, prepositioning weapons caches, squirreling away cash, and training the fedayeen.

We've suffered an astonishingly low casualty rate in this war/counterinsurgency, and we've inflicted an astonishingly low level of damage on Iraq.

Our "PC" approach has paid off in that the Sunnis have turned against al Qaeda, a momentous development for those of us not mentally shackled by partisan politics or susceptible to propaganda.

The Iraqis had to learn the hard way that al Qaeda and the Shi'ite militias were as bad as Saddam. They had to descend into hell before they would fully accept us as partners, not occupiers.

It was all part of a continuum, an evolving approach that will likely pay off by the spring if Bush can hold off the surrender monkeys.

It wouldn't hurt for everybody to write their Congresscritters and threaten to throw them out of office if they vote to retreat. The only thing most politicians fear is loss of power.

[mobius]

Okay.... I don't where to start here. So I'll start with Uncle J you are an idiot.

Do you have any idea what is going on? Have you ever done duty in a Joint Command Staff and I don't mean an Army liason to the Joint Command Staff, I'm mean working in the J3 shop... working directly for either the J3 or the commanding general? If you did you would have a clue.

Rummy wasn't the problem... it was the idiot Army Generals. There are freaking a over dozen people with stars on their shoulders and they all didn't have a clue bag among them. I sat in daily briefings to Rummy, I listened to his questions and guidance, I did planning for the staff... Rummy wasn't the problem. Rummy would time and time again ask cogent, intelligent and challenging questions about plans, when the Generals couldn't answer the questions with any type of intelligence, he sent the plans back. The F**king Generals knew about the F**king "insurgency" problem before the war. You want to know how I know that?! Because they did the F**king planning in the office right across the hall from me. You want to know what the Army Generals did with that information and planning document? They said thank and go away. They never presented Rummy with the information, they glossed over the intel when they talked to Rummy, and when Rummy asked tough questions, the Army Generals either B.S.ed or just outright lied.

Army Generals are just plain dumb.

[Willaiam Hazen]

Well thats 3+ Uncle J...and I won't speak for the other posters but now that you've had your little Mea Culpa How about getting your shit wired tight again... Start making this here little blog as good as ol Action Guy Sock Puppet said so plainly "From now on, as a reader, I ask that Blackfive become an arsenal of ideas, canvassing a wider number of troops, and letting them earnestly discuss what has gone wrong and how we, as a nation and a military, can rise from this."

It's either turn this blog back into a place where Warriors and thier supporters talk about ideas and contribute towards a consesus for victory or...It continues down the road as an echo chamber of wack jobs, parrots, and little armchair generals with thier fantasies... all the while waiting for someone like the "MSM" "Liberals" or "Paris Hilton" to stab them in the back so they don't have to be held accountable for thier lack of ideas.

You're at the crossroads bro and no one can trudge in your boots.

Respectfully,

William Hazen

[William hazen]

Yes that was my post above. Too much coffee and no spell check. LOL My apologies.

William Hazen

[williamP]

Jimbo gets it right once more.

Any mistakes you made in the past, you made for the right reasons.

Yes, Harry Reid is shameful & disgraceful.

Keep tellin' it, bro...

[Rich Casebolt]

Mr. Hazen ...

Instead of seeking "consensus", how about we simply support sound principle, instead.

As long as any "consensus" includes significant amounts of the "realism" that inhibited us from decisively engaging totalitarians like Saddam during my lifetime ...

... and/or writes off Iraqis as unable to adopt the principles of rights-respecting governance that will immunize them from being hijacked ...

... and/or fails to acknowledge that we cannot leave Iraq in a state where it can be once again hijacked by totalitarian regimes, be they Iran, Al Quada, or anyone else -- for any cost we incur in holding Iraq now, will be far less than the cost of a future conflict to ONCE AGAIN remove totalitarian rule from that nation ...

... "consensus" is worse than the alternative.

[Kayle]

Uncle Jim

What makes you think Rumsfeld was calling all of the shots. One of the key things turning Iraq around is working with the tribes. Not working with the tribes was Paul Bremer's decision. General DeLong went back worked with a company rebuilding Iraq. He said that they'd made several proposals to involve the tribes with rebuilding and they were turned down by the CPA. Also key to COIN is local security. The Iraqi Police were being trained through the Department of State into 2005, which might explain their poor performance through most of 2006. Finally, the CPA only wanted a 40,000 man Iraqi Army in 2004, which help provide justification for getting rid of the 400,000 men in the Sadam's Army. General Franks in his book discussed that he expected IP and IA to be available during Phase IV. I think we're just getting there now.

I guess I could fault Rumsfeld for not opposing the CPA, but what would have replaced it.

[Rita]

Great comments, and I just love Carl! aka Action Hero Sock Puppet :)p.s. where is my action hero sock puppet doll......

I have to say that Blackfive has always posted thoughtful and very serious comments on this website. I have posted on and off for 2 years and find this site, along with others listed on the right to be very informative to all of us asking questions. As well as wanting to hear what our men and women in the field think, and to give them a forum to tell us what is going on over there.

I cannot say I agree with all comments posted, but the site has taken the complications of war, policy, and what is going on over there into prospective. I think that eveyone who posts here on a regular basis knows what it is like to support our troops. Yes, we need a forum to criticize politicans policies, and to question some of the "plans" for this war. It does help everyone involved to try to find the best answers while trying to do what is right for our troops. Without websites such as these, we do not get to hear the truth out there. And we do not get to hear what our troops think, and what we can do for them over there. Right or wrong, we have an obligation to help and we have an obligation to ask the right questions and try to obtain the right answers.

Now, carry on and thanks again for such informative comments and posts from everyone. (except the trolls)

[jordan]

I agree with Rich, "Consensus" is highly overrated. Now don't go off on that -- I just mean that's become the goal too often instead of actually ixing the problem. Instead of "What does everyone think" how about "leadership"?

Action, I don't know. There are hundreds of milblogs. Many of them are a forum to discuss those issues. That's done here, too, if not up to your standard. Every once in a while, a layperson nonwarfighter civilian can actually come up with some cogent, workable ideas, albeit with an eye toward survival and protection more than accomplishing the mission. But contributing to victory also means highlighting small victories and giving a boost to soldiers who might be here. There's a vacuum there, and B5 fills it.

It may not be "serious" but it's just as important for victory to show the force what others are doing, and show the troops there are people out there that do support them, think highly of them, are trying to watch out for their interests, and want them to succeed. Those goals are critical to victory, too.

[Ymarsakar]

From now on, I ask that you ask the same of your profession that you ask of us. That is fair, after all, isn't it?

Who needs to play fair, if you ain't cheating then you aren't trying, eh?

[arch]

Has everyone read Rumsfeld's Rules?

http://www.analects-ink.com/weekend/020308.html

They are informative, humorous and useful to any staff officer, operator ar business executive.

[arch]

Has everyone read Rumsfeld's Rules?

http://www.analects-ink.com/weekend/020308.html

They are informative, humorous and useful to any staff officer, operator ar business executive.

[arch]

Has everyone read Rumsfeld's Rules?

http://www.analects-ink.com/weekend/020308.html

They are informative, humorous and useful to any staff officer, operator ar business executive.

[thefightinggop.org]

An earlier commenter said that Americans should get on the phone and call their Congressmen to vote against pulling out, just like they did to vote against Amnesty. The big difference here is that many, many Americans get a daily dose of illegals in our Country, whereas the last successful terrorist attack on our soil was 9-11-01.

Thanks to the MSM, most Americans aren't aware that things are finally turning around (for the better) in Iraq..slowly, but surely.

Recently Michael Yon's dispatches have received national attention, and he has gained alot more readers. Perhaps we could do the Country a favor and put more people in touch with his site (see below) so they, too, can see the progress. If the other commenters haven't been putting his link in their blogs, perhaps they could start.

http://www.michaelyon-online.com OR, FOR RSS FEEDS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/michaelyon-online

[gunner]

mobius,

Donald Rumsfeld only wanted to hear what he wanted to hear and the Generals knew it.

The Security of the Army under Donald Rumsfeld contradicts your statement that the Generals didn't inform Rumsfeld.

"The Army's recommendation was for an invasion force 400,000 strong, made up of as many Americans as necessary and as many allied troops as possible. "All the numbers we were coming up with were quite large," Thomas White, a retired general (and former Enron executive) who was the Secretary of the Army during the war, told me recently. But Rumsfeld's idea of the right force size was more like 75,000."

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200401/fallows

============================================================
"Donald Rumsfeld was one member of the Administration who seemed still to share the pre-9/11 suspicion about the risks of nation-building, and so didn't much care about the postwar consequences of a relatively small invasion force. (
His deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, was more open to the challenge of rebuilding Iraq, but he would never undercut or disobey Rumsfeld.) In November, Rumsfeld began working through the TPFDD, with the goal of paring the force planned for Iraq to its leanest, lightest acceptable level."

The war games run by the Army and the Pentagon's joint staff had led to very high projected troop levels. The Army's recommendation was for an invasion force 400,000 strong, made up of as many Americans as necessary and as many allied troops as possible. "All the numbers we were coming up with were quite large," Thomas White, a retired general (and former Enron executive) who was the Secretary of the Army during the war, told me recently.
*************But Rumsfeld's idea of the right force size was more like 75,000.************

The Army and the military's joint leadership moderated their requests in putting together the TPFDD, but Rumsfeld began challenging the force numbers in detail. When combat began, slightly more than 200,000 U.S. soldiers were massed around Iraq.

"In what I came to think of as Secretary Rumsfeld's style," an Army official who was involved in the process told me recently, "he didn't directly say no but asked a lot of hard questions about the plan and sent us away without approval. He would ask questions that delayed the activation of units, because he didn't think the planned flow was right. Our people came back with the understanding that their numbers were far too big and they should be thinking more along the lines of Afghanistan"—that is, plan for a light, mobile attack featuring Special Forces soldiers. Another participant described Rumsfeld as looking line by line at the deployments proposed in the TPFDD and saying, "Can't we do this with one company?" or "Shouldn't we get rid of this unit?" Making detailed, last-minute adjustments to the TPFDD was, in the Army's view, like pulling cogs at random out of a machine. According to an observer, "The generals would say, Sir, these changes will ripple back to every railhead and every company."
==========================================================================

Former Secretary of the Army, Thomas White, provided more information:

===============================================================
"We're in Baghdad, the regime is toppled—what's next?" Thomas White told me, recounting discussions before the war. One of the strongest advocates of a larger force was General Eric Shinseki, the Army Chief of Staff. White said, "Guys like Shinseki, who had been in Bosnia [where he supervised the NATO force], been in Kosovo, started running the numbers and said, 'Let's assume the world is linear.' For five million Bosnians we had two hundred thousand people to watch over them. Now we have twenty-five million Iraqis to worry about, spread out over a state the size of California. How many people is this going to take?" The heart of the Army's argument was that with too few soldiers, the United States would win the war only to be trapped in an untenable position during the occupation."

A note of personal rancor complicated these discussions, as it did many disagreements over postwar plans. In our interview Douglas Feith played this down—maintaining that press reports had exaggerated the degree of quarreling and division inside the Administration. These reports, he said, mainly reflected the experience of lower-level officials, who were embroiled in one specific policy area and "might find themselves pretty much always at odds with their counterparts from another agency." Higher up, where one might be "fighting with someone on one issue but allied with them on something else," relations were more collegial. Perhaps so. But there was no concealing the hostility within the Pentagon between most uniformed leaders, especially in the Army, and the civilians in OSD.

*****Donald Rumsfeld viewed Shinseki as a symbol of uncooperative, old-style thinking, and had in the past gone out of his way to humiliate him. In the spring of 2002, fourteen months before the scheduled end of Shinseki's term, Rumsfeld announced who his successor would be; such an announcement, which converts the incumbent into a lame duck, usually comes at the last minute.

The action was one of several calculated insults.***********

===================================================================

F**k Rumsfeld. He has cost American lives with his arrogance.