82nd ABN NCOs in the NY Times

Posted By Uncle Jimbo

First go read Grim's piece below, as always he lays out a much more coherent and detailed look at specifics than I do. From the NY Times, a piece written by junior NCOs of the 82nd ABN.

VIEWED from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day. (Obviously, these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.)

I don't really enjoy criticizing what is obviously a sincere and well done opinion piece by this group of junior NCOs from the 82nd ABN. I think they did an excellent job of pointing out the extreme difficulties faced in fighting an insurgency, but that's all they did. They break no new ground and they illuminate no inherent flaws in our current policy. If anything the piece should be read the opening day of the classes on counter-insurgency COIN I assume all our officers are getting.

I don't recall anyone saying that COIN was easy, quite the opposite in fact. Every time Gen. Petraeus or LTC Kilcullen opens his mouth, he says many of the same things this piece does. COIN is probably the most difficult mission an Army could have given the huge need for successful interaction with the civilian populace. The military is not designed for use refereeing internecine squabbles some of which have the complicating factor of religion thrown in. The main thrust of this Op-Ed seems to be the idea that we are not up to the task of doing the hard tasks outlined and that remains to be seen. They overlook the fact that the signs of progress they say should be overlooked are actually the first steps in a successful COIN program and the other factors will follow as progress is made and the possibility of actual security looms.

However, while creating proxies is essential in winning a counterinsurgency, it requires that the proxies are loyal to the center that we claim to support. Armed Sunni tribes have indeed become effective surrogates, but the enduring question is where their loyalties would lie in our absence. The Iraqi government finds itself working at cross purposes with us on this issue because it is justifiably fearful that Sunni militias will turn on it should the Americans leave.

Of course the government should fear that the Sunnis may turn against them, that is what gives them a need to make deals with them to prevent just that. We can't just spin up a fully functional liberal democracy, and we shouldn't be trying to. We can set up a central government that responds to the needs and desires of the various groups and ensures that none take undue advantage.

Coupling our military strategy to an insistence that the Iraqis meet political benchmarks for reconciliation is also unhelpful. The morass in the government has fueled impatience and confusion while providing no semblance of security to average Iraqis. Leaders are far from arriving at a lasting political settlement. This should not be surprising, since a lasting political solution will not be possible while the military situation remains in constant flux.

This paragraph kinda eats it's own tail but I will tackle the point they were trying to make. The first stage of our COIN program was a surge of forces to take control of areas where insurgents and militias had operated. We would then remain in these areas and deny them to the bad guys while simultaneously building rapport with the locals and the very groups they are so concerned about. Once we gain their trust we can use their own self-interest in security and prosperity to motivate them to compromise and reconcile with their enemies. Most Iraqis don't want conflict if an alternative that doesn't oppress them is available. So the first step was and is building a stable security situation and degrading the bad guys ability to influence daily life. The next step is to allow the political process to proceed and this is much easier when everyone is not ducking for cover every 15 minutes.

The first step has been a qualified success and when the Iraqi Parliament reconvenes they will come with a different set of priorities fresh from the mouths of their constituents. Many of these people have seen us working side by side with them over the past few months and they have reaped the reward of the return of elements of a civil society. The next element that needs to fall into place is a feeling that the central government is providing for their well being through reconstruction and provisioning of basic services. This should begin this Fall and will be the real test of our strategy. Gaining an upper hand in the security situation will mean nothing unless the Iraqis take advantage of that to pass an Oil law and take concrete steps toward reconciliation or at least an armed détente.

The writers of this piece take a fairly pessimistic view of our ability to win a COIN fight. They have every right to do so having seen parts of that policy in action, but only for the last 6 months or so. That is hardly indicative of what we will achieve if we continue a process where many of the initial signs are positive. I also feel obligated to point out the relatively junior rank of the group, none is more senior than SSG, which makes them young and not involved in our policy or it's implementation at more than a minor tactical level. It is always said that NCOs run the military and as a former NCO myself that is true, but not in the way it is often assumed. NCOs handle the day to day business of the military, the nuts and bolts. They do not get involved with much of the decision-making processes, more the implementation of decisions made by officers. The NCOs here have taken their tactical small unit observations and applied them to the entire strategic situation.

Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit.

The problem is they ignore the greater strategic implication of simply stepping back and letting them resolve their differences as they see fit. That would be a victory for Al Qaeda and Iran which they have not actually earned. The NCOs seem feel that COIN is too tough a nut for us to crack. I wish we had responded with this methodology 2 years ago and then we could see what type of progress we had made, but we didn't. So we have the war we have not the war we would like to be in, and yes COIN is the toughest of all missions. Well if it was easy, we wouldn't have sent the 82nd ABN now would we? I understand the sentiments and as they say.

We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through.

I hope they can write another piece next summer about how happily wrong they were with this one.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2819/20941505

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 82nd ABN NCOs in the NY Times:

» Some 82nd Airborne NCO's Critique Iraq in the NY Times from Cop The Truth
The NY Times today published this op-ed piece, apparently written by seven junior Army NCO's in the 82nd Airborne Division who are completing a fifteen-month tour of duty in Iraq. Since the piece was posted in the NYT, your assumption [Read More]

Comments

[Jamison1]

How much training in COIN operations and theory do NCOs get?

[Allan]

Uncle J,

I share your hope.

But in a year, if things have not changed from the present, will you will you write that you were wrong?

[Ymarsakar]

The NCOs here have taken their tactical small unit observations and applied them to the entire strategic situation.

Do you mean Jimbo that the sergeants are unable to implement tactical decisions or support strategic decisions in their sector, thus proposing that all other sectors are like them?

Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit.

Wasn't this the same "Iraqi face" stuff Rumsfeld kept talking about, in order to reduce IED casualties and what not?

I hope they can write another piece next summer about how happily wrong they were with this one.

Well, you're the Ambassador, Jimbo. You can always chat them up.

But in a year, if things have not changed from the present, will you will you write that you were wrong?

Jimbo never misses an opportunity to backtrack, apologize, and sidetrack. Why do you think you need to ask him?

In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.

Do these people somehow think the Arab "self-respect" back before the Americans came in 2003, was something to be proud of? Huge superiority and inferiority complexes, laced with inshallah, apathy, suicidal tendencies, and repressed anger and helplessness.

They will regain dignity by fighting against the "Man" because the "Man" is obviously the problem and if they stay in the ghetto and learn rap and gansta bang ebonics, they can then feel Black Panther pride... ridiculous.

At least Rumsfeld was good for something. He showed us what listening to talk about letting the Iraqis do everything by themselves would lead to.

The US aren't Soviets. Iraqis won't be used as Russian cannon fodder conscripts. But neither can the paternal American protective instinct to let the locals do things the local way, in South Korea, Japan, Italy, France, Germany, etc work either.

[Uncle Jimbo]

Jamison,

All US units wil have some elements of COIN type training built into their pre-deployment and these folks seem to understand it at a higher level than that. It has been a historically under practiced discipline mostly left to Special Forces.

Cordially,

Uncle J

[NicholasV]

Even maintaining the status quo over the next year would be something. It would be better than if the situation actually got worse, especially given that thanks to the recent gains, the status quo is better than the situation has been at some points in the past. Much better in some areas. So while I would be disappointed if no progress is made in a year, I don't think it would be a disaster. In fact that may in fact be progress in and of itself - a kind of stability, and time for the natives to get their act together.

[Subsunk]

Dear Men,

If it was easy, we'd ask the Girl Scouts to do it. Not the 82nd Airborne.

Press on. Do your best. It is all we ask.

Subsunk

[liontooth]

Is Sadr city the area they are describing in the article? If it is I don't think their area has experienced the full force of the surge/new COIN strategy yet.

The surge was initially targeted at al qaeda and securing Sunni areas to contain the massive bombings that were inflaming the population. It would make sense to deal with each threat, one(al qaeda) at a time, and not stir up the entire hornet's nest(Sadr/Shiite militias) at once.

So the full effect of winning over the Shiites has not yet begun and I wouldn't expect much (if any) progress in those areas.

But if I'm wrong and:
#1 Sadr city isn't the AO being described.
#2 there has been as concentrated an effort on Sadr / Shiite militias as al qaeda up until now.
#3 Shiites in the rest of Iraq have this same negative mindset as the article.

Then I'd agree that their outlook for success is accurate unless a radically different approach is started immediately.

[rick554]

I'm totally in agreemnet with sub sunk. Always Forward. Do your best and THANK YOU!
God bless our TROOPS!

[Arch]

Mending a nation fractured by war is not done over night, even if that country has a long and rich heritage of democracy. Look at the nation whose last king bank rolled the American Revolution - France. Politically, the French experimented with radical revolutionary politics and wound up with Emperors and a series of "Republics". They were invaded by Germany three times (1870, 1914 and 1940). France is no stranger to military defeat, capitulating to Nazi Germany in June 1940.

On June 6th, 1944, allied forces began their liberation. Paris fell on August 25th and by October they were pressing into Germany. It took over 2 years to secure the country, restore order and return it to democracy. The Fourth Republic approved a reworked Constitution October 13th, 1946.

In January 1947, France formed a government under the Fourth Republic. In the 11 years that followed, the French elected 20 Prime Ministers, one whose term was only 7 days! In June 1958, they elected Charles DeGaulle who finally brought a measure of political stability to France.

How do Iraqi politics stack up against the post WWII French?

Iraq has virtually zero democratic government experience. They were ruled by the Persians, Turks, British and their King before the Baathists took over. Saddam Hussein took power in 1978 and lost it in 2003 when his forces were soundly beaten by the coalition.

Our invasion began in March 20th 2003; Baghdad fell on April 9th. On May 1st major combat operations ceased after only 6 weeks. Then began the guerilla war against al Qaeda, Sunni Tribes, Baathist holdouts, Shiite militias and Iranians.

In mid-October 2005, 63% of Iraqis voted Constitution mostly along sectarian lines. The document was approved by 78%. Sunnis (estimated by CIA at 35%) boycotted the election or voted No. Ironically, the strongest province opposing the Constitution was al Anbar, at 97% against.

Two months later, Iraq held Parliamentary elections and formed a government which is still up and running. In the first three years of the Fourth Republic, France had had 6 Prime Ministers including two on the radical left.

As we did in France, America must stay in Iraq until the government is able to secure its nation and govern it fairly.

[Francis Marion]

Let me begin by saying that these men are doing a terrific job and are performing to the best of their abilities. Their article is written from their perspective which is as a ground pounder facing the mean streets every day. They are the men we send into the rough neighborhoods to face the insurgents. Their perspective would be no different than from a vice cop who thought the world was being over-run by dysfunctional drug and prostitution rings. These men fight on these streets and, before they can see the results of their efforts, we move them on to another dangerous assignment.

These men were trained to face a known and easily identifiable enemy and eliminate them. They are some of the best the world has at this task. Their biggest problem right now is that they are working outside of their expertise. They have adapted quite well to their unconventional environment but they have not received the training necessary to conduct strategic COIN operations. The large error in their article is their limited tactical observations were applied as a strategic observation.

Within the U.S. Army exists a sub culture of men commonly considered misfits with attitudes by the more conventional officers. You may have heard the phrase, “There’s the right way, the wrong way, and the Army Way;” these guys don’t do it the Army Way. Jimbo, Matt, and I are part of this culture. We have had the extensive training in Insurgency and Counter Insurgency warfare. It’s what we do/did for a living. We live with and work with the locals. Every tactical operation is weighed carefully to comprehend its strategic effect. We work in one area for the entire deployment and make progress happen. We do it by helping the Iraqi’s understand that the best for Iraq may not be loyalty to the state but at least an acknowledgement that inter-tribal/sectarian relations are essential to local security.

The criticism of these soldiers is far from their dedication to duty but rather from the mistakes made by many soldier from PVT Snuffy to GEN Schwarzkopf. That is the mistake of thinking that conventional soldiers can conduct unconventional operations. I have seen it repeated many times in my career; officers amazed at our results after they thought their troops could do our job. All this is contrary to two of the SOF Truths: “Special Operations Forces cannot be mass produced,” and “Competent Special Operations Forces cannot be created after emergencies occur.”

Accept the article for what it is; written by some intelligent soldiers tired of a long war and published by an organization that wants to crush our will to fight. Please accept my assessment of the fight based on 20 years in the Special Forces community conducting unconventional and COIN ops in many nations. COIN warfare frequently takes a generation or more. It is a protracted process of overcoming long held fears and hatreds. Since I know what to look for, I am amazed at the progress made over the past few months.

[Allan]

Francis,

I do not dispute your points. The main one being that this needs to be a SOCOM operation (including not only SF, but CA and PsyOps), not a conventional operation. To institute this process, we need leaders who accept this proposition. And I think those leaders are lacking.

Theater commanders do not want to give up their control to SOCOM and SOCOM does not want to subject its soldiers to theater commander authority, most importantly the GCMCA. At least this was the case a few years back.

And I am not sure that the CJIS or the SECDEF is on board with you. And the president does not seem to have the vision to think outside the box.

Conventional Army wisdom is that you cannot win a war without boots on the ground, and that means infantry, calvary, and artillery.

As for your comparisons to France and Germany, they are not too far off. But, since they had a history of some sorts of democratic government, their transformation took a comparatively short time. We can expect to be in Iraq much longer (if we want to transform it).

I am not sure we have the time, since the president has already stretched the military to its limit.

My bottom line: the mission can be accomplished, but not by this administration.

[David M]

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 08/20/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

[Deltabravo]

I see a kind of circular thought process going on in that the MSM helps foment a sense of futility to the mission, which is then reinforced by an article like this (though probably not deliberately on the authors' part... I'll give them the benefit of that doubt.) And so articles like that perpetuate the sense of futility... and around we go.

We've sort of lost the whole public relations/information war in this country. The MSM would rather pick at the carcass of our nation than ever be seen as agreeing with this administration. (We'll lay off the implications that mindset would have had during WWII).

But over there it's a different story. I'm interested in what you great minds would do if you could control the information battle over THERE with the locals. That's a critical piece of the puzzle I don't see discussed much. Their perception of what is going on can be just as helpful or harmful to their perspective and desire to struggle on as ours is to us. So what message would YOU put out over there?

[Arch]

Allan:

The point I was trying to make was that France had a democratic history and spent more time than Iraq recovering from occupation and setting up a stable government. Their constitution was a rewrite of the Third Republic's and it still took longer than Iraq did to form a government. My point is the Iraqis are doing quite well at coming to grips with the sea change since May 2003.

Also, beware of the moving goal posts. Last Fall, success was stabilizing the security situation, now it is a political reconciliation between competing, even diametrically opposed, interests.

Our conclusions are the same. We need to stay until Iraq is able to function constructively without us. That point is beginning to dawn on the 2008 candidates for President.

Arch

[Allan]

Well, Arch (sorry for answering the wrong person), we agree on most things. I am ambivilent about changing the mindset of Iraqis, where you strongly believe it must be done.

The question is how to do it. My position is that we either need to do it right or not do it at all. And Bush has done it wrong for four years, so why would anyone think anything will change in the next 15 months? I say better to get out now (and not do it), rather than to get out in 15 months (and not do it). We might save the lives of hundreds of soldiers and Marines and over a hundred billion dollars.

About those moving goal posts. Isn't it the president who is moving them?

[MICHAEL in MI]

"I say better to get out now (and not do it), rather than to get out in 15 months (and not do it). We might save the lives of hundreds of soldiers and Marines and over a hundred billion dollars."

Allan - You state this as if getting out and falling back to fortress America ends our dealings with war in the Middle East. Far from it. It will embolden our Islamic enemies 100 fold. Then what?

Let's say we go with your idea: withdraw from Iraq starting in September 2007, after GEN Petraeus' report. THEN WHAT? I never see this hypothetical expanded upon past "let's get out and then let them fight out themselves".

Um, that's not all that would happen. The entire Muslim world would be emboldened for having beaten the Great Satan, just as Hezb'Allah declared victory over Israel last summer and immediately began rearming for the next war/attack on Israel, to come soon. Iraq is connected to Iran, is connected to Hezb'Allah and Lebanon, is connected to Hamas and "Palestine" (whose TV stations are teaching kids to hate America and Israel and desire to martyr themselves killing infidels), is connected to Syria, is connected to Islamic Turkey is connected to Islamic Saudi Arabia which funds Islamic teachings in our public grammar schools to indoctrinate our children, funds C.A.I.R. to work to instil Islamic sharia law here in America as well as spread Islamic propaganda, funds the Muslim Students Association and Muslim American Society, whose goals are to spread Islamic sharia law here in America. Not to mention the Muslim Brotherhood and Muslim Council of Britain connection in the UK as well as the Rape Sheikh in Australia who is spreading Islamic extremism there.

Care to tell us all how withdrawing from Iraq "saves the lives of hundreds of soldiers and Marines and over a hundred billion dollars"? Maybe it will in the short term, but withdrawing will just lead up to the next World War... which is what being in Iraq right now is *preventing*. Our COIN operations and efforts to transform the mindset of the people of the Middle East is trying to *prevent* World War.

So, maybe you would like to address how withdrawing now will save all these lives and all this money for America and will provide national security for America. I honestly would like to read what you have to say, since you seem to stand behind your position wholeheartedly. I expect that since you hold this position so well, you must also have a well thought-through plan and prediction of how this plan will succeed into the future and it doesn't just end at "let's pull out and let them kill each other". Afterall, true leaders must come up with plans, come up with predictions on how they will succeed AND have the faith and courage and fortitude to see them through. Let's hear your withdrawal plan and its repercussions in the Middle East, across the world and most importantly here in America and how it affects not only the lives of our soldiers and America's budget NOW, but also our soldiers' lives, America's bugdet and the propaganda war going forward 10-20 years down the road.

Save the chickenhawk remarks and the moving the goalposts rhetoric and simply give us your plan and how you foresee it playing out related to all the aspects I provided above.

[Allan]

Mike,

I am getting dizzy. First you are Pollyanna. Now you are Cassandra. Tomorrow will it be Pandora?

No-one knows what will happen if we leave Iraq. Maybe leaving would be a good Mullah mullification policy. I doubt leaving Iraq would endanger the US any more than the current situation.

But, it will certainly save lives and money compared to what we expend.

And, Michael, I am not advocating getting out. I think the only sensible policy, if we are going to stay is to put more, much more, in. This fighting a war with a hand behind our backs is BS. And is not working. If we are not going to do that, then the only logical alternative is to get out.

As for getting out, let's use Bush's strategy. Certainly, in 2003, he made sure to have one in case his war did not succeed. Or maybe not.

Whatever the strategy, getting out will be ugly. As it was for the British in Palestine. OK, here's my plan, which might not work and is off the top of my head, but it cannot be any more hairbrained than Bush's current scheme of not employing sufficient resources to solve the current problem:

1) take all of our forces and form a line 100 miles long, parallel to the Syrian border.
2) position calvary on the outside and tanks just inside that
3) put the infantry, artillery, and support folks in the middle
4) slowly move the line toward Syria.
5) invade Syria (and look for WMD, if we find them give the president a big thumb's up)
6) depose Assad (or decapitate)
7) move the troops through the Golan Heights and onto Haifa
8) Redeploy from Haifa
9) use the AF to provide air cover for the entire trip.

This probably won't work, but it accomplishes a couple of things:

1) let's us get out of Iraq by land, which may be safer than by sea
2) enables us to determine whether Hussein really sent his WMD to Syria
3) destroys another arm of the Ba'ath party

By the way, you are kind of touchy about not joining up are you? One wonders why.

[MICHAEL in MI]

I'm not touchy about not joining up, I'm touchy about leftist memes that distract from the debate about the war effort. The "chickenhawk" argument is one of them. Would my points have more relevance if I were to admit that I was a war veteran? Why or why not? Wouldn't you then just accuse me of still being a hypocrite, because I am not still fighting in the war and got out after serving the minimal amount of time I could?

Thank you for that plan. I knew you had to have one, since you didn't seem to be a mindless leftist, as I usually talk with in other mediums, so I knew I could ask the question and get a decent answer.

Where I disagree with you (and probably many others) is that I don't think we necessarily need massive amounts of troops in order to win this war effort. I think a good portion of our problem is the info war and lack of unity among Americans and among the Western world. If, from March 2003, we had the Democrats and the American media on the side of America, reporting on all the success and progress and putting out the message that "America Stands United!" and that we were not going to give up until we crush the enemy and liberate Afghanistan and Iraq and anyone else better not f*** with us, we would be a LOT more further along in this war effort. That is my sincere belief, though others may feel it naive or misguided. But I think everyone will agree that part of the reason we lost Vietnam was because of info-ops, where the enemy was emboldened not to give up, because they knew we were divided back home. I see the exact same thing happened here in this war. The enemy is using YouTube and the International Media propagandists and the American media propagandists and the Democrat Congress propagandists to further their effort. Without their propaganda arms, they would be sunk.

So my ignorant personal view is that we don't need more troops, we simply need national and Western unity, no more propaganda spewed from our media and the Democrats and... time. We have seen what just one year has done to gain the trust of the Iraqi populace and I read each and every day of schools being built across Iraq, infrastructure being restored, relationships being built with local leaders and families, etc. All that will continue to build with time.

Just imagine if there was no message to the Iraqi people for the past 2 years that America was going to cut-and-run from Iraq. There was no worry that Iraqis would be left to the JAM or to the rule of Iran. Imagine just how much that would have changed things the past 2 years.

And imagine if the mass media were reporting on everything I have been reading in Military blogs for the past 2+ years. All the success and progress and smiling Iraqi children and relationships built with the families and success in the local communities and schools built and infrastructure. Just imagine how great Americans would feel seeing that every single day on their TVs and in their newspapers.

I think about that all the time. And I wonder how much of the mess in Iraq is do to the military and how much is due to the lack of unity among Americans, lack of unity in the American Government, lack of unity in the Western world and the propaganda efforts of the American and International media.

[Allan]

Mike,

There is only one point that I find relevant regarding one's enlistment: if you do not enlist, then your contention that we are fighting the greatest battle in history is hollow, if not hypocritical. If you argue that the war is simply one of many priorities, and you are personally pursuing a higher priority, then there is no hypocrisy, in my book, at least.

Seriously, if one believes this is a war for the very being of our country, how can one not enlist (if qualified)? The only conclusion that can be drawn from not enlisting is that you do not believe that the war is as important as what you are doing.

Onto the rest of the post. Having uniformity by reporting that solely supports the war is dangerous, more dangerous than what we have now. (I am not calling anyone a Nazi) If your ideas is to force unity, that would seem to promote fascism (there is a difference between a Nazi and a fascist).

I was just watching a show about WWI, where the German press was not allowed to report on the sorry state of the war, allowing the war to continue. Had Germany sued for peace earlier, it would certainly have been a much better result for them, and maybe the world...

I am not suggesting that the US is in the same situation now as Germany was then. Rather, I am saying that it is better to let the press be the press and not insist on conformity.

As for Vietnam. Yes it would have been better if we had "won". But the result we had did not exactly destroy the country.

BTW, if you think that the American public would soak up positive news reports about Iraq and they are not being broadcast, I have an idea: start a newspaper or magazine. If you are right, you will soon be rich.

That's what the reporting is about: capitalism. Why do the right wing talk show hosts flourish? Because they have listeners (a snark: or because right wingers can't read?). The left does not have as many listeners (they are our hugging trees and vandalizing SUVs and reading). If the majority of people agreed with you, there would be no money for ABC, NBC, and CBS through advertisements and they would go under.

[MICHAEL in MI]

I should add that I believe it will not matter how many more troops we add to Iraq, if we don't take care of the lack of unity here at home and in our government and the enemy propaganda of the American and International media... then we still won't have much of a chance to succeed in the short term and will have to overcome the same obstacles we have had to overcome the past 4+ years.

[Ymarsakar]

This fighting a war with a hand behind our backs is BS. And is not working.-Allan

So what are you going to do about Iran and Syria, had you the power, given the amount of restrictions and limitations Bush has been using to protect them from American military attacks?

[Allan]

Ymarsakar,

I am not sure what you mean when you write "given the amount of ..." Could you rephrase the question?

And, if I had the power, I would first want to go back to March 2003 and decide that we only had enough troops to fight one war at a time. That is, finish with Afghanistan, then go on to another country. Or get a bigger Army. If Bush had done the latter, he could have attacked Iraq, using part of the active force and the reserves and, at the same time, trained enough recruits to backfill for the reserves when they came home.

But, I don't have that power, and I don't have a magic solution for getting the US out of the fine mess Bush has gotten us into.

All options are crap. Guess that's what happens when the president drags the country into the bottom of the latrine and we ask how we can get out while still smelling good.

[Rich Casebolt]

And, if I had the power, I would first want to go back to March 2003 and decide that we only had enough troops to fight one war at a time. That is, finish with Afghanistan, then go on to another country. Or get a bigger Army. If Bush had done the latter, he could have attacked Iraq, using part of the active force and the reserves and, at the same time, trained enough recruits to backfill for the reserves when they came home.

Does fighting one war at a time mean also redeploying our forces from the Iraqi no-fly zone to Afghanistan, as well?

Or, kind of the same thing ... leaving Saddam and his terrorist clients in place, relatively unmolested as long as the USAF didn't notice them, to plan and plot?

The time factors are being discounted here, when it comes to judging the President ...

... first, the growing risk at the time of leaving another thug wtih more than enough resources (WMD stockpiles or not) to perpetrate another 911 ...

... a proven loose cannon who is more than willing to take a gamble on winning against us, the consequences to his nation be damned ...

... a terror Godfather with terrorist clients who are beholden to him for support, and have at least some obligation to "performa a service" for the Godfather in the future ...

... a dictator with the motivation to "do unto us" (with plausible deniability, too) before we do unto him like we were doing unto the Taliban right before his eyes.

... second, the idea that time is the primary determinant between "victory" and "quagmire".

As the Rolling Stones said, "You can't always get what you want ... but if you try real hard, you just might find, you get what you need" Just because we're not finished yet, doesn't mean that what is being done is useless or imprudent.

Allan, as we discussed on this thread -- I recommend re-reading it, rather than rehashing it here, IMO you are wrong in insisting that we approach this asymetrical conflict, both on the battlefield and on the homefront, as another WWII.

The "non-sacrifical" approach you deride here does not diminish the importance of prosecuting this war ... or even preclude reallocating reaources to build a deeper bench for our warfighters to draw from . What makes this war, even without obvious "sacrifice", so important, is that action now can keep this from growing to WWII proportions.

The idea is to remain engaged, until we achieve a decisive victory over those relative few who wish to deny life and liberty to the vast majority around them ...

... without grinding that vast majority to powder ...

... without doing unnecessary harm to the economic engine that facilitates the technical and logistical advantages our military has on the battlefield; advantages that help preserve the lives of that vast majority ...

... without reaching a point of diminishing returns on the asymetrical battlefield, reaching that point that more troops only means more targets for the thugs and fanatics -- something the Soviet Union learned the hard way when THEY went into Afghanistan ...

... without giving those relative few the propagandic tinder they need to turn this into a nation-on-nation World War, by invoking the Powell Doctrine and convincing the majority we are the Crusaders redux, instead of earning their trust -- as we have in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And, you have yet to justify how any of the alterantives to this President would have done better ... especially in the light that he is the only Man among them (except for perhaps McCain) who has shown he was willing to take prudent, direct, timely and decisive action against these enemies.

And taking action, right then, was the prudent course to take ... to PRECLUDE the need for another WWII-size effort.

[Arch]

Allan:

FYI, I "joined up" in 1962 when I was a midshipman at Annapolis. I retired from the USAF in 1987. Like all regular officer retirees, I am on the temporary retired duty list (TDRL).

In 1991, I got a letter from the military personnel center. I told them that if I was activated, I asked to be sent to Saudi Arabia, not some stateside command post. If they call me today, I would gladly go.

In Vietnam, we won. I was an F4E weapon systems officer in the 366 TFW at DaNang. In spite of the same leftists we are dealing with today, we repelled two major communist offensives, never lost a battle, never had a unit surrender, bombed the North Vietnamese until they agreed to our terms, signed the Paris Peace Accords, got our POWs back and left. The war cost 1,250,000 lives.

The MSM and your leftists pals - John Kerry, Jane Fonda, Jack Murtha, Ramsey Clark, Frank Church, Dave Obey - couldn't let Nixon take credit for a Victory, so they put the Case-Church Amendment on the FY1975 Defense Appropriations Bill. The peace cost 3,000,000 lives.

Your "withdrawal plan" would condemn millions of Iraqis to death, start a Sunni-Shia civil war in Iraq which would quickly escalate into Saudi - Iranian regional conflict. That war would be fought on top of oil fields containing half the worlds' reserves. Oil would hit $150 bbl, our economies would collapse, we would need to go back and fix it. Aside from that, your "plan" is great.

Bottom line: We are in Iraq and we must stay and succeed. If we need more troops, send them; more time, take it; new ROE, write them.

Arch

[Mike H.]

Just out of curiosity, if we don't seem to be able to handle the situation in Iraq, why the hell would we line up on any other border and extend the war to another area? If we're tired of playing in Iraq why would we decide to go off and engage hizb'allah? Do we half do something in Iraq then half do something in Syria then half do something in Jordan saving Iran for last so we can half do something for the entire middle east?

We need more troops, good, then we can tuck every swinging ____ into bed at night. It's a good thing that we don't want any sweat equity for the house that we're building for them. By God we should do what we did when I was in the Corps while we were trying to rebuild the outfit after the intense accolades we received from 'Nam, if a Pvt can't be held responsible then make a Pfc the responsible party, if a Lcpl is needed then give it to him and if we work it right we can have a SSgt responsible for checking out the vacuum cleaner when we get done. The same program can be done to the Iraqis. Why make them responsible for their own future when we can pass the buck up the chain in our own outfit.

[liyak]

Info is thee Alpha and Omega
in,counterinsurgency and CT!
And we have lots of it,it's called Vietnam.If someone,would of studied the Ashau valley,beforehand,they
would done different ops,in
Afghan at least.

[liyak]

To change a mind,you need the
correct mind before-hand!Otherwise,you'd be speaking:"Babylonian."And that
is what Iraq is."Babyl"=worthless speech.