Iraq: U.S. Analysts Say 'Surge' Progress Warrants Patience

[tw]

Originally Posted by queequeger

Most of the things you stated were correct, i.e. mismanagement of the war from the start. I could go through and nit pick the few errors, but what you're saying is largely true. What I am saying is that there were not enough troops to secure the border, Rumsfeld sent out specific directives to not stop rioting because he needed the men to search for those fabled WMD, and also because of the WMD hunt our soldiers were not able to tie down the conventional weapons and protect the power grids.

For these same reasons, Sen McCain defined Rumsfeld as the worst Sec of Defense ever in the history of America. And so that he was clear, he restated it. Meanwhile Rumsfeld even repeatedly denied looting was occuring.

Whereas specific units were assigned to WMD searchs, many other units even avoided ammunition dumps for fear of mythical WMDs. All of which is not relevant to what created a disaster in those first six months - America did not do nation building.

Yes, we did not have enough troops. Military doctine says we needed 600,000. Shinseki estimated (was it?) something under 300,000. Get them all in, win the battle, do Phase Four, and then many (if not most) can leave a peaceful nation after a year. But our leaders who had no military experience or knowledge instead called Shinseki (et al) wrong. And so the damage was done. And so America created the insurgency that we now spin into allies of bin Laden.

Back in the States, many in America claim the Iraqi insurgency is mostly from bin Laden's organization exported into Iraq to kill Americans. Americans know this from propaganda. The new expression 'Al Qaeda in Iraq' does not clarify this confusion. To most Americans, that is still bin Laden's Al Qaeda. Even province leaders in Anbar who have since turned against insurgents were previously declared in America as bin Laden's Al Qaeda. Suddenly they are now Iraqis - not Al Qaeda? Domestic spin continues to promote confusion for a White House political agenda that says all insurgents are bin Laden's Al Qaeda - foreign fighters. These inconsistencies are heavily entrenched in what the American public believes.

I did not say insurgencies can only be solved poltiically. Defined (previously) were needed economic, politicial, and social solutions. Those would define the strategic objective. Military action (tactical objectives) must be included but oriented to achieve those strategic objectives.

In Nam, we decided that victory was found in body counts. Westmoreland said principles of war no longer applied to Nam. That justified 'search and destroy' sweeps. Whereas a tactical (military) victory was achieved, at the end of the day, the land remained in VC hands - a strategic defeat.

Westmoreland asked Johnson for another 500,000 troops saying if he just had a few more, then he believed victory would be achieved. That was when Johnson asked Westmoreland some daming questions and eventually concluded that Nam clearly was lost. Johnson eventually realized that Westmoreland's "more troops" solution was a myth.

We are saying very much same things. But the point previously made is that the time to achieve those economic, political, and social solutions was in those first critical six months. Having not done so, then the only people who can accomplish those goals are Iraqis. The Maliki government is futile. All others (ie Sadr) should be keeping strength in reserve for when Maliki falls or the Civil War errupts.

Only useful solution I had read was the Iraq Study Group. It was a comprehensive and aggressive plan that even requires actions by most every Department in the US Government. It was a plan to minimize defeat and to try to save Iraq from complete Civil War.

I read Thomas Rick's book (Fiasco), multiple Bob Woodward books (State of Denial), Isikroff and Korn (Hubris), and numerous others. It is unbelieveable that we were even dumber than the dumbness acknowledged publically. It is appauling that Rumsfeld, et al executed the same communist management techniques so routinely found in business school education - especially micromanagement. If I remember Fiasco, some appauling stories are iterated by Col Spain, Gen Keane, Warrick and O'Sullivan, Garner, David Kay (George Jr curiostity is so non-existant as to not ask questions) and others. Incompetance or bad leadership was clearly demonstated by Rumsfeld, Wolfovitz, Feith, Odiero (who did not understand how to fight an insurgency and operated the 4th ID much like Nam), Sanchez (who was too far from ready to have such a command), and Bremer. People who did jobs responsibily such as Petraeus, McMaster, Batiste, Swannack, Keane, and others were either delegated to back room assignments or retired in open disgust. Meanwhile Bremer, Franks, and Tenant get the Medal of Freedom? Of them, Bremer is by far one of the most incompetant - as equally incompetant as Rumsfeld and Rumsfeld's two assistants.

Guessing is that these stories were in Fiasco. I have read so many sources that these may be from those others.

Unfortunately it is war. Yes civilians are no more than 'acceptable losses'. I don't like it either. But once that sectarian mindset gets this deeply entrenched, then it takes that much violence to undo the mindset - just like everyone in Lebanon had to be considered cannon fodder until sanity was restored. Is it cold shit? Damn straight. But it is logically the only way to minimize losses. In "Mission Accomplished", the situtation is so desperate that emotion has no place. Logic is to save as many as is possible. If that means being cold, well, so was MacArthur, Patton, Sherman, Grant, Pershing, Rickover, and Presidents Truman (Hiroshima) and Kennedy (Cuban Missile). In each case, the eventual result was (intended) less lives lost.

From the top of your head, you probably remember one or two particularly good CI books. One repeatedly cited book discusses Algeria. I have not read that one in part because I don't remember the title.

One final point - from Griff

Try not to take tw's posting "voice" personally.

If you make even the slightest assumption based upon the tone as written, then you will have 100% false conclusions. I make zero attempt to word anything nicely or poltiically correct. Anything implied is not relevant. I also see absolutely nothing but the most honest, thoughtful, and blunt logic in your post. You went right after the facts as only good people do. I love it.

Even the statement about 'cold' is appreciated for its honesty. My ruthless statements about solving "Mission Accomplished" are (unfortunately) inevitable if Iraqis refuse to take advantage of (what should be) their last opportunity; provided by Petraeus. If they fail to grasp this opportunity in the next three months, then massive civilian deaths in a Civil War probably will be the only way to minimize their death and destruction. I suspect that is even how Al Sadr sees it - trying to keep his army in line and his ammo dry until the eventual meltdown (ie referencing his 'stand down' of his army). Life's a bitch. I am not going to let silly emotions deny that reality. What may be inevitable is cold. Warm or cold does not change the reality.

I suspect the many parties are positioning themsleves for what happens when Civil War breaks out. The question I keep asking is "what is Sistani thinking?" And will he be relevant anymore? Maliki is destined for a pile that includes Chalabi and so many other Iraqi leaders.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by tw

If they fail to grasp this opportunity in the next three months,
then massive civilian deaths in a Civil War probably will be
the only way to minimize their death and destruction.

not sure I understand this part at all.

Originally Posted by tw

The question I keep asking is "what is Sistani thinking?"

Really? The question you've been repeatedly asking for months if not longer, is "When do we go after Bin Laden?" - this is the first time I've seen this one posed.

Illegals and crime

According to Rep. Steve King, illegal aliens commit 12 murders every day in the U.S. and kill another 13 daily through drunk driving incidents.

That's more than 9,000 people killed every year by illegal aliens.

As World Net Daily's Joseph Farah points out, that means more people are murdered by illegal aliens in one year than have been killed in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars since their inception.

Rep. King also notes that on average eight children are sexually abused by illegal aliens every day -- that's over 2,920 annually. And that's just a small portion of the illegal alien crime wave.

+ + 4.1 million crimes by illegal aliens

As we reported in Grassfire's booklet, "The Truth About The Illegal Invasion," some 325,000 criminal illegal aliens will be incarcerated in state and federal prisons this fiscal year. A GAO study found that illegal aliens commit, on average, 12.6 criminal offenses. This means incarcerated illegal aliens have committed over 4.1 million crimes -- and that does not include illegal alien criminals who are not incarcerated. And we learned from Rep. Tom Tancredo that thousands of illegals are coming from terrorist and suspect nations.

+ + So, what do we do?

It is very clear that the President and the Democrat-controlled Congress are "chomping at the bit" to pass amnesty. The only way to stop this is to rally a massive grassroots uprising.


http://www.grassfire.org/42/petition.asp?RID=11667349