Retired officers criticize Rumsfeld

[boutons_]

Retired officers criticize Rumsfeld

By DAVID ESPO

AP Special Correspondent


AP Photo/HARAZ N. GHANBARI
U.S. Video


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Retired military officers on Monday bluntly accused Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld of bungling the war in Iraq, saying U.S. troops were sent to fight without the best equipment and that critical facts were hidden from the public.

( Rumsfeld lied? oh, the horror! )
"I believe that Secretary Rumsfeld and others in the administration did not tell the American people the truth for fear of losing support for the war in Iraq," retired Maj. Gen. John R. S. Batiste said in remarks prepared for a forum conducted by Senate Democrats.

A second military leader, retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, assessed Rumsfeld as "incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically ...."

"Mr. Rumsfeld and his immediate team must be replaced or we will see two more years of extraordinarily bad decision-making," he added in a statement prepared for the policy forum, held six weeks before the Nov. 7 midterm elections in which the war is a central issue.



Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a member of the Armed Services Committee, dismissed the Democratic-sponsored event as "an election-year smoke screen aimed at obscuring the Democrats' dismal record on national security."

( Cornyn, what a tool.

Hey, Johnny, who was watching the NatSec fort on 9/11?

Hey, Johnny, who started the Iraq war to win re-election in 2003? )

"Today's stunt may rile up the liberal base, but it won't kill a single terrorist or prevent a single attack," Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in a statement. He called Rumsfeld an "excellent secretary of defense."

( who said it was supposed to kill a terrorist? It's an attempt to STOP WASTING US LIVES under Rummy's incompetence )

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, speaking at the National Press Club Monday, said election-season politics may be what's standing in the way of finding a solution to the insurgency in Iraq.

( uh, no. The Repugs have created a god-forsaken quagmire in Iraq and nobody has a clue how to go forward (or advance to the rear), but large numbers of people now don't expect anything from Rummy, except more fuckups )

"My instinct is once the election is over there will be a lot more hard thinking about what to do about Iraq and a lot more candid observations about it," said Specter, R-Pa.

( Is Rummy tied up running for office right now? How is the election stopping Rummy and friends from doing their jobs? )

The conflict, now in its fourth year, has claimed the lives of more than 2,600 American troops and cost more than $300 billion.

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., the committee chairman, told reporters last week that he hoped the hearing would shed light on the planning and conduct of the war. He said majority Republicans had failed to conduct hearings on the issue, adding, "if they won't ... we will."

Since he spoke, a government-produced National Intelligence Estimate became public that concluded the war has helped create a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Along with several members of the Senate Democratic leadership, one Republican, Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina, participated. "The American people have a right to know any time that we make a decision to send Americans to die for this country," said Jones, a conservative whose district includes Camp Lejeune Marine base.

It is unusual for retired military officers to criticize the Pentagon while military operations are under way, particularly at a public event likely to draw widespread media attention.

But Batiste, Eaton and retired Col. Paul X. Hammes were unsparing in remarks that suggested deep anger at the way the military had been treated. All three served in Iraq, and Batiste also was senior military assistant to then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.

( of course the Repugs will react with their patriotic yellow-ribbons saying "slime our troops (who don't agree with us)" chorus http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif )

Batiste, who commanded the Army's 1st Infantry Division in Iraq, also blamed Congress for failing to ask "the tough questions."

He said Rumsfeld at one point threatened to fire the next person who mentioned the need for a postwar plan in Iraq.

Batiste said if full consideration had been given to the requirements for war, it's likely the U.S. would have kept its focus on Afghanistan, "not fueled Islamic fundamentalism across the globe, and not created more enemies than there were insurgents."

Hammes said in his prepared remarks that not providing the best equipment was a "serious moral failure on the part of our leadership."

The United States "did not ask our soldiers to invade France in 1944 with the same armor they trained on in 1941. Why are we asking our soldiers and Marines to use the same armor we found was insufficient in 2003," he asked.

Hammes was responsible for establishing bases for the Iraqi armed forces. He served in Iraq in 2004 and is now Marine Senior Military Fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies, National Defense University.

Eaton was responsible for training the Iraqi military and later for rebuilding the Iraqi police force.

He said planning for the postwar period was "amateurish at best, incompetent a better descriptor."

Public opinion polls show widespread dissatisfaction with the way the Bush administration has conducted the war in Iraq, but division about how quickly to withdraw U.S. troops. Democrats hope to tap into the anger in November, without being damaged by Republican charges they favor a policy of "cut and run."

By coincidence, the hearing came a day after public disclosure of the National Intelligence Estimate. The report was completed in April and represented a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government, according to an intelligence.

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

Damn those retired Generals. They just won't go quiety into the night (because they love their Army, their nation, and anguish over this shitty situation the Repugs have placed our troups in. Don't the Generals know they themselves are now pro-terrorists and traitors? http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif )

[ChumpDumper]

Looks like he's having trouble with current generals as well. Has anything like this ever happened before?

Army's top officer sees budget shortfall

By Peter Spiegel, Los Angeles Times | September 25, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The Army's top officer withheld a required 2008 budget plan from Pentagon leaders in August after protesting to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that the service could not maintain its current level of activity in Iraq plus its other global commitments without billions in additional funding.

The decision by General Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army's chief of staff, is believed to be unprecedented and signals a widespread belief within the Army that in the absence of significant troop withdrawals from Iraq, funding assumptions must be completely reworked, current and former Pentagon officials said.

Schoomaker failed to submit the budget plan by an Aug. 15 deadline. The omission followed a series of cuts in the service's funding requests by both the White House and Congress over the last four months.

According to a senior Army official involved in budget talks, Schoomaker is now seeking $138.8 billion in 2008, or nearly $25 billion above budget limits originally set by Rumsfeld. The Army's budget this year is $98.2 billion .

Most funding for the fighting in Iraq comes from annual emergency spending bills, with the regular defense budget going to normal personnel, procurement, and operational expenses, such as salaries and new weapons systems.

About $400 billion has been appropriated for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars through emergency funding measures since Sept. 11, 2001, with the money divided among various military branches and government agencies.

But in recent budget negotiations, Army officials argued that the service's expanding global role in the US-declared war on terrorism -- outlined in new strategic plans issued earlier this year -- as well as fast-growing personnel and equipment costs tied to the Iraq war have put intense pressure on its normal budget.

The Army, with an active-duty force of 504,000, has been stretched by the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. About 400,000 soldiers have completed at least one tour of combat duty, with more than a third of those deployed twice.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/09/25/armys_top_officer_sees_budget_shortfall/

[johnsmith]

Looks like he's having trouble with current generals as well. Has anything like this ever happened before?

Army's top officer sees budget shortfall

By Peter Spiegel, Los Angeles Times | September 25, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The Army's top officer withheld a required 2008 budget plan from Pentagon leaders in August after protesting to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that the service could not maintain its current level of activity in Iraq plus its other global commitments without billions in additional funding.

The decision by General Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army's chief of staff, is believed to be unprecedented and signals a widespread belief within the Army that in the absence of significant troop withdrawals from Iraq, funding assumptions must be completely reworked, current and former Pentagon officials said.

Schoomaker failed to submit the budget plan by an Aug. 15 deadline. The omission followed a series of cuts in the service's funding requests by both the White House and Congress over the last four months.

According to a senior Army official involved in budget talks, Schoomaker is now seeking $138.8 billion in 2008, or nearly $25 billion above budget limits originally set by Rumsfeld. The Army's budget this year is $98.2 billion .

Most funding for the fighting in Iraq comes from annual emergency spending bills, with the regular defense budget going to normal personnel, procurement, and operational expenses, such as salaries and new weapons systems.

About $400 billion has been appropriated for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars through emergency funding measures since Sept. 11, 2001, with the money divided among various military branches and government agencies.

But in recent budget negotiations, Army officials argued that the service's expanding global role in the US-declared war on terrorism -- outlined in new strategic plans issued earlier this year -- as well as fast-growing personnel and equipment costs tied to the Iraq war have put intense pressure on its normal budget.

The Army, with an active-duty force of 504,000, has been stretched by the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. About 400,000 soldiers have completed at least one tour of combat duty, with more than a third of those deployed twice.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/09/25/armys_top_officer_sees_budget_shortfall/


This is when I'll have a bigger problem with the war. If we are going to do it, they better make damn sure that we can afford to do it right.

[boutons_]

http://www.uclick.com/feature/06/09/25/jd060925.gif

[Oh, Gee!!]

well when you start by invading the wrong country

[boutons_]

September 25, 2006

Unit Makes Do as Army Strives to Plug Gaps

By DAVID S. CLOUD

FORT STEWART, Ga. — The pressures that the conflict in Iraq is putting on the Army are apparent amid the towering pine trees of southeast Georgia, where the Third Infantry Division is preparing for the likelihood that it will go back to Iraq for a third tour.

Col. Tom James, who commands the division’s Second Brigade, acknowledged that his unit’s equipment levels had fallen so low that it now had no tanks or other armored vehicles to use in training and that his soldiers were rated as largely untrained in attack and defense.

The rest of the division, which helped lead the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and conducted the first probes into Baghdad, is moving back to full strength after many months of being a shell of its former self.

But at a time when Pentagon officials are saying the Army is stretched so thin that it may be forced to go back on its pledge to limit National Guard deployment overseas, the division’s situation is symptomatic of how the shortages are playing out on the ground.

The enormous strains on equipment and personnel, because of longer-than-expected deployments, have left active Army units with little combat power in reserve. The Second Brigade, for example, has only half of the roughly 3,500 soldiers it is supposed to have. The unit trains on computer simulators, meant to recreate the experience of firing a tank’s main gun or driving in a convoy under attack.

“It’s a good tool before you get the equipment you need,” Colonel James said. But a few years ago, he said, having a combat brigade in a mechanized infantry division at such a low state of readiness would have been “unheard of.”

Other than the 17 brigades in Iraq and Afghanistan, only two or three combat brigades in the entire Army — perhaps 7,000 to 10,000 troops — are fully trained and sufficiently equipped to respond quickly to crises, said a senior Army general.

Most other units of the active-duty Army, which is growing to 42 brigades, are resting or being refitted at their home bases. But even that cycle, which is supposed to take two years, is being compressed to a year or less because of the need to prepare units quickly to return to Iraq.

After coming from Iraq in 2003, the Third Infantry Division was sent back in 2005. Then, within weeks of returning home last January, it was told by the Army that one of its four brigades had to be ready to go back again, this time in only 11 months. The three other brigades would have to be ready by mid-2007, Army planners said.

Yet almost all of the division’s equipment had been left in Iraq for their replacements, and thousands of its soldiers left the Army or were reassigned shortly after coming home, leaving the division largely hollow. Most senior officers were replaced in June.

In addition to preparing for Iraq, the Army assigned the division other missions it had to be ready to execute, including responding to hurricanes and other natural disasters and deploying to Korea if conflict broke out there.

Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, who took command in June, says officials at Army headquarters ask him every month how ready his division is to handle a crisis in Korea. The answer, General Lynch says, is that he is getting there.

Since this summer, 1,000 soldiers a month have been arriving at Fort Stewart, 400 of them just out of basic training. As a result, the First and Third Brigades are now at or near their authorized troop strength, but many of the soldiers are raw.

The two brigades started receiving tanks and other equipment to begin training in the field only in the last month, leaving the division only partly able to respond immediately if called to Korea, General Lynch said.

“I’m confident two of the four brigade combat teams would say, ‘O.K., let’s go,’ ” General Lynch said in an interview. “The Second and Fourth Brigades would say, ‘O.K., boss, but we’ve got no equipment. What are we going to use?’ So we’d have to figure out where we’re going to draw their equipment.”

( hmm, how about that $300B cut in estate taxes for the super-rich ? can that be used to buy equipment? just wondering? How about the mineral royalties the feds are refusing to collect from the energy co's? )

Meanwhile, the division is also preparing for deployment to Iraq on an abbreviated timeline.

The brief time at home does not sit well with some soldiers. Specialist George Patterson, who re-enlisted after returning from Iraq in January, said last week that he was surprised to learn he could end up being home with his wife and daughter for only a year.

“I knew I would be going back,” Specialist Patterson said. “Did I think I would leave and go back in the same year? No. It kind of stinks.”

Instead of allowing more than a year to prepare to deploy, the First Brigade training schedule has been squeezed into only a few months, so the brigade can be ready to deploy as ordered by early December. Though the unit has not yet been formally designated for Iraq, most soldiers say there is little doubt they are headed there early next year.

Some combat-skills training not likely to be used in Iraq has been shortened substantially, said Col. John Charlton, the brigade commander. “It’s about taking all the requirements and compressing them, which is a challenge,” he said.

The timetable also leaves officers and their soldiers less time to form close relationships that can be vital, several officers said.

And soldiers have less time to learn their weapons systems. Many of the major weapons systems, like artillery and even tanks, are unlikely to be used frequently in a counterinsurgency fight like Iraq.

The division has only a few dozen fully armored Humvees for training because most of the vehicles are in use in Iraq. Nor does it have all the tanks and trucks it is supposed to have when at full strength.

“There is enough equipment, and I would almost say just enough equipment,” said Lt. Col. Sean Morrissey, the division’s logistics officer. “We’re accustomed to, ‘I need 100 trucks. Where’s my hundred trucks?’ Well, we’re nowhere near that.”

Last week, in training areas deep in the Fort Stewart woods, First Brigade soldiers were still learning to use other systems important in Iraq, like unmanned aerial vehicles, which are used for conducting surveillance.

Standing at a training airfield with three of the aircraft nearby, Sgt. Mark Melbourne, the senior noncommissioned officer for the brigade’s unmanned aerial vehicles platoon, said only 6 of the brigade’s 15 operators had qualified so far in operating the aircraft from a ground station.

All of them are supposed to be qualified by next month, but the training has been slowed by frequent rain, Sergeant Melbourne said.

This week, the First Brigade began a full-scale mission rehearsal for Iraq.

Normally, armored units preparing for Iraq are sent to Fort Irwin, Calif., for such training, but transporting a brigade’s worth of equipment and soldiers there takes a month, which the schedule would not permit.

So the trainers and Arabic-speaking role players, who will simulate conditions the unit is likely to encounter in Iraq, were brought here to conduct the three-week exercise in a Georgia pine forest, rather than in the California desert.

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

The Repugs expect the military to make extreme sacrifices under incredible pressure, but the Repugs haven't even asked US citizens to make sacrifices. Making sacrifices is not a good way to win votes. I think nearly every civilian would do his share to chip in. We're not even asked. Fucking Repugs. )

[Zunni]

He said Rumsfeld at one point threatened to fire the next person who mentioned the need for a postwar plan in Iraq.
This alone (from the original post) should merit Rummy's IMMEDIATE removal.

[Yonivore]

This alone (from the original post) should merit Rummy's IMMEDIATE removal.
Yeah, because rational decisions are always based on something "he said."

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

If Batiste is saying it, I'd believe it.

On the other hand, you really can't put much stock in what Hammes has to say. He got shot down for General a couple of times and had to retire despite a personal appeal to President Bush, somehow I'm not surprised he's a little bitter.

[Zunni]

Yeah, because rational decisions are always based on something "he said."
Typical NeoCon tactic: kill the messenger if you don't like the message. Aren't we supposed to be supporting the troops? Generals are troops, too. That wasn't hearsay, it was an attributed quote from a flag officer. Asshole.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

That wasn't hearsay, it was an attributed quote from a flag officer. Asshole.

Well, to set the record straight, flag officers are more politician than soldier at that level of rank.

Like I said Hammes is a political star for the Democrats more than a soldier, due to not getting to put a star on.

Batiste is more credible IMO, but what he's saying is hardly knew to anyone listening to what the Army has been saying for the last year.

[Yonivore]

Typical NeoCon tactic: kill the messenger if you don't like the message. Aren't we supposed to be supporting the troops? Generals are troops, too. That wasn't hearsay, it was an attributed quote from a flag officer. Asshole.
Fine, you want a more thoughtful response. Here you go... (compiled from several sources that made sense to me this morning)

I'm not arguing that the generals concerns are concerns that shouldn't be voiced, but I think everyone should realize they are concerns for optimal, or perfect, rather than arguments that fit the nature of war.

I think that pretty much everybody has, or should have, seen the HBO saga called "Band of Brothers," and that is just a microcosmic view of war during WWII. Or how about "Siege on Firebase Gloria," a fictionalized account of the Tet offensive.

First, we were WAY OVER! prepared, and overmanned for the initial invasion of Normandy, causing a gigantic number of casualties on the beaches, had we moved instantly and quickly in 1942 rather than waiting until 1944, we would have been able to create small internal pockets of guerilla combat offsetting the germans ability to lay that kind of horror on us; but, instead, we went with a massive single action assault.

Second, the 82nd and 101st won their names, and claimed their fame at Bastone. Grotesquely outnumbered in a miserable position with little to no supply, and almost completely unequipped for the climate, environment and situation that they were put in. the 82nd, and 101st stood because they were the best trained US servicemen capable of adapting and perservering.

Now, I'm not saying that there aren't arguments to be made, and improvements to be sought, but simply -- in fact, oversimply -- saying "more troops!" or "more gear" or any of the common cries that compassionate commanders like these have is the answer is just plain myopic and verges on lazy.

Could there have been a more optimal or perfect situation? Yes; the military could have been at a force of 2.2 million rather than 1.3, (now at about 1.45).

What makes the U. S. military the greatest that the planet has ever witnessed, and likely ever will, is that we have faith in our service, we inspire faith in our service, and we need those individuals in our service to be the best that they can be and generally, they are. So far, that faith hasn't failed us, and so far those individuals have made us proud.

Should we keep working, and work more intelligently to give them every weapon they could use affectively? You bet your ass.

But, it is their jobs to be called on, and to answer, and they have yet to let us down, It is the job of the president to disappoint servicemen, because no one wants to go to war, so the second the he says "deploy" he has disappointed a whole bunch of people. On the other foot, however, the servicemen count on the people, and the congress who stand in the stead of the people to not let them down.

I promise you, take everything with an engine away from those individuals serving right now, and they will still win, because it is their nature, it is their ideal it is what they must do, because, clearly, they love us more than many of us love them.

I've read this (http://acepilots.com/mt/2006/09/25/just-another-moonbat/) article and the transcripts of the general's remarks here (http://alternet.org/blogs/video/42137/), and frankly, there not moonbats, but they are certainly far from convincing in their testimony before this "fake" committee of Democrats.

Maj. Gen. Eaton has some good, specific, points, then trips over himself in his prescriptions for solving the problems.

The other two don’t even get that far.

John Kerry (http://online.wsj.com/google_login.html?url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com% 2Farticle%2FSB115913889755772559.html%3Fmod%3Dgoog lenews_wsj) says America is losing Afghanistan. Bill Roggio has been warning about Afghanistan for some time now, or rather about Afghanistan and Pakistan where the deal in Waziristan was apparently backed by such luminaries as Mullah Omar (http://billroggio.com/archives/2006/09/alqaeda_taliban_behi.php). John Kerry's main claim, predictably has been that Afghanistan's woes stem from a lack of American strength there as it is "starved" by Iraq. Interestingly enough one of the main criticisms of Iraq has been that it too had been "starved" of troops. If only 400,000 troops had been deployed instead of the measely 150K -- or so goes the argument -- things would have been different (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1538579,00.html). But even the Democrats appreciate that numbers are not the complete story. Trudy Rubin of the Philadelpha Inquirer (http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060925/OPINION/609250307), opined and not without justification that:


We must decide as a nation, and soon, whether we think it is worth trying to bring stability to Iraq, a nation whose previous system we took down. We must search harder to find the troops we need, and the right kind of troops, to stabilize Iraq over the next year — and to give its government a chance. We must also try harder to enhance a program that is showing success, that embeds U.S. units within Iraqi units and helps them fight. These special U.S. units need more men, and soon.
Of course this is a different argument -- though not necessarily an incorrect argument -- from the early positions which characterized the conduct of the War on Terror in 2003. At that time there was very little appreciation of what was really required to defeat the enemy. The Democrats were arguing for police action through multilateral alliances. Or for large half-million man troop deployments in Iraq. And the Conservatives thought that major combat operations were over in Iraq. But in truth, no one was asking the right questions. As one Marine Colonel (the reference to which I can't find at the moment) argued, more men of the wrong kind would have converted Iraq into a mud-trodden disaster. John Kerry understands this, and calls for more Special Forces to be used. But where to get them? The Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-military25sep25,0,7311732,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines) describes the budget disputes within the DOD. Basically the Army wants more money and the question is where to get it.


The Army, with an active-duty force of 504,000, has been stretched by the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. About 400,000 have done at least one tour of combat duty, and more than a third of those have been deployed twice. Commanders have increasingly complained of the strain, saying last week that sustaining current levels will require more help from the National Guard and Reserve or an increase in the active-duty force.

Schoomaker first raised alarms with Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in June after he received new Army budget outlines from Rumsfeld's office. Those outlines called for an Army budget of about $114 billion, a $2-billion cut from previous guidelines. The cuts would grow to $7 billion a year after six years, the senior Army official said.

After Schoomaker confronted Rumsfeld with the Army's own estimates for maintaining the current size and commitments — and the steps that would have to be taken to meet the lower figure, which included cutting four combat brigades and an entire division headquarters unit — Rumsfeld agreed to set up a task force to investigate Army funding.
Of course debates over military posture are less about the present than they are about the future. The LA Times article continues:


However, a good portion of the new money the Army seeks is not directly tied to the war, Kosiak cautioned, but rather to new weapons it wants — particularly the $200-billion Future Combat System, a family of armored vehicles that is eventually to replace nearly every tank and transporter the Army has. "This isn't a problem one can totally pass off on current military operations," Kosiak said. "The FCS program is very ambitious — some would say overly ambitious."
The enemy and the military situation is a moving target and both men and capability take a long time to acquire. Through the debate over Iraq and Afghanistan runs a whole gamut of questions, which include strategy (what to do about the opium crop, reliance on certain tribes to support Karzai, the question of sanctuary in Pakistan, the role of Iran in Iraq, the idea of a central government for Iraq) and the posture of US forces. And there are no simple solutions. Not even the Democrats are united over whether Special Forces are a good idea, John Kerry's call to send more into Afghanistan notwithstanding. Newsweek (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6802629/site/newsweek/) for example, warned that sending Special Forces against terrorists would reprise the evil, kidnapping and murder strategy made infamous in El Salvador. One man's solution is another man's problem.

Westhawk (http://westhawk.blogspot.com/2006/09/civil-war-at-pentagon.html) summarized much of the thinking that is now going on in his review of Col. Mark Cancian's article in Proceedings entitled "A Civil War in the Military" which categorizes the debate into three camps. And he asks, which camp should seize the building?


1) The Angry Generals School. Col Cancian refers here to the seven retired U.S. Army and Marine Corps generals who earlier this year called on U.S. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld to resign. Looking beyond their contempt for Mr. Rumsfeld’s alleged (in their view) meddling with tactical military matters, the author classifies these officers by their allegiance to “traditional” ground warfare tactics, the large-scale attrition warfare model successfully used in American military history.

Descended from the teachings of Generals Powell and Shinseki, The Angry Generals school is highly skeptical of transformation theories, and believes the Iraq war required a far larger U.S. ground force whose heavy hand they believed would have pacified Iraq’s street corners. Perhaps oversimplifying, The Angry Generals have little confidence in the labor-saving benefits of technology or the effectiveness of local proxies.

2) The Transformation School. Secretary Rumsfeld is a member of this school but not a charter member. In the 1990s Admiral William Owens, USN, then Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, popularized “transformation.” Admiral Owens described a vision of persistent, all-seeing sensors, connected to a seamless and global command and control system. Long-range precision weapons, guided by real-time and comprehensive intelligence, and coordinated by a “networked” commander, would accomplish what previously required mass armies, navies, and air fleets. General Tommy Franks, commander and planner-in-chief of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, remains a proud Transformationist.

The Transformationists will take every opportunity to remind their listeners that transformation is about changing the U.S. military’s culture and thinking as much as high-tech sensors, satellite communications, and precision strikes. But when they are honest, Transformationists must admit that their school is all about substituting technology for American riflemen. Critics of this school point to this thinking to show why Iraq was not pacified years ago.

3) The Introspective School. These officers blame the U.S. military itself for the current problem in Iraq, and the resurgent problem in Afghanistan. The Introspectionists believe the U.S. military remained focused on conventional combat operations for far too long after the end of the Cold War. During the 1990s, U.S. Marine Corps Commandant Charles Krulak described the “three-block war” and U.S. Army doctrine manuals proclaimed the necessity of preparing for “full spectrum operations,” which presumably would include stability and counterinsurgency operations.

But the Introspectionists see this as so much lip service. Habits and bureaucratic momentum are hard to break. Up until today, procurement programs, investments in training facilities, and the evaluation of officers’ careers were tied back to the “major combat operations” template. Meanwhile, very few in the U.S. military were paying any attention to cultural, language, and field training required for stability and counterinsurgency operations, even though the U.S. had been involved in similar such operations in the Balkans and Latin American during the 1990s. Generals Abizaid and Casey, the current U.S. commanders in Iraq, are now paid-up members of this school.
The debate over the War on Terror is not all about simple metrics like "numbers" or Iraq versus Afghanistan. Or simple nostrums like whether to send more Special Forces to Anbar or Afghanistan. Politicians make it all sound simple, because they have to sound wise at all times. But I think the truth is that we don't really know what works and anyone who pretends to certitude is probably mistaken. Lawrence Wright in a recent interview with Hugh Hewitt (http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=ba70d3a3-0528-4007-b7db-724e431b3e65) makes the case that we got nearly everything wrong in the run-up to September 11 and that, to a great extent, the military, intelligence and diplomatic establishments continue in their perverse obtuseness even today. The difference is in the rate in which they are learning.


HH: Second category. Does the American military elite understand this enemy?

LW: I think of all the branches of government, that the military is moving faster in terms of evolving its response to this threat than in any other branch of government. It’s not to say that the military can solve the problem alone. I don’t think it can. But you know, the military is really down in the weeds with the enemy, and they’ve learned a lot about the culture and how to adapt to it. So I feel better about the military’s ability to understand the enemy, if not defeat him.
In the end, the single best thing response to the attack on September 11 was simply to do something, a policy which seems to me infinitely better than doing nothing, if only because action led to learning and that was superior to sitting back and imagining that we had the answers. One day a bipartisan policy on the War on Terror may be possible. One day.

Interestingly enough and without anyone quite noticing, people in the Democratic establishment have come to the conclusion that an American led solution is necessary, except that it has to be led by the Democratic party according to their formula. What has definitely lost out, probably for good, is the option of doing nothing. There was for a time a school of thought that held that today's world crisis was entirely manufactured, that 9/11 was a conspiracy. And if we could just give Osama everything he wanted and get Israel to go away the problem would be over. Thankfully that idea is now dead. Most people now understand that we were sleepwalking through a minefield in the 1990s. Not just America and not just the Democrats to be sure. But forces were building up which nobody wanted to take seriously.

Former President Clinton now claims he knew even then, but that no one would listen. But I think the truth is that nobody really knew, except maybe a few hardy souls like O'Neill and Scheuer and maybe Sam Huntington. Clinton was a clueless as the rest and I think deep down he knows this. And I'd bet anything if he really knew then what he now claims he knew then he would have acted a whole lot differently.

The great good fortune, I think, was that we did not take the view after 9/11 that inaction was hubris. Make a big show of mourning and "healing" and pretending we learned something. We haven't learned the half of it yet. Or hook our wagon to the European, tranzi star which always looks for inaction dressed up as action. America took the risk and acted, and by so doing accomplished much and erred much. But it acted. Today the Democrats are saying, "here gimme the wheel", but that's better than "stop the car". That's progress.

[boutons_]

More sliming from YV.

What Democrats said inaction was the best response to 9/11?

I'm all for action, but it has to be the right action, well executed.

The Iraq war is totally the wrong action, badly executed.

Because of the phony Iraq war, America has lost confidence in the Repugs to fight the war on terror with right actions, correctly executed.

[George Gervin's Afro]

In the end, the single best thing response to the attack on September 11 was simply to do something, a policy which seems to me infinitely better than doing nothing, if only because action led to learning and that was superior to sitting back and imagining that we had the answers. One day a bipartisan policy on the War on Terror may be possible. One day.


When the GOP stops using the war as a political hammer then maybe there will be bipartisanship. The GOP has since simplified their argument as "If you don't agree with us then you aren't for winning".. Does that sound like a bipartisan message? If the GOP truly cared about this country they would be concerned with more than pleasing thier base which encompasses maybe 20% of the popluation. They then convince their base that is Dems don't agree with them so they want to lose.. Half of the country is left leaning and until the GOP recognizes that and accepts that there will never be bipartisanship..

It's like what Denny hastert is trying to do now by adding unrelated defense measures to the legislation with a defense funding bill... he's playing politics and you know it! This is another situation where it's possible to support the defense appropriation bill and not another portion of the bill. A no vote will then be used to beat the democrat as 'not wanting to fund our troops'.. And you wonder why there is no bi-partisanship

[ChumpDumper]

Jesus, could that cut-and-paste job have been any more disjointed?

Nobody wanted inaction after 9/11. The question has always been what action was prudent.

Afghanistan good.

Iraq not so much.

Now the former is turning into a fuckup because of the latter.

[George Gervin's Afro]

More sliming from YV.

What Democrats said inaction was the best response to 9/11?

I'm all for action, but it has to be the right action, well executed.

The Iraq war is totally the wrong action, badly executed.

Because of the phony Iraq war, America has lost confidence in the Repugs to fight the war on terror with right actions, correctly executed.


Your right. Yoni says " Well we need to do something..anything! Let's just not do nothing!" Therefore everything that is done was correct and not questionable.

[Yonivore]

In the end, the single best thing response to the attack on September 11 was simply to do something, a policy which seems to me infinitely better than doing nothing, if only because action led to learning and that was superior to sitting back and imagining that we had the answers. One day a bipartisan policy on the War on Terror may be possible. One day.


When the GOP stops using the war as a political hammer then maybe there will be bipartisanship. The GOP has since simplified their argument as "If you don't agree with us then you aren't for winning".. Does that sound like a bipartisan message? If the GOP truly cared about this country they would be concerned with more than pleasing thier base which encompasses maybe 20% of the popluation. They then convince their base that is Dems don't agree with them so they want to lose.. Half of the country is left leaning and until the GOP recognizes that and accepts that there will never be bipartisanship..

It's like what Denny hastert is trying to do now by adding unrelated defense measures to the legislation with a defense funding bill... he's playing politics and you know it! This is another situation where it's possible to support the defense appropriation bill and not another portion of the bill. A no vote will then be used to beat the democrat as 'not wanting to fund our troops'.. And you wonder why there is no bi-partisanship
To be fair, you should at least acknowledge that the Left has only offered criticism without any proposed solutions -- short of Murtha's "redeploy to Okinawa" strategy.

And, if you're worried about legislative riders, then you should favor the line-item veto.

[George Gervin's Afro]

To be fair, you should at least acknowledge that the Left has only offered criticism without any proposed solutions -- short of Murtha's "redeploy to Okinawa" strategy.

And, if you're worried about legislative riders, then you should favor the line-item veto.

I favor the line item veto. It's the person who wields 'it' is what concerns me. Sorry and I don't trust Bush.

How about let's hold those accountable for getting us into a war that did not have to be fought. Where has personal accountability gone within the GOP? All of the arm chair QB's are blaming Clinton but are strangely silent when it comes to the 'conflicting reasons' as to why we had to rush into Iraq,.,

[Yonivore]

I favor the line item veto. It's the person who wields 'it' is what concerns me. Sorry and I don't trust Bush.
Oh well, there are many who do.

[RandomGuy]

First, we were WAY OVER! prepared, and overmanned for the initial invasion of Normandy, causing a gigantic number of casualties on the beaches, had we moved instantly and quickly in 1942 rather than waiting until 1944, we would have been able to create small internal pockets of guerilla combat offsetting the germans ability to lay that kind of horror on us; but, instead, we went with a massive single action assault.

Bull puckey.

In 1942,
1) the german army had not been bled dry by the Russians for 3 years,
2) we simply would not have had the follow-on units or logistics to make the invasion stick.
3) we would not have had the total air superiority we had in '44

All of which would mean that we would have faced far more German troops with more expericence, and doing that with less tanks and equipment, no air superiority, and limited naval superiority. It would have been the most grab-asstic exercise in the history of warfare and pointlessly cost tens of thousands of lives for no gain.

It would have been our equivalent of the German air assault on Crete.

[boutons_]

"If you don't agree with us then you aren't for winning"

Come on, GGA, quit being euphemistic.

The Repugs have been sliming Iraq war dissenters as
traitors,
defeatists,
pro-terrorists,
wanting America to fail,
protecting Muslims more than Americans,
etc, etc, etc.

I'm all for winning in Iraq and above all for repsecting and protecting the US military with careful deployments.

But the Repugs have clearly fucked up Iraq beyond reach, and have no idea how win in Iraq.

The Iraq war needs (has always needed) 200K+ more US troops, but the Repugs absolutely refuse to do what it takes to increase the size of the military.

And above all, the red-state Americans who voted for the Repugs have now voted fatally against the Iraq war, the "central front" in dubya's words, and, while driving around with their yellow ribbon bumper stickers, have effectively voted against the US military who are already over there, by absolutely refusing to enlist in sufficient numbers, even with $40K enlistment bonuses, to go fight in dubya's phony war, aka, having the conviction of their votes.

"dubya is my man, but he better not touch my kids"