DescentBB

No this is not a treatsie on the Liberal Demoscammers snatching defeat from the jaws of victory (though they play a part). Rather this is a look at the generals who are running the show. A rather good article on the subject follows:

Excerpt
\"Iraq is America's Valmy. America's generals have been checked by a form of war that they did not prepare for and do not understand. They spent the years following the 1991 Gulf War mastering a system of war without thinking deeply about the ever changing nature of war. They marched into Iraq having assumed without much reflection that the wars of the future would look much like the wars of the past. Those few who saw clearly our vulnerability to insurgent tactics said and did little to prepare for these dangers. As at Valmy, this one debacle, however humiliating, will not in itself signal national disaster. The hour is late, but not too late to prepare for the challenges of the Long War. We still have time to select as our generals those who possess the intelligence to visualize future conflicts and the moral courage to advise civilian policymakers on the preparations needed for our security. The power and the responsibility to identify such generals lie with the U.S. Congress. If Congress does not act, our Jena awaits us.\"
End Excerpt

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/05/2635198

This is not the first reading I have run across about the matter of military leadership. As you will read the lack of intellectually far thinking general command officers goes back to Vietnam. One lapse is perhaps understandable but 40 years later, a lack of preparedness for a insurgent style war is lamentable.

Yeah well that's what happens when politicians try to run a military campaign. I believe the generals in WW2 had a little more freedom to do as they needed but that' just the way it is now.

Woodchip, the Dems haven't run this war into the ground. This war has been all GOP, the entire time. At no time did the Dems, until now thank heavens, have any control over what Bush could do. I'm glad they do now, because it's obvious that Bush is only looking to dump this on 44. Did you know that the priority to train Iraqi forces is no longer there? What it the goal now anyways? The \"surge\" is merely a blanket covering the fire so we can't see the smoke but it's still there and when '08 comes around that blanket will be lifted and given to someone else to deal with.

I'm sorry to bust your bubble but at no time until now, did the Dems have control over anything to do with this war. It's about time they did and I'm glad they are standing up to the lunatic that you gravel at.

I have a question for both of you that is related to this thread. NATO is in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban who were responsible for training terrorists, harboring Osama and refusing to give him up.

If we leave Iraq, what repercussions will be felt in Afghanistan.

Bettina

In my opinion the article is all wrong.
The U.S., Great Britain and Australia along with a few other minor players won the war in record time!
It's this occupation that is proving to be more of an on the job training exercise.

So ask the author to rethink his perspective, find a time in history when we occupied a country with absolutely no plan to stay there even medium term and then write his comparative analysis....

This is a first time for everyone involved on our side and just another day in the life for the enemy, and failing to recognize that is the biggest failure.
Colin Powell had it right when he said \"if we break it we own it\" no one listened.
McCain had it right when he said we need twice as many guys on the ground from the start. No one listened.

Just imagine, there is a riot in the inner city, gang bangers and thugs are running wild killing at will and with the police scrambling to get control the mayor announces he will be pulling the police out of the affected area next Tuesday....then some reporter writes a piece on how the police don't get it!?!

Here's a newsflash for the reporter:
It ain't the army's fault!

Zuruck wrote:I'm sorry to bust your bubble but at no time until now, did the Dems have control over anything to do with this war. It's about time they did and I'm glad they are standing up to the lunatic that you gravel at.

Except when they voted to authorize it.

Say "Thank you, Senator Clinton".

My money goes to terrible ends, This is a shame to me.

Good analogy Will...

Not a bad analogy except that you forgot that the neighbourhood was running quite peacefully until you came along and fired all the local police that you didn't kill and then brought in a bunch of National Guardsmen from a different state trained in high tech. combat to walk the beat and look for shoplifters.
Oh and made sure they didn't speak the local language and if this was riot in a black neighbourhood you only brought in white guardsmen.

Ford, the neighborhood was peaceful because the regulars were too afraid to step out of their houses. (more or less). \"Forced\" peace is not real peace.

Regardless of how we got there, it is what it is, and the military didn't make those choices nor have they ever been allowed to finish what the politico's started....

/me runs around screaming, \"The sky is falling! The sky is falling!\"

Ferno wrote:/me runs around screaming, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"

That's right buddy.. you run. Cuz somewhere out there is a space rock with our name on it.

You know, if NATO was worth anything... nobody at the U.S. would never have found any reason to go in.

Just my 2 cents.

Will, there is a whole litany of errors starting with a PC RoE policy. At the end of WW2, the occupation of Japan was a cake walk as the Emperor told his people to cease fighting and they did. In Germany, the country was bombed into rubble and the people were well and truely defeated with no desire to have a resistance style war. Perhaps more importantly, for both Japan and Germany, there was no outside nation that wanted to foster unrest in the two defeated nations.

Korea and Vietnam were defeats waiting to happen. Korea was where we first got a taste of China's unlimited manpower resevoir which left Korea a divided nation. Because of this, in Vietnam our politico's did not want to unduly irritate the Chi-Coms so we played a bomb only policy on N. Vietnam. Never was the Vietnam war fought with the idea of winning it, rather the policy of winning \"the hearts and minds\" of the populace was thought to be the key to victory. It was not.

So as the author correctly points out, lessons learned in Vietnam should have been used in Iraq. While the Iraq war was a stunning success in it's brevity, the occupation was not. Unlike Japan, there was no reverential godhead to tell the people to stop fighting. Unlike Germany the country was not bombed into rubble. What Iraq is similar to is Korea and Vietnam. Outside nations (Iran and Syria) are funneling men and materials into Iraq to destabilise it. As in Vietnam there is also a cadre of American forces, i.e. far left liberal democrats and a mainstream news coalition that point out everything bad and nothing good about Iraq. The third leg of the tripod is a atmosphere of political correctness about the war (remember the american colonel court- martialed for capping a round off next to a insurgents head to get intel on a suspected ambush against our troops?)
All these things have to be taken into account when planning for a war. Unfortunately, it would seem, none of them were.

Bet51987 wrote:I have a question for both of you that is related to this thread. NATO is in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban who were responsible for training terrorists, harboring Osama and refusing to give him up.

If we leave Iraq, what repercussions will be felt in Afghanistan.

Bettina

The question is not about Afghanistan. The real question is what repercussions will be felt here in America.

Osama.
is.
dead.

let me repeat that.

Osama.
is.
dead.

If Bin \"Baby\" Laden is dead, AQ is not.

woodchip wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:I have a question for both of you that is related to this thread. NATO is in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban who were responsible for training terrorists, harboring Osama and refusing to give him up.

If we leave Iraq, what repercussions will be felt in Afghanistan.

Bettina

The question is not about Afghanistan. The real question is what repercussions will be felt here in America.

I don't understand. I meant once we leave Iraq, won't the enemy just help out the Taliban? And, if so, won't the mess over there be harder?

Bee

They may try but once they have a sovereign country to rule why would they overly care about the Afghans? Problem that AQ has to realise is we won't let them rule the country. Even the Democrats have to understand the prospect of AQ being in charge of Iraq and the repercussions there-in. Maybe HRC will be our next president and will have to deal with the outcome. Suffice to say when she realises that AQ cannot be allowed to control a nation, her actions will be written up in glowing terms and bad side effects will be down played....much like our involvement in the Balkans.