U.S Armed Forces.Lack of experienced pers
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Modern Warfare
Forum Discription: Military history and miltary science from the ''Cold War'' era onward.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=18663
Printed Date: 12-May-2024 at 09:11
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: U.S Armed Forces.Lack of experienced pers
Posted By: Spartakus
Subject: U.S Armed Forces.Lack of experienced pers
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2007 at 15:55
|
During Cold War,many stuff of the American military were WWII Veterans.During the 50's and 60's,many were veterans of the Korean War.During the 70's and 80's many were veterans of the Vietnam War.There was no really significant war during the 90's in which the Americans engaged.Gulf War was a small battle against an undesicive opponent,and ,surely, the bombings in Yugoslavia and,later in Iraq, cannot be considered wars.And i ask ,did this lack of wars against a desicive opponent deprived the American personnel from very well experienced members,who had fight with small units in the first line during previous wars,thus depriving the transfer of real war knowledge and fighting spirit?Some would argue even further,that the results of this situation can be seen in Afganistan and Iraq where the American military,clearly ,is not winning. ------------- "There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. " --- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996) |
Replies:
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2007 at 18:57
In regards to experience.... I agree, the loss of experienced people was huge factor. Not only were there very few truly experienced veterans, but skilled civilian adminsitrators were non existant. Contrast this to the British, French empires at their height. In these examples, relatively small numbers of very experienced veterans teamed with very skilled colonial administrators and worked wonders.
The book Fiasco, The American Misadventure in Iraq details how the lack of truly experienced veterans led to mistakes being made in counter insurgency warfare tactics. Incompetent U.S. civilian leadership both in the USA and in Iraq worsened an already deteriorating situation. I think there was an also an overconfidence in the ability of U.S. technology to win easy victories.
I do not think that the 25 year gap has limited fighting spirit. The U.S. military is all volunteer and drawn from a huge population. There is always a certain percentage of combative individuals (mostly bored young men) who want to join the military. The size of the U.S. military has not exceeded this percentage of the population. |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2007 at 19:20
|
Cryptic makes some good points.
Theoretical warfare (Mac Namara; Rumsfeld) and over reliance on techno-toys have been a problem. The best SECDEF in 2001 - 2003 would have been Colin Powell. Powell understands the concept of overwhelming force as it was used in 1990-91 in Kuwait. He has a military backgroung; relationships and communication with generals, and public credibility, and he was a civilian as well. The perfect choice.
Unfortunately, the administration chose to waste him at State, when we all understand this administration thinks diplomacy is for pussies.
I don't worry about the "fighting spirit" of US troops.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2007 at 04:12
|
^ Fighting spirit gose down as you go on tour after tour. Troops need time for rest and refit. 6 months is not nearly enough. That was not a problem in Vietnam due to the draft.
As for experience, well in warfare you get it. Now you have commanders (like Pretraus) who have seen the war from the grunts level as well, thus you might see improvements.
------------- |
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2007 at 11:00
I agree with everything.
Another potential probelm may have been an over reliance on the "Shock and Awe" doctrine created through overwhelming force and techno-wonders. Shock and Awe worked great in Gulf war I because it was used with overwhelming force against a very demoralized enemy.
Shock and Awe simply does not work with motivated opponents and skilled leaders. Motivated, intelligent opponents simply adjust, and fight back to the best of their abilities. The international Jihadists are very motivated and have highly experienced leaders. Of course, motivated opponents can stiill be beaten but they must be beaten militarily (Germany and Japan in WWII). They are not, however, going to surrender, flee, or have a nervous breakdown due to "Shock and Awe" tactics.
A detailed study of Kosovo verse Gulf War I might have revealed the limitations of Shock and Awe. The Serbs surrendered only due to a calculated political decison. The Serbian Army was not "Shocked" and was not "Awed" into submission.
I hope so. If anybody can reverse the situation, it is General Petraus. He is stated to have an excellent understanding of both the military and geo/political realities of the situation
 . |
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2007 at 09:24
|
I don't know why you guy's are so blindly persistent... that the US military is losing, when every battle it has been in, has been won. Though i think Gen. Petraus is the man the media can get along with, a gift that is truly immeasurable in itself. His long experience in Iraq is worth it's weight in gold, especially if he can keep on getting through to Iraq's tribal leader's & it's very complicated mess of tribal politics, by convincing & bringing more tribes in from the political darkness... is and will be one of the biggest challenges he now faces! Anyways... this is clearly a political test of will for legitimacy between the elected Iraqi government against AQ and the other multiple disorganized terrorist groups. The only ones who are losing so far in this battle of political wills, is the American people and slowly it's government as well!
I suppose i shouldn't bother to point out for anyone's benefit... that while many are constantly berating the American military. A totally different type of war had developed over the year's in Iraq. I'm not talking about the so called civil war between the Shi'ites and Sunni's. But, the one between the disorganized terrorist groups and AQ. The former more often than not because of and against... the breath-taking violence constantly brought on by the latter!
Has that really ever been discussed here? Not to my knowledge. And probably won't be til' the impact of year's clears away most bias that now inhabits modern thinking!
Thanks for letting me share my thought's.
|
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2007 at 09:56
|
Panther:
Welcome to the meat grinder.
 Asymmetrical warfare has become the new "war of attrition." The only possibility of success an opponent such as an insurgency has is to work the media to wear down the morale of the other side's civilian support.
It works very well. It worked in France in the Algerian War; it worked in the US in the Viet Nam War, and it is working here again.
An insurgency has no legal standing so it can do anything it wants. You want to blow up a market or a school or a mosque, fine - go ahead. No international outrage or UN commisssion for you to face. If US military action causes a civilian casualty, the US is genocidal. Cindy Sheehan and Jane Fonda get air time. Nancy Pelosi becomes third in-line for the presidency.
You get the picture.
The French clearly won the war in Algeria. However, modern media showed something else, and it was probably time for the French to leave anyway. Algiers was no longer kidnapping Christians and pirating French shipping.
In the Tet "offensive," the Viet Cong lost more men than the US did in the entire Viet Nam war. It was a horrendous defeat, but the media showed something else.
By the end of that war, North Viet Nam was on it's last legs - unsupportable economic damage, destroyed credit, tremendous infrastructure destruction, and manpower losses that were becoming irreplaceable, in terms of quality anyway.
The US had that war won, but the media showed something else.
Now,.............well you get that picture too.
The non-West has mastered a cheap way to counter Western military superiority. They don't have to fight battles, and they can't pull that off anyway. Look at Iraq in 1991.
The West does not seem to be able to address this problem, and in Algeria and in Viet Nam, that was not so crucial - no major natural resources were at risk. If the problem in the Persian Gulf cannot be otherwise addressed, it may be that some very drastic approach will be necessary. No speculation, just "what if."
For the last 50 years, the West has been defeated by asymmetrical tactics and by the manipulation of pliable and self-righteous media. Now, if the economy, and the jobs, and the electricity and the fuel are not too badly threatened, that may be OK for some time. On the other had, if it becomes a choice between electricity and a paycheck on one hand, and the interests of whole populations who are in the way of those necessities on the other, I can forsee some pretty drastic approaches in the near future. Not desireable, but self interest always triumphs over what might be best.
|
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2007 at 11:20
|
Thank you pikeshot.
What more can i say about the media than what you have already said, and i might add.. in a much more charitable manner than i could ever think of.
I just wondered if the extreme weakness and military ineffectiveness of the dispersed and highly disorganized terrorist groups, especially within AQ, have ever been discussed here? Especially the war amongst themseleves... being much more worse at the present, than what they could have ever hoped & prayed for upon the shi'ites and sunni's of Iraq! Hopefully the former implodes entirely upon itself, leaving the latter in a much deserved peace.
I dunno...? Just thoughts from different articles and documents i have read over the last couple of year's!
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2007 at 12:47
|
Pikeshot you are missing the big startegic picture. You can destroy every army the enemy sends after you but you can lose the war. The US lost Vietnam bacise it lost the strategic battles, the failure to destroy the VC and their NVA or to sufficiently raise the S Vietnam up. ------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2007 at 14:14
Well, Sparten, I think I am seeing the picture - the one that shows that NOT using your capability to its max is, in the current context, tending toward losing wars.
That has not been done since WW II. And we have lost every important conflict since then. (Iraq #I was not that important really.)
Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq #II, and interventions like Lebanon, Somalia, even Afghanistan. These were all half-hearted, half-assed and dominated by the "rules of engagement." They all have left the West conceptually weak and prone to more of the same. Insurgencies will just wait until the intervener gives up, leaves and then do what they want....whatever that happens to be. The Balkans will never change. When US/NATO gets tired of the babysitting, what do you think will happen there - again?
Armed forces do not exist to deliver aid, to build public works, or to make nice. They exist to lay fire on the adversary, to kill his combatants and to break his will. That has not been done since WW II either.
|
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2007 at 14:22
|
Sparten,
As far as strategy, I think it has been demonstrated that interventionist insurgent wars are unwinnable anyway. Domestic insurgencies tend to be easier to defeat, but very messy.
An adversary is much better countered by containment, deterrance and giving him something difficult to think about, like subversion, black ops, what might happen IF he acts. Scary stuff.
That is preferable to a war, but if one must go to war, hit them with everything in your bag and don't leave anything in there. The more you make them hurt, the more likely you will get something for your effort and expense - unlike the way we do it these days.
|
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2007 at 22:14
|
Sparten, are you talking about the strategy of "hearts and mind" or do you mean the individual battles the military ever fought? If it's the former then i agree. If you are referring to the latter, then i would have to respectfully disagree. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 03:08
|
I am talking about the big strategic picture. One that many people miss about Vietnam. Genaral Powell (probably the best American strategist since Ike) summed up Tet perfectly. It was not the fact that the US inflicted horrifying casulties on the VC and NVA, that was so distressing about Tet. It was the fact it could happen at all, and especially in supposedly pacified provinces. The NVA and VC could recoup their losses, the USSR was all too delighted to see its greatest adversary mired in the mud and blood, and gave all of its support to the Vietnamese. The US could defeat all the Tets the VC could through, but the point was: they had the locals support, they had a secure supply line from the north, they could always recoup. All the US could do was act a fireman.
And its not a question of "half-assed" attempts and not using your capability to the max. The US certaily did the latter in Vietnam (bombed the Vietnamese to the moon). Its a matter of clearly identifying the situation on the ground, comprehending the stretegic realities, and assesing your position and then acting. In both Vietnam and Iraq the US utterly failed to do that.
------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 10:20
|
Sparten, What you say demonstrates my point. Interventionist insurgent (asymmetrical) wars are probably not winnable under any circumstances. You then have two real choices: (1) either give up and withdraw, and be perceived as weak and vacillating, and willing to lose, or
(2) wage war as was done in WW II and eliminate the ability of the adversary to continue.
Viet Nam was not "bombed to the moon." It's harbor facilties and much of the "civilian" infrastructure was untouched - Can't do that, see: that is being mean to civilians. Those decisions were driven by politics...both domestic and international. I know it is the media's job, but they can't let that go.
You would think we would have learned that lesson, but obviously not.
Iraq, or Iran, either one, should have been (or should be) contained, and deterred by forward positioned military power so devastating that they must consider the consequences (God's will or not).
Political differences internally (ethnic/religious/"national") should be encouraged and enabled by money and by covert ops to distract and occupy the leadership and its Gestapo. They need to worry a lot more than we make them. And it's a lot less expensive.
Now, you will say: It will destabilize the region! It would be destabilized anyway, even regardless of the current US presence in Iraq. Iran, and even more Russia, want a destabilized region because it keeps upward pressure on oil prices, the source of international exchange and political influence for both.
So, where are we with strategy? Probably nowhere. The better approach I think is to stay aloof from tribal/religious passions that we find so alien they make no sense - can't deal with that. Let them slice each others' throats and drill into each others' skulls, and blow up the mosques. That is their concern, not ours.
There is some revisionist thinking at the War College, where I do some work, that this all goes back to the refusal to use atomic weapons in the Korean War when there was no capability other than ours. That refusal was received as a sign of weakness, a conceptual illusion. The US has reinforced that conceptual weakness every time we stick one foot in and then leave. Everyone knows we leave, and they just wait it out. So, DON'T intervene.....use the strengths we have; not play to those of the opponent.
Had the atomic bomb been used in the Korean War, the opponent may (I said may) have been inclined to believe we would do what we say. Now, nobody believes that.
|
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 10:29
Respectfully, I have always found that hearts and minds stuff a rather ridiculous concept. War is less a process of handing out candy bars than it is intimidation by force.
"Hearts and minds" is a politicized, touchy-feely approach that has played well on 60 Minutes and in the human interest section of the New York Times. War is, and has always been, about other body parts, which is why it should be so horrible that it will end sooner than later, not how we have been sold this bill of goods for the last 60 years.
The better approach is to use the strength of deterrance to attempt to force your opponent to see things more your way. Unfortunately, if you have done things that make them disbelieve you over and over, they win more often than you.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 10:55
|
Pikeshot,
I can see that we have some fundamental difference. Lets start with them
1) Hearts and minds is fundamental. Operating in an enviroment where the locals are hostiles in immensly difficult. Besides getting a pool of potential recruits, an alienated local populace can act as a great sources of iintelligence, supplies and sactuary for the enemy.
You don't need to do tochy feely stuff. Merely convincing the locals that there interests are better served by aligning with you than the others.
2) As for the A bomb. Firstly in 1950 the USSR already had a nuclear capability (Joe-1 was in '49). Secondly the decision not to use nukes was linked to the need to preserve the arsenal for a strike on the USSR in any war that would surely come following an escalation into Chinese territory.
And certainly the threat of a US nuclear arsenal has been believed many times, the North Vietnamese believed the threat to be real from Nixon, Saddam was certain that that Bush Sr would use it if pushed.
3) I do agree that local forces are superior to foreign forces in defeating insurgencies, mainly becoz the former have greater staying power and attachment.
------------- |
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 11:05
Option two may be impossible in Iraq. The enemy does not have any industrial infrastructure to target, and has only a minimal logistics network. The command structure and global logistics that they do have are skillfully dispersed. Furthermore, the insurgents do not truly need the support of third party nations to continue to fight at the current level.
In short, the "international Jihaders" have enough internal support to continue to fight at the current level for a long time. It maybe impossible to destroy their ability to fight at this level. It seems the options are...
A. Resign ourselves to loosing 600-800 soldiers / year until the conflict burns out and the enemy loses internal support (Lebanese civil war, Chechneya or Northeren Ireland). This can take a generation.
 B. Take your option 1
 C. Somehow find ways to selectively escalate the conflict that forces to enemy to react in such manners that they and their infrastructure can be targeted on a mass scale. This is very, very risky.
 |
Posted By: Laelius
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 13:55
Well consider the nature of the conflicts in this globalized age of 24 hour news networks and now even internet blogging an occupying power simply doesn't recieve the sort of 'privacy' needed to put down an insurgency. Ever wonder what CNN would have thought of Sherman's counter insurgency methods?
Correct me if Im wrong Pike but I believe that the US's Christmas bombing campaign of 72 heavily targeted the North's civilian sector with the aim of forcing North Vietnam to concede to US demands. Perhaps an example of calculated ruthlessness achieving a desired result.
Here I disagree, I believe hearts and minds can work yet only if if implemented properly. The carrot is ineffective without the stick and unfortunately the 'stick' has been largely missing in US military campaigns since the second world war.
Agreed, I think in this modern day of age its better to act in ways under the scope of the news media. Even if a 'Black Ops' operation goes terribly wrong it still won't create as much bad press as say the uprising in Falujah. For instance I believe that had the US not launched an overt military assault in Afghanistan and relied entirely upon Black Ops, material support, and bribes the Taliban would have been overthrown eventually with the resulting situation far more tenable. Without the press, the Jihadist loses one of his most improtant supports.
No but they need the support of the civilian populace, consider US operations against filipino guerillas during teh filipino insurrection. It is my understanding that some US commanders had begun herding the local populaces into concentration camps. Without the civilian populace to hide amongst an insurgency cannot survive. The trouble with Iraq is that the US does not exist in a political vaccuum, more traditional efforts to pacify the Iraqi insurgency would be devastating to the US politically and economically.
|
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 15:40
|
Good points and opinions, all.
A lot of bad options in the current situation, and now, with the "conceptual weakness" thinking about longer term US strategy, we might as well just leave as soon as practicable, and re-assess and re-position forces. The perception of US will won't get any worse. The next leadership will have to deal with the fallout from this Iraq mistake.
God forbid it is Hilarious Clinton. She may make Cindy Sheehan SECDEF because of her military experience.
Then we can disarm and place the West under the protection of Venezuela. |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 15:58
|
Sparten, Yes, we have differences.
(that's OK)Your 1): If you are not in an insurgency, hearts and minds are at best very marginal considerations. Again, the utility of military force is never based on being nice, nor can it be and still be effective.
The Allies were not trying to win hearts and minds in Dresden or Berlin or Hiroshima or Tokyo. Not in any way.
Are we in agreement that "interventionist insurgent " wars are in fact unwinnable? If so, don't get in them.
Your 2): In 1950, the USSR had virtually NO capability of delivering any atomic weapons anywhere. Also the economic condition of the USSR after WW II was far, far worse than you can imagine, and another major confrontation with a major power would have been an absolute disaster for them.
Stalin threw the Greek communists to the wolves in 1948-49 because he did not want a confrontation with the US in the Mediterranean and Balkans. And there were still east European governments to be bullied and subjected. And China to be propped up as far as they could - which was not so much. Too many problems for another war.
The delivery of any atomic weapon would have been a risk, no doubt. However, strategic thinking is not exact science, it is part risk taking - from whatever positions of strength you have. What has happened since that time has been more problematical than it might have been.
I don't make any points that can't be challenged, I know...just points for discussion.
|
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 17:15
Good point, guerillas do need the presence of a civilian population (as Mao said, "to move like fish in a sea". I think the British pioneered the civilian relocation strategy in The Boer War. The U.S. later used it to varying degrees in The Phillipines and in Vietnam under the "Protected Hamlet" program. The Guatemalan gvernment used a particularly brutal version to fight the leftist / Mayan insurgency in the 1980s. But as you mentioned this strategy is not viable in Iraq.
In Missouri 1860-1865 the USA used a hybrid approach to deal with the confderate Bushwacker Guerillas. Similar to the Iraqi insurgents, the bushwackers were a combination of guerilla fighters, terrorists and bandit groups
- Union regular troops with heavy fire power control all roads, large towns and transportation network.
- Skillfull Union political manuvers reduce legitimacy of Confederate government in Missouri (Lincoln was very skilled in this area)
- Only a few civilians are relocated. Then....
- Small, Pro-Union Jayhawker irregular units move into the country side. They identify and fight bushwackers and their supporters by using the same dirty tactics that the bushwackers used against Union Army and Pro Union civilians
|
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 17:50
The problem with using this as a model is that the cultural disconnect between the "bushwackers" and the Union forces was not either evident, or, indeed, even there. Also, the example given is of a "domestic" insurgency - easier addressed and controlled, rather than an interventionist insurgency.
|
Posted By: Laelius
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 18:45
| I think a viable strategic option right now would be to withdraw to strategic positions within Iraq, in particular the Al-Faw peninsula, and wait out the coming civil war. This will put the US in an advantageous position to not only produce a cease fire agreement, after a couple years of good fighting. But also to maintain a strong hand in the region for years to come. With the Al Faw in hand the US would maintain control over the exit terminals of Iraqi oil production thus allowing a stranglehold over any Iraqi government that might arise and for that matter preventing the Iranians from ever taking full advantage of their influence in southern Iraq. |
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 19:08
Yes, there are differences, but there are also similarities. Esecially in the political aspects of each conflict. A very politicaly astute Lincoln used a variety of political, economic and social rewards / pressures to reduce the legitimacy of the confederate insurgents and their government. The US is trying to do the same in Iraq, but it is far more difficult (as you pointed out). Drastically reducing the legitimacy of the Iraqi insurgents in the eyes of Iraqis is not impossible though. Perhaps the Bush adminstration simply lacks the necesarry political skills.
Likewise, Regular U.S. forces in Iraq face a huge cultural challenge. Irregular Pro U.S. forces (Sunni tribal militias), however, are of the same culture as the insurgents.
|
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 21:52
An interesting proposal. In that event, the efforts of the last four years might bear some fruit, and the bargaining position of the US might be enhanced by such an approach.
The press would probably be unimpressed. "You nasty people. How dare you hold a bargaining chip that might benefit your position? That is unfair and *gasp* hypocritical! The nerve!"
 The holding of such a position would indeed be a non-aggressive slap in the face to Iran's imperial pretensions.
The current Iranian kidnapping exercise in nabbing R.N. personnel may have more to do with this region than anything else. Driving up oil prices by such actions might enable Iran's deadbeat regime to afford to pay for their nuke toys from Russia - that they don't seem able to afford. Economic/financial planning of the first order.
|
Posted By: Laelius
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 22:12
|
Why the US need only maintain a pretext of A) protecting the populace of the Al-Faw peninsula. B) maintaining a position to eventually reestablish peace in the region.
The press will cover whatever sells, if the US plays its cards right the news will not be able to help but focus on the chaos of central Iraq where US troops will no longer remain. Don't hate the press they're just businessman after all :)
Slick Willy love him or hate him showed a good deal of foresight during the nineties, he wanted to get Bin Laden but Congress tied his hands. I am, however, afraid of Hillary becoming president as they say she's every bit as stubborn as Dubya is and she might very well try to compensate for any percieved feminine weaknesses by engaging in a hyper aggressive foreign policy. The only thing I care about is whether or not the next president at least tries to base his appointments on merrit.
A good example of counter insurgency methods used successfully in the past but you see bud, you just killed your own argument. Comparing the Lincoln administration to the Bush administration is like comparing a ferrari to a Yugo without an engine. One has been regarded as one of the finest in American history and the other appears to be totally disfunctional.
Am I the only one who hates it when the press compares the Bush whitehouse to that of Richard Nixon? Granted I think some of Nixon's activities despicable I do wish this nation was ran by an admin with the Nixon administration's accumen for foreign policy.
|
Bill might be more interested in watching golf, and Hilary might want to spend more energy re-engineering America's health care....as if.Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 23:31
I agree. Bush appears to have a sense of destiny, but lacks both the academic experience and the natural intelligence to make good foreign policy decisons in a complex environment. With good advisors, a figure head as a president is not an insurmountable problem. Unfortunatly, Bush surrounds himself with the completely incompetent and the "mediocre at best".
|
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2007 at 09:55
I don't want to get off-topic, but Bush is surrounded by Texas Big Oil men who have wanted a conduit to the Oval office. They got one.
No grand conspiracy theories there, just politics. If Enron had not gone tits up, and Ken Lay were still around, both would be gaining maximum advantage from the connection, just like Exxon, Schlumberger, Haliburton and all the boys.
|
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2007 at 13:29
I agree. Conspiracy theories are rarely correct.
Bush's actions in Iraq and some of his domestic actions simply show an example of somebody who "is in over his head", or in his particular case... way over his head.
Bush is a man of integrity who should have stayed Governor of Texas.
|
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2007 at 16:58
The example you cite above is the "Peter Principle" extended to politics.
I think two realities converge in this case:
1. Karl Rove saw an opportunity to take a guy named George Bush and make him governor of Texas. How hard was that? I think in many ways, Rove is the one in over his head, as one policy after another has been a disaster for the GOP.
2. Karl Rove thinks in terms of politics only. He always has. Another of the neo-cons, Wolfowitz, I think, mentioned that the administration "had to have something to sell" in the mid-term election (2002). Is it likely that Rove as the guru of Repub politics since 2000, used the Iraq thing to win an (off-year) election? Winning elections is all that matters to this guy. What are a few lies about foreigners among the party faithful? Who cares if the US goes to war if Democrat butt is kicked?
The drumbeat for war accellerated during the campaign season of 2002.
We are getting off-topic, but in some ways there is an important connection.
|
Posted By: Laelius
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2007 at 17:47
|
Well guys this is a very tricky matter, and Im sure a great number of reasons were applied in deciding to invade Iraq. Principle among these, Iraq's oil wealth, ease of invasion, the administration's goal of strengthening the US's hand in the region and creating a host of opportunities for American businesses. Perhaps this is one reason why the US seemed determined to wipe out the former arsenal of the Iraqi military. In doing so American contractors would have made a windfall in selling billions of dollars of shiny new American equipment to a new Iraqi army.
I disagree, I think a good administration needs a strong leader to maintain control of its department heads to keep them in line. Othwise we wind up with the endless power struggles seen within the current administration.
|
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2007 at 21:58
And of the many reasons, I sincerely hope that Revelations Theology (Pastor X's interpertation of Revelations that says actions 1,2 and 3 will help to fullfill biblical prophecies)was not one of them.
What is known is that some Evangelical Pastors are Bush confidants, that interest in Revelations was very high among Evangelicals, and that some Pastors openly taught that the real world actions of Political leaders could play an important part in fullfilling biblical prophecies (for good or bad.
We simply cant afford national policy decisons being based on faddish interpertations of Revelations.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2007 at 01:06
| That makes a lot of sense to me as well, the situation is deeper than just a lack of veteran troops, however, the lack of definetly is a possible reason for some of the failures. The Pentagon may well plan, and create scenarios for the whole war. However, war planning never is compliant with reality a 100%, take for example the situation in WWI, when the German high command implemented the Schleiffen Plan, which looked flawless and highly effective on paper, but that piece of paper never considered the fortress in the low countries, which held up the mobilization for a considerable time period. The plan had been created to work on exact timing, as soon as mobiliziation time expanded due to unforseen circumstances (and forseen) they were not able to win the Western Front. The war had been lost in the first few weeks to effectively win, or at least gain some favourable peace treaty France had to have been subdued, which it was not. Same in Irak, the US government and military command expected a flawless invasion, which it got, and then favourable conditions to completely re-create the whole government apparatus of a rather large country, which it did not implement yet, nor will it in the near future. By dismembering the entire civil infrastructure, and political, and military structure of the country, banning high ranking officers who have had decades of experience governing, administrating, and running the armed forces they lost hundres of thousands potential and crucial collaborators to the various rebel factions operating inside of Irak. A lot was due to the choosing to implement the wishes of the exiles who collaborated with the American government who wanted to see the people in power ousted, and replaced with rather inexperienced individuals who have had no experience running a country. Same happened in Afganistan, Hamid Karzai had been a members of Cheney's company working on a pipe line in the 80s not a career politician. Sometimes you need the corrupt career politicians to at least establish the groundworks for a stable political infrastructre. Furthermore, without the veteran support, they really did not know what they were getting themselves in to, the US military that is, it is hard to occupy an entire country. Peace keeping missions and special forces operations are a rather different animal compared to establishing an effective occupation force. |
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2007 at 02:21
|
There wasn't anything wrong with the U.S. military going into Iraq. It's personel had some of the best training available, with the NTSC for ground warfare and multiple Flag exercises for the Airforce. The Marines are in constant operation with the fleet and the Navy has more experience than any other in the world.
It doesn't matter how good your military is if you give it a task it isn't suited for. The U.S. armed forces could have taken down any conventional force in the world(probably still could), but it's not designed to be dropped into the middle of a civilian population that has many hostile members. No conventional force could succeed in the current mission that's going on in Iraq. The more you use an army in an environment like that the more resistance you create due to resentment.
------------- |
Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2007 at 11:58
|
I like Cryptic's ideas of turning the militias on each other... but
that creates problems in Iraq, as we can clearly see. The Militias have
been turned against one another, but we haven't put one or the other on
a leash, and now, instead of a bunch of Yanks and confederates shooting
each other in the woods of Missourri, we have the Mahdi Army and
al-Quaeda fighting battles in the middle of crowded city streets in
Baghdad. It's not the small insurgent cells in the desert that are
confounding US troops; it's the internecine warfare of terrorism going
on in urban centers. And the Mahdi Army and al-Quaeda 9and all their
opposing subsidiary organizations) aren't even fighting against
each-other; they're fighting against each other;s civilian bases, which
is the worst part of the public-relations disaster, and the
humanitarian crisis. The US has shown it can eliminate about 99% of the attackers the militias throw at them, with minimal casualties on their own side (3,200-some dead, and the occupation has been over 4 years- Those deaths include Afghanistan, as well). When we went to retake Fallujah, they had to get rid of the bodies of the Jihadis in the streets, so many died. They may clip one or two men every couple of days with an IED or sniper attack, but in no way are the insurgents winning the war... they're just massacring eachother to undermine public support back here in the States. To put the US casualty rate into perspective- the Allies sustained over 10,000 Casualties (including wounded, though 2700 men died that day) on D-Day (June 5th-6th, 1944) alone. 9386 Americans lost their lives during the Battle for Normandy, as did 17,769 Brits, and 5002 Canadians. The Battle of Normandy was about two months long. In contrast, 3,200-some American dead over a four year period in a two-front war makes this one of the most successful military operations in history. Politically and diplomatically, it's a disaster, but our boys over there and doing a world of hurt to the insurgencies. I think an ultimatum ought to be offered in Iraq, personally: Stop this pseudo-civil war you're fighting, or we're leaving you to tear each other to pieces. Rather than protesting the idea of a withdrawal, we should be threatening the Iraqi government (under Nour-Maliki) and the Iraqi army with a complete US withdrawal. Maliki knows he's only in power because of American boots on the ground. The withdrawal will give him a bit of incentive to get the Iraqi army involved in crushing the insurgency, and to get his house in order. As it is, right now it seems the Shi'ite government is using the US to help protect it's power base while it carries it out it's own form of house-cleaning, in the form of brutalizing the Sunnis. But if those politicians know we're not going to stand for them dicking around, and we're only going to protect our own interests in the region (i.e. policing the oil fields and the ports), they'll be constrained by necessity to get down to the business of getting down. Personally, one reason I think this war is such a diplomatic disaster is because we lied our way into it. If we had just taken the same stance that Bush Sr. had during Gulf War 1 ("Hey, you, Saadam. We want the dag-gone oil, and we're gonna git it!"), people would have been a lot more supportive here at home. Afterall, know one likes being lied to. Since we were unclear about our stated purposes and interests in the region, we only empowered the media even further in pursuit of their own self-righteous agendas. If there were no lies, no scandals, what would the media have to say? In the age of whistle-blowing, if there's no alarms to sound, they could have put Lou Dobbs out of a job. Cheers. |