Posted on 11/14/2006 8:12:56 AM PST by liberty_lvr
The Generals’ Fantasy Wars
November 14th, 2006
When consummate Rumsfeld critic Ralph Peters finally comes to the conclusion that maybe the senior level military commanders running the war just might have had something to do with the mess in Iraq, you know an earth-shattering revelation has just occurred. Unfortunately, Peters’ public unburdening has come two years too late to save one of the most effective defense secretaries in history.
AT and a few others have dared to suggest the same point about senior military leadership a long time ago. So, now that the supposed source of all that is wrong in our defense establishment has been ushered out the door, I will now follow in the footsteps of my fellow commentator and internet radio host Rick Moran and declare that the time for circumspection concerning our military hierarchy has passed.
One of the major criticisms of the SecDef was his unyielding desire to modernize the military over all else. It may be a shock to some people, but the Army’s deep thinkers have been playing around with alternative warfighting concepts and associated hardware long before Rumsfeld assumed office. Slamming Rummy over his near-religious devotion to all things transformational is the height of hypocrisy.
This whole transformation initiative actually came about in the 1990s, in an effort to cope with drastically reduced end-strength and defense budgets. Digitization, light forces, and post-modern theories on battle were rationalized as the wave of the future. Operations in Bosnia and Kosovo and the air war against Serbia only reinforced false notions of painless conflicts.
Criteria for success consisted of demonstrating proficiency at proving the “no-cost” theory of battle instead of doing what it takes to win wars. Academic credentials replaced tours with troop units, and frankly, a few leaders had no objective grasp of reality about the nature of war, especially if we ever ran into hard-core fanatics who were not interested in sitting at the bargaining table.
Years later, after one of the most successful offensives in military history, our huge advantage in Iraq was frittered away by quickly returning to the 1990s comfort zone. Presence patrols were reported euphemistically as “offensive operations,” humanitarian aid supplies had priority for shipment over spare parts for combat systems, and bartering with the enemy became standard operating procedure.
Yuval Steinitz in Haaretz sums it up nicely. His scathing critique of the IDF in last summer’s war against Hezbollah could just as easily apply to our own senior leaders in Iraq:
“…we ceased to speak of our desire to defeat the enemy or destroy its military capability by means of a knockout and began to nurture a culture willing to settle for a “victory in points” or “engraving” something ‘in their conscience.’ … ‘victory’ became pejorative and we began to speak of the ‘appearance of victory’ or the ‘effect of victory on the conscience.’ This presumably could be achieved at a relatively low cost in human life.”
In Iraq, the response to increasing attacks on both Iraqi security services and US forces was to officially deny the presence of die-hards of Saddam’s Army, while pinning the blame on some mysterious “insurgency” run by Al-Qaeda’s second-in-command, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The problem is, once he was killed, the finest troops in the world went back to their base camps and allowed the cadre of the Special Republican Guard and the Iraqi Intelligence Service to continue their campaign of terror and attrition. They weren’t quitting no matter how many schools or hospitals we built.
The military theorists and think tanks need to gaze into their navels some more. If I understand them correctly, they are convinced President Bush’s remarkable and forward thinking democratization strategy in the region has failed because they didn’t hunt down and kill the enemy with purpose and passion. And that respnsibility falls on … Rumsfeld? Cheney? The President? Maybe they all need to go back to school, or better yet, just go home.
A press briefing with Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, Commander of Multinational Corps, Iraq, says volumes about the this sad situation. Say what you want about the press, but this is an excellent question from Bob Burns of the AP.
“…I’d like to take you to back to your comments about what’s happening in Anbar province. When General Zilmer conducted an interview earlier this week to talk about the report, he said that defeating the insurgents is not his mission. And my question for you is, whether you’re talking about Anbar or any other part of Iraq, when did you reach the point in the counterinsurgency fight where you’re not fighting to win?”
This is the highly credentialed answer.
“Well, we are fighting to win, but we understand that winning is a combination of a whole bunch of things in this insurgency we’re fighting, and as I’ve indicated time and time again, this is different than any other fight I believe the United States of America has ever found itself in. And I quite frankly think that this is a fight that will characterize—many of the characteristics of this fight will be characteristics of future fights if we get into them.
“It is a blend of both kinetic and non-kinetic effects, and the non-kinetic effects are many times as important and often more important than the kinetic effects. And that’s what’s different. And that is really what Pete Devlin said in his report, and I think he was right. We need political support, we need economic support at Al Anbar. When we do that, it will have an effect on security in Al Anbar and drive down security.”
Huh? Patton, Ike, MacArthur, and Lee are turning over in their graves.
The supreme irony of the campaign against Rummy and the President is that by all indications, both listened intently to their generals in the field and gave them free reign to pursue their post-modern warfighting theories into oblivion. But if the President or the SecDef would have taken drastic action and fired the lot of them, they would have been accused of being LBJ and McNamara reincarnated. A couple of buttinskis unnecessarily restrained our troops in the field, and got rid of those who opposed their devious war plans.
The American people have spoken, and soon the Democrat-controlled Congress won’t have Rummy around to serve as their whipping boy. Iraq needs a real victory over Saddam’s forces and the terrorists. Iran and Syria are waiting in the wings. Come January, the left and the generals will be on the clock to prove to us how Rumsfeld was wrong.
It’s time they delivered.
But take hope - we were in much the same shape on the eve of WWII with overly-cautious commanders utilizing outmoded and disproven tactics.
There is one huge difference between then and now, though: back then there was a political will, succinctly communicated to the American electorate, to actually win the war. I shudder to think what we have to offer in the way of both military and political leadership today.
Great post!!!!!
“Well, we are fighting to win, but we understand that winning is a combination of a whole bunch of things in this insurgency we’re fighting, and as I’ve indicated time and time again, this is different than any other fight I believe the United States of America has ever found itself in. And I quite frankly think that this is a fight that will characterize—many of the characteristics of this fight will be characteristics of future fights if we get into them.
“It is a blend of both kinetic and non-kinetic effects, and the non-kinetic effects are many times as important and often more important than the kinetic effects. And that’s what’s different. And that is really what Pete Devlin said in his report, and I think he was right. We need political support, we need economic support at Al Anbar. When we do that, it will have an effect on security in Al Anbar and drive down security.”
I haven't a clue at what he said.
two words-Clinton Generals
two words-Clinton Generals
He's saying that the best way to defeat the terrorists is to create domestic prosperity. Which is pretty much the entire point of the invasion.
This article is inane. Our generals get it: this author does not.
Deny responsibility. Attempt to shift blame. Make counteraccusations.
Who says we can't learn from the Democrats?
We lost this war because we were not ruthless enough against the enemy. We could have nipped this in the bud, instead we wanted to make friends. Now look where we are.
"I haven't a clue at what he said."
Building wells is more important than kicking ass.
(Because when you return to the Pentagon, you'll have no black marks on your record.)
"create domestic prosperity. Which is pretty much the entire point of the invasion."
Prosperity is just around the corner for Iraq, as soon as they kill the terrorists.
It was an evasive non-answer to a very reasonable question. That's never a good sign.
And neither does he!
Great article.
The supreme irony of the campaign against Rummy and the President is that by all indications, both listened intently to their generals in the field and gave them free reign to pursue their post-modern warfighting theories into oblivion. But if the President or the SecDef would have taken drastic action and fired the lot of them, they would have been accused of being LBJ and McNamara reincarnated.
For the sake of the country these generals should have been fired regardless of the possible name calling the CIC and others may have encountered.
If we *really* want to transform the Army, we can do it in a few easy steps:
1. Eliminate up-or-out, and make it easier for officers to change branches as they move through their career. Move promotion decisions to no more than 3 levels above the officer in question - IOW, the division commander should be able to promote his company commanders.
2. Eliminate the system of moving 1/3 of the army every year for no good reason. It's wasteful and detrimental to morale.
3. Reorganize the Army to look in peacetime the way it does in wartime - combined arms, to include support and service support elements, all the way down to the company, if not platoon, level.
Actually the difference I view with the most foreboding is that 50 years of restricting industry and JIT (Just In Time) production methods have probably left us without the bricks and mortar to gear up to a war production posture like we did in WWII.
I was privileged enough to study military history (decades ago... sigh...).
The key points that came through over and over:
Generals almost always prepare for the previous war.
Forward thinking is incredibly rare.
Forward thinking will be resisted strongly.
In my view, Donald Rumsfeld is a forward thinker, at least in the realm of force modernization. He bears some of the blame for the current strategic failure, but he also deserves credit for the brilliant initial victories in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In my view, the unfolding debacle in Iraq is a strategic failure at the civilian level. The democrats bear a heavy burden of shame for tying our hands, and for their determination to cut and run. If the dems are able to impose their will on our national policy, they will ensure a defeat of historic proportions.
But ALL our politicians and diplomats forgot the REAL lesson of Vietnam:
Fight to WIN or do not fight at all.
The dems do not have the will to win, or even to fight back. In my view they are traitors, the lowest form of scum on earth. But our side bears significant blame too, including Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, and President Bush.
OUR SIDE forgot what should have been one of our core principals: If you must fight, WIN.
We are now doomed to two years of dem control of the purse strings of war. Most likely we will see significant setbacks worldwide. When the enemy deems the time to be right, we will see another attack on our homeland. The damage at home and worldwide will be immense, but I think/pray we will survive.
Two years from now there may, perhaps, be a silver lining. Perhaps we will finally learn that the only war worth fighting is the one we fight to WIN. Perhaps we will even find politicians who understand this, and elect them to office.
What kind of person willingly sacrifices the lives of our young citizens through Political Cowardice (I refuse to use "correctness") in order to advance their personal agenda? Doesn't this make the senior military leadership guilty of all the transgressions so hysterically leveled at the Bush administration for the last four years?
Your grandson-in-law shall remain in our prayers for a speedy and successful recovery. Thank him for his selfless service, also. Recognize that he embodies that which is best in all of our citizens who wear the uniform and serve.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.