“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.
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.
"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.)
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.