US Army Report Criticizes Handling of Fight Against Terror

VOA ^ | 01/13/04 | Alex Belida

[Pikamax]

US Army Report Criticizes Handling of Fight Against Terror Alex Belida Pentagon 13 Jan 2004, 18:46 UTC

The Bush administration's handling of the global war on terrorism, including the decision to invade Iraq, is being criticized by an unexpected source: a study published by the U.S. Army's War College. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld routinely acknowledges the war on terrorism will be neither quick nor easy.

But Mr. Rumsfeld also asserts repeatedly that the United States will not back down from its commitment to fight that war, especially when it comes to the ongoing struggle with insurgents loyal to the ousted regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. "We will continue taking the battle to the terrorists. And as the president has said, the coalition will stay as long as it takes to finish the job, and leave only when the task is finished," he said.

But a newly-released report published by the U.S. Army War College has taken issue with the Bush Administration's decision to invade Iraq.

The 56-page study by defense expert Jeffrey Record calls the U.S. intervention in Iraq "an unnecessary preventative war of choice" that was "a detour" from the global war on terrorism.

It criticizes, as a "strategic error of the first order," the administration's linking of the al-Qaida terrorist organization and Saddam Hussein's Iraq as a single, undifferentiated terrorist threat.

The study is accompanied by a disclaimer stating its views are those of Mr. Record, a professor at the U.S. Air Force's War College, and not those of the Army or the Department of Defense.

But Douglas Lovelace, the director of the Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute that published the study, hails the analysis as what he calls "a contribution to the national security debate over the aims and course of the war on terrorism."

Nevertheless, at the Pentagon, senior officials do not appear to be pleased. Bryan Whitman, a top Defense Department spokesman, admits he has not seen the study but suggests its conclusions are irresponsible. "Any study that concludes that we should not aggressively pursue the global war on terror would be irresponsible. In fact, it is inconceivable to me that any responsible government would not do everything possible to protect its citizens," he said.

The study says the administration's identification of a multitude of enemies, including rogue states, weapons of mass destruction, and terrorist groups of global, regional and local scope, may have set the United States on a course of open-ended and gratuitous conflict with states and non-states that pose no serious threat.

Mr. Record, a former staff member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, also asserts U.S. military involvement in Iraq has strained the armed forces. As he puts it, the war has saddled the armed forces with costly and open-ended imperial policing and nation building responsibilities outside the professional military's traditional mission portfolio.

Email this article to a friend.

[Howlin]

I was just using your post as a launching pad........LOL.

[Wild Irish Rogue]

Paul Begala and Terry McMommy are so dumb,they think one report by a visiting professor, is an endorsement by the Army War College. Begala also said today on CROSSFIRE,that President Bush was Kim Jong il,with a better haircut. I have to say that rather than getting upset by these types of remarks, I enjoy them. The Democrats are obviously agonal and are lashing out at everyone. Then later,Clark said that 9/11 was unrelated to Al Queda and had to run back to the microphone and issue a correction. The new Democrat motto- "You Couldn't Make This Stuff Up."

[inPhase]

Right good post.

[Cautor]

It is NOT the opinion of the United States Army OR the American War College.

Absolutely right on Howlin. I've written national security policy papers published by the National Defense University, but they all have a disclaimer that says this is nothing more than Cautor's own personal opinion and so forth. They certainly don't say this is the opinion of the whole big old department of defense. Brit et al. trashed this story on Fox tonight. The author has a history of associating with Democraps so big surprise he barfed up the Democrap line in his paper. Guess the party of the ultra-left is really desperate so they're grasping for straws.

[Tempest]

Interesting background information. Looks like the media is intentionally misrepresenting this person opinion as the opinion of the college. Or else the media elite are just completely incompetent.

I'd give it a 50/50 chance that it could go eitherway.

[inPhase]

The students and the faculty are the university.

Note that a noble laureate's orig affiliation is always stated when the award is received. Just the way it is. The university gives reputation to the faculty and students and vs.

[4integrity]

Howlin, don't apologize. We all need to be shouting out to refute the misinformation that, I believe, is intentionally put out by many Dims and libs. I just heard Alan Colmes refer to 'the report put out by the Army War College'. Bill Bennett corrected him. Wouldn't you think that he would do his homework before reporting on issues? The scary part is many, many people, including some Republicans, will hear about 'the Army War College report' and believe it. I'm trying to encourage my local Repub clubs to put together "responses" or reference points for their members to use when hit with the many untruths or half truths about the Pres or his positions.

[hgro]

Is this Krugman the NYT reporter who took big bucks from ENRON for puff pieces about what a great company ENRON was?

[Tempest]

Errrr?!?!? So your say that a guess speaker can shoot his mouth off as if he's actual staff?!?!?

You're kidding right?!

Alright so this former tool of Sam Nunn and liberal plant gets a job speaking at the Army college for a few weeks and uses it to capitalize and push his political agenda and the press picks up on his "work" to boast it as the opinion of the entire college.

Yet how you manage to equate a guest speaker with a "noble laureate" using his "orig affiliation" is beyond me in this case.

So if Tony Robbins decided to voice his opinion he'd be speaking on behalf of corporate America several presidents and world leaders?!?!?

Errrr.... OK?!

[God is good]

It's Bush vs. The Beltway. Bush is best.

[God is good]

Thank you Howlin!

[inPhase]

As a member of a faculty you have a lot of freedom to say what you please. The University trusts its faculty to keep and define its reputation.

I do not believe that you think I was mixing this with noble laureate types. I will repeat though that a noble prize winner gives credit to the place where the work meriting the prize was done.

And yes, if I am at Universsity A, the University answers for hiring me. That is what academic freedom is all about. And the tenure system.

I did not read the paper nor much of the press just what is here, did anyone here read it?

[pfflier]

The study was not commissioned by, or sanctioned by the war college. It was reproduced by the war college. A little fact distorted by the headline.

[BamaBlue]

Entire report is here:

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/2003/bounding/bounding.pdf

FWIW.....

Bama

[Tempest]

He's not actual staff of the University. He's only serving as a guest professor.

[inPhase]

Another note, faculty and staff are differnt types at a university. Staff is not an academic position. Just an employee.

Yeah, faculty, including visiting faculty have a lot of freedom; unless the U loses endowment bucks or something like that. Then not much can be done if tenured. Basically, the faculty selects the faculty unless you are really special.

[Tempest]

Semantics. So what you're saying is that a guest speaker should be regarded as faculty. So any individual speaking at the University even for one day who used his opportunity to further his agenda would be speaking for said establishment?

Oh boy, I can't wait to get some speaking position at the EPA!!! I'm going to use the oppurtunity to further my agenda for how grilled cheese toast is destroying the enviroment. . . .

[inPhase]

If they let you use Professor on your paid title,
guest, visiting, even adjunct
or visiting scholar (other academic titles too)

you are a part of the faculty albeit perhaps with limited time in place. But it lasts forever,
The work goes with the place, unless you get very famous. So if a U has a lot of lousy work they get a lousy reputation.
I think the question being toyed? is does this work represent the Arrmy War College. I would say yes.
1) I have seen other stuff that is similar and am surprised this made it to the tely's

2) The work is by their paid faculty(?) (not staff!!)

then it represents a representation from their faculty. This is different than firing a GO for speaking their mind at the wrong time or place.

[Tempest]

"The students and the faculty are the university."


Whoah!!!! So according to that logic some pothead at UCLA can claim to be speaking on behalf of the university if he were to publish his personal findings on how stale bong water is posses less of a health risk than fresh bong water?!?!?

[inPhase]

I do not know what the guy's/author's title is. But from what I see here he is a paid academic. Or is he?