Ex-general: War planners did not expect insurgency

Chicago Tribune via Yahoo ^ | July 18, 2004 | Stephen J. Hedges

[Max Combined]

One of the nation's top generals during the invasion of Iraq (news - web sites) said Thursday that the insurgency took U.S. military leaders by surprise because they believed the assurances of Iraqi opposition groups and defectors that American forces would be welcomed.

Gen. John Keane, who served as the Army's vice chief of staff during the war and who has since retired, told the House Armed Services Committee: "We did not see it coming. And we were not properly prepared and organized to deal with it. . . . Many of us got seduced by the Iraqi exiles in terms of what the outcome would be."

Keane's testimony echoes a recent admission by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who told the House committee last month that the Bush administration mistakenly believed the capture of top Iraqi leaders would quell insurgent violence.

Keane said an insurgency in Iraq after the end of major combat was discussed during months of war planning but was not made a priority.

Although Thursday's hearing was ostensibly held to examine Army plans to adopt new technology and transform its tactics, it became an examination of the trouble the military has encountered in Iraq.

Testifying with Keane were two other retired Army officers, Col. Douglas Macgregor, who left the service last month, and Maj. Gen. Robert Scales.

Scales advocated spending less money on new weapons and technology and more on educating soldiers in cultural, language and strategic skills.

[Max Combined]

Can't plan for everything.

[mtbopfuyn]

the insurgency took U.S. military leaders by surprise because they believed the assurances of Iraqi

Who assured them? Baghdad Bob?

[cripplecreek]

I don't believe we expected the drawn out resistance we got in post WWII Germany either.

[section9]

The FUBAR factor is always present in war.

Stephen E. Ambrose wrote in Citizen Soldiers: The U.S. Army in Europe from June 7, 1944 to May 8, 1945 that the planners for Operation OVERLORD looked at the terrain of Normandy and saw lots and lots of hedges.

They assumed that the hedges that dominated the Norman landscape were like the small hedges they saw in Britain. Not so; these were hedgerows, tall and forbidding hedges that had been around since the time of Caesar's conquest of Gallia. The Wehrmacht had planned to use these formidable obstacles to defend Normandy if the Allies had landed there successfully. This one mistake led to Allied forces landing in Normandy without proper means to crash through the hedgerows. Several thousand Americans were killed in June of 1944 before this problem was solved by some innovative NCO's.

No one gets war right. Ever.

What matters is who wins.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[oolatec]

"War planners did not expect insurgency"

Well, that's pretty obvious...

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

I am about halfway through with a great WWII book,
An Army at Dawn: The War in Africa, 1942-1943 by Rick Atkinson. Eisenhower, considered to be a great military leader, made literally scores of errors of omission and comission. Bush and his planners pitch a near shutout in a one-month war, and are castigated daily in the press for failing to be omniscient. Where were today's "journalists" when perspective was being handed out? Probably occupying a college building, protesting something or other.

[First_Salute]

To the contrary, planning was bent severly to resolve for political satisfaction within the Bush [still running 39% of the Clinton] Administration, the shortage of troops problem.

Without enough troops, insurgency was deftly removed from the game board, and wishful thinking installed at several locations, in place of such troops.

[megatherium]

I think we also failed to anticipate the breakdown in civil order. Our failure to immediately stop the looting and crime was resented by many Iraqis. Where we have now restored order, where Iraqis can work and go about their lives in relative safety, there is gratitude for what we've accomplished.

[The Bandit]

When it comes to war you plan for all possible contingencies, if you don't or cannot, then you have no business being in the war business.

[InterceptPoint]

the insurgency took U.S. military leaders by surprise because they believed the assurances of Iraqi opposition groups and defectors that American forces would be welcomed.

This is naive beyond belief.

Did the general think that 100% of the people would welcome us? How about 90%? That would leave a couple of million candidate insurgents. This guy has to be a Clinton appointee. The military plans for the unexpected and I simply do not believe that post invasion attacks on the American "occupiers" could have possibly been a surprise to the military leadership when it wasn't a surprise to me.

[glaux]

Even if it had anticipated it with absolute certainty in Iraq, how would the outcome have been any different? We can't control the eruption of a riot in any given US city after a football game if a mob is so inclined.

[nosofar]

I have trouble believing this. Or maybe I just don't want to think out leaders are that stupid.

[Let's Roll]

"I don't believe we expected the drawn out resistance we got in post WWII Germany either."

Which is why I think we did expect resistance. There's always resistance - knowing the exact form it will take is the problem.

[Amelia]

No one gets war right. Ever. What matters is who wins.

Good point.

[Pikachu_Dad]

Here is the key:

"Scales advocated spending less money on new weapons and technology and more on educating soldiers in cultural, language and strategic skills."

This group wants the soldiers to be able to surrender in cultural languages.

[megatherium]

Even if it had anticipated it with absolute certainty in Iraq, how would the outcome have been any different? We can't control the eruption of a riot in any given US city after a football game if a mob is so inclined.

Critics of the war say that it was "done on the cheap", that we should have used a lot more troops going in to be able hold things down. But part of our strategy was to be as fast as possible, and the Iraqi army collapsed much faster than anticipated, leaving a big vacuum while we were still arriving. So the disorder was a side-effect of our success.

But it may also have been a strategy by the Iraqis. Supposedly, they did not expect us to actually attack, but when it became clear we were serious, they knew they couldn't win, so they decided to melt away and begin an insurgency. Part of their plan was to make things as difficult as possible for us, by systematic looting and sabotage, as well as the sniping and bombing campaign. This unfortunately had some success. In spite of the speed of our invasion, our inability to control things in the immediate aftermath convinced many Iraqis that our position was actually weak, so they were reluctant to support us. We were also vulnerable to Arab propoganda that we were only interested in the oil and that's why we let the rest of the country go to hell. We've made considerable progress securing order, and we are now gaining the respect if not the gratitude of the Iraqis.

[Scenic Sounds]

Good point.

Great point! It's always very risky!! ;-)

[Chief_Joe]

Testifying with Keane were two other retired Army officers, Col. Douglas Macgregor... and Maj. Gen. Robert Scales.

Scales advocated spending less money on new weapons and technology and more on educating soldiers in cultural, language and strategic skills

I'm happy he's retired.

[RightWhale]

This is naive

No kidding