[BurlyShirley]

We were discussing this in class today, and it got me thinking. Looking back at the war, and how quickly the US sped through Iraq...shouldn't it have been obvious that there were going to be plenty of people left to fight?
Ive heard that one general was nearly fired for insisting that the US slow down in its advance and concentrate more on the Fedaeen (sp?), which is basically what we're fighting now.
Also, if Colin Powell (creator of Powell doctrine) was playing such a big role, why is it that we didnt follow his doctrine, and use an overwhelming ground force to deal with these insurgency issues before they began to get out of hand.
What I mean about "Should some of the blame fall on the generals" is that most of these guys were there in Vietnam, and saw how a guerilla war works, so why is it that they didnt speak up and demand more manpower or perhaps some other strategy? Are they cowards? Is it a symptom of today's military, that a general is too afraid to express his honest point of view for fear of some political reprisal?
Id be interested to hear from MikeD on this too.

 

[Changleen]

I feel like there have been rumblings of military types saying that the campaign was being handled in a bad wasy since before you even went in. They've just been ignored.

 

[BurlyShirley]

I feel like there have been rumblings of military types saying that the campaign was being handled in a bad wasy since before you even went in. They've just been ignored.

"rumblings" arent enough. The generals are THE military experts, if they know something is wrong, it falls on them to advise the powers that be of the situation. I just think its odd to blast Bush/Rumsfeld alone, when the were surrounded by many many more knowledgable folks in terms of war.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

i dont believe generals are the ones to blame. the problem, imo, were the political goals, not the military manuevers. i think the US goals (for the lack of better word) for iraq were mutually exclusive.

they wanted people to feel "liberated". they went in without any strong support or coalition from within (a pre-existing anti-saddam guerrilla) so needed a good image and good PR with the people. yet at the same time, wanted to wipe out the guerrillas.

effectively fighting guerrillas necesarily means non-partisan people will die at a high rate. which in turn, damages the image of the liberator, defeats one of the "goals", and make otherwise neutral folks swing to their fallen peers and guerrillas for sympathy/revenge.
i dont see, realistically, how can generals can effectively manuever around those constrains.

 

[LordOpie]

great post Alexis

 

[BurlyShirley]

i dont believe generals are the ones to blame. the problem, imo, were the political goals, not the military manuevers. i think the US goals (for the lack of better word) for iraq were mutually exclusive.

they wanted people to feel "liberated". they went in without any strong support or coalition from within (a pre-existing anti-saddam guerrilla) so needed a good image and good PR with the people. yet at the same time, wanted to wipe out the guerrillas.

effectively fighting guerrillas necesarily means non-partisan people will die at a high rate.
i dont see, realistically, how can generals can effectively manuever around those constrains.

But my question is: At what point do the generals step up and say "We will have an insurgency that we cannot effictively combat, therefore destroying any good we have done in annihilating the Hussein regime?"
Call the Bush admin inept if you want, but no one is stupid enough to think that you could institute a successful new govt. with the problems we're seeing today. If they had been properly advised, I think it would have to have been handled a bit differently.
Also, what of Colin Powell?

 

[LordOpie]

But my question is: At what point do the generals step up and say...

I believe that politics were way too involved in this military operation. Remember -- and some won't like this -- but to contradict THIS admin is tantamount to treason and being anti-american. If a General spoke up, loud and clear in a public way, he'd be dismissed by the executive branch.

\You simply don't contradict this Admin

So they might have spoken up in private, but we'd never ever know.

 

[BurlyShirley]

I believe that politics were way too involved in this military operation. Remember -- and some won't like this -- but to contradict THIS admin is tantamount to treason and being anti-american. If a General spoke up, loud and clear in a public way, he'd be dismissed by the executive branch.

\You simply don't contradict this Admin

So they might have spoken up in private, but we'd never ever know.

Yeah, well I guess what Im getting at, is if the generals were men of character, we'd have seen alot more of them be dismissed, no? Or perhaps was it an overzealousness to go to war on their part as well? Because that makes it their fault too.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

But my question is: At what point do the generals step up and say "We will have an insurgency that we cannot effictively combat, therefore destroying any good we have done in annihilating the Hussein regime?"
Call the Bush admin inept if you want, but no one is stupid enough to think that you could institute a successful new govt. with the problems we're seeing today. If they had been properly advised, I think it would have to have been handled a bit differently.
Also, what of Colin Powell?

i dont believe the generals have to power to step and say "we aint doing this no more" and effectively putting a halt or making the ultimate decision.

if they expressed that before, yet the political decision was made against.
i think that puts the blame out of them. in an analogy, they are "senses" and the "brain" the civilians government who makes the political decisions. as long as they sent the right (and by right i mean objetive to reality) input to the decision makers, their job was done, and they cant be blamed for decisions made outside their powers.

now, if they didnt say anything, they could still argue they were following orders and be liable for omission.
if they sent the wrong input. they would be liable. but i have a hard time believing that. just the sheer number of casualties are an input hard to oversee.

 

[Changleen]

By The Associated Press Fri Apr 14, 10:31 AM ET

Quotes from the retired generals who are calling for the ouster of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld:

"We went to war with a flawed plan that didn‘t account for the hard work to build the peace after we took down the regime. We also served under a secretary of defense who didn‘t understand leadership, who was abusive, who was arrogant, who didn‘t build a strong team." — Retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste.

"My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions — or bury the results." — Retired Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold.

"They only need the military advice when it satisfies their agenda. I think that‘s a mistake, and that‘s why I think he should resign." — Retired Army Maj. Gen. John Riggs.

"We grow up in a culture where accountability, learning to accept responsibility, admitting mistakes and learning from them was critical to us. When we don‘t see that happening it worries us. Poor military judgment has been used throughout this mission." — Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former chief of U.S. Central Command.

"I really believe that we need a new secretary of defense because Secretary Rumsfeld carries way too much baggage with him. ... I think we need senior military leaders who understand the principles of war and apply them ruthlessly, and when the time comes, they need to call it like it is." — Retired Army Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack.

"He has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically, and is far more than anyone responsible for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq . ... Mr. Rumsfeld must step down." — Retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton.

There is ton of this stuff if you look on Google news. I saw a really long list the other day on the LA Times website, but it appears to be gone now.

 

[syadasti]

If they had been properly advised, I think it would have to have been handled a bit differently.

Intelligence told the administration there was no exit strategy just like GWB's smarter father knew - it was ignored...

so, now that Iraq is again in the board, i´ll post a few lines of the book. (spanish version) George Bush Sr. wrote and was published [in 1998], it goes...

translating back to the original language, (since i dont know where in the internet could i find this extract of the book)


"To try to eliminate Saddam.... would have caused incalculable human and political costs. To Capture him would have been practically imposible. We would have been forced to ocupy Baghdad and thus, to govern Iraq....
We could not foresee any feasible succesful strategy, which violates another of of principles"... "Also, we were consciously trying to make a norm to control the aggresion in the post Cold-War World. Invading and occupying Iraq unilaterally, exceding the UN sanction, would have destroyed the base for an international response to the aggresion, which we expected to establish. If we would have chosen the path of invasion, the USA could have been still dealing with the power in a bitterly hostile country".

I wonder i GWB ever read that book.

 

[LordOpie]

Yeah, well I guess what Im getting at, is if the generals were men of character, we'd have seen alot more of them be dismissed, no? Or perhaps was it an overzealousness to go to war on their part as well? Because that makes it their fault too.

ok, agreed.

I thought when Powell was "forced" to give a presentation with false data and that data was proven flawed, that he should've had the balls to resign. But he, like other Generals have a career to think about. So, yeah, MILITARY GENERALS are pvssies.

 

[Changleen]

I also read that a couple of Generals retired specifically citing the inability to criticise Rumsfeld from within the Army as their motivation to leave.

 

[BurlyShirley]

ok, agreed.

I thought when Powell was "forced" to give a presentation with false data and that data was proven flawed, that he should've had the balls to resign. But he, like other Generals have a career to think about. So, yeah, MILITARY GENERALS are pvssies.

My understanding of that situation (after watching a documentary on George Tent AND Powells chief advisor) is that Powell TRUTHFULLY believed in the speach he was giving. The CIA chief claimed to have intel to back up exactly what he was saying. I dont actually know if the white house knew the quality of that intel though...

 

[Changleen]

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=82642&version=1&template_id=46&parent_id=26

...In early 1998, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Hugh Shelton, sent all of his 17 four-star generals a book called Dereliction of Duty. Then he summoned them to a breakfast at which the author, a young Army major named H R McMaster, described how Lyndon B Johnson’s top generals let the president bog us down in Vietnam without voicing their strong reservations.

One of the generals at the breakfast, Tony Zinni, who was then head of Central Command, recalled for me the chairman’s firm words. “This will never happen again,” Shelton said.

But despite internal grumbling about the administration’s strategy for the Iraq war, most top brass have stayed silent. Now, some retired officers are speaking up...

...Zinni, who retired prior to the Iraq war, recalls that any questions about post-war planning were unwelcome to Rumsfeld: “The military was told not to worry about Phase IV” (the post-war).

Senior military officials had developed a contingency plan in the ‘90s in case of an Iraq invasion, calling for 380,000 to 500,000 troops...

...In 2003, the top Army general, Eric Shinseki, said several hundred thousand troops would be needed for post-war Iraq, but he was humiliated by Rumsfeld, sending a clear message to other military critics to shut up....

 

[BurlyShirley]

ok, agreed.

I thought when Powell was "forced" to give a presentation with false data and that data was proven flawed, that he should've had the balls to resign. But he, like other Generals have a career to think about. So, yeah, MILITARY GENERALS are pvssies.

What better way to show that the admin's policies were very flawed than a mass exodus of all the top brass in the military?

 

[BurlyShirley]

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=82642&version=1&template_id=46&parent_id=26

Well, that is EXACTLY what Im getting at in this thread, and actually it was LBJ's admin which Ive recently been learning about that has really got my blood boiling on this whole thing. I mean, ITS THE SAME THING happening.

 

[Changleen]

In the end, we know that George had decided to attack Iraq almost from day one of his presidency. IMO the ultimate blame rests with him.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

My understanding of that situation (after watching a documentary on George Tent AND Powells chief advisor) is that Powell TRUTHFULLY believed in the speach he was giving. The CIA chief claimed to have intel to back up exactly what he was saying. I dont actually know if the white house knew the quality of that intel though...

i still have a hard time believing the intelligence given by CIA was impartial and free from political influence.

what happened in iraq after the invasion (not even mentioning the lack of WMD) wasnt really something to surprised at.
a lot of people, not only tinfoil hat kinda folks, saw that coming.

you could argue the validity of the intelligence and the good faith of the government.
but you could also argue, and rightly so, on the political influence to forge intelligence into fitting the plan.

 

[BurlyShirley]

In the end, we know that George had decided to attack Iraq almost from day one of his presidency. IMO the ultimate blame rests with him.

Well, I cannot honestly say that because I dont personally know what led to his making the decision. If he himself was given fraudulent evidence, not properly advised by his generals, lied to by Rumsfeld, et al. you know, he could've been doing it all in good faith for all I know.
What I DO know is that the men who are experts at war, for whatever reason, didnt make the right decisions IMO. Especially Powell, wtf?

 

[Changleen]

Like I said this was a politically motivated war from the start. If it was actually defence motivated I'm sure the Generals would have had a much larger part in top-level planning.

 

[LordOpie]

My understanding of that situation (after watching a documentary on George Tent AND Powells chief advisor) is that Powell TRUTHFULLY believed in the speach he was giving. The CIA chief claimed to have intel to back up exactly what he was saying. I dont actually know if the white house knew the quality of that intel though...

I'm not that smart, I'm not that involved, but I remember THE speech and I remember him not presenting a clear and confident message. Somehow, I knew he didn't believe what he was saying

In the end, we know that George had decided to attack Iraq almost from day one of his presidency. IMO the ultimate blame rests with him.

He's a puppet and everyone knows the plan was hatched in 1997 by PNAC.

 

[LordOpie]

i still have a hard time believing the intelligence given by CIA was impartial and free from political influence.

IF the facts ever came out, I'm certain it'll be proven that everything has been politically motivated and manipulated.

but don't hold your breath

 

[BurlyShirley]

IF the facts ever came out, I'm certain it'll be proven that everything has been politically motivated and manipulated.

but don't hold your breath

Well, it basically HAS been proven that the intel was very sketchy,or hell, even ridiculous to begin with, so that it was glorified shows the political manipulation in action. The question is, at what level did these manipulations occur?

 

[Changleen]

Well, I cannot honestly say that because I dont personally know what led to his making the decision. If he himself was given fraudulent evidence, not properly advised by his generals, lied to by Rumsfeld, et al. you know, he could've been doing it all in good faith for all I know.

With the war only hours away from beginning, I had a long talk with a senior Administration official about how it had come about and what it seemed to portend.

“Before September 11th,” the official said, “there wasn’t a consensus Administration view about Iraq. This issue hadn’t come to the fore, and you had Administration views. There were those who preferred regime change, and they were largely residing in the Pentagon, and probably in the Vice-President’s office. At the State Department, the focus was on tightening up the containment regime—so-called ‘smart sanctions.’ The National Security Council didn’t seem to have much of an opinion at that point. But the issue hadn’t really been joined.

“Then, in the immediate aftermath of the eleventh, not that much changed. The focus was on Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda. Some initial attempts by Wolfowitz”—Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense —“and others to draw Iraq in never went anywhere, because the link between Iraq and September 11th was, as far as we know, nebulous at most—nonexistent, for all intents and purposes. It’s somewhere in the first half of 2002 that all this changed. The President internalized the idea of making regime change in Iraq a priority. What I can’t explain to you is exactly the process that took us from the initial post-September 11th position, which was, Let’s keep the focus on Al Qaeda and Afghanistan, to, say, nine months later, when Iraq had moved to the top of the priority list for us. That’s a mystery that nobody has yet uncovered. It clearly has something to do with September 11th, and it’s clearly consistent with the President’s speech about weapons of mass destruction in the hands of rogues, people with a history of some terror—but, again, how it exactly happened, and what was the particular role of Cheney, among others, I wish you well in uncovering.”

What I DO know is that the men who are experts at war, for whatever reason, didnt make the right decisions IMO. Especially Powell, wtf?

PNAC, Dude.

 

[Changleen]

Well, it basically HAS been proven that the intel was very sketchy,or hell, even ridiculous to begin with, so that it was glorified shows the political manipulation in action. The question is, at what level did these manipulations occur?

Is the President not quoted as saying something like "Show me how this was linked to Iraq" after 9/11?

 

[Changleen]

He's a puppet and everyone knows the plan was hatched in 1997 by PNAC.

PNAC are the puppetmasters for sure but he is still the President. That's the trouble with having such a doofus in charge.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Is the President not quoted as saying something like "Show me how this was linked to Iraq" after 9/11?

Im really not trying to get into a debate about this. But, that sketchy evidence I was talking about had to do with a former al queda guy who'd said he was trained in Iraq, etc. Im sure you know what Im talking about. Anyway, if the president wanted regime change, wanted to use Sept. 11 as a way to rally public support, whatever..you know..that's just politics and Im not condemning anyone for that at this point. Im focusing mainly on fighting the war and how wrong it's gone.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Well, it basically HAS been proven that the intel was very sketchy,or hell, even ridiculous to begin with, so that it was glorified shows the political manipulation in action. The question is, at what level did these manipulations occur?

other than circunstacial stuff and reasonable leads, its hard to formally prove manipulation.

its one of those things really hard to formally prove, that will be denied on the grounds of formalism.
but not that necesarilly all things that fall in that gray area are false. is just that in some cases, formal proof is too hard to get and you just have to leave it there, until (if) time tells.

 

[Changleen]

@ Burly: I see what you mean, but when the agenda to go to war is based purely on politics and really divorced from any genuine need, it's pretty hard to seperate that from anything that transpires afterwards. The whole process has been driven by political goals rather than military objectives.

I obviously think that the war was wrong, and maybe the Generals should have been more vocal about their misgivings. I think that a good number of them did have concernes as we can see by the number and bile of those who are criticising Rumy and Bush, but I think in the post 9/11 climate this was very hard to do let alone when Rummy was launching smear campaigns on anyone who said anything out of turn.

 

[Changleen]

Im really not trying to get into a debate about this. But, that sketchy evidence I was talking about had to do with a former al queda guy who'd said he was trained in Iraq, etc. Im sure you know what Im talking about.

I seem to remember that guy or one of those guys turned out to be a member of the anti-Saddam league or similar, and the govenment knew it. He'd have said anything to advance regeime change in Iraq which was a goal he shared with the Administration.

 

[BurlyShirley]

other than circunstacial stuff and reasonable leads, its hard to formally prove manipulation.

its one of those things really hard to formally prove, that will be denied on the grounds of formalism.
but not that necesarilly all things that fall in that gray area are false. is just that in some cases, formal proof is too hard to get and you just have to leave it there, until (if) time tells.

Well, with regard to the Iraq/911 link evidence, we know that the admin has turned around and said "We never said there was any connection" and of course, all of them are on tape talking about the connection at one point or another. The "proof" they had was so erronious that even THEY knew they couldnt rely on it to back up statements they had previously made, so they had to do some doublespeak garbage to skirt the issue. Anyway, point is, they relied on it at one point as a cause for war, and now dont even acknowledge they used it. If that's not manipulation of evidence...

 

[BurlyShirley]

I seem to remember that guy or one of those guys turned out to be a member of the anti-Saddam league or similar, and the govenment knew it. He'd have said anything to advance regeime change in Iraq which was a goal he shared with the Administration.

I know one of the guys was just seeking political asylum from the Saddam regime, and had been caught in numerous lies, and CIA bureau chiefs in europe warned not to use info. given by him, but it was used anyway.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Well, with regard to the Iraq/911 link evidence, we know that the admin has turned around and said "We never said there was any connection" and of course, all of them are on tape talking about the connection at one point or another. The "proof" they had was so erronious that even THEY knew they couldnt rely on it to back up statements they had previously made, so they had to do some doublespeak garbage to skirt the issue. Anyway, point is, they relied on it at one point as a cause for war, and now dont even acknowledge they used it. If that's not manipulation of evidence...

am talking about the intelligence and its possible manipulation.
they can flipflop on whether they said "there was a connection" but you have proof on what they had actually said and call them out.

but they can sustain for long the "we firmly believed in the intelligence, and said intelligence was the best (as in non manipulated and objetive to reality) we have, so we made the decision based on it (instead of the other way around)" because that is what is too hard to prove false.

 

[Changleen]

Esssentially the actual evidence was:

1) A couple of photos of trucks from satellites which pro-regeime change Iraqi disidents said were something to do with chemical weapons manufacture.

2) Same pro-regeime change dudes talking smack about what was going on inside Iraq.

3) Manufactured (weak) circumstantial evidence on the part of the Bush Administration of Saddam's 'plans' to go nuclear, which they had strong refuting evidence for, but choose to not only ignore but supress and use smear tactics to help that supression.

 

[Changleen]

Damn I can't spell today.

 

[BurlyShirley]

am talking about the intelligence and its possible manipulation.
they can flipflop on whether they said "there was a connection" but you have proof on what they had actually said and call them out.

but they can sustain for long the "we firmly believed in the intelligence, and said intelligence was the best (as in non manipulated and objetive to reality) we have, so we made the decision based on it (instead of the other way around)" because that is what is too hard to prove false.

see my last post. I beleive the info. was proven false BEFORE they used it, yet they chose to use it anyway. I seem to remember in this documentary, that CIA member in europe told the admin that evidence provided by this guy was fraudulent...

 

[Changleen]

see my last post. I beleive the info. was proven false BEFORE they used it, yet they chose to use it anyway. I seem to remember in this documentary, that CIA member in europe told the admin that evidence provided by this guy was fraudulent...

Ditto the whole Uranium thing, which led to the whole Valerie Plame affair.

 

[fluff]

What blame? Isn't it all going to plan?

 

[WarEagle2K]

i dont believe generals are the ones to blame. the problem, imo, were the political goals, not the military manuevers. i think the US goals (for the lack of better word) for iraq were mutually exclusive.

they wanted people to feel "liberated". they went in without any strong support or coalition from within (a pre-existing anti-saddam guerrilla) so needed a good image and good PR with the people. yet at the same time, wanted to wipe out the guerrillas.

effectively fighting guerrillas necesarily means non-partisan people will die at a high rate. which in turn, damages the image of the liberator, defeats one of the "goals", and make otherwise neutral folks swing to their fallen peers and guerrillas for sympathy/revenge.
i dont see, realistically, how can generals can effectively manuever around those constrains.

Well Said!!! I think you described the situation wonderfully.