Lead GOP Sen: If no progress in Iraq in 90 days, all options open (includ.withdrawal)

[mididoctors]

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

I agree. We need some fresh new ideas, because the people giving us our options now have broken rhetoric.

try this

some new thinking on the topic pdf

Boris
London

[Diamond Cross]

Oh let's just nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

[Diamond Cross]

Question: is it our political leaders micro-managing our troops over there or our troops being left alone to be able to do the job more efficiently? If it is the interference of our political leaders, that could be one of the biggest reasons why things are such a mess over there. It was how we'd lost Vietnam, through political micro-management.

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by mididoctors

try this

some new thinking on the topic pdf

Boris
London

Actually, there is alot in that document that I agree with. I think since we set up their government, we need to listen to what their government wants. That was an interesting read, you should forward it to Rumsfield... I'm giggling because it is laid out so simply, and in terms he'd probably understand.

[mididoctors]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Question: is it our political leaders micro-managing our troops over there or our troops being left alone to be able to do the job more efficiently? If it is the interference of our political leaders, that could be one of the biggest reasons why things are such a mess over there. It was how we'd lost Vietnam, through political micro-management.

there is a large amount of micro management..not just from political leaders


"effects based warfare" has a large micro manage component.

effects based warfare as a doctrine has precursors but Iraq was the first full scale test... not good.

the problem is political intervention is inevitable because the war aims were to a large degree centered around the war being a political message/tool.


the doc puts it quite well

"The idea that Iraq would somehow become a democracy and example that would transform the region was a pathetic neoconservative fantasy from the start, and an initial probability approaching zero will not change in the future. This does not mean that things cannot be much better in Iraq, but political compromise, conciliation, and day-to-day security must have priority and reform must come at the pace Iraqis want, not the US. Any workable strategy must be based on “encourage” and not “impose.” "


if you wanted a clean battlefield you can just waste everything... but the rational for mass destruction was lacking as the war was only launched on the understanding of moral and technical superiority.

humane targeting was a phrase actually used

the post modern blitzkreig of "effects based" warfare failed to deliver the political victory just as the blitzkrieg did


cycles of military doctrine changing the face of warfare then revert to the old ways is perhaps the lesson of warfare.

most radical uses of new doctrine lead to successes based on manuver but in time all conflicts revert to some sort of attrition.

can you gain ground be it political geographic or material at a rate faster than you can lose it based on strength of your "reserve base" compared to your enemies?

it is all to easy to go back and say "if only".. most revision will throw up reasons why leaders during the vietnam war didn't do this or that...

opportunities are missed. Rumsfeld's refusal to admit the troop numbers were too low in june 2003 and the disbanding of the Iraqi army are clear mistakes.. but he was largely the architect of this disaster so he would back his own horse.... its pretty clear who is to blame technically

he is not a man of integrity.. you can give him the benefit of the doubt he believed in his cause (thou i doubt that) but the state of denial he is in and a refusal to resign (or not being allowed to resign some say) is appalling.

Boris
London

[avsp]

Do the numerous current attempts to manage a 'downshift' in expectations & goals provides an opportunity for a more widespread accurate understanding of what has happened?

Originally Posted by UK Chief of the General Staff Sir Richard Dannatt

"I think history will show that the planning for what happened after the initial successful war fighting phase was poor, probably based more on optimism than sound planning," he said.
"The original intention was that we put in place a liberal democracy that was an exemplar for the region, was pro West and might have a beneficial effect on the balance within the Middle East."
"That was the hope, whether that was a sensible or naïve hope history will judge. I don’t think we are going to do that. I think we should aim for a lower ambition."

Army chief declares war on Blair: 'We must quit Iraq soon' | the Daily Mail

Dannatt is calling for withdrawal 'sometime soon' & his tone seems to one of 'for the good of the Army'
BBC NEWS | UK | Army chief defends Iraq comments

He also makes comments that may be seen as 'caving into pressure' from the threat of terrorism from dissaffected UK Muslims

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/li...2_20061013.ram

[mididoctors]

Originally Posted by avsp

Do the numerous current attempts to manage a 'downshift' in expectations & goals provides an opportunity for a more widespread accurate understanding of what has happened?


Army chief declares war on Blair: 'We must quit Iraq soon' | the Daily Mail

Dannatt is calling for withdrawal 'sometime soon' & his tone seems to one of 'for the good of the Army'
BBC NEWS | UK | Army chief defends Iraq comments

He also makes comments that may be seen as 'caving into pressure' from the threat of terrorism from dissaffected UK Muslims

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/li...2_20061013.ram

well the truth will out in the end.. i guess.

t as far as "lower" or "more realistic" aims go I suspect those who suggested the whole thing was a bad idea because of X,Y & Z will be the ones who have to redefine the war aims and try and salvage something


this process is ongoing... but i must say even cordesmen is wildly optimistic and somewhat naive in what he thinks is possible. and he limits the objectives to Iraq... he even tries to break with a global energy interest via multi-lateralism (this can not be under estimated)

It is possible we have passed a point of no return on all this.. which might actually be a argument for losing as quick as possible!

the shift in geo political balance has already occurred a process of "cutting off" the US strategic bridgehead on the eurasian land mass is under way

US strategy to encircle the caspian basin and retrench in the gulf is rapidly falling apart.

this is being actively attacked in a rather though manner by both china and russia who are respectively either cutting off energy access to US sealanes or building new corridors of transport that make traditional movements of economic activity less important

the so called use of "soft power"

the US can only counter geography by the use military force and the promise of freedom (we are the good guys etc)..and its not working.. there is little incentive for russia or china to re engage with the US as the US has little to offer..though it has some leverage with china. the US has gained nothing by this venture and its asset of military superiroty is discredited as being effective for anything

the US predicament of being bogged down in Iraq is a bonus (though still a risky concern) for many players who are "free" to act..and who MUST act

on the US part there is little option.. and i differ here with cordesmen in that the options extend well beyond Iraq.. there are three basic options all painfull/risky

my order of preference

1) work to cut the per capita energy use of US citizens in half in the interim and invest in alternative energy solutions... abandon the eurasian land mass and come to terms with the geo economic reality that the energy resources from over there should stay there... don't swim upstream against large political and economic realities

2) re-engage at a mult-ilaterial level with eurasian landmass and make a deal that gets you what you want... I see little chance of this primarily because the other players are as full of shit as the USA and will grab what they can and secondly the US has less and less to offer..an extention of cordesmens ideas on a macro level...why can't we all just get along

3) draft 500,000-1million+ young men and women and fight your way into central asia by military and economic means.. switch to a closet command economy.. this is likely to lead to WW3 so you better be prepared to go the whole way... frankly i think its a bad idea

as for the WoT and these jihadist guys... well whatever... that lot are likely to wipe themselves out given the opportunity..though i see we are learning fast how to do that own goal thing..

I favor option 1 with a slice of option 2 thrown in myself

Boris
London

[six6ftr]

This debate will go on for years, in a nutshell it was badly planned, ill supported, poorly executed and now we are stuck. I spent 15 months of my life over there in a politcal tug of war where the rules of war changed everyday. They say the care about the troops? That is a bunch of Bull! I could go on forever with how our great leaders talk a good game in front of the cameras but push a different agenda behind the scenes. Never believe the spin!

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by six6ftr

This debate will go on for years, in a nutshell it was badly planned, ill supported, poorly executed and now we are stuck. I spent 15 months of my life over there in a politcal tug of war where the rules of war changed everyday. They say the care about the troops? That is a bunch of Bull! I could go on forever with how our great leaders talk a good game in front of the cameras but push a different agenda behind the scenes. Never believe the spin!

They have to be pushing a different agenda to the troops, because the agenda they push on the public is inane and makes no sense. Everyone gets a different story as to why we went, and why we are still there.

[avsp]

Originally Posted by mididoctors

3) draft 500,000-1million+ young men and women and fight your way into central asia by military and economic means.. switch to a closet command economy.. this is likely to lead to WW3 so you better be prepared to go the whole way... frankly i think its a bad idea

Seeing how we are cvering all the bases here.

I've seen it suggested that instead of drafting Americans there could be increased promotion of the recruitment of 3rd worlders with a promise of US citizenship. (IIUC such a 'citizenship for service' scheme already exists)

Either way, no matter what action is taken the public must be behind it.

The problem of timing any inititive with the US electorial cycle further complicates things, ..., but then perhaps not?

Lastly I saw Baker & his crew ('neo-con b team'?) are planning to release some proposals after the mid-terms.

[mididoctors]

Originally Posted by avsp

Seeing how we are cvering all the bases here.

I've seen it suggested that instead of drafting Americans there could be increased promotion of the recruitment of 3rd worlders with a promise of US citizenship. (IIUC such a 'citizenship for service' scheme already exists)

Either way, no matter what action is taken the public must be behind it.

The problem of timing any inititive with the US electorial cycle further complicates things, ..., but then perhaps not?

Lastly I saw Baker & his crew ('neo-con b team'?) are planning to release some proposals after the mid-terms.

well go recruit the legions from where you can

I think its a non starter because the political will just ain't there... as for Baker we are all ears on new ideas..

scott B summarized the current options sold to the public as

stay the course (police Iraq like northern Island on steroids for 25yrs+)

cut and run (US defeat and geo political rout)

Blow it up (Bakers divide Iraq along sectarian lines)

thats some set of choices

Boris
London

[avsp]

With Blair 'agreeing with every word' that Dannatt said it looks like the whole 'contoversy' is a set up to give Blair an exit strategy before he steps down, ..., with the added bonus of reinforcing NATO in A'stan.

Failure of will/commitment all round IMO, ..., but possibly understandable given the fashion in which it was sold, inflated expectations, irrelevant justifications etc.

The reports of troop support for Dannatt's comments are worrying, ..., especially in light of the reported morale concerns in A'stan


Splitting Iraq in 3 just gives all sides plenty of excuse to fight about the boarders later. Leaving aside the plight of the Iraqis this has some advantages if nobody wins, ..., but again its very risky, extremely uncertain & basically just wrong morally.

OTOH, assuming we dont all blow each other up in the meantime, such a partition might be what results from a civil war of attrition anyway

But now I'm wandering into pointless speculation

BTW separated at birth Dannatt & Austins nemesis?