Comments Posted By andy
Displaying 61 To 70 Of 258 Comments
Ed,
You're right, he leads the effort, and that leadership has been lacking. But that is a separate issue from building, funding, organizing, and supplying the military - all of which fall under the perview of Congress. The executive commands the military and prosecutes wars authorized by Congress. If Congress wanted to end the war tomorrow, they could, but obviously they're divided on the issue. That's what democracy is all about.
Comment Posted By Andy On 1.05.2007 @ 20:07
All the more reason to wonder why the US Army was never increased in size to cope with the threats worldwide, why those injured in battle still are not dealt with adequately by the VA, why reseves of every vital store of the Army is in short supply, and why the leader of this nation refuses to step forward and ask for the sacrifices needed to win.
I’m thinking politics. The politicis of preserving tax cuts for millionaires and $2.00 gas rather than going on a wartime footing.
When George Bush really gets serious about the war he launched you let me know.
GWB has little control over the items you cite. Congress decides how big the Army will be and how it will be structured. Congress funds the VA, Congress buys equipment for the military, including spares. Congress authorized the war and continues to do so today, despite the new rhetoric.
If you want someone to blame for not building a military up to the task, you need to blame Congress.
Comment Posted By Andy On 1.05.2007 @ 17:13
Rick,
Excellent explanation. The simple fact of the matter is that we have never been able to provide security in Iraq. We couldn't provide security when we were "only" facing a Sunni/AQI insurgency. Our post-Samarra civil war/multi-faceted insurgency operations have not been any more successful. In short, we've failed for four straight years to provide security - the foundation for all our other goals. The surge may provide a decrease in violence in Baghdad, but the level of troops we currently have committed to Iraq is unsustainable. The Army is burning the candle at both ends and is basically a broken force now. Once this surge ends, troop levels will have to decrease dramatically and what then? Violence will likely increase once more. The damage done to the Army will take years to repair.
You talk about the underlying assumptions and that is key. Look at Operation Market Garden in WWII. (Google it if you don't know the history). The operation was designed to establish a bridgehead across the Rhine in what was thought to be a weak point in the German defenses. The operation had many tactical and operational successes but was ultimately a strategic failure because the bridgehead was never acheived. As events unfolded, it became clear to the military leaders after a certain point that a bridgehead would not be attained. At that point, the objectives changed and the original aim was wisely abandoned.
We are at a similar crossroads in Iraq. We've had tactical and operations successes, but we have had no strategic victory and, in fact, we are facing strategic defeat. Those who use terms like "surrender monkey" and "sunshine patriot" would have pressed-on with Market Garden even after it became clear the operation was a failure. Ending Market Garden short of it's goals was not surrender nor was it unpatriotic - it was a wise a noble course of action. Wasting valuable combat power in futile attempts at continuing the fight is not patriotic - it is stupid. Gallipoli is another example. The Armchair Generals who spout "surrender monkey" are the same sort that ordered charge after futile charge in vain attempts at "victory." Wisdom in warfare is knowing when objectives are unattainable given the realities of the situation. Inflexibility in a wartime environment and failing to adjust to changing conditions often results in disaster. The battlefields of history are strewn with examples.
The people today who are excoriating you, Rick, insist we continue the fight but have no real ideas or solutions that would result in achieving our strategic objectives. Their only arguments basically boil down to avoiding the consequences of defeat. A strategy whose sole purpose appears to be preventing defeat is a doomed strategy. Armchair Generals who know nothing of actual military operations can postulate that victory only requires greater will and perseverance or whatever. That they attack you only shows they have no idea how to actually achieve strategic success. If we had the capability to keep 200k+ troops in Iraq for 5-10 more years we might achieve success, but that is impossible. But we can barely keep 160k troops in Iraq for a single year and the time constraints imposed by domestic politics means success will have to come quickly. Quick success on a timetable is anathema to a successful COIN operation.
So, you are right on the money Rick. Failure to question assumptions and clinging to increasingly vague notions of victory serves no interest but ego. Failure to reevaluate strategies often results in a situation worse than defeat. If some of your critics were in charge in WWII we might still be trying to take that bridge over the Rhine today.
It's time to redefine our objectives and have a serious debate on where to go from here. Neither party seems interested in such a debate nor in exploring alternatives - a bad omen that could lead to disaster.
Comment Posted By Andy On 30.04.2007 @ 12:45
TIME IS NOW THE BIGGEST ENEMY IN IRAQ
Rick,
Sounds like I'm one of the guys this post was aimed at. Overall I liked it and would agree that the fundamental problem we face is a time constraint. The public was simply not prepared for the level of commitment required because, for whatever reason one wants to provide, the administration and senior military leadership did not plan for the multi-year commitment of the bulk of US ground combat power. It's really as simple as that. A quick war with a relatively painless transition was what people expected and those expectations were not met. Failure to meet the people's expectations in a democracy is dangerous when one embarks on a war of choice, even if the war was justified. And make no mistake, it was a war of choice, no matter what one's view of it's necessity is or was.
I wish I could be sad about the negative political currents in the country at the moment, the mindless partisan bickering, but it's difficult when the Iraqi people are facing oblivion and several of my friends are laying their lives on the line in what appears to be an increasingly futile attempt to keep them out of the void. So many in this country, particularly the political class, are wholly ignorant of the situation we face in Iraq, how terms like "victory" and "defeat" become increasingly muddled to border on meaninglessness. Kat seems a perfect example - one who cannot fathom the difference between surrender and disengagement. Others on the right ask "if America loses, then who wins" without realizing that not all wars have victors. The left is equally ignorant suggesting that Iraq cannot come together until the US leaves. Gen. Petraeus is perhaps one of the few who really understands the nature of the conflict:
The operational environment in Iraq is the most complex and challenging I have ever seen -- much more complex than it was when I left last in September 2005, and vastly more complex than what I recall in Central America, Haiti and the Balkans in previous tours in those locations.
This "war" (another term that has lost meaning) is exceedingly complex and difficult, though I, too, believe, many of our objectives could be met given time. But we don't have time. Almost six months ago, I wrote about preparing contingencies in case our adventure in Iraq unravels. At the time, I proposed choosing a proxy to mitigate the effects of a full-blown civil war and provide a means to defend American interests in the region and argued that the US should consider and prepare for such contingencies.
More than ever, it's time to look at contingencies again. In that regard I recently ran across this valuable piece of scholarship from the Brookings Institution. After reading it, I must reevaluate my earlier proposal to support a proxy as an Iraq contingency plan. Everyone should read the report because with each passing day the chance of meaningful success in Iraq lessens and the specter of a bloody regional ethnic and sectarian war grows. With each passing day, in my mind, it grows more important to work on preventing the worst of what can happen. Neither the Republican stay-the-course victory plan, nor the Democrat get-out-now plan address the likely future in Iraq, nor do they address how to preserve some semblance of stability and American influence in the region. We cannot afford to have this debate and pull a plan for this contingency out of our collective fourth point of contact days, weeks, or even months before it happens. We must plan for it NOW. The Brooking's analysis is an excellent starting point and I would hope that everyone reading this will read it, or at least read the executive summary. It's honestly worth your time.
Here are the posts/articles again that I linked to above in case the text-links don't work:
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=11013
Comment Posted By Andy On 28.04.2007 @ 00:07
http://www.nonpartisanpundit.com/2006/11/in_case_iraq_fa.html
http://media.brookings.edu/MediaArchive/fp/jan2007iraq_civilwar.pdf
CHANGING TIMES DEMAND TELLING THE TRUTH IN WARTIME
A someone who spent a career in the military, I condemn the actions of the Army in this incident in the strongest possible way. There is no excuse. There was a conspiracy - perhaps not a huge one that permeated the entire military establishment, but certainly one among at least a few key players to hide the truth. Tillman got the silver star for actions that day - his silver star citation is a complete lie.
Tillman was a hero but that is all tarnished now because of the actions of the Army. I say the Army because I think the problem lies there - not with the DoD, not with the OSD, not with the other services.
No excuse. Dishonor. Heads should roll, but knowing the spineless senior leadership in the Army, they won't.
Comment Posted By Andy On 25.04.2007 @ 08:28
O'REILLY AND GERALDO LOSE IT ON AIR
A complete tragedy. O'Reilly went to far this time. He's going off the deep end more and more lately - I really think he needs a vacation. His message is getting obscured by the actions of the messenger - the conduct on his show will do nothing to further the cause he supports.
Even so, I though both Geraldo and O'Reilly had points. The thing is, why is someone who is obviously a serial drunk driver not in jail? If this person had been an American it still would be a failure of law enforcement, imo.
Comment Posted By Andy On 6.04.2007 @ 08:31
BRITS YAWN AS IRAN DECLARES WAR
I watched a little bit of CNN international today and they had a lot of outraged Brits from the HMS Cornwall's home port in southern England. Not surprising considering the local connection.
Comment Posted By Andy On 29.03.2007 @ 13:19
Rick,
Public attitudes aside, I don't think the Brits have played this wrong so far. I think the Iranians have overreached here and there is an opportunity to make them pay short of war. I believe in this case that time is on our side and Iran's bellicosity since they took these hostages will play to our favor.
There is still plenty of time and there will still be cause to kick the crap out of them if the Brits are not released - no need for that yet imo.
The lack of reaction by the British public is curious. There seemed to be a little more outrage when they were shown on TV, but not the level that I would expect.
Comment Posted By Andy On 29.03.2007 @ 09:00
ASTONISHING CYNICISM SHOWN BY THE DEMOCRATS
Thanks Rick,
The thing that bothers me about these latest democratic proposals is just how you laid it out. I can respect - totally respect - those opposed to the war and I can even respect, to a certain degree, those who believe we have no hope of "winning." And you're right, defining terms is important here and many people have differing definitions of what "winning" means. The thing that really irks me, that you laid out really well, is how unprincipled the largely Democratic opposition to the war in Congress really is. The pork-vote buying, the intrusion of Congress into the power of the Executive as Commander-in-Chief, the obvious and blatant way the Democrats are going about this to protect themselves politically. Calling the Democrats out on this doesn't mean that I support Republicans - in fact I think if the roles were reversed there's a good chance Republicans would do something similar.
And that's really what bothers me. Partisanship has gotten to the point in this country where it's being put above the lives of my friends, brothers and sisters currently serving in Iraq. If you don't support the war and support the troops (two ideas I believe are not mutually exclusive), then defund the war, amend or repeal the AUMF and end it and take responsibility for whatever happens. That's Congress' duty and they've been shirking their responsibilities for far too long.
The victory-defeat part of your post didn't bother me at all. I can honestly see why some consider the war already a defeat even though I don't agree with that position. My opinion is that the victory-defeat debate is the one we ought to be having. None of our political leaders on either side are debating what level of victory we should aim for at this point. Everyone is talking past each other using terms like "win," "lose," "victory," "defeat" with no real context on what those mean to short or long-term American strategic interests, to say nothing of the consequences of various alternatives to American interests. Completely missing from most Democratic talking points (with a few notable exceptions) is any discussion of what strategic interests we have in Iraq and what course of action we should take to preserve those interests. It's just "get out, get out, get out." The Republicans are marginally better but they haven't laid out a compelling and cogent case either. What are our interests? How can we best secure them? How long is it likely to take? If our goals are unrealistic (a secure, stable, democratic Iraq), then what alternatives should we examine? That's what our political leaders should be discussing, imo.
So in my moderate view, your post was pretty much on with respect to the Democratic side. A lot of your language was "read meat" but the ideas behind the language are not.
Comment Posted By Andy On 28.03.2007 @ 12:06
Good post Rick. Opposition to the war is a valid and honorable point of view, but those who share it should work to end the war with constitutional means - either defunding it entirely, and/or repealing the AUMF.
Comment Posted By Andy On 28.03.2007 @ 10:02
