It’s probably not a surprise that they stuck to officers. Would a low-level grunt really feel able to tell it like it is without repercussions? Anyway, how do the wealthy, influential members of the committee who’s children aren’t ‘permitted’ to risk death over there really talk honestly to those who may be dead before they get the mess they helped create sorted out?
The Iraq Study Group talked to generals when it should have talked to corporals
For all of the time they spent learning about America’s war in Iraq, the Iraq Study Group failed to study the war at its most critical level: that of the grunts. Nothing makes this clearer than the report’s appendix, which lists scores of men and women interviewed for the report, but none below the rank of lieutenant colonel. Iraq is what the Marines call a “three block war”—where U.S. troops might distribute reconstruction aid on one block, separate warring parties on the next block, and engage in a high-intensity firefight on the third. The actions of “strategic corporals” and captains matter most for small wars of this character. It is at their level where the war will be won or lost. It speaks volumes that the panel did not take the time to hear any of these grunt-level voices while in Iraq or back in the United States, or at least did not bother to list their names as authoritative sources for their report. If nothing else, the panel should have interviewed a few Iraq veterans and their families for political purposes, given the lingering questions over who serves when not all serve.
The Baker-Hamilton commission also suggests a major overhaul for Iraq’s government, from a review of the constitution (recommendation 26) to housecleaning at the Ministry of the Interior (No. 50, No. 51, No. 53, and No. 60). These are positive steps, too. But they ignore a reality which is all too familiar to those of us who worked at the ground level of this war. American solutions to Iraqi problems rarely work, and they are almost never sustainable. This is a common mistake made by U.S. officials regarding Iraq—that somehow, we can simply impose our will on the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people because we know best and we have technology and money.
Not to mention, the Iraqi people!
I think the biggest issue was the iraq study group all together, it is futile, Bush cannot and will not listen to reason, so why have it to begin, with, he is going to stay the course.
Didn’t Kerry prove that these grunts were stupid?! Maybe the researchers were simply unable to talk to those idiots.
The report is nothing more than hogwash written by old men attempting a whitewash. Now that the report has been submitted, the current administration can talk about all the ‘Moving Forward’ plans they have while yet , pretty much at the Iraqi local level, the situation will remain the same. Our troops will remain targets, the oil will get pumped, the militant factions will continue their agenda and the Iraqi common person will be screwed, both by the coalition and by their own people.
It really doesn’t matter who the study group interviewed. The ‘Study Group’ is replete with old, conservative, pseudo-intellectual, elitists, that spout their rhetoric while saying nothing new or innovative. Puppet talk, by puppets, for puppet masters.
The US is staying in Iraq until the oil runs dry. Period.
A soldier’s job is to take orders – the response you expect from a soldier on the topic of Iraq is predictable and has been demonstrated time and again. Sure there are exceptions, but they only highlight the most common trend – “must…support…leadership…crackle”
Im surprised the Iraq Study Group was able to stay awake long enough publish their findings. Each one is older than the next!!
#3 SN
I hope you’re being sarcastic, because I was one of those “idiots.” An idiot enlisted man with a bachelor’s degree; just because you carry a weapon and are called a “grunt” doesn’t mean you’re stupid. Quite the opposite.Most of the stupidity in this conflict has been at the top. I have pretty much no faith in the President or Congress to do the right thing, and the Generals are in the same boat…nothing but a bunch of yes-men. I think it’s sad that the lowest rank they interviewed was a Lt. Col, none of those guys is really in the know about what’s going on. And Iraq is huge, there’s alot going on. (Which, by the way, is one of the military blunders as I saw it, micromanagment of such a huge beast). However, I digress. I got out of the military. Do I still qualify for idiot status?
I wish they would Split the city into Quads.. Let each Quad monitor and police itself, as they know who Lives there, and who needs to BE there.
It could/would restrict alot of terror, and bombing, and Those shooting and running wouldnt find it easy to get out.
then let each section select a few to gather and discuss what is happening, and what can be done. And kick out any that WONT/DONT want to cooperate and work together as a GROUP.
Let our military sit on the side lines and be a LAST recourse, and Police the OUTSIDE, monitor those going In and out… weapons and such have to be coming from Some place, and I dont think there are many Inside the city, unless they Stock piled them already. But, even if they have, they WILL run out…. Make it a Siege warfare, NOT gorilla.
#7 – of course he’s being sarcastic. You must not have heard of Kerry’s recent comments that essentially said “get an education or you’ll end up in Iraq.”.
Check out the picture at the bottom here to see what some of your contemporaries thought of Mr. Kerry.
Oops mistyped my link. Try . Gives the whole story and pictures.
While the study may not have been a bad idea, it is not the sort of thing that should have been made public. Policy is the domain of the President. Even if this current President doesn’t appreciate suggestion, that is where the suggestions should go. By putting this out for public comment means the President doesn’t control the policy, others do. Only fools want public opinion, aka mob rule, to make policy.
Then I see no reason to interview lower level men and women. They are not involved in setting policy on the ground. The lower levels follow the policy and the orders of the command structure, that end with the President. They should have a micro view of the situation. The command levels have the macro view of troop deployments, equipment available and needed, attacks, insurgency hideouts and concentrations, etc.
11,
But isnt Democracy, BASICALLY Mob rule??
#11……but those ARE the people who count. They are the ones facing the enemy on an hourly basis. What they have to say is damned important.
We read stories on a regular basis of things that the **grunts** have come up with to help them stay alive and fight effectively…..those things weren’t thought of by the brass or the civilians running the show.
Iraq is a series of small wars under the cover of a supposed larger war. Those small wars are fought and won by the Captains, and Corporals and Privates, not by politicians or Generals. The days of a Colonel or General leading his troops are apparently gone. Most , if not all of our Generals are political appointee’s not there by any more experience than just accumulated years of service and ass kissing.
From the begining this war was fought on the cheap, because thats what the civilians running the show wanted, in order to placate the American public and the politicians. If the Generals were worth anything they should have told the politicians that to win would require casualties, but they didn’t, they were to busy puckering up for promotion. This war should not have been fought in the first place, but once it was, the military should have been able to run it as a war, and not as a politicians game. The American public should have been told that war produces death and destruction, not great video shots of the bombs blowing up over Baghdad on the plasma screen at home.
The media is to blame as well, they keep reminding us that this war is now going past WWII in length, well, so what…..3000 troops have died in 5 years, thats not even a weeks worth of death in a war that is being fought to be won.
This commission is a joke…..it’s solutions are tantamount to giving up. While I agree we need to talk to the moderate Arab states, I don’t agree with giving Iran and Syria a free pass to do as they please. While we should be engaging Israel and Palistine, we should not be endorsing nukes for Iran and a free hand in Lebanon for Syria.
It’s time to come home, or tell the American people that the stakes are to high to lose and fight an agressive, all out war that we plan to win.
How many military people did they put in that commission? What is Sandra Day O’Connor doing there?
#11: Wrong. You can’t make good policy if you don’t know what’s going on down to the bottom-most levels. If mid and high-level managers (officers) are slanting the truth (putting it kindly) because it advances their careers, furthers an agenda, etc, then those at the top can’t set policy properly. This is one of many factors in what happened with Viet Nam. Of course, when ideology is more important than fact, then getting more facts won’t make a difference until it all collapses because policy was based on fantasy. This is Iraq.
#12, no.
Mob rule is everyone wanting their own agenda. Democracy is giving everyone an equal voice. Democracies do this by electing representative to meet and govern for the good of all.
#13, you are partly right. The strength of any organization rests on the ability or quality of their workforce. You make a good point about the troops on the ground coming up with novel ideas to confront new obstacles. Resourcefulness is always an admirable attribute.
You make your error by confusing implementation with policy. Those on the ground can only do the job given them to the best of their abilities. This applies to any organization, be it military, industrial, or even in a bank. What ever the boss decides is policy, is how the organization runs.
Of course, every bottom rung employee or private thinks they know how to run the Army or company better then those actually charged with running it.
If you look at what the military did, they performed their jobs and won the war. What they failed to do was win the peace. The policy setter decided that the Americans (and British) would be welcomed with flowers in the street. For whatever reason that didn’t happen and the occupation has devolved into what we have today, a civil war. The purpose of the Commission was to develop some ideas about what to do now, not how to win the war.
17: “The policy setter decided that the Americans (and British) would be welcomed with flowers in the street.”
That’s the key phrase that explains the problem with your analysis. The knowledge of the low level people on the ground was ignored. Of course those on the bottom don’t set policy. But they implement it and see the results of that implementation, observations which may never get back to those making the policy.
When I ran the companies that I did, I listened to the people out front dealing with the day to day issues. I used that in setting policy. I would have been a fool not to solicit comments and listen to them.
If the goal is to take ivory tower theory (which the whole neo-con philosophy was) and implement it without regard to the real world, ignore those who are tasked with doing so and their feedback on what works and what doesn’t, you are an ideolog who is more interested in proving a point than achieving a workable result.
Implement all the policy you want at the top, but if you don’t check up on every level the effects, the costs and efficacy of that policy, you are a bad leader and should be removed.
“If you look at what the military did, they performed their jobs and won the war.”
Actually, they didn’t. The fighting continued after “mission accomplished” because those at the top didn’t set out to fight the right kind of war, just like in Viet Nam. It was made far worse by not winning the peace, of course, but that was because the root causes weren’t and still aren’t being addressed. Ignoring that most in the mid East don’t want democracy and other Western influences thrust down their throats so it will make it easier to take their oil is why it can’t be won. If those in the White House understood the culture they were mucking around in, if they had listened to the experts who where on the ground and spoke the language at the very least, they would have seen the folly and disaster for what it was to become.
#15,
There are over 130,000 American troops in Iraq this morning. I’m very sure that most of them have a sufficient degree of intelligence that they could have given some input if asked. But I don’t expect a machine operator or soldier to understand the macro machinations of a large operation with the same understanding as the top guy no matter how much they question their leadership or think they could do a better job.
No one from the Commission visited me and asked for my opinion either. I doubt they asked you for your opinion either.
The Commission might have been better composed of former State Department officials, Political Scientists professors and analysts, and retired military leaders. What I don’t expect on a Commission like this are political leaders, Lance Corporals, or truck drivers. The Commission was tasked with policy, not implementation.
#19: But if you don’t examine the implementation — how and if it worked or didn’t — you’re wasting your time making policy that will fail for lack of understanding.