Bush didn’t come up with this plan himself. So how is it he is able to consistently find and surround himself with exactly the wrong people who give him screwy advice? He sure seems to have an uncanny knack for it.
Hawks knock surge plan’s command structure
As the Senate nears an unprecedented debate on President Bush’s escalation of the Iraq war, almost all the public criticism has been aimed at the inadequate size of the new forces being sent to Baghdad (21,500 troops) and the extreme difficulty of reversing the course of the civil war. But last week, little noticed by the press and public, the Bush plan began to be attacked on a surprising new front — by Iraq hawks, like Sen. John McCain, concerned that the split command structure for the operation violates basic military doctrine.
The Baghdad surge plan, announced by the president on Jan. 10, calls for the new U.S. soldiers to be embedded with Iraqi forces, who will take the lead. But while the U.S. troops would report to American officers, their Iraqi counterparts, in an apparent sop to national sovereignty, would report to Iraqi officers. The potentially disastrous result: two separate and independent command structures within the same military operation.
“I know of no successful military operation where you have dual command,” McCain told Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, the new commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing last Tuesday. Petraeus, heralded by the Bush White House as the man who would make the surge work, signaled his agreement, telling McCain, “Sir, I share your concern.”
For military experts, who have long questioned the Bush strategy in Iraq, the dual command structure is just the latest in a long chain of avoidable errors. “It just shows you how flawed the whole scheme is,” said retired Lt. Gen. William Odom, who was once the Army’s senior intelligence officer, in an interview. Odom lamented that Iraq has been “just a bad nightmare” from the start. He said this White House continues to make mistakes that are “so painfully clear that sometimes I think I might be crazy.”
I really don’t care to comment anymore, except to say… Can we just impeach this incompetent fucktard already?
I mean, Jesus, what does it take?
I’ll give him a blow job myself if that will get the job done.
wow
That’s a fairly simple command structure. I dare anyone to figure out NATO’s! The fact is the U.S. military does not want our troops under the command of any foreigner, all the way up to the President. It’s a hard thing to do in this multilateral world.
You’ve had enough practice on me to where I’m sure you’ll make Bush very happy.
american soldiers reporting to american officers,,how dare they!!!wait a minute,, i mean iraq soldiers reporting to iraq officers..in their own country..well that just isn’t right..the irony is that many americans believe that comment..
Saddam is dead… mission accomplished.
Weapons of mass destruction are accounted for and no longer a threat… mission accomplished.
Voting has taken place, a constitution is in place… mission accomplished.
That’s three for three. We should go home now.
If the population of Iraq wants to self destruct, there is not much we can do about it. We gave them all the tools and support necessary to help themselves, but they are bent on self-destruction. It’s like trying to save a man that is intent on committing suicide… you can stop it for a while, but in the end he will succeed.
Until another strongman takes over and starts putting down the ‘insurgents’ with no qualms, there will be no ‘security’ in Iraq. Iraqui’s don’t want or respect democracy… they are tribal, and only respect totalitarian leadership.
America’s Plan ‘B’
a) step back pretending that we are withdrawing with honor, while at the same time..
b) support a “coup d’etat” by some general of our choice in the Iraqi army, and then say…
c) we can’t really fight the Iraqi army, so we will let the country stabilize under the new dictator.
So there we have it, we replace Saddam with a new strongman of our choice, he quenches the ‘insurgency’ and forces peace in Iraq. Think Pakistan.
The fact that that choice has bitten us in the ass repeatedly in the past is kinda irrelevant at this point.
We must consider the thought that perhaps all of these obvious errors might be because he -wants- us to loose, and our military capability to be destroyed. Why else try and attack Iran at this point, given that the result would likely be the loss of a carrier battle group at the least? How better to take over a nation by force than to make sure that their forces are dispursed, defunded, and demorallized? Manchurian candidate, anyone?
“The potentially disastrous result: two separate and independent command structures within the same military operation.”
Unity of command is the principle here, whether or not the competing commanders are US or Iraqi. It is not just US military doctrine, this is something that armies have known for centuries.
And as a side note, this is not a “surge” this is a “trickle.” US troops are being committed to this fight piecemeal, not as a single overwhelming force. Another in the long string of violation of fundamental military doctrines.
All of the above is a recipe for certain failure. If the Bush White House did not have a long history of reality denial, one would think that they knew this and were, as some have alleged, just using this “surge” as a way to lay the groundwork for eventually saying, “Well, we did all we could. Now its time to go.”
I hope the cynics are right, I really do.
#8, doug,
Once again you got it right. I would add that this administration has a history of ignoring experts, be they scientists or military.
#9 – In fact, #8 got it so right that I have to wonder if Lee (#7) didn’t get it right as well. So many links between the Saudis and the Bush family fortune… I mean the oil part, not the “corrupt the political process” part (Florida, Ohio, name any neocon-corrupted state) or the “rob people’s savings in S&Ls” part (brother Neil’s specialty) or…
Yeah… maybe the well documented Bush reality-denial syndrome is just a strategy, and both 7 and 8 are right. It’s been suggested before in this blog that maybe Bush and his neocons are actually run by the Saudis. Now there’s a thought to give fresh nightmares to genuine conservatives and liberals alike.
Anyone here HONESTLY believe this “surge” will change the direction of this war?
I have yet to find any who actually thinks this “surge” will work — even among people who generally support Bush.
#9. Yes, the history of ignoring expert opinion adds some additional likelihood to the reality-denial. In this particular case they are ignoring the Iraq Study Group.
It is interesting to note that the Bush White House has this adamant “not invented here” attitude towards outside advice, while simultaneously demanding that others come up with plans or just shut the hell up.
Sure, Petraus the counter-insurgency expert is behind the surge but when the dust settles, the reality will be that he was presented with the surge as-is, told that he would not be getting the job unless he got behind the plan, and considered it his duty to fall in behind the White House. Kind of the way Colin Powell got behind a war he did not agree with and which violated every tenet of his Doctrine.
#10. My personal Occam’s Razor is that incompetence is the simpler and more likely explanation than conspiracy. It is no secret that the Saudis were pushing the invasion. but then again, so were the Israelis. talk about strange bedfellows.
The Saudis’ role in this, I think, is very complex. Primarily, they are insisting that the US do something – anything – to bring order to Iraq, and are backing that up with a threat: if the US pulls out, Saudi Arabia will not sit idly by while Iraqi Sunnis are exterminated by the Shiite Iraqi government and its affiliated militia. After the US departs, the Saudis will support the Sunnis with cash, weapons and “volunteers.” Interestingly, this may bring about a Saudi link-up with Al Queda in Iraq. (Whee! More jihadists! Thanks, Dubya.)
The Saudis are also concerned with the expansion of Iranian influence the invasion has brought. That was pretty much inevitable, given Iraq’s Shiite majority’s links to Iran, so it was remarkably short-sighted of them to back the war.
But, to be fair, there was a lot of that going around ….
Anyone interested in the operation of stupidity in government decision-making should snag a copy of Barbara Tuchman’s “The March of Folly.” She examines three cases of folly: the Popes provoke the Reformation, the British lose the North American colonies, and the US mires itself in Vietnam. There are very similar threads in how the fatal course was chosen, despite adequate knowledge that it was exactly the wrong one.
If she was around today, god rest her, she would have a fine fourth example.