Sounds like the military brass are as incapable of performing their duty to advise, warn, etc their Commander in Chief properly as Bush & Co are incapable of coming up with plans for the military that are based in reality. As Yingling said in his Armed Forces Journal article, “Failing to visualize future battlefields represents a lapse in professional competence, but seeing those fields clearly and saying nothing is an even more serious lapse in professional character.”
Normally, you get what you pay for means pay too little and you get crap. We’re paying through the nose for the Pentagon and still getting crap.
US officer condemns Iraq strategy
A senior serving US army officer has launched a scathing attack on the US military leadership in Iraq.
Lieutenant Colonel Paul Yingling said US generals had failed to prepare their troops properly and had misled Congress about the resources needed for the war.
Writing in the Armed Forces Journal, he said the US had repeated the mistakes of Vietnam and so faced defeat in Iraq.
Such criticism from a serving officer is rare, analysts say, although several retired generals have spoken out.
Lt Col Yingling’s remarks come a day after the top US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, described the situation in Iraq as “exceedingly complex and very tough”.
“For reasons that are not yet clear, America’s general officer corps underestimated the strength of the enemy, overestimated the capabilities of Iraq’s government and security forces, and failed to provide Congress with an accurate assessment of the security conditions in Iraq,” he wrote.
The generals had gone into Iraq in 2003 with too few soldiers and no coherent plan for post-war stabilisation, having spent a decade “preparing to fight the wrong war”, he said.
“The intellectual and moral failures common to America’s general officer corps in Vietnam and Iraq constitute a crisis in American generalship.”
A case could also be made that military leaders are attempting to distance themselves so Bush’s failures don’t rub off on them. Too late.
Colin Powell gave good advice and many other Generals did also. Lurch and Cheney didn’t listen because this war was about keeping Iraqs oil off the market.If Iraq was at peace the price of oil would be about 35.00 a barrel.They fired the whole of Iraqs army.What a great way to start a religous war.Remember our armed services won the war and lost the peace.This was done on purpose by our political leaders.Pull out now the people have spoken!
“A senior serving US army officer” … a “Lieutenant Colonel”. *not* An O5 is not a senior officer! Although not a low-level officer, but certainly not a top-level either. Going back to Greek statuary, it’s also said that oak leaves (the insignia of a MAJs and LTCs) are used to cover our pr*cks.
That said, it’s these ranks that are the independent thinkers, enough experience to understand the real world, but still too low for any big responsibilities and they can still say what they really think not just general officer PR.. AFJ often publishes good think pieces like this.
You guys are just not seeing the big picture. One officer says that things are bad and you believe them. If one cashier at a grocery store said that the manager is running the store all wrong and loosing money in every department. You wouldn’t listen to him. Let the vast majority of soldiers talk, then decide.
You will always find a decenter who you can listen to if you look for them.
Everybody is entitled to their opinion, but you don’t need an O5 rank to make this bold claim, “he generals had gone into Iraq in 2003 with too few soldiers and no coherent plan for post-war stabilization, ” No, Really? Stop the Presses! This is the kind of break-through research that gets chairmanship at the Army War College.
To back up this following statement: “In 2007, Iraq’s grave and deteriorating condition offers diminishing hope for an American victory and portends risk of an even wider and more destructive regional war.” I’ll require a 10 page write-up, before I even entertain his opinion.
Never mind the fact that Gen. Petraeus said that sectarian violence in Baghdad is down 2/3 since the surge begun. Anbar continues to show progress:
“I also pointed out the progress in Anbar Province, which has been very substantial, as you know. Literally over the last two months, Anbar has gone — or certainly over the last six months — from being assessed as being lost, to a situation that now is quite heartening because of the decision by a number of Sunni Arab tribes to join the fight against al Qaeda, saying no more — they’ve had it — and linking arms with the coalition to take on al Qaeda and one city after another really cleaning them out all the way down the Euphrates River Valley from al Qaim and Husaybah through Haditha, Hit, Ramadi and so forth, although as I pointed out to each of the respective bodies — the House and the Senate — there still is considerable work to be done in Anbar Province although all the trends are in the right direction. And in fact the two additional Marine battalions that are part of the surge are now operating just for the first couple of weeks in Anbar Province, and they’ll be joined by some additional forces later on as with the two additional Army brigades as they move in to their respective areas in and around Baghdad.”
So if it comes down to a debate on who said what, here’s another from a Marine in Ramadi:
“Yeah, and I got a quote for that [expletive] Harry Reid. These families need us here,” Followed by…
“And the sad thing is after we WIN this war. People like [Reid] will say he was there for us the whole time.”
Embrace the suck Harry.
How could he say there were too few soldiers for the initial invasion when Baghdad fell in short order, and the regime was gone?
I’d call that ‘mission accomplished.’
The fact is that soldiers who attack the President can get on TV and in newspapers while those that speak in support find themselves ignored. The media loves to attack Republicans. We saw the same thing when the New York Times asked former speaker Livingston for an op-ed attacking Tom Delay, then lost interest when he said he supported Tom.
Lt Col Yingling’s provides a look back, and not really anything new. Yes he as a dim opinion of our leaders and offers a fix, a congressional fix. Again who doesn’t have such a dim view?
I don’t disparage him his views and glad he tries to bring something to the table; but it seems, allot of people are now coming out saying things that should of been said when such SPEECH was UNPOPULAR and COULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE!
The Lt Col is not a leader, he is a follower!
Too little, to late! Why is this a news story.
“I will gouge out your eyes and skull-fuck you!”
easily the best quote (imho) from any military movie
The ‘blame game’ for the lost war is in full swing… most people recognize that the current ‘war’ in Iraq is lost, and now they start to point fingers… where were they earlier when it might have made a difference.
Take for example that ahole Tenet, Director of the CIA, who now is claiming that he knew all along that the intelligence did not support the invasion, that Cheney was a single minded warmonger, yet said nothing.
Or members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which now claim that they knew that misinformation was being used, but were sworn to secrecy, but didn’t have the balls and honor to just go around and say “I can’t really tell you details, but you should not vote yes to go to war.”
But it all comes down to this.. the commander in chief and his retinue. The misled us into this war, and then they lost it. They hold full responsibility for this disaster of historical proportions.
At least LBJ knew how to kill off competition when he owned radio stations. The W couldn’t even run a baseball team, much less a war. Doesn’t it all boil down to the people with whom you surround yourself? Ah, forget it, I remember now — they’re politicians.
[War Czar? Hahahaha]
Just my 2 cents (2 new gold dollars) worth.
Trivia Alert: Sgt Carter (Frank Sutton) is buried in a cemetery in Clarksville TN. The Only reason I know this is I have family who lives in a small house next to the old cemetery. When he died, it was a big deal. He was a small town boy who starred in a great tv sitcom. Jim Neighbors was a close friend of Mr. Sutton and came to his service way back in the early 1970’s. Weirdly enough, this story still makes the rounds at infrequent family reunions.
#4, mxpwr03
Apparently you really love the Pentagon propaganda. Can you point out one of those great engineering marvels that Haliburton was working on at our expense. Or how empty the Iraqi morgues are. Or how full the drug store shelves are.
The end of the debate is the majority of Americans have said they want out of Iraq.
One question. Why the hell haven’t they found Osama bin Laden yet? You do remember him. He leads this little group called al Quaeda. Your honorable military Commander in Chief swore to get him. In fact, he wasn’t going to rest until we got him. It seems to me you know so much about the inner workings of the military you would know the answer.
Mr. Bin Laden was the best thing that happened to Mr. G.W.
“The worse Devil needs a greater God…”
#3 >>You guys are just not seeing the big picture. One officer says that things are bad and you believe them.
Is ANYONE on the ground saying that Bush is winning this war?
The best we get is… “Just wait another six months…” again and again, year after year.
What this corporal is saying resonates with everything else we know about Iraq.
Did anyone else spit out your coffee when you heard Bush say,
“Therefore, I will strongly reject an artificial timetable for withdrawal and/or Washington politicians telling men in uniform how to do their job,” Bush said.
http://tinyurl.com/2pqos3
What shameless gall from the same guy who has fired every general that did not agree with Rummy and Cheney.
During our own Revolution, WE were the insurgents – highly motivated and willing to act outside the box with whatever worked because it was THAT important to us.
The failure we are faced with today is not limited to the generals. It is shared equally by our civilian leadership because they failed to foresee the critical importance of human nature. They did not appreciate fully the stakes of the game, primarily BECAUSE they approached it as if it were a game of RISK. It is most assuredly NOT a game to the insurgents. To them, it’s personal. As it was to the NVA during Vietnam; as it was to us during the American Revolution. History is replete with similar examples.
Had we stuck to pursuing those responsible for 9/11, things would be very different today. Nobody would have blamed us for tracking down and killing them. THAT would have made us stronger, a nation and society still on the rise. THAT would have been justified, and respected.
#14. Indeed. And who decided to attack Fajulla after the mercenaries were killed and their bodies strung up? It was not the commanders on the ground. And who called off the Marines once the attack had begun because Tony Blair was screaming down the telephone line? Again, it was not the commanders on the ground.
“I do what my generals tell me” is not only a lie, but just another Big Lie.
#4. It is claimed that the # of death-squad killings is down in Baghdad. This has been more than made up for by the # of people killed by suicide bombings, and is rather easily explained by the fact that the Shiite militias have gone to ground and are waiting. They certainly have not disbanded.
One may also note that the Iraqi government has stopped releasing monthly civilian casualty figures to the UN. Not a good sign – an indication they are gaming the numbers and calling it progress.
Also, I have seen those reports of progress in Anbar. (For those who claim the media only reports bad news, they were on the cover of the NYT yesterday.) The Times also reports that the loyalty of these Sunni groups is very tenuous. Give ’em a paycheck and they stay on your side.
But it also points out where the interests of the Shiite government and the US diverge. We would just as soon having them fight AQ regardless of their attitude towards the government.
But AQ is not the real problem. To get back to brass tacks: Recall that improving the security situation was only a means to an end – to give the Shiite government a chance to effect political reconciliation. Notably, the possibility of reversing Bremer’s over-inclusive de-Baathification edict and working out a good oil revenue sharing plan are both looking very remote. Even the Bush administration is claiming the political gains will be minimal and likely won’t even be measurable until September.
So even the people who have a vested interest in showing progress are pretty damn gloomy about the prospects and admit that the “surge” is not really what it was sold as, a temporary spike in troops, but rather a long-term increase in the US presence. This is something that the Bushies claimed for years was not needed. But here we are.
#16. Oops – Fallujah, not Fajullah
Even after the fist in your face election the pukes in DC still don’t get it. The American people do not want us in Iraq, and we should not be spending American blood and money on a cause that was not in our interests to begin with. But the creeps in power are still pushing our buttons and pulling our strings trying to keep us in there. Why?
#13 – As I posted above: from a Marine in Ramadi, “And the sad thing is after we WIN this war. People like [Reid] will say he was there for us the whole time.” Notice the “after we win” line.
Despite what the Hannity and others on the right claim all the time, we liberals really would like to see America win in Iraq. I, personally, really really dearly desperately want to see America win. On the flip side, I desperately don’t want to see this morph into a regional war — especially if it comes into my country.
However, I just can’t see how the US can win this thing without a RADICAL change of course — not just an incremental increase in troop levels. And, I can’t picture Bush making that kind of change.
Do you disagree? Can you honestly picture us winning this war with our current leadership and strategy?
The long-term future of Iraq cannot be decided in Washington by Americans. The future must be decided by the Iraqis. So the question is can they do it? I believe that they can, and they will. The goal is reconciliation, and after all the hatred Saddam infused in the country this process will take decades to reach maturity, and U.S. provided security can only go so far towards meeting this goal.
You all know I’m against this war. But some interesting news has been basically ignored by the media, because I assume it doesn’t fit in with their agenda, which is a complete withdrawal from Iraq.
I like all sides of an issue covered, my side and the other guys. Sometimes the other guys can change my view on a subject based on something I didn’t know before. This is a good thing.
So, in that spirit, lets actually look at the poll the left cites as a basis for not giving Bush the money for the surge.
The left and the media have been making a lot of noise about the 59% who now think (for the first time a majority) that the war was a mistake.
And the 70% who think Bush mishandled the war (duh). What the left and the media are sort of ignoring from the poll is this……….
61% want the congress to give Bush the money to allow him to deploy the troops for the surge, without time tables.
47% still say the U.S. will definitely or will probably win the war in Iraq.
Only 16% actually want the troops brought home immediately.
31% want a time table of at least 12 months for the troops to come home.
30% want to take as long as is needed to stabilize Iraq before withdrawing.
The best one is this one though. After all of the crowing by the Democrats about how the American people want them to do this or that…. it seems they really don’t.
36.4% approve of the new Democratic controlled Congress. This is 2% higher than approval for congress before the November election.
An amazingly low % considering how much the media has been giving the Democrats huge play daily.
Bush is still in the 30’s
35.6% approve of Bush’s job performance. Seems he and the Congress are almost equally dismal.
I forgot to say in post #22……what the very low numbers for congress and Bush show is that most Americans understand they have no one who is providing real leadership for the most powerful nation on Earth.
I’ve read a couple pieces this w/e about **the vision thing** as Bush Daddy used to call it. I’m seeing it come up a lot in Obama articles, and to be frank, it scares the crap out of me.
Apparently no one remembers that the present Bush, had the **vision** thing….a compassionate society, etc, etc, blah blah. The media used to gloss over his lack of political and government experience with things like….he will have help, he will learn it as needed, he visited Mexico once.
This is exactly the same crap the media is spouting about Obama. While he gives a good speech, and ooooozes the **vision** thing, he is not what a nation facing it’s own mortality needs to lead it. We face grave future crises with Islamic terrorism, economic competition, energy problems and all the rest……do we really want to hand it all to a guy who has been a Senator for 2 years, and a state Representative for 6 years??
I think a lot of people need to snap out of the American Idol mood face facts before we have another 4 years of disasters.
> Normally, you get what you pay for means pay too little and you get crap.
> We’re paying through the nose for the Pentagon and still getting crap.
…
> A case could also be made that military leaders are attempting to
> distance themselves so Bush’s failures don’t rub off on them. Too late.
The dilemma the Generals faced before the war was a difficult ethical issue, and you declare the whole lot to be “crap”? The competence, honor, and professionalism of our military officer corp is second to none. Many of them have graduate degrees, they have fought in combat and overcome, and, yes, many of them “saw the distaster coming.”
The problem is that the civilian government runs the military. Rumsfeld and his minions overrode the war planners at every turn. General Franks and Myers are to blame for giving in to their stupid ideas, but that does not paint the whole Pentagon as crap. Meanwhile, at the same time you are attacking the Generals for not coming forward, there are other academics attacking those who have spoken out for undermining civilian control of the military.
Many activist/anarchist types seem to have a hard time understanding the meaning of duty and following orders. These are crucial to the functioning of any military, and intelligent officers do not just throw them out the window because they have doubts. They also have families, and a duty to their own units, to not throw their careers away because higher-ups did not stand up to the administration.
The 4-star generals who dealt with Rumsfeld and the president are to blame. They took the critical principle of civilian control too literally, and as Rumsfeld slowly manipulated Franks to reduce the size of the force, none of them put their foot down to say the success of the mission was being risked by Rumsfeld’s meddling. As the top commanders in the military, they should have put their careers on the line to tell the truth. And yet there would have been an uproar of “traitor” and breaking the principle of civilian rule. There is actually a high probability they would have just been fired, replaced, and Rumsfeld and Cheney still would have had their way.
So for any 3-stars or lower to do this would have been foolish. Those officers with the courage to do it are exactly the kind we need on the battlefield leading our troops and making the best of a bad situation. It’s another failure of the administration that they stuck with mediocre generals like Sanchez and Casey, and we didn’t get Petraeus until it’s too late.
Let’s blame the leaders who failed, not the entire military.