Yeah, that’s a tad provocative for a title, but while General Odom doesn’t use those specific words, his take on the results of what Bush has and is doing (or not doing) makes this a valid question: Is Bush’s conduct of the war gone beyond mere incompetence to materially helping our enemies?
In principle, I do not favor Congressional involvement in the execution of U.S. foreign and military policy. I have seen its perverse effects in many cases. The conflict in Iraq is different. Over the past couple of years, the President has let it proceed on automatic pilot, making no corrections in the face of accumulating evidence that his strategy is failing and cannot be rescued.
Thus, he lets the United States fly further and further into trouble, squandering its influence, money, and blood, facilitating the gains of our enemies. The Congress is the only mechanism we have to fill this vacuum in command judgment.
To put this in a simple army metaphor, the Commander-in-Chief seems to have gone AWOL, that is ‘absent without leave.’ He neither acts nor talks as though he is in charge. Rather, he engages in tit-for-tat games.
The war could never have served American interests.
But it has served Iran’s interest by revenging Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran in the 1980s and enhancing Iran’s influence within Iraq. It has also served al Qaeda’s interests, providing a much better training ground than did Afghanistan, allowing it to build its ranks far above the levels and competence that otherwise would have been possible.
We cannot ‘win’ a war that serves our enemies interests and not our own. Thus continuing to pursue the illusion of victory in Iraq makes no sense. We can now see that it never did.
A wise commander in this situation normally revises his objectives and changes his strategy, not just marginally, but radically. Nothing less today will limit the death and destruction that the invasion of Iraq has unleashed.
No effective new strategy can be devised for the United States until it begins withdrawing its forces from Iraq.
I know this will lead to attacks on Odom, but for once, how about sticking to debating the message instead of the messenger?
If Bush/Cheney were wise they would pay attention to Gen. Odom. If we had a parliamentary system of government in the US there would have been a vote of no confidence bringing down the Bush/Cheney government months ago. If Bush/Cheney continue to be obstinate in this matter it will no doubt become ever increasingly easier to impeach Bush and Cheney both, bringing in President Pelosi. Power to the people!
Uncle Dave, slow down. I can only play an antagonistic role to so many of these stories at a time.
Odom is correct. I would not just isolate this to the President though. I think most of the senior command is incompetent. This article is an example where we have commented before.
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=11108#comments
But even scarier is a recent a NY Times article about an Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction report. Seven of eight large projects hailed by the US effort and worth $150 Million, are either not working or severely hampered six to eighteen months after completion.
The failures are not from the military situation. They are from the natives not knowing how to operate the equipment. “(teaching how to use the equipment) could be deemed as an intrusion on, or attempt to micromanage operations of an Iraqi entity…”
http://tinyurl.com/2ntefp
(Forgive me if the tag doesn’t work. I have never tried it before. Thanks for the patience)
Bush and co have proven to me some time ago that the US government is just a mechanism to pay off their base. They simply don’t care about anything else. Everything they say in public is just a carny pitch to bamboozle the rubes.
I agree with #4 doug. Unless it can be proven otherwise, the Iraq war should be regarded more as folly and gross incompetence. The real treason was in the electoral fraud that allowed Bush to twice become President. If he was complicit in that, even just by knowing about it, then he is clearly treasonous.
Bush has done many things in Iraq wrong and only recently seems to be trying to fix things but the only treasonous actions Ive seen recently is the vote by the democrats to retreat and the proclamation by HARRY REID that the war is lost. This war is a mess because the politicians are trying to run it ( rules of engagement suck, you get shot at you shoot back. war is horrible and innocent people die but don’t tie the hands of our soldiers ) This war is easily winnable if we would just let our army do what it does best and has trained for, dont tie their hands and try to be a kinder gentler fighting force
the only treasonous actions Ive seen recently is the vote by the democrats to retreat and the proclamation by HARRY REID that the war is lost
Right, all we need to do is have the insurgents and other fighters in Iraq watch Fox ‘news’ and ignore what they actually see happening around them.
J/P=?
Pmitchell observed “This war is easily winnable”.
Was that Kool-Aid sugared?
Read “Utility of Force” by Gen. Rupert Smith if you actually believe your statement. You may learn a thing or two.
#7: I think the biggest denial on the part of the war supporters is the failure to realize we are not fighting an enemy like, say, the Nazis. In WWII (and most previous wars) you kill the leadership and the war is over. With religious fanatics and sectarian partisans each member is a leader, in a sense. Each will keep on fighting down to the last man because it is their God given duty to do so.
We are fighting a conventional war against an enemy who doesn’t play by the ‘rules’ of warfare as we define them. To use a bad analogy, we came to play touch football and they were there for Ultimate Fighting, plus when they got hold of our ball they filled it with explosives and strapped it to their waists. That’s also why the whole ‘enemy combatant’ thing is crazy. We say you are a soldier only if you wear a uniform, etc. which is a conventional war concept. They’ve using a whole different concept of warfare by not playing our game. (Of course, they didn’t invent the idea, they just have used it to great effect.)
The result is you literally have to kill every last one of them and somehow prevent others who feel we are oppressors and tyrants and worse from joining the ’cause’ to not take up arms. In conventional warfare, the other side backs down when superior force makes it clear it will be killed if it continues. Not here. Unless we are willing to deal effectively with an enemy who wants to die fighting us, the war is unwinable.
#7. Ah, the Rambo myth! We coulda won if the politicians hadn’t “tied our hands”!
Anyone who knows anything about counterinsurgency knows that “free-fire zone” rules of engagement do not work. Kill innocents and you make insurgents.
The converse can work in your favor – one of the Anbar Sunni tribal leaders mentioned joining the fight against AQ after the terrorists killed his brothers. If the US had killed his brothers, accidentally or not, do you think he would have joined AQ or the US forces?
So saying “oh, innocents die” in that offhand way is a recipe for failure.
There are no ‘innocents’ in this situation. Islam wants every non-islamist dead right? Well, I have no problem what so ever purging the earth of that cancer. Every last one of them.
Let the mayhem begin! It is past due time to turn this into a real war.
not just a political war.
Or is it that you want to draw this out for 50 years of conflict. Islam is not going to quit just because you do.
If you think otherwise you are deluding yourself. Have they given any indication otherwise?
WAKE UP DUMB ASS.
#12. yes, I always listen very closely to the opinion of raving genocidists.
It’s really almost to awful to contemplate: this is going to cost us something like a TRILLION of our hard earned tax dollars before this is over — plus THOUSANDS of dead Americans and scores of THOUSANDS of disabled and emotionally crippled veterans. And far far more than that of dead and suffering Iraqis.
… and it’s all made things worse in the “war on terror.”
What a horrific, shameful, terrible waste.
!2 There are no ‘innocents’ in this situation. Islam want’s every non-islamist dead right?
Wrong.
Islam calls for tolerance of minorities. Not equality — for sure — but not for our deaths. I’ve lived openly as a Christian in Muslim countries for ten years and I’m still alive! Nearly all Muslim countries have churches, pastors, publishing houses and all that kind of stuff — all allowed by the governments.
Uncle Dave observed “the war is unwinable”
Only if defined inaccurately as by the current, inept administration.
Same book suggestion: “The Utility of Force” by Gen. Rupert Smith. You are correct that WWII was the end of industrial nations in conflict. With that said, victory in the next phase goes to those who both recognize the rules have changed and innovate the requisite strategy and tactics.
I have wondered for a while now why there is no one looking at successful insurgent actions by similar governments to guide our policy and strategdy. I think we often suffer from not buildt here syndrome.
#17. The Army rather shamefully let counter-insurgency studies languish in the years since Vietnam. Possibly due to wishful thinking that they would not be needed. But more lately, there has been more studies of the occasional successful counter-insurgency, like that by the Brits against the Malaysians in the 50s.
Iraq aside, counter-insurgency is important because the war against AQ is, in essence, a global counter-insurgency struggle. It does not call for big wars, like Iraq, but rather more focused force combined with political efforts to win the hearts and minds of those inclined to support the terrorists.
#18 What then has been the difference in strategdy and results in Afghanistan? I would thin the same principles could apply in Iraq or as I think the inter-Army rivalries don’t allow consideration of stratgedy and tactics that don’t come from with in your own branch of the service.
#19. In Afghanistan, the US had a very robust ally in the Northern Alliance, which routed the Taliban, shoving them to the margins rather quickly. The US and the Northern Alliance established very firm control over the capital in Kabul, and had friendly warlords in other areas.
This differs rather dramatically from the Americans actions in Iraq, in which we had no strong local force to cooperate with us, and in fact disbanded the Iraqi Army, which could have been brought back to barracks to aid the occupation.
Because the US lacked the troops to secure Baghdad, we demonstrated rather quickly that we simply could not control Iraq in the face of any opposition. Again, this contrasted with the demoralizing blitzkrieg that toppled the Taliban government and vice-grip the US and Northern Alliance placed on the Afghan heartland.
Further, although Afghanistan has ethnic rivalries (the majority of the Taliban belonged to an ethnicity that also occupies Pakistan’s border areas), there is not the decisive split that you have between the Sunnis and the Shiites in Iraq, so AQ and the Taliban simply don’t have the opportunity to spark a civil war, like AQ did in Iraq.
So in Iraq we have religious warfare, an insurgency against the government, and a small AQ component. In essence, we are fighting a very multi-sided war in the heartland of the country. This fight has no military resolution, only a political one.
In Afgthanistan, the remnants of the Taliban and AQ are only on the fringes of the country (as well as in Pakistan). It will simmer for a while, but without access to the majority of the Afghan population and its heartland areas, it can be a persistent nuisance, but can’t really threaten the Afghan government.
Should we want to resolve this, there would likely have to be a political solution as well. Ranking AQ and Taliban members would have to be turned over, as well as foreign fighters, but the rank-and-file Taliban would likely be required to return to civillian life.
I don’t know about inter-service rivalry being a factor. In ‘Fiasco,’ the military and political heirarchy is blamed for simply not wanting to come to grips with the fact there was a robust insurgency happening, rather than a handful of dead-enders in their last throes.
# 7 – Pmitchell
This war is a mess because the politicians are trying to run it
You are correct. For the last 4 years, with the exception of the last month or so, the politicians have been trying to run it. And the politicians IN POWER during the last 4 years totally screwed it up. Dissenting voices were utterly quashed. Only in the last month have attempts at correcting the situation started, over the obstructionism of the President. After all, it is under his leadership that we have come to this disastrous point.
Remember… the military did not want to go there in the first place, the generals wanted to use a much larger number of troops, they wanted the state department to take charge of reconstruction, they have been asking to redeploy for 3 years now… it was the Presidents cabinet (specially Rumsfeld) that dictated otherwise.
So yes, it has been the politicians that have totally screwed this up… but don’t lose sight of which politicians are actually to blame.
doug that makes some sense to me and makes me understand how stupid it was for the us armed forces to disregard a counter insurgency school to be ready for the problems in Iraq.
the war is easily winnable if we do what is necessary. The people funding this insurgency are the leader in Iran if we hit Iran (remember when the war monger Reagan bombed the hell out of Muammar al-Gaddafi, you know the guy funding a large portion of the terrorism in the eighties. He decided he wasn’t in such a hurry to meet Allah, and he fell in line and quit the funding of terrorism and is now becoming a respected member of the world) we do what we did to Libya in Iran oil will go up temporally, but those mullahs don’t want to meet Allah any more than we do. We remind the posers that they really are gnat on the ass of this country and don’t stand a chance in a war and they will back down, they will bitch and moan allot but they will stop if they finally believe we are serious about taking them out
you may now berate and call me a fool but history has proven me correct
Pmitchell… you have no insight whatsoever as to the political realities of the middle east.
Maybe there are some FACTS that you need to consider:
In Iraq, the two main fighting factions are the Shia and the Sunni.
The principal opposition to the US occupation comes from the Sunni. They were the supporters of Saddam,they are the principal source for Al-Quaeda recruits, and live in the areas that we consider most difficult and dangerous.
By comparison the Shia tolerate the US presence. The Al-Maliqui government is largely Shia, as is the police and the military. The main opposition comes from the Sadr militias, which are an extremist group within the Shia themselves.
If there has been anything that has allowed the US to maintain even a semblance of progress, it is due to the wavering support of the Shia.
So you want us to attack Iran, do you? Great idea… except that Iran is almost 100% Shia! The same Shia that are helping us in Iraq to maintain a minimum of stability.
Any attack on Iran would result in the immediate and complete loss of any semblance of support that is left for the USA in Iraq. The USA would have to leave immediately, as in days rather than months.
Iran would be strengthened by a US attack, not weakened. Iraq would largely become a province of Iran, just like Lebanon was largely a province of Syria for many years. And that is with the hope that the Saudis don’t come to the aid of the Sunni in Iraq (Saudi Arabia is almost entirely Sunni), which would result in total war in the Middle East.
Libya was a completely different situation, so different that using it as an example of action and outcome is just plain ignorant.
Re # 20 Doug
There is a very telling passage in “The Hidden War” by Artyom Borovik where a member of the ‘insurgency’ comments to a boastful Russian that to overrun Afghanistan is always easy. It is only then – at the apparent nadir of defeat – that the battle begins. As the Soviet Union learned the hard way (and the British before them), the illusion of victory in Afghanistan is prerequisite to appalling loss.
Consider well these words from Rudyard Kipling:
“When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains, and the women come out to cut up what remains, jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains and go to your gawd like a soldier.”
George W Bush, Cheney & Rumsfield will go down in history as a triumvirate of tragic arrogance and appalling ignorance. The fighting in Afghanistan hadn’t even started and the administration foolishly opened another front.
A short time later, Karl Rove subsequently stage managed a Mission Accomplished banner for television. What he actually broadcast was none of them had a clue what they were up against.
Bin Laden remains at large and America will bleed for decades a result of neocons not comprehending the enemy, the battleground or the reality of the world war underway.
Pmitchell
This is not personal. It is an observation based on fact. After reading what you’re posting, calling you ignorant is redundant.
Unless we are willing to deal effectively with an enemy who wants to die fighting us, the war is unwinable.
Comment by Uncle Dave — 4/29/2007 @ 8:06 am
We whipped Japan, didn’t we? Kamikaze comes to mind. Now, we buy their cars, electronics, etc. A small nation whose sole national resource is fish, but ‘awoke a sleeping giant’.
With a leader that couldn’t even run a baseball team (and the ‘leaders’ with whom he surrounds himself), what chance do we have?
Bush is a traitor, a neocon, a jingoistic patriot, a fascist, a fake cowboy, Hitler, the mastermind behind 9/11, the man that caused Katrina, a war hero, a war deserter, stupid, politically ignorant, smart enough to be at the head of a massive cabal of oil and defense companies, he’s too decisive, he doesn’t make enough decisions, he’s weak on the prosecution of the war on terror, he’s overly aggressive in the prosecution of the war on terror, he’s smart, he’s an idiot, he’s obsessed with god, he’s a fake Christian…
Did I miss anything?
#25. I was actually in a state of denial for a while – I simply could not believe that the Bushies would be so dumb as to start another war even though Afghanistan was not done & Bin Ladin was still at large.
Fortunately, unlike the Soviets or the Brits, we have powerful local allies in Afghanistan. I hope the Bushies are not dumb enough to antagonize them in the name of reducing poppy production, for example. Screw the war on drugs. Buy it all up at a premium and use it in hospitals.
As long as Pakistan is willing to go through the motions of fighting AQ and the Taliban in the border regions (there are too many sympathizers in Musharraf’s government for them to be really vigorous about it), I think we can keep them contained.
But the man who attacked the US and killed 3,000 Americans is still at large, an inspiration for others to do the same thing. When Bushie steps down in 2009, that fact will be the most singular indication of the utter failure of his entire administration.
Sooner or later the honest conservatives had to recognize their party was hijacked by poseurs with no agenda but greed and destruction of government principles basic to the American way of life. Such as separateion of church and state, and various personal liberties. Mostly in the service of greed, and now Gen. Odom has called into doubt even the purity of their greed.
Face it. Simply on the basis of how they keep trying to tinker with the Constitution and the way they appoint right-wing ideologues and political functionaries to the federal bench regardless of lack of qualifications, these people are not conservatives. They’re radicals, even revolutionaries. It’s the people they like to smear as “liberals,” the FBI-labeled “security risks” who revere the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, who are the real conservatives.
Lt. Col. Paul Yingling’s comments, in the “A Lapse…” blog item, are worth rereading in this context as well:
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/05/2635198
We have enemies?