Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Forget the polls.

Read this from that noted moonbat publication: The Armed Forces Journal.

Having spent a decade preparing to fight the wrong war, America's generals then miscalculated both the means and ways necessary to succeed in Iraq. The most fundamental military miscalculation in Iraq has been the failure to commit sufficient forces to provide security to Iraq's population. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) estimated in its 1998 war plan that 380,000 troops would be necessary for an invasion of Iraq. Using operations in Bosnia and Kosovo as a model for predicting troop requirements, one Army study estimated a need for 470,000 troops. Alone among America's generals, Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki publicly stated that "several hundred thousand soldiers" would be necessary to stabilize post-Saddam Iraq. Prior to the war, President Bush promised to give field commanders everything necessary for victory. Privately, many senior general officers both active and retired expressed serious misgivings about the insufficiency of forces for Iraq. These leaders would later express their concerns in tell-all books such as "Fiasco" and "Cobra II." However, when the U.S. went to war in Iraq with less than half the strength required to win, these leaders did not make their objections public.
Given the lack of troop strength, not even the most brilliant general could have devised the ways necessary to stabilize post-Saddam Iraq. However, inept planning for postwar Iraq took the crisis caused by a lack of troops and quickly transformed it into a debacle. In 1997, the U.S. Central Command exercise "Desert Crossing" demonstrated that many postwar stabilization tasks would fall to the military. The other branches of the U.S. government lacked sufficient capability to do such work on the scale required in Iraq. Despite these results, CENTCOM accepted the assumption that the State Department would administer postwar Iraq. The military never explained to the president the magnitude of the challenges inherent in stabilizing postwar Iraq.

I am open to sending many many more US troops to Iraq. 250,000 more? But if we will not send enough to win we need to cut our losses.

And it is the GOP that is playing politics. They KNOW the current force levels are not sufficient to win. But their plan is to deny that, kick the can down the road, and blame the Defeat-o-crats after 2008.

Pretty darn cynical.

Posted by Bill White at April 27, 2007 03:38 PM

PS -- I would also be happy to denounce the "War on Drugs" but it appears the comment section is closed.

Posted by Bill White at April 27, 2007 03:41 PM

The author's bio seems relevant:

ARMY LT. COL. PAUL YINGLING is deputy commander, 3rd Armored Calvary Regiment. He has served two tours in Iraq, another in Bosnia and a fourth in Operation Desert Storm. He holds a master's degree in political science from the University of Chicago. The views expressed here are the author's and do not necessarily reflect those of the Army or the Defense Department.

We are indeed pounding screws with hammers.

Posted by at April 27, 2007 03:44 PM

Don't know how that happened. The comment section in the War on (Some) Drugs post is open now.

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 27, 2007 04:01 PM

Forget the polls? That's the point of the post Bill.

Posted by rjschwarz at April 27, 2007 04:04 PM

> I am open to sending many many more US troops to Iraq. 250,000 more?
> But if we will not send enough to win we need to cut our losses.

This seems to be your favorite debating tactic, Bill.

First you say you're "open" to an idea: whether it's more forces in Iraq or more use of commercial space transportation at NASA.

Then you declare that your opponents have made the idea impossible and proceed to argue for the exact opposite: surrender in Iraq, more money for ESAS.

As someone said, pretty darn cynical.

Posted by Edward Wright at April 27, 2007 07:03 PM

Wasn't Ollie North a Lt. Col.?
So Bill, you think the GOP has written off the 2008 election? That's the only way your scenario works. I think several Republicans running for President would beg to differ. Look at the beating the President took in the media by sending the small increase in troops. Do you think the media wouldn't attack even harder if he sends 200,000 more? The Dems would be frothing at the mouth and the NYT and the networks would have a field day. Speaking of cynical, the Dems KNOW what will happen if we leave and are shouting it from the rooftops. They are willing to condemn millions for political gain.

Posted by Bill Maron at April 27, 2007 07:50 PM

It should be noted that the writer of that piece is a political science major which casts some serious doubts on his conclusions. Again as a differeny thread its one man's opinion.

Posted by Mac at April 28, 2007 06:21 AM

First you say you're "open" to an idea: whether it's more forces in Iraq or more use of commercial space transportation at NASA. Then you declare that your opponents have made the idea impossible and proceed to argue for the exact opposite: surrender in Iraq, more money for ESAS.

*sigh* You know that isn't what he said, Edward. If you want to troll, stop ruining Rand's blog and take it to Kos/Drudge.

Posted by Adrasteia at April 28, 2007 06:22 AM

Well said Adrasteia.

Posted by Offside at April 28, 2007 07:06 AM

Posted by Bill White at April 27, 2007 03:38 PM

LOL Whittington use to predict we could take iraq with 50K...lol

The guy who was "short" on troops was General Rumsfeld.

Remember Shinseki? He got it right. He actually was a General.

Rummy was a armchair genius who the far right loved.

Robert

Posted by at April 28, 2007 07:55 AM

Posted by Bill Maron at April 27, 2007 07:50 PM

Attack harder....what would the Dems do if we had sent 200K...? Cut off funds sooner.

I dont think we have much more to send actually. Rummy has spent four years waging war on the cheap, not increasing the size of the armed forces, drawing down supply depots and ships, endlessly getting things wrong and the far right, the geniuses have been cheering all the way.

Robert

Posted by at April 28, 2007 07:58 AM

Bill...

to be clear...sarcasim light on...

Robert

Posted by at April 28, 2007 07:59 AM

Speaking of cynical, the Dems KNOW what will happen if we leave and are shouting it from the rooftops. They are willing to condemn millions for political gain.

Posted by Bill Maron at April 27, 2007 07:50 PM

There is cynicism on both sides. Cheney exaggerating to lying about the evidence for going into Iraq when he either knew it was an exaggeration or was as dumb as dirt...is cynicism.

The Dems are no worse then the chickenhawks of this administration. The Dems think leaving will be easy, the Chickenhawks thought going would be easy...

imagine that.

Robert

Posted by at April 28, 2007 08:01 AM

Ok, Robert, what do you call the Republicans decision to not reinstate a draft and then commit 300,000 too few troops needed to stabilize Iraq? Two thirds of a surrender?

Either do it right, or don't waste Coalition lives on it at all.

Posted by Adrasteia at April 28, 2007 08:20 AM

Sorry Robert, I accidently misread what you wrote in your last post as democrat bashing. You've appropriately bashed both sides.

Posted by Adrasteia at April 28, 2007 08:25 AM

Posted by Adrasteia at April 28, 2007 08:20 AM

Saw your second post...no sweat.

Look I am one of the people who think that Iraq could/can/still might be the pivot point in changing the mideast, and I think that the Mideast needs changing. The US "changing" the "keen minds of the South" (the confederacy), the militaristic minds of Japan and Germany, not to mention ending the Soviet Union is a good thing...we changed history well.

The problem with what this administration did in Iraq is two fold.

First they exaggerated to the point of lying about "why" we were going. No doubt Cecil and Mark W and all the other band of neocons are going to show up and say what an Evil Guy Saddam was...and he and his sons were that...but that is not why we went to Iraq. We went to Iraq because by direct or indirect statements this administration implied that Saddam was or could reasonably become a threat to the US. That was fiction. It was exaggeration to a lie.

Second we went at it stupidly. Yes if we were going to go at it "like we went at it"...we needed 400K or so troops...and I am not even sure that would have worked.

It is not a Japan style problem, it is not a big force style problem. It was a unique problem to our time just as WWII was a unique problem to their time.

Problem is we have dullards in the Administration dullards who are long on rah rah but short on intellect.

There was a way I believe to overthrow Saddam and come up with a new government one that was 1) in control and 2) evolving (which is what we need) in the correct direction...but it took being smart.

We needed to "transition" the armed forces that were in place, the government infrastructure that was in place, and the political actors that were ready to pick up the mantle. Instead we disbanded the army, pulled the rug out from under the government infrastructure, didnt have enough forces to ensure security and were suprised when radical elements siezed readily available weapontry and started fighting.

How the Marines are succeeding in Anbar is that they are reestablishing the "props" of the old regime. They have cut deals with the locals, deals that we could have cut three or four years ago had we acted smarter...most of the people who are leading the Iraqi armed forces in Anbar, are gasp old Saddam Army people...much like the people who took over the German armed forces had gasp been loyal to the Big H.

These people in this administration are "neocon nuts" and I know it must chap the "beloved" of the right that they have made a pigs breakfast of everything that they have touched.

Much more fun to talk about how Clinton lied! LOL

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at April 28, 2007 09:24 AM

The Shia and Sunni have been fighting each other for millennia, the only thing that keeps them united is a good war against Israel. It was madness from the beginning to think that this problem could be solved by outsiders.

What we really needed to do was install someone like Mubarak. Replace Saddam with another local strongman, but one one who lays off slaughtering Kurds with sarin and is more sympathetic to US interests.

Posted by Adrasteia at April 28, 2007 09:55 AM

It should be noted that the writer of that piece is a political science major which casts some serious doubts on his conclusions. Again as a differeny thread its one man's opinion.

Yup. He is also a combat officer, not a REMF officer.

Posted by Bill White at April 28, 2007 12:32 PM

Robert says: We went to Iraq because by direct or indirect statements this administration implied that Saddam was or could reasonably become a threat to the US.

Not entirely correct. There were numerous reasons. Most of the reasons were voted on by both Repubs and Dems alike. Say what you will, but it WAS passed by vote. If the Dems really didn't want us to go, they could have all voted "No" and had their way. At that time, they recognized the threat. Now they don't because election time is coming and the chance to grab power is upon us. Screw the country, get the power....works both ways.

Second we went at it stupidly.

And your years at West Point and other military training schools appoint you master of all warfare. Yeah, I know, all these officers are writing books and complaining and God knows what else, but the limelight is a powerful attractor. I'm not saying we did it the right way, or the wrong way....its the way we're doing it, like it or not.

Problem is we have dullards in the Administration dullards who are long on rah rah but short on intellect.

If you say so Ares.

There was a way I believe to overthrow Saddam and come up with a new government one that was 1) in control and 2) evolving (which is what we need) in the correct direction...but it took being smart.

And since everyone is dumber than a box of rocks compared to you, we didn't do things that way.

They have cut deals with the locals, deals that we could have cut three or four years ago had we acted smarter

Captain Hindsight, US ARMY

most of the people who are leading the Iraqi armed forces in Anbar, are gasp old Saddam Army people

Yes, as it was mentioned it was going to be. However, most of the Baathist party people are gone. There are those that support a new Iraq as they supported an old Iraq, but recognize the need for change to a better way. Why not use their experience? Wasn't it you that mentioned cutting deals?

... they have made a pigs breakfast of everything that they have touched.

In your opinion Lord Robert of the battlefield.

Posted by Mac at April 29, 2007 07:43 AM

Adrasteia said: It was madness from the beginning to think that this problem could be solved by outsiders.

So, they're solving it themselves? Its madness to think your children are going to look both ways before they cross the street every time, but we instruct them anyway. If the problem (you agree their killing each other is a problem right?) is not being solved, then you change the correction. Instilling a working democracy has never been tried. Its a novel new approach. I know, you will all say its not working, but I think time will tell.

What we really needed to do was install someone like Mubarak.

Which defeats the purpose of them governing themselves. Obviously to you, Iraqis are too darn stupid to understand government. I'm happy that you've won an appointment to your own judge's bench that allows you to judge a country's people so absolutely. Maybe we should have installed you to govern the Iraqis.

Posted by Mac at April 29, 2007 07:50 AM

Bill said: Yup. He is also a combat officer, not a REMF officer.

I'm not saying he's wrong, I'm saying we should be cautious about his purpose. A political activist will do the same thing the right and the left do, say what is necessary to further their own standing. Right now its politically popular to denounce the war. What was this guy saying when the war started?

Posted by Mac at April 29, 2007 07:53 AM

what do you call the Republicans decision to not reinstate a draft and then commit 300,000 too few troops needed to stabilize Iraq?

There is no need for a draft. A draft would only create more bodies with less training and with no desire to help out. They would be sent overseas to provide a police force for a nation they wouldn't care about. Once there the same people, who demanded the draft, will call the extra troops a sign of US Imperialism and spit on them when they return.

Adrasteia, try proving to us you can count to ten before offering anyone suggestions.

Posted by Leland at April 29, 2007 08:12 AM

Post a comment