You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front
US war in Iraq ’strategic error’
2004-01-13
A report published by the US Army War College has criticised the war against Iraq as a strategic error. It also suggests that the Bush administration’s global war on terror may be unsustainable. The report, by academic Jeffrey Record, has been dismissed by US defence officials, who say it does not represent the view of the US Army. But BBC Pentagon correspondent Nick Childs says the report could be an embarrassment for the Pentagon.
The BBC? Now there’s a unbiased opinion.
The author of the report is a visiting professor at the prestigious college in Pennsylvania and his conclusions about the Bush administration’s conduct of its war on terrorism appear quite damning. He calls the invasion of Iraq "an unnecessary war of choice" and a "detour".
He forgot quagmire....
Mr Record says that by lumping together a host of threats - from the destruction of the al-Qaeda network to stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction - the administration has set goals in the war which are unsustainable. "The United States may be able to defeat al-Qaeda, but it cannot rid the world of terrorism, much less evil," he says in the report.
It'll always be there. But if we're successful, it won't be organized, and it will draw the opprobium it deserves. Our war is as much against the image of the Heroic Mujaheddin™ as it is against al-Qaeda. The two are inextricably intertwined...
Mr Record adds: "[The war] against a deterred Iraq has created a new front in the Middle East for Islamic terrorism and diverted attention and resources away from the security of the American homeland against further assault by an undeterrable al-Qaeda."
The new front is the entire idea. You *want* to fight the war on the enemy’s territory and not your own.
US officials have played down the report. They say the views are those of the author alone and do not represent any official policy. In a disclaimer, the US Army’s War College’s Institute for Strategic Studies adds that the report does not represent the views of the college. They said staff and students at the War College are encouraged to be critical and that the college was founded to promote independent analysis. Our correspondent says the suspicion will nevertheless be that the views are shared by some in the US Army. Mr Record’s views also echo many of the criticisms made by the administration’s political opponents.

I doubt the views are shared by many staff and students at the War College. I don't know what Mr. Record teaches, but if it's strategy, I hope they don't renew his contract. There is room for legitimate differences of opinion on the course the WoT will take. Iraq had some points against it as a target for military action, but military action against a terror-supporting state was a desirable move in the war. That would have meant Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya or Sudan, possibly Somalia. Had I been Bush, I may have gone with Syria and Iran — the two are closely intertwined. But because they're so closely intertwined, Iraq was a simpler target. Libya was peripheral, Sudan was protesting that it was no longer involved in the terror business, and Somalia's such a mess, with so many targets to hit, that there isn't really anything there to beat up. Pakistan, the root of terror muscle, is our Friend and Ally™. Soddy Arabia, the root of all terror money, would represent a declaration of war against all of Islam due to its status as protector of the holy sites. I suppose we could have cleaned out the Pankisi Gorge, but that would have tweaked the Russian nose; or we could have cleaned out Gaza and the West Bank with three or four divisions, but the Israelis are dealing with that, and the targets aren't al-Qaeda. So Iraq was it, by process of elimination and by virtue of Ansar al-Islam, with the PLA and Abu Nidal as a bonus.

Posted by:CrazyFool

#16  I would bet a large portion of my worldly wealth that Mr. RobertsRecord should have stuck with his own neighborhood. He certainly isn't as intelligent at Rumsfeld and Rice, especially when the two of them work together, with Rice playing devil's advocate.

I wrote an email to President Bush back in May congratulating him on his overall Middle East strategy. I won't repeat that here, but suffice to say, nothing that's happened since has changed my thinking - only my admiration of a multiple-level, multiple-target, multipronged attack that a) has gone well, b) has achieved a number of interim objectives with fewer casualties and at significantly lower cost than I would have considered, and c) has had some serindipitous effects even far outside the actual zone of combat.

I dont' know what the President plans to do next. I do know there are dozens of options, each of which could be accomplished by our government, and all of which could prove as benificial in the long run as the war in Iraq. I'm also not privy to the government's timetable as to which option will be exercized next, but I eagerly await what will happen, and where, knowing that the plan's been vetted by adults who understand what they're doing, and also understand the benifits and consequences of their actions.

As for Mr. Jeffrey "Broken" Record, I hope he has a taste for crow, because I think he's going to be eating a lot of it.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2004-1-13 7:34:00 PM  

#15  Well, who knows what the college was thinking. But perhaps the ideal staff solution was to occupy a certain 40 km area of SA make glass of the rest, starve Syria, test the EarthQuake machine on Iran, and wait for the Jew H.A.A.R.P. to destroy Baghdad. I think the public outcry would be worse.. But you have to admit it's a better plan.
Posted by: Shipman   2004-1-13 5:52:38 PM  

#14  I know a few things about strategy, too, but in this case, you don't really have to. Just look at a map.
War on terror means fighting terrorism on four plans:

1) Political: Deterring Arab/Muslim/Turban leaders from supporting, aiding, hiding terrorists and/or using them for their own political/dictatorial/megalomanic goals, with or without WMDs. Progress: Pretty good: Talibs out, Saddam out, Baby Assad wetting his pants, Ghadaffi hanging them out to dry, Soddies worried, Musharraf in dire need to solve Talib and Kashmir problem, the Black Hats backing down as well (but on very close watch). Not bad..
2) Financial: Stopping the money flow. Major attacks need money, WMD attacks need even more money. Controlling the money flow and taking out anyone who finances terror must be pursued with determination (Saudis especially). Progress: Saddam's contributions to suicide bomber families stopped, Saddam's billions probably iced very soon (the Swiss, Syrians, Lebanese need a bit more encouraging on that one) . The Saudi money trail is the biggest problem, but to have troops so close to the major sites of Saudi income (oil strip) is priceless.
3) Ideological: Silencing those who preach hate, dire revenge, jihad against the West. Much more needs to be done in that respect: in our own countries (Al Mujahiroun etc) and in islamist countries (taking out any Abu Bin Goebbels we can get hold of). Progress: Saddam stopped dead on his way to become a "religious leader" with WMD, Taliban stone age islamism driven back into the caves it came from.
4) Intelligence: Infiltrating, interrogating and confusing the terrorist networks. Progress: Pretty good. Afghanistan provided us with Al Qaeda and Taliban intelligence (Guantanamo), Iraq with the Mukhbarat archives (should be interesting read). Add Ghadaffi's (grain of salt) willingness to provide info about terrorist networks: a direct result of the Iraq war.

Strategic error? I don't think so.
Posted by: True German Ally   2004-1-13 5:45:50 PM  

#13  Good points all. I didn't like Fred's final claim that Iraq was chosen by default or process of elimination (well not exactly) after considering targeting Syria, Soddie, Libya, etc.

Iraq was targeted for many reasons but no one here has listed the most important: We were already in a 12 year conflict (a real quagmire) against Saddam and losing it.

That needed to change.
Posted by: Tokyo Taro   2004-1-13 5:27:21 PM  

#12  Unlike civilian centers of alleged 'higher' education, the war college(s) really do encourage opposing views and critical analyses. They're doing the right thing by publishing this guys paper, no matter how much it flies in the face of reality, or how flawed his thesis. If only to give the future generals a little insight into how the military-haters and appeasers think. I like to bash the brass (of ALL services) as much as anyone about being too 'harvard' and p.c., but I think they're right about letting this mutt spout. And you can be assured, there are plenty of colonels who are tearing this guy's arguments to shreds, much like OldSpook.

ps. can you imagine someone going for a phd at berkeley or harvard by submitting a thesis that was laudatory of the Bush administration and foreign policy? they'd be shouted down, drummed out of the program, and blacklisted by the stalinist thought police
Posted by: 4thInfVet   2004-1-13 3:07:06 PM  

#11  Not Strategic? Someone run a urinalysis on that man!

He's smoking something.

1) Geopoloitially speaking, its a keystone. Its across the "supply lines" for Iran-to-Syria/Lebanon, and vice versa. (i.e. terrorist supply routes).

2) Democracy+US Military presence in the area immediately pressures Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.

3) It shattered several pet myths of"The Arab Street" having to do with Allah, racial and religious bigotry, and so on. Consider that it was considered the "most Arab" nation, given that it goes back to ancient times of Babylon (Not to be comfused with "Most Islamic", which is Saudi given al the religious sites there).

4) And it also shattered the Myth that the US could not and would not undertake a large invasion.

5) It demonstrated that the US can and will take casualties in the pursuit of justice. And the US population will not "Vietname" all over again (despite the best efforts of the Press and the Democratic Party and the "Hate Bush" crowd).

6) It provides a centralized base of operations, and land infilataion routes for special operations and intelligence far superior to any other place in the region.

7) It has drawn out all the terrorist form the woodwork in Syria and other countries, where they try to take their shot at the US, and armed tained troops generally fare a lot better than civilians. Plus, lost in all the press fog about US Casualties, there are a more Dead terrorists and plenty more in captivity now than there would be had we not gone in.

I could go on, being as I do know a thing or two about strategy, but I think the above are enough, prima facia, to show the fellow to be either stoned or stupid - or simply another vindictive micro-cephalic Hate-Bush bastard.
Posted by: OldSpook   2004-1-13 2:43:50 PM  

#10  Even Buffy couldn't get rid the the First Evil. But she got a big army to take care of its minions.

But evil can be managed.
Posted by: Anonymous2U   2004-1-13 1:55:33 PM  

#9  I swear our leftwingers wouldn't know a strategic victory if it bit them on the ass.
Posted by: Anonymous   2004-1-13 1:49:59 PM  

#8   US war in Iraq ’strategic error’

Yeah whatever...at least its been a resounding tactical success!
Posted by: JerseyMike   2004-1-13 12:39:24 PM  

#7  The argument is that we can't liberate everybody so we shouldn't liberate anybody. For a good article to the contrary, from a German newspaper no less, see:

http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2004/01/eine_zeitung_wa.html#more

via Tim Blair.
Posted by: Matt   2004-1-13 12:24:10 PM  

#6  Hate people like Jeffery who are after nothing more then a good bit of shit stirring,I too noticed the BBC jumped on this but with thier currant reputation i don't think many will take notice especially of that Nick Childs (childlike) prick.The BBC is losing so much faith from its viewers.I hate the BBC.
Posted by: Jon Shep U.K   2004-1-13 12:03:16 PM  

#5  ...a visiting professor at the prestigious college in Pennsylvania... I thought Colombia had all these guys on staff.
Posted by: Super Hose   2004-1-13 11:52:54 AM  

#4  Seems to me that Jeffrey Record's prescription for battling Islamic terrorism is precisely the approach that got us attacked on 9/11. Or am I perhaps missing something?
Posted by: Dave D.   2004-1-13 11:32:31 AM  

#3  Jeffrey Record's essays are full of errors. You have to read his Vietnam stuff to realize how full of crap this guy is. When I read one of his essays, the errors of fact and the evasions of important issues kept on jumping out at me, until I finally gave up. It is amazing how a sloppy researcher like this guy manages to stay employed. (Actually, maybe it's not so amazing, given some of the other stuff I have read).
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2004-1-13 10:37:18 AM  

#2  I'm amazed at the amount of effort being expended to turn our victory into a defeat.
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2004-1-13 10:21:41 AM  

#1  "The United States may be able to defeat al-Qaeda, but it cannot rid the world of terrorism, much less evil," he says in the report.

No, the U.S. can't rid the globe of terrorism, but if it puts the kibosh on terrorism directed against Americans and American interests, then that's what matters.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2004-1-13 10:20:14 AM  

00:00