| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Iraq | |
| In Iraq, Military Forgot the Lessons of Vietnam | |
| 2006-07-23 | |
There is some evidence that Saddam Hussein's government knew it couldn't win a conventional war, and some captured documents indicate that it may have intended some sort of rear-guard campaign of subversion against occupation. The stockpiling of weapons, distribution of arms caches, the revolutionary roots of the Baathist Party, and the movement of money and people to Syria either before or during the war all indicate some planning for an insurgency. But there is also strong evidence, based on a review of thousands of military documents and hundreds of interviews with military personnel, that the U.S. approach to pacifying Iraq in the months after the collapse of Hussein helped spur the insurgency and made it bigger and stronger than it might have been. | |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #17 I agree that the militery has made mistakes and that';s why this is taking so long. My way: When taking a town, go door to door and round up all of the weapons. Then, if a gun or explosion goes off in that town, kill every other male above the age of 9. Soon you win the war and control the country. Have a parade and a big party, and let the survivors build a democracy. Make sure they do it right. If you find anyone crossing the border, kill them. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-07-23 20:58 |
| #16 The main lesson is: before you invade, try doing some research on the internet. Then, if you come across a website run by the leading mainstream cleric of the country in question, and it equates non-believers with feces and urine, you might think twice about the hearts-and-minds approach, and break out the B52s instead. |
| Posted by: Infidel23 2006-07-23 20:22 |
| #15 Nothing coherent... just some passing thoughts. We did think that there would be insurgency in Bosnia and attempts to suck our troops into it. We were pleasantly suprised that it didn't happen. I am very skeptical of comments made by counter-insurgency and SF types. Few understand that the reason we sent the Marines and Army into Viet Nam was because the SF base camps kept getting overrun and weren't stopping the influx of supplies and NVA main force units into the south. Afghanistan was their big success, but that was an entirely different beast. The two sides were arrayed in what was essentially a linear standoff, i.e. fighting conventionally. The Northern Alliance forces plus US airpower won that campaign. No credible voice is asking that the Afghan theater be turned over to SF right now to fight an ISI-backed Taliban. I admire Petreaus and I don't mean to take anything away from him, but remember that the 101st was in Northern Iraq during OIF 1 and overall had a much friendlier environment than units in the Sunni triangle. I guess you can say that we hosed the de-Baathification and dismissing the Iraqi Army thing, but why are the Israelis facing the same problems in the occupied territories? The Lebanese Sunnis, Christians and Druze in southern Lebanon? Maybe we just need to admit that the thing that we are fighting in this war is Islam and tribalism -- that the enemy is a highly networked group of independent operators linked together by the Sunnah and Qutbism. Maybe then, everything makes sense. Maybe then we can develop the strategy, operational plans, and tactics to win this war. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2006-07-23 18:37 |
| #14 Blah blah blah quagmire blah blah cut and run blah retreat blah blah ... YAWN! |
| Posted by: DMFD 2006-07-23 17:34 |
| #13 I wonder how the US press would have reported WW2 if Hitler had not first attacked Stalin. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-07-23 13:54 |
| #12 1) The media is the your enemy. A lesson unlearned with every war. Google General Sherman's comments about the press. The problem is that DoD is still fighting WWII when it comes to the media. WWII was an anomaly. The general officers don't want to mess with things that are not immediately effecting the operational battlefield. As a consequence they 'outsource' the message to the MSM which, as noted, shares the same goal as the enemy. It means that DoD has to invest its over stretched resources and build an alternative means of communicating directly with the people. The troops are doing this when they're home, that's why enlistments are being met during time of war, even with the massive negative coverage of the MSM. However, the peer communications are not enough. They need to exploit cable, satellite, and the internet to bring the info to the public. The dead tree media is going the way of its older generation. Time to jump the generations with the technology. Until they do this, they'll win the battlefield but face losing the war at home in the end. |
| Posted by: Ebbenter Phique5516 2006-07-23 12:46 |
| #11 Top 10 lessons of Vietnam (by the US military): 1) The media is the your enemy. 2) The left despises you and wants you dead. 3) Never let a "think tank" run a war. 4) Academics live in a fantasy world. 5) Congressmen have no idea. 6) Unconventional ops like "Phoenix Program" work. 7) AT NO TIME do pictures of dead bodies help your cause. 8) The history of war is written during the war. Write it or your enemies will. 9) Combat soldiers know what they are talking about. Give them what they want. 10) You will be punished later for what was reasonable at the time. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-07-23 11:19 |
| #10 Seems that much of the article is based on the premise that "some things went wrong in vietnam and we eventually lost, and now some things are going wrong in Iraq so we must have forgotten the lessons and we'll lose". Fact is the facts on the ground are different and what worked then may not work now, what didn't work then may work now. I trust the military to get this right more often than not and I trust their success record will be looked on positively when the history books are written (as oppossed to the fast to print score political points crap we're seeing now). |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-07-23 10:53 |
| #9 I have no doubt that there are lessons to be learned from Iraq. I also have no doubt that had we not de-Baathed the Iraqi military and police, we would be reading articles bemoaning how we were in the middle of an insurgency in which we could not trust our Iraqi "allies" who were running the insurgency on their off-duty hours. It is exactly this kind of lose-lose analysis that leaves me with a funny feeling when I read an article like this. How much of this represents bureaucratic combat for the next promotion? Just a little too inside the E-Ring without a scorecard. And where is the word Marines? Didn't they play a part over there? Did they do things differently? How did that work out? The reference to Vietnam is apt, because that is the lens through which the media sees this war. But I'll bet most of the folks fighting it don't. I'm eagerly awaiting their second draft of history. Great thread, every comment is enlightening. Funny how the level of discourse seems proportional to the current level of operations. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-07-23 10:34 |
| #8 "If so, that's a major blunder on our part, as it's something we should have reasonably anticipated." Did we here on Rantburg anticipate it? I certainly don't recall much "watch out for an insurgency" talk here during the run-up to OIF-- in fact, I don't recall any. And if we didn't anticipate it, why would you think our military people should have? They can't plan for everything, you know. They're not omniscient, any more than we are. What this article very carefully-- and dishonestly-- avoids any mention of, is the fundamental reason for the sheer, dogged persistence of the insurgency: the relentlessly negative press coverage of the war in the U.S., along with the cynically calculated anti-war rhetoric of the Democratic Party, have convinced the Baathists and jihadis they will ultimately win because we are on the verge of giving up and "responsibly redeploying" (i.e., running home) with our tails between our legs. This war is not a contest of arms; it is a contest of wills. And from Day One, America's liberal establishment has been on a no-holds-barred, all-out campaign of doing everything humanly possible to undermine the will of the American public to win this struggle, and everything humanly possible to bolster the enemy's confidence. And this horseshit "look how we fucked up!" article is part of that campaign. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2006-07-23 10:11 |
| #7 One thing to keep in mind; the US military has a very strong tendency to self criticism. This is a strength, not a weakness. An external observer could take this as a negative trait (and could provide fodder for ignorant or malicious reporting) but the military considers it extremely positive. It is at the core of the drive to strengthen and refine the forces, to learn from mistakes, to improve performance. |
| Posted by: Whiskey Mike 2006-07-23 10:02 |
| #6 I'd say the main Vietnam War lesson they forgot was that the press is your most dangerous enemy. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2006-07-23 09:36 |
| #5 I'm not a military expert, nor am I a vet. As I read the article with non-mil eyes, it does seem that they lay out a case for our military not being prepared for counter-insurgency ops, particularly in the first year of reconstruction. If so, that's a major blunder on our part, as it's something we should have reasonably anticipated. You can't plan for everything. You must plan for the next step in each program. Miss a step and start all over again. Focus what is in front of you. It's ok to conjecture, but if you worry too much about everything, you do nothing. The Clauswitzian dictate is that in war there is friction. You have to deal with it. The ground pounding snuffy would say 'no plan survives the first 10 minutes of contact'. Adapt, improvise, overcome. ThatÂ’s a trait of the American soldier since day one and an advantage few have matched. As it has been posted many times here at the Rant, the US has the capacity to have turned Iraq into one big parking lot. A lot of civilian dead, like Germany and Japan. However, the political and military leadership choose not to [I don't recall a single senior officer promoting a LeMay approach to Iraq before the start gun sounded]. So, they went in with what they had. Considering that with less than 3,000 casualties they've accomplished as much as they have, from a military history and operations perspective, its been one hell of good showing. Remember the critics never talk about the long history of military failures the cover the record since Pharaoh Ramses got his ass kicked by the Hittites [although his public proclamations seem to say different. Wonder why?]. Relative to other military campaigns would only highlight the level of success which the MSM is totally unwilling to do [cause they share a common goal with the enemy]. Just remember - there is no perfect. Never has been. |
| Posted by: Crogum Snoluque4065 2006-07-23 09:02 |
| #4 Although I do not buy the article "lock stock and barrel", much of it sounds very reasonable. Remember many of the quotes are coming from military experts themselves like Army Col. Robert Killebrew, a veteran of Special Forces in the Vietnam War. I hate to say it, there are some bright spots, but the whole thing overall seems to be geting more and more like a big mess. Many Iraqis hate Americans, many hate other Iraqis who are starting to hate them back. The U.S. Army is not very good at being a "baby sitter". |
| Posted by: FeralCat 2006-07-23 01:51 |
| #3 I'm not a military expert, nor am I a vet. As I read the article with non-mil eyes, it does seem that they lay out a case for our military not being prepared for counter-insurgency ops, particularly in the first year of reconstruction. If so, that's a major blunder on our part, as it's something we should have reasonably anticipated. Again, I'm not the expert, but we have people here on the Burg who are. Perhaps a Sunday class at Rantburg U.? |
| Posted by: Steve White 2006-07-23 01:06 |
| #2 That's a long article. Is there anything in there worth reading? Quagmire! Blame Bush! Do anything and it will make things worse! You've lost the war, go home! Did I miss anything? Or is it just more WaPo sucking up to their Saudi paymasters at the expense of their grandchildren? |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-07-23 00:55 |
| #1 Same ole warmed up spit. BTW T. Ricks has a book coming out soon. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-07-23 00:31 |