Article

2004-05-09 Home Front: WoT

Dissension Grows In Senior Ranks On War Strategy

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Verlaine 2004-05-09 1:40:26 PM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 The Army has not learned a thing.Need a Marine in charge in Iraq to finish the job.Afterwards,we can then start being nice,and bring the Army back in to keep order.

Posted by rich woods 2004-05-09 4:58:25 PM|| 2004-05-09 4:58:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 What is at work here is at least 8 years of Clinton approved promotions at the General officer level. What kind of soldiers did he promote and which did he let go? Why did Rummy have to go outside the current active oficers to get Schoomaker when it was time to name a new Chief of Staff?

If this continues, the lesson todays lieutenants and captains will learn is that like Vietnam, we didn't loose the war in Iraq, but unlike it, we lost it in the Pentagon. That could mean a better Army in 20 years, but I fear for what happens in the meantime.

Posted by Mr. Davis 2004-05-09 5:39:15 PM|| 2004-05-09 5:39:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 I'm sorry, fellow RBers, but I don't buy any story from the WashBrainPost, especially stories like this one that put the top brass in a bad light.
SOP for the WaPo every d*mn day.

Posted by Jen 2004-05-09 5:45:21 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-05-09 5:45:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 Funny, Rich, I was going to make some crack about putting more Marines in charge, too. But I don't know if that's really relevant here. I'm just speculating when I talk about Army resentment over "transformation" and Rummy's successful and wise rejection of conventional Army planning for the two wars -- I think to draw firm conclusions about cause and effect here would be as silly as the misinformed pundits who off-handedly refer to "the neocons," as if that's a meaningful concept either in general or in particular relationship to some actual problem being discussed.

I think there are a lot of fine Army officers at all levels -- and we've seen some great performance in Iraq. I also think there must be some interesting, concrete, insightful criticism of our tactics/strategy in Iraq -- it's just that we never, ever, hear it. Just the usual vague, general, and/or off-base sniping and sweeping conclusions, cherry-picked from the usual suspects, as in this article.

Even if -- like very bad poker players -- pre-emptively abandon our higher goals even before we've given them any time, the achievement of lower goals (basic stabilization, preserving territorial integrity and a non-hostile government) will still take time and, tragically, lives. Drive-by regime change can be the call in certain places (it's practically the right call and the actual policy in Afghanistan), but not in Iraq. These general officers might want to remind themselves that real strategic life is not a systems analysis model or a painless, plannable simulation.

Posted by Verlaine 2004-05-09 5:59:40 PM|| 2004-05-09 5:59:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 There likely is some concern about keeping large amounts of troops in Iraq for an undefined time.Distorts budgeting,training,planning,etc.
However,it should also be remembered the senior Army Brass hates Rumsfeld.He tried to cancel the Army's pet projects-new SP,Comanchee helo-and brought in a retired Green Beret to be top General(conventional Army establishment hates SF).Rumsfeld believes combo small powerful computers,improved comm has revolutionized warfare and Army doesn't "get it";while Army believes no was ever killed by a radio-it's firepower radio can call that kills.Frustrations among top Generals have been brewing,esp.because they couldn't speak out both because troops are in field,and if military is seen criticizing Bush Admin.it would be a boost to Kerry,who the Army sure doesn't want.If Bush looks sure to be reelected we will see alot more stories on how military is winning war,but politicians are screwing up peace.

Posted by Stephen 2004-05-09 6:21:40 PM|| 2004-05-09 6:21:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 like this one that put the top brass in a bad light
Never Rong! Never Rong!

Posted by Churchhills Parrot 2004-05-09 7:21:53 PM|| 2004-05-09 7:21:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Never Rong! Never Rong!
That would be the WashedUpPost who acts that way.
The Post doesn't know *squat* about this...notice how their sources are always unnamed?
I would be very ANGRY if the Pentagon were leaking war plans to the WaPo in the middle of this--or any--way.
As if they would. Which they didn't.

Posted by Jen 2004-05-09 7:47:28 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-05-09 7:47:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 I would be very ANGRY
Always rite! Always rite!

Posted by Churchhills Parrot 2004-05-09 7:59:14 PM|| 2004-05-09 7:59:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Don't feed the parrots.

Encourages them! Encourages them!

Posted by Mr. Davis 2004-05-09 8:02:13 PM|| 2004-05-09 8:02:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 "Always rite! Always rite!"
Yes, most of the time.
Get used to it or prepare to be an EX-parrot and be stuffed!

BTW, I meant to say..."leaking war plans to the WaPo in the middle of this--or any-WAR."
See, CP, I do sometimes make a mistake.

Posted by Jen 2004-05-09 8:03:22 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-05-09 8:03:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Blue moon! blue moon!

Posted by Churchhills Parrot 2004-05-09 8:08:42 PM|| 2004-05-09 8:08:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 I liked this exchange:

A Special Forces officer aimed higher, saying that "Rumsfeld needs to go, as does Wolfowitz."

Asked about such antagonism, Wolfowitz said, "I wish they'd have the -- whatever it takes -- to come tell me to my face."

Yeah, he could fill in for Rummy if anything happened.

Posted by Mr. Davis 2004-05-09 8:15:37 PM|| 2004-05-09 8:15:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Deep divisions are emerging at the top of the U.S. military over the course of the occupation of Iraq, No need to read further. Lots of good points here, but it's all presented within their "occupation" framework which is not a realistic way to view this war.

This isn't a war we can "pull out" of. It's like a forest fire that we can see will consume us if we don't put it out. Iraq and Afghanistan are backfires that may help us to slow the flames, but it won't stop the fire. There is no "pulling out" of this war. The war will, by it's very nature, come to us. Those who think we can don't understand what is happening. But eventually, they will be forced to grasp it.

Posted by Anny Emous 2004-05-09 9:36:03 PM|| 2004-05-09 9:36:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 I'm w/Jen, not buying this article either. Top Brass - at least in the Corps, don't speak out on strategic policy that's going on - it's taboo. We also don't second guess the secdef/secnav/jcs or C-n-C on or off the record. This article is prolly 90% b.s.

BTW - just had a good buddy come back from 6 months in Baghdad/an nasiriyah - said the media is full of shit. 80-85% of the people he met love the heck out of the Marines. He even got lost in Baghdad one day out looking around, said the locals couldn't do enough to help him out. Even had some women propose marriage (that's prolly bullshit between me & you - but I believe the rest).

Posted by Jarhead 2004-05-09 9:57:04 PM|| 2004-05-09 9:57:04 PM|| Front Page Top