Defeatist traitor whines about Iraq

[Patroklos]

Third, the Senate must hold accountable through its confirmation powers those officers who fail to achieve the aims of policy at an acceptable cost in blood and treasure.

Are you kidding me, you can claim mission failure all you want, but to say this hasn't been one of the least painful conficts in the history of the mankind given scale is just ridiculous. What is the casualty rate, .20% for death, .90% for injury?

[Arrian]

You think that one line about blood and treasure (mostly treasure, really) means the guy is whining about casualty rates?

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

this guy believes in being prepared for nation building, and even referred to the long war. I thought you didnt like that?

I found much in this article insightful.

[Patroklos]

The fact is the US politicians have used and continue to use the US military for "nation building." And they'll do it again, I promise you. So maybe it's time to prepare them for it.

IMO, seperating "military operations" from "nation building" in a case such as Iraq is ridiculous.

Wether they are used for it or not is not the point. So many here maintain that such things can not be accomplished militarily. So if they want to ridicule the use of the military for such things go ahead, but you can't simulaniously blame them for failing.

Especially since they are not picking the goals in the first place.

[Dauphin]

Are you kidding me, you can claim mission failure all you want, but to say this hasn't been one of the least painful conficts in the history of the mankind given scale is just ridiculous. What is the casualty rate, .20% for death, .90% for injury?

Are you talking service personel or civilians (innocent and otherwise).

[Arrian]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
this guy believes in being prepared for nation building, and even referred to the long war. I thought you didnt like that?

I found much in this article insightful.

I'm not a big fan of nation building - particularly unilateral or nearly unilateral nation building (best to spread the cost around), but it's pretty clear that nation building is something we as a country have been doing and will continue to do in the future. Given that, I want us to do it right if we are to do it at all.

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Which brings us back to my point. Beer. Brewing is the essence of civilization without it all is doomed.

[Patroklos]

You think that one line about blood and treasure (mostly treasure, really) means the guy is whining about casualty rates?

He said blood, we have long ago decided that we will spend whatever it takes to keep the casualties low. Why you arbitrarily think his emphasis is on treasure when he said both is odd.

Do Generals anywhere control the money anyway?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


I'm not a big fan of nation building - particularly unilateral or nearly unilateral nation building (best to spread the cost around), but it's pretty clear that nation building is something we as a country have been doing and will continue to do in the future. Given that, I want us to do it right.

-Arrian

The fact that its gone so wrong in Iraq is the factor that will do most to insure we do less of it in the near future. A few more such failures, and we'll never do it again.

This guy seems to think that if we are smarter, starting with the whole military transformation concept (take that Rummy) we COULD succeed in nationbuilding.

This could fit with a Thomas Barnett (core-gap) kind of global grand strategy.

[Dinner]

I good political leader should identify the goals and objectives, listen to the military leaders about differing ways to achieve those objectives, listen to the political leaders to see if this is politically possible, then make a decision. Once the decision on objectives is made then the politicians need to excuse themselves from day to day operations and concentrate on evaluating progress towards the objectives and refining the objectives based upon new realities.

The problems on the military side happen when the military experts say "we're going to need 500,000 to invade and fully control the country" and then some dirt bag draft dogging politicians says "nah, I'll give you 150,000 instead". Then they whine that the military isn't succeeding after they've robbed it of more then 2/3rds of the needed resources. After that level of political sabotage an extra couple of thousand four years later isn't crap. It's less then crap and just PR.

[Arrian]

Sorry. To clarify: it's MY emphasis on treasure as against blood*. I don't know one way or the other what the Lt. Colonel thinks.

-Arrian

* - American blood, anyway. Tons of Iraqi blood has been spilt, of course.

[Patroklos]

Are you talking service personel or civilians (innocent and otherwise).

Service personnel, that was off the top of my head though. I am looking now for figures of how many military personnel have served in Iraq. It has to be in the over a million by now but I will let you know.

Iraq civilian death rates are probably at a record low given scale and type of conflict as well, but their casualty figures are so unwieldy I don't rely on them.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Iraq civilian death rates are probably at a record low given scale and type of conflict as well, but their casualty figures are so unwieldy I don't rely on them.

Do you not find that comment the least bit ironic?

[Patroklos]

Then they whine that the military isn't succeeding after they've robbed it of more then 2/3rds of the needed resources.

What are you talking about?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I good political leader should identify the goals and objectives, listen to the military leaders about differing ways to achieve those objectives, listen to the political leaders to see if this is politically possible, then make a decision. Once the decision on objectives is made then the politicians need to excuse themselves from day to day operations and concentrate on evaluating progress towards the objectives and refining the objectives based upon new realities.

The problems on the military side happen when the military experts say "we're going to need 500,000 to invade and fully control the country" and then some dirt bag draft dogging politicians says "nah, I'll give you 150,000 instead". Then they whine that the military isn't succeeding after they've robbed it of more then 2/3rds of the needed resources. After that level of political sabotage an extra couple of thousand four years later isn't crap. It's less then crap and just PR.

1. Shinseki didnt say 500,000 he said several hundred thousand. Thats not to excuse Rummy, but lets be clear.

2. The problem the article is aimed it is not so much Shinseki, who made his objections clear, but to all the other senior brass who didnt.

3. The problem, as I think the article makes clear, didnt begin in 2003, or even 2001. Its that we took an overly optimistic view of the whole military transformation. Now maybe it took a particular kind of hubris to stick to that after 9-11, and even after the decision to invade Iraq was taken. But its still a larger problem, and one that still faces us today.