TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- War College Report: Iraq War an 'Error '
War College Report: Iraq War an 'Error '
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) - A report published by the Army War College calls the Bush administration's war on terrorism unfocused and says the invasion of Iraq was "a strategic error."
The research paper by Jeffrey Record, a professor at the Air War College at Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, said the president's strategy "promises much more than it can deliver" and threatens to spread U.S. military resources too thin. Record also wrote that Saddam Hussein (news - bio) 's Iraq did not present a threat to the United States and was a distraction from the war on terrorism.
Record is a visiting professor at the Army War College at Carlisle Barracks, Pa. The paper was published last month by the Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute.
Lt. Col. Merideth Bucher, public affairs officer for the Army War College, said Monday it is not unusual for students, mostly higher ranking officers, at the war college to be exposed to critical thought that might be contrary to current national policy. She said students are often exposed to speakers with varying views.
The director of the Strategic Studies Institute, Douglas Lovelace Jr., said it was originally founded by President Dwight Eisenhower to take a critical independent analysis of military issues from an academic perspective.
"Dr. Record is a noted national security specialist. It's not at all at odds for us to analyze a given mission and arrive at a conclusion that seems at odds with national policy," Lovelace said. He said in the past the institute has released studies analyzing U.S. policy in Haiti, Afghanistan and other hot spots. Record could not be reached immediately for comment Monday through Army public affairs offices and he did not immediately respond to e-mails from The Associated Press. He is the author of six books and is a former legislative assistant for national security affairs to Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Georgia, and former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen, D-Texas.
Record's report concludes that the war on terrorism is too widespread and should focus on al-Qaeda and other terrorist threats to the United States.
"The United States may be able to defeat al-Qaeda, but it cannot rid the world of terrorism, much less evil," Record writes.
i'm surprised that any military guy would actually write that and have it published. I guess even the military knows they shouldn't be in there.
I find this whole story rather interesting considering the War College probably played a major role in drawing up the Iraq War plans in the first place!
| quote: |
| Originally posted by failsafe i'm surprised that any military guy would actually write that and have it published. I guess even the military knows they shouldn't be in there. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Yoepus He's not, he's a liberal hippie professors, American campuses are full with them believe me. Guess they even filter into the military universities... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DaveSaenz You label anyone who is against the war a "hippie." I'm going to PS a photo of Pat Buchanan in hippie threads one of these days just for you Comrade. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DaveSaenz You label anyone who is against the war a "hippie." |
I'm not really that suprised. There are many people who think that the war on Iraq is a complete strategic mistake. A professor and I discussed this in depth and he also thinks it was a mistake. He agrees with the person in this article... that although there is a possiblity that the military may conquer Al Queda, it is impossible to stop all terrorism. We both agree that the United States has begun to think of themselves somewhat as a "God" figure, believing that they can eliminate all that is wrong in the world.
Hmm, let me reword that, not "begun" to think that, since they have thought so for a while, but they are taking their mission of righteousness into places where it doesn't belong. With this type of thinking, it allows a large range of possiblity that we can be hit at a weak spot, because of the fact that we so thuroughly believe we are unbeatable. With this kind of military thinking, it provides a window of opportunity to strike. Just like in 1941, we might be hit when and where we think it is impossible.
The only true way to prepare for a war, in my opinion, is to understand that you might lose. Only then will you be able to guard yourself on all fronts.
So is this just 1 guy talking, or is it a representative voice of the War College as a whole? The Army War College is a 2-4 year program ( I can't recall if it's 2 or 4--probably 2)that most (if not all) prospective Army generals must go through where they undergo intensive reading and strategic planning. The reason I question whether it is 1 person speaking his voice versus the entire college speaking is that obviously Generals are more independent minded in the military and many have differing opinions on battle strategies, etc. This could just be an administrative person speaking their political mind, or it could be an anti-Bush General, or it could be someone else. Hard to say.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka So is this just 1 guy talking, or is it a representative voice of the War College as a whole? The Army War College is a 2-4 year program ( I can't recall if it's 2 or 4--probably 2)that most (if not all) prospective Army generals must go through where they undergo intensive reading and strategic planning. The reason I question whether it is 1 person speaking his voice versus the entire college speaking is that obviously Generals are more independent minded in the military and many have differing opinions on battle strategies, etc. This could just be an administrative person speaking their political mind, or it could be an anti-Bush General, or it could be someone else. Hard to say. |
| quote: |
| The report, by Jeffrey Record, a visiting professor at the Air War College at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabam Record, a veteran defense specialist and author of six books on military strategy and related issues, was an aide to then-Sen. Sam Nunn when the Georgia Democrat was chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. In discussing his political background, Record also noted that in 1999 while on the staff of the Air War College, he published work critical of the Clinton administration. His essay, published by the Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute, carries the standard disclaimer that its views are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Army, the Pentagon or the U.S. government. |
So there you have it--certainly I won't say he's not a smart man without credentials, however as a visiting professor, I'd hardly say his statements echo the larger views of the War College itself. Sounds like the media might've gotten a little ahead of itself on this one.
Thanks for the news link.
makes a bit more sense now.
War College Report Rips U.S. Priorities
The Washington Post
January 12, 2004, 7:45 PM EST
A scathing new report published by the U.S. Army War College broadly criticizes the Bush administration's handling of the war on terrorism, accusing it of taking a detour into an "unnecessary" war in Iraq and pursuing an "unrealistic" quest against terrorism that may lead to U.S. wars with states that pose no serious threat.
The report by Jeffrey Record, visiting professor at the Air War College at Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala., warns that as a result of those mistakes, the Army is "near the breaking point." It recommends, among other things, scaling back the scope of the "global war on terrorism" and focusing on the narrower threat posed by the al-Qaida terrorist network.
The "global war on terrorism as currently defined and waged is dangerously indiscriminate and ambitious, and accordingly ... its parameters should be readjusted," Record writes. Currently, he adds, the anti-terrorism campaign "is strategically unfocused, promises more than it can deliver, and threatens to dissipate U.S. military resources in an endless and hopeless search for absolute security."
Record, author of six books on military strategy and related issues, was an aide to former senator Sam Nunn when the Georgia Democrat was chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Record noted that in 1999, when he was on the staff of the Air War College, he published work critical of the Clinton administration.
His new essay, published by the college's Strategic Studies Institute, carries the standard disclaimer that its views are those of the author and don't necessarily represent those of the Army, the Pentagon, or the U.S. government. But retired Army Col. Douglas C. Lovelace Jr., the college's Strategic Studies Institute, whose Web site carries Record's 56-page monograph, hardly distanced himself from it. "I think that the substance that Jeff brings out in the article really, really needs to be considered," he said.
Publication was approved by the commandant, Maj. Gen. David H. Huntoon Jr., Lovelace said, noting that Huntoon "considers it to be under the umbrella of academic freedom."
Larry DiRita, the top Pentagon spokesman, said he had not read the Record study. He added: "If the conclusion is that we need to be scaling back in the global war on terrorism, it's not likely to be on my reading list anytime soon."
Many of Record's arguments, such as the contention that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was deterred from making war and did not present a threat, have been made before by critics of the administration. Iraq, he concludes, "was a war-of-choice distraction from the war of necessity against" al-Qaida. It is unusual to have such views published by the War College, the Army's premier academic institution.
Record likens the scale of U.S. ambitions in the war on terrorism to Hitler's overreach in World War II. "A cardinal rule of strategy is to keep your enemies to a manageable number," he writes. "The Germans were defeated in two world wars ... because their strategic ends outran their available means."
He recommends, among other things, that the United States should be prepared to settle for a "friendly autocracy" in Iraq rather than a genuine democracy.
Here's an older report from the same author:
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pu...ready/ready.pdf
(in PDF form)
G.W. Bush lost the little trust I had in his administration from the ongoing lack of WMDs in Iraq, not that it is the one and only rationale, but it is under this belief that I felt that a war in Iraq could be tolerated on my part. So far no signs of them and therefore a lack of credibility has developed on my part for the current administration. I would be hard pressed to believe them raising such claims against another regime as a premise for war ever again.
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.