|
Far graver than Vietnam
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Trancer-X |
Far graver than Vietnam
Most senior US military officers now believe the war on Iraq has turned into a disaster on an unprecedented scale
Sidney Blumenthal
Thursday September 16, 2004
The Guardian
'Bring them on!" President Bush challenged the early Iraqi insurgency in July of last year. Since then, 812 American soldiers have been killed and 6,290 wounded, according to the Pentagon. Almost every day, in campaign speeches, Bush speaks with bravado about how he is "winning" in Iraq. "Our strategy is succeeding," he boasted to the National Guard convention on Tuesday.
But, according to the US military's leading strategists and prominent retired generals, Bush's war is already lost. Retired general William Odom, former head of the National Security Agency, told me: "Bush hasn't found the WMD. Al-Qaida, it's worse, he's lost on that front. That he's going to achieve a democracy there? That goal is lost, too. It's lost." He adds: "Right now, the course we're on, we're achieving Bin Laden's ends."
Retired general Joseph Hoare, the former marine commandant and head of US Central Command, told me: "The idea that this is going to go the way these guys planned is ludicrous. There are no good options. We're conducting a campaign as though it were being conducted in Iowa, no sense of the realities on the ground. It's so unrealistic for anyone who knows that part of the world. The priorities are just all wrong."
Jeffrey Record, professor of strategy at the Air War College, said: "I see no ray of light on the horizon at all. The worst case has become true. There's no analogy whatsoever between the situation in Iraq and the advantages we had after the second world war in Germany and Japan."
W Andrew Terrill, professor at the Army War College's strategic studies institute - and the top expert on Iraq there - said: "I don't think that you can kill the insurgency". According to Terrill, the anti-US insurgency, centred in the Sunni triangle, and holding several cities and towns - including Fallujah - is expanding and becoming more capable as a consequence of US policy.
"We have a growing, maturing insurgency group," he told me. "We see larger and more coordinated military attacks. They are getting better and they can self-regenerate. The idea there are x number of insurgents, and that when they're all dead we can get out is wrong. The insurgency has shown an ability to regenerate itself because there are people willing to fill the ranks of those who are killed. The political culture is more hostile to the US presence. The longer we stay, the more they are confirmed in that view."
After the killing of four US contractors in Fallujah, the marines besieged the city for three weeks in April - the watershed event for the insurgency. "I think the president ordered the attack on Fallujah," said General Hoare. "I asked a three-star marine general who gave the order to go to Fallujah and he wouldn't tell me. I came to the conclusion that the order came directly from the White House." Then, just as suddenly, the order was rescinded, and Islamist radicals gained control, using the city as a base.
"If you are a Muslim and the community is under occupation by a non-Islamic power it becomes a religious requirement to resist that occupation," Terrill explained. "Most Iraqis consider us occupiers, not liberators." He describes the religious imagery common now in Fallujah and the Sunni triangle: "There's talk of angels and the Prophet Mohammed coming down from heaven to lead the fighting, talk of martyrs whose bodies are glowing and emanating wonderful scents."
"I see no exit," said Record. "We've been down that road before. It's called Vietnamisation. The idea that we're going to have an Iraqi force trained to defeat an enemy we can't defeat stretches the imagination. They will be tainted by their very association with the foreign occupier. In fact, we had more time and money in state building in Vietnam than in Iraq."
General Odom said: "This is far graver than Vietnam. There wasn't as much at stake strategically, though in both cases we mindlessly went ahead with the war that was not constructive for US aims. But now we're in a region far more volatile, and we're in much worse shape with our allies."
Terrill believes that any sustained US military offensive against the no-go areas "could become so controversial that members of the Iraqi government would feel compelled to resign". Thus, an attempted military solution would destroy the slightest remaining political legitimacy. "If we leave and there's no civil war, that's a victory."
General Hoare believes from the information he has received that "a decision has been made" to attack Fallujah "after the first Tuesday in November. That's the cynical part of it - after the election. The signs are all there."
He compares any such planned attack to the late Syrian dictator Hafez al-Asad's razing of the rebel city of Hama. "You could flatten it," said Hoare. "US military forces would prevail, casualties would be high, there would be inconclusive results with respect to the bad guys, their leadership would escape, and civilians would be caught in the middle. I hate that phrase collateral damage. And they talked about dancing in the street, a beacon for democracy."
General Odom remarked that the tension between the Bush administration and the senior military officers over Iraqi was worse than any he has ever seen with any previous government, including Vietnam. "I've never seen it so bad between the office of the secretary of defence and the military. There's a significant majority believing this is a disaster. The two parties whose interests have been advanced have been the Iranians and al-Qaida. Bin Laden could argue with some cogency that our going into Iraq was the equivalent of the Germans in Stalingrad. They defeated themselves by pouring more in there. Tragic."
Sidney Blumenthal, a former senior adviser to President Clinton, is Washington bureau chief of salon.com
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/s...1305360,00.html |
|
|
| JM |
its no secret that the War is not going to well. It was "won" a year ago, but still being fought. It's sad, there are many soldiers and innocent people being killed and injured. Though, what matters most now is finishing this war and achieving the initial purpose - which is another story i wont go into. [waiting for someone to quote and type in "oil":rolleyes: ]
nobody likes war, not even us Bush supporters. we dont support Bush because we want him to send more troops in, we support Bush because his ideas and morals match, mirror, or are similar to ours. what's started must be finished.
>JM< |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | | Most senior US military officers now believe the war on Iraq has turned into a disaster on an unprecedented scale |
Not much of a back-up for this claim in the article I would say. A string of quotes from some senior officers, that's all. |
|
|
| Shakka |
You know, there are still Japanese soldiers fighting WWII out on some desterted islands in the Pacific.
And 5 quotes represents "Most senior military officers"? How small do you think our military is? There are something like 125-150 generals in the U.S. Army Reserve alone! |
|
|
| Dj_Irish |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
You know, there are still Japanese soldiers fighting WWII out on some desterted islands in the Pacific.
And 5 quotes represents "Most senior military officers"? How small do you think our military is? There are something like 125-150 generals in the U.S. Army Reserve alone! |
Do you believe the other 145 or so officers believe the situation in Iraq is progressing nicely? |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dj_Irish
Do you believe the other 145 or so officers believe the situation in Iraq is progressing nicely? |
I don't know. I haven't asked them, and neither did the author of the article. That's the point. If the article had simply said, "Several senior US Military officials blah blah blah..." But instead, the author chose to sacrifice credibility in order to purport an exaggeration of the truth, or at least an exaggeration based on the information that he/she had. For the record, I do know a handful of senior military officials(not trying to boast that, I just have some relatives in the military who have progressed fairly far up the food chain); and it's not a view that's necessarily shared by all, or even a majority. That's my main problem with the author's claims. |
|
|
| Dj_Irish |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I don't know. I haven't asked them, and neither did the author of the article. That's the point. If the article had simply said, "Several senior US Military officials blah blah blah..." But instead, the author chose to sacrifice credibility in order to purport an exaggeration of the truth, or at least an exaggeration based on the information that he/she had. For the record, I do know a handful of senior military officials(not trying to boast that, I just have some relatives in the military who have progressed fairly far up the food chain); and it's not a view that's necessarily shared by all, or even a majority. That's my main problem with the author's claims. |
Ah ok, I misunderstood somewhat. I can agree that generalising the feelings of these individual 5 onto the whole bunch of senior US Military officials is somewhat stupid regarding the credibility.
As fot the ones you know personally. That's something I can't argue against since I don't know one single person in the american army, much less any higher ups. Do you get the feeling through these contact of yours that the majority of the senior officials would disagree with the statements made by the 5 mentioned above? |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dj_Irish
Ah ok, I misunderstood somewhat. I can agree that generalising the feelings of these individual 5 onto the whole bunch of senior US Military officials is somewhat stupid regarding the credibility.
As fot the ones you know personally. That's something I can't argue against since I don't know one single person in the american army, much less any higher ups. Do you get the feeling through these contact of yours that the majority of the senior officials would disagree with the statements made by the 5 mentioned above? |
Hard to say. Everybody has their own opinion, and sometimes it's hard to get a real opinion out of a military officer because they tend to love and value the military so much and put their service to their country above their personal opinions about what they're doing. I will say that the one that I am closest to is a Vietnam veteran and a retired Major General from the Army, and he most certainly thinks that getting Saddam out of power was the right thing to do. Military officers with combat experience tend to be a bit more realistic about the ugliness/necessity of war while those of us who only have to watch it on TV are much more easily sickened by what we see. It's certainly a controversial subject, that's for sure! |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by JM
its no secret that the War is not going to well. It was "won" a year ago, but still being fought. It's sad, there are many soldiers and innocent people being killed and injured. Though, what matters most now is finishing this war and achieving the initial purpose - which is another story i wont go into. [waiting for someone to quote and type in "oil":rolleyes: ]
nobody likes war, not even us Bush supporters. we dont support Bush because we want him to send more troops in, we support Bush because his ideas and morals match, mirror, or are similar to ours. what's started must be finished.
>JM< |
thats funny though. you admit Iraq is a mess, but you still support the one who created the mess?
i agree that Iraq must be finnished to every price, but i dont see why that should mean that Kerry or someone else couldnt do the job. |
|
|
| imokruok |
If you want to question the credibility of the article, start with the author - one of Clinton's hatchet men.
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
thats funny though. you admit Iraq is a mess, but you still support the one who created the mess?
|
You're assuming that it could have been done better by someone else. Perhaps this is the best that it could have been done. It's a hell of a lot easier to criticize when you have the benefit of hindsight. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by imokruok
You're assuming that it could have been done better by someone else. Perhaps this is the best that it could have been done. It's a hell of a lot easier to criticize when you have the benefit of hindsight. |
that is very true. although it is quite clear imo that the post war (and pre war) planning was not good in iraq. |
|
|
| Cyrus King |
| quote: | Originally posted by JM
its no secret that the War is not going to well. It was "won" a year ago, but still being fought. It's sad, there are many soldiers and innocent people being killed and injured. Though, what matters most now is finishing this war and achieving the initial purpose - which is another story i wont go into. [waiting for someone to quote and type in "oil":rolleyes: ]
nobody likes war, not even us Bush supporters. we dont support Bush because we want him to send more troops in, we support Bush because his ideas and morals match, mirror, or are similar to ours. what's started must be finished.
>JM< |
There will forever be a resistance until America fully pulls out.. especially its corporate interests in that nation.
America will never win this "war" and i am so happy for that. |
|
|
|
|
