This might be one of the most important editorials written in the New York Times this year.
You should read it in it's entirety. And you should note that the authors of this editorial are both from the Brookings Institution...a liberal think tank.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The possibility of this strategic article in the New York Times gaining speed could spice up the current democratically focused election. The purpose of the war in Iraq and seemingly the long desired progress has surfaced in the heated debate within congress over our position in Iraq. This has fueled the political debate and separated candidate views because it consumes campaigns.
Not only does this testament give us hope but it sheds light in the hole that many think President Bush has dug. Within the year there has been restructuring within Iraq, like the article points out, but who does receive the credit for the turn around? Are the Iraqi people with the help and breakthrough that they have provided? The person that deserves such praise is OUR PRESIDENT. The first quarter appointment of a new “War Czar”, as the liberal media dubbed is beginning to show. Lt. Gen. Douglas has shown and provided the leadership necessary to succeed in such a hostile environment. This would not be possible without a grand sceme created by a George W. Bush. How many decades will it take the American people to see what Mr. Bush had envisioned? Maybe then will conservatives receive the respect that they deserve from not only the liberal institutions, but the media and politicians as well?
It will be interesting to see the opinions of the candidates during the next round of interviews or debates, but wait, such a question would not dare be posed to a Barrack Obama or Hillary Clinton. I would like to see something brought to the American people by the Fox News Network. Hillary & Obama claim such profound determination to manage when it comes to international leaders but both are fearful of the right arm of a Mr. Bill O’Reilly? You make draw the conclusion.
First, these 2 gallant gentlemen spent all of 8 days in Iraq, no doubt taken only to safe areas where they "did not have to wear body armor." The reality on the ground is much deeper than just military sucess. It seems America has such a short term memory we are doomemd to repeat our mistakes. There is a long marble wall engraved with names of American's, some 50,000+ who died in a war where we had military sucess. Yes we never lost a battle in Vietnam (a few outposts where overrun, but in the traditional sense we never lost and our enemies losses were always greater). We did however lose the war. We hit the tactics just right (agent orange, long range patrols, close air support, etc) but missed the strategy.
In Iraq our tactics are catching up (MRAP's, all officers acting in a civil affairs capacity, etc).
Our strategy however is doomed and no amount of tactics, or patriotic optimism, can change that.
The "war" in the Clausewitzen sense was not lost, the US Army, Air Force, and Marines absolutely annihilated the Iraqi Army gang in record time.
Everything since then has been lost, from the moment American tanks stopped in Baghdad and soldiers waited for orders while looting and chaos erupted.
Why? Because the army was designed to fight wars, and even though that is changing with increased civil affairs missions, it is too little too late. I will digress a bit here,
Looking at it without any bias, perhaps the reason the military is having to plan schools, give out jobs, etc. is because it is not safe enough for civillians to do so? Our close to $1 billion new embassy is nearing completion and will house roughly 1,000 diplomats and staff. However, how many of them will leave the palatial compund and pound the streets
getting something done? Probally very few, I doubt they will be able to use the swimming pool due to the mortar attacks on the green zone.
The military objectives of the war were sound, the political ones are still lacking. Now that we have an Iraqi government, we complain about it?
I think this is the basic problem, and yes there are similarities to Vietnam.
We decided to fight a war and like a little kid testing the water with his toe, committed minimum resources (in Vietnam it was advisors, in Iraq it was 1/5 the necessary troop levels to keep stability). We succeded in getting in the water but missed the chance to make a splash. We committed inadequate resources to the task, not just troop levels but the lack of after-war planning, diplomatic support, and most important state department and economic factors.
We committed the ultimate mistake in regards to war, we fought the war only with our armies, when wars need to be fought with (and only fought) will all the might and will of a people. That is how the North Vietnamese defeated us, they committed everything while we held back and hesitated, like a boxer getting punched and only throwing a jab- we should have let them have it with eveything we have. No I'm not saying "turned it into glass" or any of that crap, but when the Defense Department rolled into Baghdad so should have the State Dept and lots of $$$.
If you want to defeat a people and then prop up your own country that is how, if not then let the military roll through and kill them all, because "soldier" and "peacekeeper" don't really fit together that well.
Post a Comment