- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 'American War Generals' a sobering reflection on U.S. failures in Iraq
Posted on 9/13/14 at 3:34 pm to doubleb
Posted on 9/13/14 at 3:34 pm to doubleb
quote:
Exactly, Sadam was proven to be a harmless dictator unless if course you were a Kurd, an Iranian, a Kuwaiti, and he was a threat to no one.
I thought we were talking about whether or not he was a direct threat to the US? Our government created the Frankenstein monster that was Saddam back in the 80's when they were at war with Iran. We also created the monster that was Bin Laden and Al Quaeda by funding them in the 80's against the Russians. Our government likes to create the problem and then present themselves as the solution. Saddam and Iraq presented no direct threat to the US. It was just an opportunity to launch a war against them under cover of the War on Terror. This aggression against Iraq had been mapped out years earlier.
1
Posted on 9/13/14 at 3:39 pm to genuineLSUtiger
quote:
Idiots like you are the reason we are 17 trillion in debt with no end in sight.
The worlds only superpower you mean. Guilty!
Posted on 9/13/14 at 3:46 pm to genuineLSUtiger
quote:
I thought we were talking about whether or not he was a direct threat to the US?
Who cares if he was a direct threat to the United States? We declared a War on Terror and those who sponsor/support terror. In my 14 year old brain (as I was 14 in September 2001), that meant we took on anyone who harbored or supported terrorists - whether or not they posed a direct threat to us or not.
It's funny how everyone supported Bush's philosophy in the days, weeks and months after 9/11 but, as that day continually fades from memory, so too does our feelings toward terrorism in 9/11's immediate aftermath.
This post was edited on 9/13/14 at 3:47 pm
Posted on 9/13/14 at 4:32 pm to doubleb
quote:
Saddam tried by invading Kuwait jeopardizing our oil supplies .
Do you get tired of being wrong?
Saddam invade Kuwait in 1990. We invaded Iraq a decade later...the two have nothing to do with each other.
Further, it was not our Oil supplies they were threatening. It was Japan's, Europe's etc...etc..
Throw your next dart.
Posted on 9/13/14 at 4:33 pm to S.E.C. Crazy
quote:
Yea, we conquered both of those nations with little effort and minimal loss of life.
Never change ever.
10 years later we are still fighting in both places ...does not equal little effort.
Posted on 9/13/14 at 4:34 pm to themunch
quote:
freak
I know.
The truth is a terrible thing.
Posted on 9/13/14 at 4:36 pm to doubleb
quote:
Exactly, Sadam was proven to be a harmless dictator unless if course you were a Kurd, an Iranian, a Kuwaiti, and he was a threat to no one.
Uh...again...why do I care? Saddam wasn't a threat to the United States whatsoever. North Korea seems like a great place to visit...unless you are a North Korean...we aren't busting that place up...we can go up and down in Africa and say the same thing.
Not like we are landing troops in any of these vacation spots.
quote:
Those neo cons fooled us all into thinking Saddam was a bad guy who might work with terrorists. Shame on them
Now you are getting it.
This post was edited on 9/13/14 at 4:41 pm
Posted on 9/13/14 at 4:40 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Who cares if he was a direct threat to the United States? We declared a War on Terror and those who sponsor/support terror. In my 14 year old brain (as I was 14 in September 2001), that meant we took on anyone who harbored or supported terrorists - whether or not they posed a direct threat to us or not
Clearly your 14-year-old brain is still running things for you.
Exactly who were the terrorists that Saddam was harboring?
If they weren't a direct threat...then there really was no reason to sack Iraq was there.
quote:
It's funny how everyone supported Bush's philosophy in the days, weeks and months after 9/11 but, as that day continually fades from memory, so too does our feelings toward terrorism in 9/11's immediate aftermath.
See this is where your 14-year-old brain is confused. Everyone absolutely supported our war against Bin Laden in Afghanistan. We had the world's backing there. Which is why NATO (bound by treaty) has troops on the ground there today.
But everyone well knew that Iraq had nothing to do with Bin Laden which is why only our lapdogs the British joined us there. No direct threat to the US. None zip zilch. It has nothing to do with faded memories I can assure you.
You should go back to watching football...hopefully you are better at that then processing geopolitical issues.
Posted on 9/13/14 at 4:52 pm to asurob1
quote:
See this is where your 14-year-old brain is confused. Everyone absolutely supported our war against Bin Laden in Afghanistan. We had the world's backing there. Which is why NATO (bound by treaty) has troops on the ground there today.
But everyone well knew that Iraq had nothing to do with Bin Laden which is why only our lapdogs the British joined us there. No direct threat to the US. None zip zilch. It has nothing to do with faded memories I can assure you.
You should go back to watching football...hopefully you are better at that then processing geopolitical issues.
You better get accustomed to war between the US and Middle East for the remained of your life and probably your kids. Not sure where you think the alternate courses for history were being laid but it looked pretty inevitable to me. Until we make oil obsolete we will have to deal with those frickers as a threat. Sorry you feel you were misled by the Bush admin. Perhaps we all were but to think it was a situation that Bush invented or exacerbated is not accurate.
Posted on 9/13/14 at 4:53 pm to asurob1
(Post)2
This post was edited on 9/13/14 at 4:54 pm
Posted on 9/13/14 at 5:03 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
You better get accustomed to war between the US and Middle East for the remained of your life and probably your kids. Not sure where you think the alternate courses for history were being laid but it looked pretty inevitable to me. Until we make oil obsolete we will have to deal with those frickers as a threat. Sorry you feel you were misled by the Bush admin. Perhaps we all were but to think it was a situation that Bush invented or exacerbated is not accurate.
Oh I think it is a sad fact of military–industrial complex.
Create an enemy.
Create a threat for the enemy.
Put you standing army to work vanquishing enemy.
Create more enemies from the vanquished.
Get rich (if you are a defense contractor).
Fact is, Iraq was no threat...hell if we attack every threat before they actually you know...threaten...we might as well lock horns with Russia and China right now.
We were all mislead by W and his ilk. The shitty part is now we "have" to do something to clean up the mess he left.
And don't think I'm soft on Obama. Our ground troops should have left Afghanistan the day they completed their mission of getting Bin Laden.
But hell, this twilight perpetual war we are in doesn't affect any of us. The NFL is on tomorrow and I'm sure most of you will fill your trucks with gas.
We play at war now for entertainment purposes.
Posted on 9/13/14 at 6:17 pm to asurob1
asurob, I understand your reasoning, but, I wonder if you have become too cynical? A person who becomes to cynical may not be able to figure out the best answer or solution.
Anyway, I'm not sure why this thread developed the way that it did.
To me, the most interesting thing about this article is that our top combat Generals are being honest and open, to their great credit. They have courageously admitted that our best and brightest Generals did not always give the best and most timely advice to POTUS.
POTUS is always going to be a rookie civilian with no idea how to wage and win wars. Our general officer combat leadership must do better.
They must do better with regard to advising POTUS concerning commencing armed attack/invasion. They must do better in assessing and reacting to battle conditions once war commences. In sum, these very smart people will have to find a way to be smarter, quicker and more accurate.
I know that the general officers whom have so frankly and openly shared this information with us feel a personal obligation to help our military leaders improve in these areas. I feel VERY confident that mistakes made in planning and executing the Iraq war won't be repeated. I have confidence in these Generals. They will help us learn the lessons.
This is my humble opinion.
Anyway, I'm not sure why this thread developed the way that it did.
To me, the most interesting thing about this article is that our top combat Generals are being honest and open, to their great credit. They have courageously admitted that our best and brightest Generals did not always give the best and most timely advice to POTUS.
POTUS is always going to be a rookie civilian with no idea how to wage and win wars. Our general officer combat leadership must do better.
They must do better with regard to advising POTUS concerning commencing armed attack/invasion. They must do better in assessing and reacting to battle conditions once war commences. In sum, these very smart people will have to find a way to be smarter, quicker and more accurate.
I know that the general officers whom have so frankly and openly shared this information with us feel a personal obligation to help our military leaders improve in these areas. I feel VERY confident that mistakes made in planning and executing the Iraq war won't be repeated. I have confidence in these Generals. They will help us learn the lessons.
This is my humble opinion.
This post was edited on 9/13/14 at 6:19 pm
Posted on 9/13/14 at 6:28 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:In that case I have to believe that no war that begins during a GOP Presidency will ever be won again.
public support drops too low in the U.S.
Posted on 9/13/14 at 6:32 pm to Champagne
quote:
asurob, I understand your reasoning, but, I wonder if you have become too cynical? A person who becomes to cynical may not be able to figure out the best answer or solution.
Oh I guarantee I have become to cynical. I have seen too many good people come back broken from the sand wars. I do actually question why we are there...it's something the Rob of a decade or so ago never would have. I tend to think it's a good thing to question our government's actions and demand logical reasoning when they do shite I don't agree with.
quote:
POTUS is always going to be a rookie civilian with no idea how to wage and win wars. Our general officer combat leadership must do better.
I agree with this for the most part, however, when the rookie is ignoring advice or worse surrounding himself with yes men. Bad things happen. See Vietnam, See Iraq. More then anything I have high hopes our political leadership will take this to heart before the next military adventure.
quote:
I know that the general officers whom have so frankly and openly shared this information with us feel a personal obligation to help our military leaders improve in these areas. I feel VERY confident that mistakes made in planning and executing the Iraq war won't be repeated. I have confidence in these Generals. They will help us learn the lessons.
I don't know. I believed that based on the handling of gulf war 1. We decided (and I won't debate the politics of it) to kick someone's arse.
We went in, kicked their arse with overwhelming force end of story.
Seems like we had learned the lessons of Vietnam.
A decade later we kind of sort of roll in (with inadequate force frankly) kick some arse initially then decide a tenth of the way in that we have won go Team America...ten years later we are still fighting. I questioned the lack of military power (fighting a war on the cheap was something Rummie wanted to try and it cost lives)and I questioned what the hell we were going to do with Iraq after we kicked their arse. Apparently no one else thought about that.
So did we learn the lessons of Vietnam? Should I trust my government will learn the lessons of Iraq? Hard to trust given their track record isn't it?
Posted on 9/13/14 at 7:02 pm to asurob1
quote:
I do actually question why we are there...it's something the Rob of a decade or so ago never would have. I tend to think it's a good thing to question our government's actions and demand logical reasoning when they do shite I don't agree with.
None of this makes you too cynical. This is normal.
quote:
So did we learn the lessons of Vietnam? Should I trust my government will learn the lessons of Iraq? Hard to trust given their track record isn't it?
IMHO, it's not FedGov's responsibility to learn the lessons of Vietnam, Iraq or A-ghan. The total responsibility for this rests on the capable shoulders of the US general and flag officers whose job it is to plan, fight and win our nation's wars.
In the article, we learned that some of these individuals charged with this responsibility had, to paraphrase, forgotten the lessons of Vietnam with regard to insurgencies. This is an example of the kind of mistake that we, as a Nation, can't afford them to make.
Somebody might say, "But what if Bush and the Neo Cons want to invade despite the warnings?" I don't know the nature of the advice/warning. If the analysis is sound and the conclusion is most probably accurate, then a strong warning must take the place of "advice."
Our generals and flag officers have an obligation to carry out the orders of the Commander in Chief. However, IMHO, they have a much more important obligation to provide sound and accurate military advice -- and that advice must also include a sound analysis of all political considerations.
Yes, our generals and flag officers must develop the skills and knowledge that will allow them to evaluate political considerations. The reason for this is because, in matters of national strategy at this level, military and political considerations are intertwined.
This is just my humble opinion. I'm not in a position to lecture any current or past general officer.
Posted on 9/13/14 at 10:55 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
The stupidity of the Nation Building Occupation is not.
There never hound have been any nation building whatsoever. We should have never removed Saddam from power at all. He's the tyrannical dictator Iraq needed and still needs right now. He was secular and hated the jihadists. He was somebody we could control that would keep Iraq quiet and quiet and ensure stability across the Mideast. We made a mistake removing him from power.
Posted on 9/13/14 at 10:56 pm to Champagne
Rob in 1938 you would have been one of the ones telling us Hitler was no threat.
In 1940 you would have laughed at Japan and minimized their capabilities.
In 2000 I bet you felt OBL couldn't hurt us either.
There is no way in the world you can say with certainty thst Ssddam was no threat to us because we've seen too often how even a guy like Bin Laden can cause us grief and he wasn't 10% of what Saddam once was.
In 1940 you would have laughed at Japan and minimized their capabilities.
In 2000 I bet you felt OBL couldn't hurt us either.
There is no way in the world you can say with certainty thst Ssddam was no threat to us because we've seen too often how even a guy like Bin Laden can cause us grief and he wasn't 10% of what Saddam once was.
Posted on 9/14/14 at 8:45 am to asurob1
quote:
I was smart enough
Same shtick as Colin Cowherd
Posted on 9/14/14 at 10:21 am to FightinTigersDammit
I think there are some misconceptions here about the role of the US Military when it comes to formulating policy decisions, such as the decision to invade and occupy a foreign country. While the American military, quite correctly, is as apolitical a fighting force as we have been able to make them, the military leadership has always found ways to express their views behind the scenes.
The problem is that some policy makers fall victim believing that they are better generals then the actual generals. Even canny politicians like FDR can fall victim to this problem. In FDR's case he was smart enough that when George Marshall told him that FDR's plans were garbage he agreed and let the generals plan the war while he concentrated on running the war effort and setting broad strategic goals.
When it came to Iraq and Afghanistan we, as a country, had the misfortune of having both Cheney and Rumsfeld in positions where they could steer the course of the war as the Bush the Lesser wasn't a particularly strong President at the time.
If you've read some of the autobiographies and accounts of the First Gulf War then you know of Cheney's belief in his own military genius. Powell and Schwarzkopf spent a great deal of time in the lead up to that war smothering Cheney's ideas in the crib before they could cause thousands of Allied troops to die.
A prime example being Cheney's plan to use the 82nd Airborne to parachute into Iraq, seize a town deep within the country, and then "trade" that town to Saddam in exchange for vacating Kuwait. How Powell and Schwarzkopf both avoided having strokes is beyond me.
And in the second Gulf War it was Cheney that was calling the shots.
A belief that we could fight two occupation campaigns on the cheap was widespread in the Bush administration and meant that, of course, we wound up occupying neither Iraq or Afghanistan with enough force to head off insurgencies.
Even the military's ace in the hole, a careful design to prevent long term force deployment without having to activate National Guard failed. The administration cheerfully sent over NG units, often for multiple deployments.
No matter how careful the military is, how strongly it protests poor military policy, or how much it drags its feet at the end of the day our civilian leadership has complete control of the military. This a great thing mind you, you notice we don't have military coups every other weekend. But if you elect dumbfricks, then you have to expect them use the military in a dumbfrick way.
The problem is that some policy makers fall victim believing that they are better generals then the actual generals. Even canny politicians like FDR can fall victim to this problem. In FDR's case he was smart enough that when George Marshall told him that FDR's plans were garbage he agreed and let the generals plan the war while he concentrated on running the war effort and setting broad strategic goals.
When it came to Iraq and Afghanistan we, as a country, had the misfortune of having both Cheney and Rumsfeld in positions where they could steer the course of the war as the Bush the Lesser wasn't a particularly strong President at the time.
If you've read some of the autobiographies and accounts of the First Gulf War then you know of Cheney's belief in his own military genius. Powell and Schwarzkopf spent a great deal of time in the lead up to that war smothering Cheney's ideas in the crib before they could cause thousands of Allied troops to die.
A prime example being Cheney's plan to use the 82nd Airborne to parachute into Iraq, seize a town deep within the country, and then "trade" that town to Saddam in exchange for vacating Kuwait. How Powell and Schwarzkopf both avoided having strokes is beyond me.
And in the second Gulf War it was Cheney that was calling the shots.
A belief that we could fight two occupation campaigns on the cheap was widespread in the Bush administration and meant that, of course, we wound up occupying neither Iraq or Afghanistan with enough force to head off insurgencies.
Even the military's ace in the hole, a careful design to prevent long term force deployment without having to activate National Guard failed. The administration cheerfully sent over NG units, often for multiple deployments.
No matter how careful the military is, how strongly it protests poor military policy, or how much it drags its feet at the end of the day our civilian leadership has complete control of the military. This a great thing mind you, you notice we don't have military coups every other weekend. But if you elect dumbfricks, then you have to expect them use the military in a dumbfrick way.
Posted on 9/14/14 at 11:35 am to Arksulli
Good post.
The decision to invade and occupy a foreign country will always be up to POTUS.
But, as time passes and the memoirs are written by the military advisers, it will be revealed for posterity exactly the kind of warnings or advice that Bush/Cheney received during the planning of the Iraq invasion.
As it stands today, no former military leader has revealed that Bush/Cheney were warned that the operation was too risky because the path to End-State involved many assumptions and guesses all based on unknowns. Will some further revelations appear in the future concerning military advice/warnings and whether those concerns were overruled?
The role of the US general and flag officers is to provide sound advice/warnings based on sound analysis.
If Bush/Cheney did receive such sound analysis, I submit that they would have been warned that the plan was risky because End State could very well leak into a future administration and the next POTUS might not think like Bush/Cheney.
Less than 8 years to pacify Iraq and build a completely sound, unified and functioning New Iraq that needed no US military forces for stability/defense? Come on. No military adviser said, "Yes, POTUS, that's a lock. Can do easy."
If Bush/Cheney got those warnings and overruled them, then, the American people deserve to know.
The fact that no former military adviser has yet to reveal that Bush/Cheney got such advice/warnings may mean such warnings were never put before Bush/Cheney.
Maybe some future memoir by a former military adviser may provide the definitive info on that.
The article states that lessons of Vietnam were forgotten. Vietnam was not the only place where Western forces fought an insurgency. The French fought an islamic insurgency in Algiers just before US involvement in Vietnam? Were THOSE lessons learned and were they used during the war planning for purposes of advising Bush/Cheney. Were those lessons learned and then forgotten? We need to stop forgetting things.
The American people have a right to know whether Bush/Cheney were thoroughly and accurately advised.
The American people have a right to know whether Bush/Cheney arrogantly overruled the military advice.
If Bush/Cheney did not receive thorough and accurate advice, then, I submit that the US military improve its professional educational training so that we can do better next time. And if the generals and flag officers feel, "It's not my place to warn POTUS", then we should change that notion. Change it because it IS our place. Nobody else is positioned to stand up and warn, so it IS our job to do so. I don't care if you might not get your third or fourth star for being mouthy, do it because you are the only person that can. Forget about hurting your chances of promotion, do the right thing.
As a career military officer, I say, let's improve our product, if we can. Let's do some self-assessment and improve what we can.
When were were privates, we had to admit to ourselves that, for example, a poor ability to do Push Ups had to improve; or, a poor ability to shoot straight had to improve. Now that we are old guys wearing high ranks, and we have to do more thinking and advising than shooting and pushing, we can demonstrate that we are have not stopped trying to get better at what we do.
This is a teachable moment for professional military officers. Let's use it for the common good. This is not the time to say, "That's not our job. Only POTUS can make the call to invade." If the black-letter rules and regs say it's not our job, then revise the regs and rules.
Just my IMHO. I'm in no real life position to give orders to or lecture any general or flag officer.
PS IMHO, our generals and fighting forces have done a great job in Iraq and A-ghan. Just because I suggest that some areas of military advice can be improved is totally separate from what we accomplished on the ground in theater.
The decision to invade and occupy a foreign country will always be up to POTUS.
But, as time passes and the memoirs are written by the military advisers, it will be revealed for posterity exactly the kind of warnings or advice that Bush/Cheney received during the planning of the Iraq invasion.
As it stands today, no former military leader has revealed that Bush/Cheney were warned that the operation was too risky because the path to End-State involved many assumptions and guesses all based on unknowns. Will some further revelations appear in the future concerning military advice/warnings and whether those concerns were overruled?
The role of the US general and flag officers is to provide sound advice/warnings based on sound analysis.
If Bush/Cheney did receive such sound analysis, I submit that they would have been warned that the plan was risky because End State could very well leak into a future administration and the next POTUS might not think like Bush/Cheney.
Less than 8 years to pacify Iraq and build a completely sound, unified and functioning New Iraq that needed no US military forces for stability/defense? Come on. No military adviser said, "Yes, POTUS, that's a lock. Can do easy."
If Bush/Cheney got those warnings and overruled them, then, the American people deserve to know.
The fact that no former military adviser has yet to reveal that Bush/Cheney got such advice/warnings may mean such warnings were never put before Bush/Cheney.
Maybe some future memoir by a former military adviser may provide the definitive info on that.
The article states that lessons of Vietnam were forgotten. Vietnam was not the only place where Western forces fought an insurgency. The French fought an islamic insurgency in Algiers just before US involvement in Vietnam? Were THOSE lessons learned and were they used during the war planning for purposes of advising Bush/Cheney. Were those lessons learned and then forgotten? We need to stop forgetting things.
The American people have a right to know whether Bush/Cheney were thoroughly and accurately advised.
The American people have a right to know whether Bush/Cheney arrogantly overruled the military advice.
If Bush/Cheney did not receive thorough and accurate advice, then, I submit that the US military improve its professional educational training so that we can do better next time. And if the generals and flag officers feel, "It's not my place to warn POTUS", then we should change that notion. Change it because it IS our place. Nobody else is positioned to stand up and warn, so it IS our job to do so. I don't care if you might not get your third or fourth star for being mouthy, do it because you are the only person that can. Forget about hurting your chances of promotion, do the right thing.
As a career military officer, I say, let's improve our product, if we can. Let's do some self-assessment and improve what we can.
When were were privates, we had to admit to ourselves that, for example, a poor ability to do Push Ups had to improve; or, a poor ability to shoot straight had to improve. Now that we are old guys wearing high ranks, and we have to do more thinking and advising than shooting and pushing, we can demonstrate that we are have not stopped trying to get better at what we do.
This is a teachable moment for professional military officers. Let's use it for the common good. This is not the time to say, "That's not our job. Only POTUS can make the call to invade." If the black-letter rules and regs say it's not our job, then revise the regs and rules.
Just my IMHO. I'm in no real life position to give orders to or lecture any general or flag officer.
PS IMHO, our generals and fighting forces have done a great job in Iraq and A-ghan. Just because I suggest that some areas of military advice can be improved is totally separate from what we accomplished on the ground in theater.
This post was edited on 9/14/14 at 12:03 pm
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News