Ex-General: Iraq a 'Nightmare' for US

[Rob308]

Where do you get that idea.Are you Iraqi?Do you live there?

The "Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq"... that's the party that has the most seats in the Iraq's Council of Representatives. This is the party they picked when they were given democracy.

[kjm]

Interesting how all these retired generals chose to keep quiet until after they were out of the military to speak out

Pitz96: Not all kept quiet. General Erik Shinsheki, the Army Chief of Staff prior to the Iraq invasion repeatedly complained that you'd need 200,000 plus troops to secure the country. Rumsfeld castrated him by announcing his successor a year prior to his departure. He stated the following as well at his retirement ceremony (that Rumsfeld skipped): "Beware of the 12 division solution for the 10 division army."

Essentially, when it came to invading Iraq, any contrary opinion was squashed and a proper example was made of Shinseki of what would happen to officers who spoke up. I believe that the war became a fiasco when Rumsfeld decided to only listen to officers who agreed with Bush policy and disregard any dissention by officers who may have legitimate points of view.

Regardless of whether the war was constitutional or legitimate, there were major mistakes made that have cost the lives of American servicemen and the time to listen to the Generals is in the planning (when civilians are setting policy). Once you've listened to them, execution should be entirely left to the military with minimal oversight. Anything less is criminal.

[JuanCarlos]

Pitz96: Not all kept quiet. General Erik Shinsheki, the Army Chief of Staff prior to the Iraq invasion repeatedly complained that you'd need 200,000 plus troops to secure the country.

Actually, it was "several hundred thousand." Which, it turns out, was accurate. Unsurprising, considering that our own counterinsurgency doctrine (which has even been updated as recently as 2006) suggests a force of no less than 535,000 would be needed to secure Iraq. Note that this figure can include local security forces, but that even counting every last Iraqi IA/IP/ING as reliable (they aren't) we still barely reach this mark today with our current "surge." And note that this is a suggested minimum...more are recommended.

And yet we're sending tends of thousands home.

Suggests to me that politics and wishful thinking rather than actual military planning are still the driving force in Iraq, just like in 2003. I'll not be surprised if we hear some interesting commentary from General Petraeus once he retires as well.

[Fremmer]

When asked when he saw that the mission was going awry, he responded: "About the 15th of June 2003" - the day he took command.

LOL!!!! So according to this General, Iraq turned into a real mess on the date that this General took command.

And you guys are actually still taking his comments seriously (and arguing about him)?!?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

So the USS Bush is sinking on the seas of intellect and some of the complicit rats are deserting this vessels.

One wonders if declaring victory against Al-Qaeda in Iraq isn't part of the plan to get everyone on the buses and out of town as soon as possible.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wulfowitz and assorting hanger-ons screwed this pooch from the get-go. If it goes right now, it's because Bush was dragged kicking and screaming from the arms of those idiots and poltroons.

[kjm]

'mon now Glen! Aren't you being harsh? Just because Rumsfeld picked the Generals he wanted his boss to listen to doesn't mean that Bush didn't listen to his Generals!

Tommy Franks gave conflicting advice from Shinseki. One had to appreciate nuance to see that they were both right. Shinseki argued that to be successful in Iraq, you'd need a lot more folks. Tommy Franks was telling Bush he could beat the Iraqi Army with 80-120K maybe more. Neither were lying. One was taking the long-term view and the other was narrowly focused on the task at hand.

Rumsfeld is gone (thank goodness). Tommy is gone. Eric Shenseki (I can't spell his name consistently to save my life- though I worked for him a couple months long ago when he was the 1st Cav CG) is gone too.

Maybe you're right Glenn!

[Musketeer]

Today the military commanders in Iraq said that they feel they have made significant enough progress to declare victory against Al Qaeda.Maybe these new commanders have a little more talent than the ones saying the mission was impossible.

Well if that's the case why don't we just put up a banner and have a celebration!

[Musketeer]

LOL!!!! So according to this General, Iraq turned into a real mess on the date that this General took command.

And you guys are actually still taking his comments seriously (and arguing about him)?!?

They asked him when he SAW it. He took command and then he fully saw the problem. Makes sense to me.

[xd9fan]

that photo is so classic......

[GoSlash27]

Ok. So the minute someone says something we should blatantly accept it as fact.

^ Strawman.

I said no such thing. We should neither automatically accept nor reject whatever they say. On the one hand, they have grudges. On the other hand, they are free to speak their minds.
As the old saying goes; reason follows itself and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it. In that vein, we can add a few more to the list:
-Unless the Army has a habit of promoting incompetents, it's reasonable to assume that they all learned a thing or two about how to fight wars sometime during their careers.
-Bush and his cabinet members, however, have no basis on which to claim credibility in such matters.

This is an argument between professionals and ameteurs (or if you prefer, professionals who aren't allowed to contradict ameteurs). That makes their opinions a little more valid IMO. Certainly more valid than yours.
The clincher, of course, is that history backs up what they're saying.

[STAGE 2]

This is an argument between professionals and ameteurs (or if you prefer, professionals who aren't allowed to contradict ameteurs). That makes their opinions a little more valid IMO. Certainly more valid than yours.
The clincher, of course, is that history backs up what they're saying.

Baloney. There are no more than 20 retired generals who have come out criticizing the war. I already gave you the numbers on how many active duty generals there are as well as how many retired.

I actually find it kind of offensive that you call the officers currently commanding in "iraq" amatures. For every dissenter (that hasnt been there in at least 3 years) I can find you 10 supporters that will honestly say that things are turning around.

It always blows my mind when I see people that are so desparate to see another vietnam. Just talking to folks you would think this was the worst war we ever fought. Lets ignore the fact that we have lost less troops in this entire war than on a single day in WWII. History my arse.

[Musketeer]

actually find it kind of offensive that you call the officers currently commanding in "iraq" amatures.

I think he meant the White House.

Question the Generals who speak out but also come to terms that we have an administration that is fanatical about loyalty unto the President first with a history of not listenning to any opinion that does not agree with their own.

[kjm]

I think regardless of how it turns out (whether it turns around or not- and I believe it probably is turning around), the process and lives lost to turn it are the issue I am concerned about. Arguing whether or not we should have gone there is stupid because it is past history that some future generation can analyze.

What ticks me off, is when a reputable General says in order to do a job completely you will need XY and Z, then you don't fire him (or make him politically impotent) and find a General who tells you what you want to hear. You give serious consideration to what your General says. Shinseki was not arguing against the war, he was saying what we needed to take with us in order to secure the country.

Tommy Franks was brilliant in both Afghanistan and Iraq in beating the political forces there, but in total hindsight, Rumsfeld wanted a cheap war like Afghanistan was. The use of a proxy army (the Northern Alliance) was a brilliant and cost saving measure. We just couldn't do that with Iraq.

I don't think Bush managed his cabinet very well in all of this. I believe him to be a very sincere person and I don't ascribe to him the negative or evil that most liberals do. I just think he did a very poor job of people management at the top levels of civilian government.

[Russ]

Sour Grapes. I have never heard him admit to the mistakes he made. Hindsight is always 20/20. Many mistakes were made during the aftermath of he initial invasion. Hopefully, the US won't lose heart and leave with their tails between their legs. I don't think we can afford to lose this one. We should have gone after Iran in the first place IMHO. War is always Chaos no mattter how well you plan.

[kjm]

Russ,
Agreed. The price we'd pay to pull out before finishing the job would be catastrophic. On this issue I do not agree with Ron Paul. However, if we don't learn from our mistakes and we stubbornly continue to make them, what does that say about us? I like the analogy of a tar baby for Iraq. We just can't get out of it in a good, cheap way. The benefits of the war will never outweigh the losses. Unlike WWII, the US will not emerge stronger or more secure than we were prior to the war. The best we can hope for is remaining the same. If we pull out before we've done the job, we will suffer greatly world-wide, so that's where we are. I don't like it. Especially when it was avoidable, or at least we could have made it less costly.

I believe there were good intentions that led us there, but we know where good intentions lead...

[GoSlash27]

I actually find it kind of offensive that you call the officers currently commanding in "iraq" amatures.

There you go again. ^ Strawman.

Baloney. There are no more than 20 retired generals who have come out criticizing the war. I already gave you the numbers on how many active duty generals there are as well as how many retired.

Point in fact you did not.

I don't know how many retired generals there are, but I think its a safe bet to say that they number in the hundreds.

Your "safe bet" doesn't count as "numbers" in my book.
You then take your argument a further step into absurdia by assuming that everyone who does not publicly criticize the war therefore supports it.

Your entire argument is a heaping pile of fail. Please try again.

I will start for you. There have been to date x number of retired generals (those who have the knowledge base to justify an opinion and are actually free to comment). Of these, 20 have called the war a grabasstic clusterfark and ?? have called it a success. Please fill in the blanks.

[STAGE 2]

There you go again. ^ Strawman.

Balonye again. You called the officers that support the current policy and by implication the administration, amatures. I find that offensive.

Your "safe bet" doesn't count as "numbers" in my book.
You then take your argument a further step into absurdia by assuming that everyone who does not publicly criticize the war therefore supports it.

Your entire argument is a heaping pile of fail. Please try again.

I will start for you. There have been to date x number of retired generals (those who have the knowledge base to justify an opinion and are actually free to comment). Of these, 20 have called the war a grabasstic clusterfark and ?? have called it a success. Please fill in the blanks.

Currently, there are over 800 active duty admirals and generals serving. I can't find any data on the number of retired generals, but if there are 800 active duty, then there are well over 100 retired. My guess is that its much much more.

Then you have retired army and marine colonels who have been vocal in support of winning the war. Guys like David Hunt, Bill Cowan, and Chuck Nash have been out therein support of whats been going on yet you don't see any mainstream coverage of them.

So, at the end of the day, you hav 20 guys who disagree with the strategy in Iraq. Huge surprise. Give me any war in our history and I can find you 20 generals who disagreed with what was going on.

The issue isn't whether they agree or disagree. The issue is whether we should simply take their word as authoratitive. Personally, I value the opinion of the gun in charge more than I do those put out to pasture.

Feel free to disagree, but lets not pretend that 20 people make some kind of definitive consensus.

[BillCA]

This just in...

Breaking News Alert

ABC’s Charlie Gibson reported on ABC news on 10/17:

“One item from Baghdad today: The news is... that there is no news. The police told us that, to their knowledge, there were no major acts of violence. Attacks are down in Baghdad and today no bombings or roadside explosions were reported.”

In fact, when I checked the CNN website (and CNN reports any killings in Iraq, even if it's accidental) I see no reports of bombings or fighting since Wednesday the 17th.

Of course, you're not hearing about this at all from the blamestream media except in passing.

[GoSlash27]

Guys like David Hunt, Bill Cowan, and Chuck Nash have been out therein support of whats been going on...

Now that's a start. 3 for, 20 against.

The issue isn't whether they agree or disagree. The issue is whether we should simply take their word as authoratitive.

Or, conversely, whether we should dismiss them outright.

Personally, I value the opinion of the gun in charge more than I do those put out to pasture.

I wouldn't know why. He's not allowed to have an opinion.

[STAGE 2]

Or, conversely, whether we should dismiss them outright.

No one said dismiss them outright. The point is that 20 people out of hundreds does not a consensus make. Especially when most have a personal axe to grind.

[GoSlash27]

No one said dismiss them outright.

Then we are in agreement.

The point is that 20 people out of hundreds does not a consensus make.

20 out of 23 does. You insist on including those who are not free to express their opinions as if they are.

Especially when most have a personal axe to grind.

There's a thought; perhaps it's the 3 who support the war who have the axe to grind. After all, they weren't even allowed to make flag....

[BillCA]

3 Days without major violence

Okay, since 10/17, I have not been able to find any news reports of any major violence in Iraq. That's 3 days with no attacks on allied forces or any suicide bombings against civilian targets.

This could change at any time, of course, but it is a good sign. It could mean that the "insurgents" are being worn down or it could mean that they are coordinating for a burst of activity. I prefer to look at this as an improvement of conditions, however.

[JuanCarlos]

3 Days without major violence

Okay, since 10/17, I have not been able to find any news reports of any major violence in Iraq. That's 3 days with no attacks on allied forces or any suicide bombings against civilian targets.

This could change at any time, of course, but it is a good sign. It could mean that the "insurgents" are being worn down or it could mean that they are coordinating for a burst of activity. I prefer to look at this as an improvement of conditions, however.

What's your cutoff for "major?"

Here we have an attack on allied forces on Wednesday (the 17th).

Here would appear to be attacks on US forces on either Thursday or Friday.

Attacks on civilians on the 19th/20th or so here.

Here is a soldier dead from insurgent attacks on Thursday. I've not thoroughly cross-checked, this may be from one of the aforementioned incidents...but a cursory glance seems so suggest it isn't.

There seem to be more unique incidents, but again don't feel like cross-checking to ensure that I don't start double-posting pre-identification reports and post-identification reports, or different reports of the same attack. But either soldiers dying and civilians being found dead or blown up doesn't "count" to you, or you weren't looking very hard.

EDIT: Note that this was just what I found after spending about 90 seconds on news.google.com. Being able to search multiple news sites by keyword then sort by date makes such things pretty trivial to find.

[Musketeer]

Rumsfeld wanted a cheap war like Afghanistan was. The use of a proxy army (the Northern Alliance) was a brilliant and cost saving measure. We just couldn't do that with Iraq.

Worked great. Look at Tora Bora where our desire to use only local forces left a wide open back door for Bin Laden and his forces to slip across the border into Pakistan...

Then there was the continued desire to use less than what was needed as seen in operation Anaconda. Let's train for 40+ years like we intend to fight then go to battle with half of what we need and leave the artillery at home.

NOBODY in the USA had a problem with the use of overwhelming force in Afghanistan after 9/11. That is where the attacks came from! Yet for some reason we insist on doing the job with one arm and leg tied behind our back. Amazingly the SF guys did a great job with what they did have. When it came to meeting the final objective, getting Bin Laden and the leadership, the forces were not available because we refused to commit them. The Northern Alliance didn't care about Bin Laden or Alcada. If they wanted to go across into Pakistan and leave the NA alone they were more than happy to let it happen. Why should they risk their lives to pursue an American enemy that they had no need to loose lives fighting?

[Danzig]

We just got the word today...my brigade is going to Baghdad..and my battalion is going to the green zone specifically. I expect that it will be much different than our last to deployments; to Balad and Samarra.

And we were warned that we could end up in a conventional war with Iran....:barf: