Why Iraq Was a Mistake

[KG_Cloghaun]

Why Iraq Was a Mistake
A military insider sounds off against the war and the "zealots" who pushed it
By LIEUT. GENERAL GREG NEWBOLD (RET.)


Two senior military officers are known to have challenged Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the planning of the Iraq war. Army General Eric Shinseki publicly dissented and found himself marginalized. Marine Lieut. General Greg Newbold, the Pentagon's top operations officer, voiced his objections internally and then retired, in part out of opposition to the war. Here, for the first time, Newbold goes public with a full-throated critique:

In 1971, the rock group The Who released the antiwar anthem Won't Get Fooled Again. To most in my generation, the song conveyed a sense of betrayal by the nation's leaders, who had led our country into a costly and unnecessary war in Vietnam. To those of us who were truly counterculture--who became career members of the military during those rough times--the song conveyed a very different message. To us, its lyrics evoked a feeling that we must never again stand by quietly while those ignorant of and casual about war lead us into another one and then mismanage the conduct of it. Never again, we thought, would our military's senior leaders remain silent as American troops were marched off to an ill-considered engagement. It's 35 years later, and the judgment is in: the Who had it wrong. We have been fooled again.
From 2000 until October 2002, I was a Marine Corps lieutenant general and director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. After 9/11, I was a witness and therefore a party to the actions that led us to the invasion of Iraq--an unnecessary war. Inside the military family, I made no secret of my view that the zealots' rationale for war made no sense. And I think I was outspoken enough to make those senior to me uncomfortable. But I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat--al-Qaeda. I retired from the military four months before the invasion, in part because of my opposition to those who had used 9/11's tragedy to hijack our security policy. Until now, I have resisted speaking out in public. I've been silent long enough.
I am driven to action now by the missteps and misjudgments of the White House and the Pentagon, and by my many painful visits to our military hospitals. In those places, I have been both inspired and shaken by the broken bodies but unbroken spirits of soldiers, Marines and corpsmen returning from this war. The cost of flawed leadership continues to be paid in blood. The willingness of our forces to shoulder such a load should make it a sacred obligation for civilian and military leaders to get our defense policy right. They must be absolutely sure that the commitment is for a cause as honorable as the sacrifice.

With the encouragement of some still in positions of military leadership, I offer a challenge to those still in uniform: a leader's responsibility is to give voice to those who can't--or don't have the opportunity to--speak. Enlisted members of the armed forces swear their oath to those appointed over them; an officer swears an oath not to a person but to the Constitution. The distinction is important.
Before the antiwar banners start to unfurl, however, let me make clear--I am not opposed to war. I would gladly have traded my general's stars for a captain's bars to lead our troops into Afghanistan to destroy the Taliban and al-Qaeda. And while I don't accept the stated rationale for invading Iraq, my view--at the moment--is that a precipitous withdrawal would be a mistake. It would send a signal, heard around the world, that would reinforce the jihadists' message that America can be defeated, and thus increase the chances of future conflicts. If, however, the Iraqis prove unable to govern, and there is open civil war, then I am prepared to change my position.
I will admit my own prejudice: my deep affection and respect are for those who volunteer to serve our nation and therefore shoulder, in those thin ranks, the nation's most sacred obligation of citizenship. To those of you who don't know, our country has never been served by a more competent and professional military. For that reason, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's recent statement that "we" made the "right strategic decisions" but made thousands of "tactical errors" is an outrage. It reflects an effort to obscure gross errors in strategy by shifting the blame for failure to those who have been resolute in fighting. The truth is, our forces are successful in spite of the strategic guidance they receive, not because of it.

What we are living with now is the consequences of successive policy failures. Some of the missteps include: the distortion of intelligence in the buildup to the war, McNamara-like micromanagement that kept our forces from having enough resources to do the job, the failure to retain and reconstitute the Iraqi military in time to help quell civil disorder, the initial denial that an insurgency was the heart of the opposition to occupation, alienation of allies who could have helped in a more robust way to rebuild Iraq, and the continuing failure of the other agencies of our government to commit assets to the same degree as the Defense Department. My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions--or bury the results.

Flaws in our civilians are one thing; the failure of the Pentagon's military leaders is quite another. Those are men who know the hard consequences of war but, with few exceptions, acted timidly when their voices urgently needed to be heard. When they knew the plan was flawed, saw intelligence distorted to justify a rationale for war, or witnessed arrogant micromanagement that at times crippled the military's effectiveness, many leaders who wore the uniform chose inaction. A few of the most senior officers actually supported the logic for war. Others were simply intimidated, while still others must have believed that the principle of obedience does not allow for respectful dissent. The consequence of the military's quiescence was that a fundamentally flawed plan was executed for an invented war, while pursuing the real enemy, al-Qaeda, became a secondary effort.

There have been exceptions, albeit uncommon, to the rule of silence among military leaders. Former Army Chief of Staff General Shinseki, when challenged to offer his professional opinion during prewar congressional testimony, suggested that more troops might be needed for the invasion's aftermath. The Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense castigated him in public and marginalized him in his remaining months in his post. Army General John Abizaid, head of Central Command, has been forceful in his views with appointed officials on strategy and micromanagement of the fight in Iraq--often with success. Marine Commandant General Mike Hagee steadfastly challenged plans to underfund, understaff and underequip his service as the Corps has struggled to sustain its fighting capability.

To be sure, the Bush Administration and senior military officials are not alone in their culpability. Members of Congress--from both parties--defaulted in fulfilling their constitutional responsibility for oversight. Many in the media saw the warning signs and heard cautionary tales before the invasion from wise observers like former Central Command chiefs Joe Hoar and Tony Zinni but gave insufficient weight to their views. These are the same news organizations that now downplay both the heroic and the constructive in Iraq.

So what is to be done? We need fresh ideas and fresh faces. That means, as a first step, replacing Rumsfeld and many others unwilling to fundamentally change their approach. The troops in the Middle East have performed their duty. Now we need people in Washington who can construct a unified strategy worthy of them. It is time to send a signal to our nation, our forces and the world that we are uncompromising on our security but are prepared to rethink how we achieve it. It is time for senior military leaders to discard caution in expressing their views and ensure that the President hears them clearly. And that we won't be fooled again.

SOURCE:

Time Magazine Sunday, Apr. 9, 2006
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/pr...181629,00.html

[KG_Soldier]

There has yet to be a war which had no dissenting Gernerals on the same side. Blah Blah--Rumsfield "ignorant and casual about war!" Come on, give me a break. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Sure in hindsight we might have handled the insurgency better, but we didn't. It's easy to expect the military to be precient after the fact. Being precient about what will happen after a conflict is quite hard. I give big congratulations to the leaders of the Military and the success which they've displayed on the battlefield.

[KG_SSpoom]

Great article Frank, now we need more people who are willing to
show the courage it takes to speak out against unjust, unnecessary war.
People need to understand that we as Americans Can Support the soldiers
that are doing their duty but question why they are there in the first place.
YES you can do this and still be a good American, maybe it even makes you a
better American. Question Injustice or soon there will be no justice.

[KG_AGCent]

The anecdotes in the Time story are nothing more than that and come no closer to providing evidence to prove your point. Show me numbers. Show me something other than empty appeals to emotionalism and I will certainly consider them.

I just can't quite make my mind do the mental gymnastics, contortions really, required to come to the conclusion that undermining the leadership of a war effort is somehow MORE patriotic and makes on a BETTER American than those who actively support the war to bring it to a rapid and successful conclusion. Can anyone say jabberwocky?

[KG_SSpoom]

Well I will give you one example that I would think that you are aware of when the Mental gymnastics or contortions would have been worth undermining a war effort. Think Europe in the late 30s,that is a time in history where the people SHOULD have made the leap to undermine the war efforts of the national socialist party.
In no way am I comparing the America of today to Nazi Germany so dont even go there. ANYONE. I am giving an extreme example not comparing the
two conflicts. I am just saying why I think why our system wont fail to the extremes of early-mid 20th century Europe. Our system is supposed to have the checks and balances of people asking why and questioning motives before anything like the tragedy of WW2 can happen.
I pray that this country will never ever fall to the point where history looks back on us and says "Why didnt the people do something ? surely they couldnt have been that blind"

And what makes for a succesful conclusion the the war in Iraq?
We know they have no WMDs- scenario 1 debunked
The Iraqis werent behind 9-11 -scenario 2 debunked
Saddam is gone yet the Insurgency continues- scenario 3 debunked
A government has been elected- still open for debate as to how effective this will ever be.
We have trained the police and soldiers- yet many of them use that training on us or each other - still open for debate as to the effective this will ever be.
Are we ever going to get things good enough to leave?- If we do, what guarantees do we have that as soon as we pull out everything that we have done all the money we have poured into Iraq , all the young promising lives that were lost, all the young lives that were ruined, all the children that will grow up without a Mother,Father ,Aunt or Uncle were not spent in vain.
We have no guarantees whatsoever and that is why ANY American should be Expected to question the reasons we are at war in Iraq.
In my opinion to do less would be questionable , anyone is free to believe that we are doing the right thing in Iraq. I have no problem with people who support the war, I SUPPORT OUR TROOPS 110% I just dont support the causes and reasoning behind the war.
I am just very troubled that War supporters dont allow people to question the reasons behind this war or the right to have and express their feeling without attacking them, calling the unpatriotic or even traitors.
Im sure this post will piss some of you off-- Im sorry but I AM ENTITLED TO MY OPINION. As are you.
Only I wont take offence because I value your right to express it.
Try to do the same ...Its the American way and what is so sweet about Democracy

[KG_Cloghaun]

I just can't quite make my mind do the mental gymnastics, contortions really,

could you be anymore dramatic? I picture your brain doing a half-pike through the air.

The war is not a worthwhile cause to me. I don't care about Iraqis or their country, period. I don't care if they have Democracy. I think it's a waste of American lives. I don't need evidence to support this belief.

No less than 5 high ranking military officers have come forward, including Marine Lt. Gen. Newbold, to say this war has been grossly mismanaged, yet you won't even acknowledge them, fellow soldiers, as anything more than anecdotes.

I don't have 10 hours of free time a day to get into the minutia of a numbers game with you, Rob. Why don't we just call it "faith", or a lack thereof.

We can't even discuss or debate this issue because you refuse to even acknowledge my point of view because it doesn't "jive" with your frame of reference.

Not everything can be measured by numbers & logic.

[KG_Panzerschreck]

I really try to stay out of conversations like this one. You guys are my friends and my Grandpap always told me to never talk politics or religion with friends because before you know it, you wont have any friends left.

But i cant stay out this conversation anymore. Ill just make my points and observations and hopefully contribute something worthwhile to the group and ill move on.

The first thing i would like to say is that while i absolutely disagree with most of you, i respect your opinions. You have a right to them and far be it from me to judge any of you. I deeply care about the Iraqi people. I would love for them to have a Democracy or any kind of government of THIER CHOOSING by a FREELY ELECTED means. If i was of sound body when the war started i would of volunteered for the millitary/ Combat/ Iraq. Thats how dedicated i am in my willingness to see a free Iraq.

1} Bush's Bad PR.

It is my firm belife that no matter what good things President Bush does, says or happens because of his orders, it will be painted in a bad light by not only the press in this country, but also the world media. Im not saying its a conspiracy im not saying its anything other than a cold hard truth. The man cant win for loosing and you all know it, whether your willing to belive it or not. Republican, Democrat, Idependent or what ever else you may be, if you dont recognize this truth, your fooling yourself.

Case in point, when Zarqawi was killed. Just 2 days before he was killed one of the nut jobs on Air America did a show about terrorism and how the bush administration had failed in tracking down this violent most wanted terrorist in Iraq. Two days later he is dead and Air America down plays the whole thing and says "He wasnt all that important", "He was just a figure head", and "Why werent they after Bin-Laden?", among other things i wont even retype. Meanwhile across the pond The BBC says that Bush and the Bush Admin. should be ashamed of itself for celebrating the death of another human being. This is just one of a myriad of examples i could use. I honestly belive Bush could go on TV this very second live from Afghanistan and plop Bin-Laden's head on the podium and say "WE GOT HIM!" and it would somehow be down played in the media because they dont like him.

2} WMD's.

Weapons of Mass Destruction. There are four words that will start a fight in most rooms now-a-days. It seems to me that alot of people forgot about a few incidents.

A. Saddam has/had and used gas on his own people. Its been well documented. Now i know some of you guys will trip over yourselves to tell me that it was destroyed be the U.N. Inspectors. Please tell me how do they know they got it all?

B. Remember back during the war a soldier found an IED arty round made out of a Chemical Shell?

C. A few days after the above mentioned incident 3 or 4 more arty rounds were found in a stash of weapons.

If all WMD's were destroyed by U.N. Inspectors before the war where did these rounds come from? Did the factories fire up and run off 5 rounds? I belive they were well hid out in the desert somewhere or tucked over the border in a sympathetic country. Any guesses on which country that could be? Which is where the WMD is at now that wasnt found during the war, in the desert or more likely sitting comfortably with a neighbor. I belive you are fooling yourself if you think that WMD never existed in the first place. I just find it a little hard to belive that the intelligence agencies of America, Britian, Russia, France, Poland and several other countries were all wrong and Mikey Moore was right, that the evil Bush/Blair oil stealing, baby eating monsters made the whole thing up.


3} Real Soldier/Marine/Airman/Sailor Testimony.

The last place any of you should go for a source of news about the war is to a TV, Newspaper or online. "Kent's a whackjob", your probably thinking to yourself right now. If you put any stock in what i wrote about Bush's PR you'll begin to understand why im saying what i am. Dont belive what i wrote above, ok, i challenge you. I challenge anyone of you to buy any Nationaly curculated newspaper that isnt conservatively based and find me a positive story on Iraq. Good Luck. I also challenge anyone of you to watch PBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS or CNN and find me ONE positive story on Iraq. I bet you wont.

If you want the real scoop on whats going on in Iraq talk to soldiers. Talk to people who have been there for some time. They will tell you what the real score is and what the average Iraqi thinks of Americans and the USA. You'll be in for an eye opener. And dont talk to just one or two, talk to as many as you can find. Im sure that you might bump into some who have had bad experiences or didnt like the people but i have talked to about 25 soldiers {3 of which were wounded, one lost a leg to an RPG} who have done at least 1 year or more and i have heard nothing but positive stories about the people and their country. The Iraqi's themselves love the Americans for being there and DONT want us to leave. They desperately want and need our help and support. But you'll never see that on TV or in the Newspaper. The mainstream media isnt interested in the common man in Iraq or his everyday life and problems, they are interested in the Radicals and thats all you'll ever hear about. The only time you hear about the common man is when the Radical man kills 15 more common men and the press spews out another body count. Heres a body count id like to see, all the healthy babies born because of the hospitals we built. All the people saved by our combat medics and surgeons. Once agian numbers never to be seen on any TV or newspaper in this country, all because they hate Bush, How stupid is that?


4} A Little History Please.

Iraqs fledgeling democracy. My God people. Give those people a chance. Look how long it took us to fight our War of Independence. After the war, look how long it took to get the Constitution ratified. My goodness give these people a chance, they are just getting started, albeit they have people who know what they are doing showing them the way, but give them a chance. I feel Americans a shoving thier "Gotta have it now" impatience on the Iraqi's and thats not a good thing. Once again i come back to our founding fathers, could you imagine how bad it would of been back in the day if we had satalite TV and the whole world watching every minutia of every move? Meanwhile suicidal idiots are running around killing people by the truckloads every day with bombs and several differend allied armies are patrolling your streets. I say it wouldnt of worked. By turning it around it focusing it on us i hope to make it easier for you to understand what those poor people must be going through right now. I say give them the time they need, however long it may take, within reason.


5} Dissenting Generals.

In all wars plans are made. There are specific Generals whos job it is to come up with plans and counterplans to all possible outcomes. In all wars plans usually dont make it past contact with the enemy. In this war i think we can all agree that some mistakes were made. But the military has in my opinion done a good job at recognizing and fixing what needs to be fixed. Its a work in progress. Now these handful of Generals can come and say this or that, and say that this should of been done or i would of done it this way, but what good does it do? All it does it stir up more hatred toward this country and its milliary and its people. Then you have the other handful that says we never should of gone in in the first place. Well i dont have anything to say about them other than this. No matter what group of people you have together, be it a group of Generals, a group of Buisnessmen or a group of Fishermen, they all are going to argue about how to achive a certain task that is given them. A very few may disagree with the given idea so much so, that in fact he may belive it impossible to achive, therefore he quits, resigns or snaps his rod in half or whatever the case may be. Does that mean the one dissenter is right over the many? Does the many, because they are all in agreement mean they are right? I belive the answer to both of those questions is no. But i think that in the case of the dissenting Generals, the papers and TV tend to want to belive the dissenters because they Hate Bush and want to see him and his policies fail in Iraq. Does that mean the Generals who dissent are automaticly right because the papers and TV say so? That my friends remains to be seen but i doubt it. Id be willing to side with many over the few in this case. Look at the number of General Officers there are in the Army, Marines, Airforce & Navy. How many Have come out and damned the cause? Its an insignifigant number i have no doubt. Since when do we as a people put so much stock into the words of such a tiny minority, a litteral handfull of people? When there is more dissent ill start worrying, until then ill give Uncle Sam the break he so desperately needs.

There, im off my soapbox for the evening, or should i say morning.

[KG_SSpoom]

Good points Kent,
I agree with you that no matter what Bush does now he will be villified for it,
either by friend or foe. He is the proverbial hot potato/scapegoat. He is not solely to blame for any/all of these the problems we face in Iraq.
I agree that there are certainly some chemical weapons lying around.
That didnt seem to bother us when we helped him fight off Iran in the 80s
by wiping out their navy and a good portion of the iranian heavy equiptment that was in southern Iraq. He was ok in our books then so it was ok for him to gas Iranians because we were still sore at them over the Embassy hostage deal.
IMHO W.M.Ds meant bigger and badder than what he had used in the past,
but that is just my opinion- right or wrong.
I wont even go into the soldier/sailor/airman because that really just depends on which ones you talk to some are for some are against, it is
that way in all wars.
As far as the history, WE started our own revolution , and WE started the Iraqis revolution. If the Iraqis threw Saddam out and then asked for our help I would be alot more open minded on this one.We decided to oust Saddam. We wanted Saddam out just like we wanted him in in the 80s. We can be pretty fickle about who and when/why we support in the middle east. For me the best policy is a hands off not our business policy. Let them settle their own affairs. We have quite a few problems of our own without pouring gas on a fire.
As for the Generals, questioning policy and direction is good, there are military advisers for a reason. Sometimes the can see the rough road much better than politicians. Orders are a different affair totally you want officers to follow orders, but the still have to be lawful orders.
Good points Kent, I can see them all and dont totally dissagree with much of what you said and respect that you said it.

[KG_AGCent]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDh_pvv1tUM

[KG_SSpoom]

nice link Rob .
Strange thing is there wasn't any Iraqi involvement in 9-11
So how exactly is this relevant to the war in Iraq?
And since you dont watch the news or read the newspaper here is an article I think you would like to see


WASHINGTON - The U.S. Army, aiming to make its recruiting goals amid the Iraq war, raised its maximum enlistment age by another two years Wednesday.

People can now volunteer to serve in the active-duty Army or the part-time Army Reserve and National Guard up to their 42nd birthday, officials said.
It marked the second time this year the Army has boosted the maximum age for new volunteers, raising the ceiling from age 35 to 40 in January.
The Army Reserve is a part-time force of federal troops who can be summoned to active duty. The Army National Guard is another part-time force whose soldiers are under the command of state governors for use in emergencies but also can be mobilized to active duty.
Julia Bobick, an Army Recruiting Command spokeswoman, said the decision to raise the maximum enlistment age "is not an act of desperation" but rather the latest prudent step intended to attract qualified recruits.

Older recruits must pass the same physical standards and medical examination as younger ones, the Army said. However, those between 40 and 42 will face additional cardiovascular screening, Bobick said.

With your Marine corp experience and your considerable Heating and Air Conditioning experience this might be a golden opportunity for you.
I personally think it would be a bad Idea but I thought you might like to know about it.