Posted on 05/15/2005 8:04:44 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Thirty years ago Saigon fell. I was a company commander in the 2 nd Battalion, 508 th Airborne Infantry Regiment, 82 nd Airborne Division. When our Vietnam veterans cursed the war, I remembered one of the greatest speeches I ever heard - the day the Vietnam peace was announced to my Winter Ranger class in ’73.
The senior Ranger Sergeant cursed everything about the Vietnam War and everyone involved, friend or foe, in a poetic rant of imaginative, sincere, foul-mouthed hatred. He swore most passionately about the waste of his buddies’ lives. He blamed everyone and everything he knew to blame for that long war. His comrades died for nothing.
Years later, former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara acknowledged that he knew the U.S. could not, or would not, win the Vietnam War. Yet, he stayed in office for years to tinker with technology and management-based theories of guerilla war, while pursuing his fascination with operations research for ‘rationalizing’ our National Defense. The theories failed, not the soldiers. McNamara didn’t know what war to fight. He disputed the Generals on how to fight. He insisted on having his way no matter what.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld made the same mistakes in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). The threefold saving grace for Iraq is the absence of a rival Superpower, the geography and GEN. John Abizaid is the Regional Combatant Commander. Our several enemies in Iraq have no sponsor like the Soviet Union. The North Vietnamese could challenge U.S. Forces even if they couldn’t defeat them tactically. Iraqi cities and villages can be isolated physically with good fields of fire in the surrounding desert. There are no sanctuaries. Finally, John Abizaid in the Middle East is like Douglas MacArthur in the Far East. Right guy, right place, right time even if he has far less power.
Before 9-11, Secretary Rumsfeld viewed his return to the Department of Defense as an opportunity to get right, finally, what he learned from his first secretariat. But, he learned wrongly. His fixation with one armchair theory of war is based on a fascination with high technology air and space power. Platforms have targeting kill chains and network-centric warfare instead of fighting human will and commander-centric command and control. Rumsfeld had a dogmatic fixation to cut the Army by two divisions and more.
Consequently, the invasion of Iraq was shaped to his theology. GEN (RET) Tommy Franks will insist he had a free hand to plan the invasion of Iraq in 2003 as a manhood issue. But, Rumsfeld’s final responsibility for accepting a plan that didn’t have enough troops as the Army Chief of Staff suggested and failed to have the 4 th Infantry Division on the ground from the ‘get go’ had consequences on the battlefield. The lines of communication weren’t secured. The Iraqi Nation wasn’t decisively engaged – psychologically with the appearance of allied troops everywhere – even though the Iraqi forces were decisively defeated when they fought.
Additionally, the big shock and awe bombing campaign was a bust. It didn’t collapse the regime. It killed civilians and destroyed records that would be very useful for the nationwide intelligence needed to restore security. Clearly, Rumsfeld thought the war meant defeat Hussein and get out. The plans called for a reduction from about 150,000 U.S. troops rapidly down to 30,000. How could the Sec Def not know there would be an Occupation?
The colonels at the Army War College knew it. The Army Chief of Staff, GEN. Eric Shinseki, who was let go, knew it. Just like they knew, and recommended, to keep the Iraqi Army on the payrolls, intact, and selectively weed out the Baathist bad guys.
Rumsfeld didn’t understand the fundamentals of the war, which war, OIF was. Our forces on the ground did well to overcome the failures of understanding and planning. But, it cost us.
Rumsfeld rightly pushes a transformation of the Defense Department from the Industrial to Information Age. He has military bureaucrats focus on process to find the right magic for a Blitzkrieg II. The Germans didn’t use magic. They experimented using ‘military empiricism’ to find the best fit of technology, organization and operational concepts. Like the Army has been seizing the intellectual high ground since 1990 to develop the Future Combat Systems. Rumsfeld doesn’t get it.
A Sec Def making fundamental errors of judgment on war, despite his skillful recovery, should be fired. He may not understand what war looms when China threatens Taiwan or North Korea threatens South Korea and Japan or elsewhere.
James Atticus Bowden has specialized in inter-disciplinary long range 'futures' studies for over a decade. He is employed by a Defense Department contractor. He is a retired United States Army Infantry Officer. He is a 1972 graduate of the United States Military Academy and earned graduate degrees from Harvard University and Columbia University. He holds two elected Republican Party offices in Virginia.
Comments: JAtticus@aol.com
I wonder if it ever crossed the author’s mind that Rummy was aware of this.
I doubt they would have every been weeded out. What we did was much more ambitious.
I agree, and have stated several times that the SECDEF is a re-run of Robert Strange McNamara.
Both men sought to make war a business enterprise and it will never be so.
My take is that the Generals weren't given full control as they were under the first President Bush.
I heard it several times, nearly a year ago and several times in the past 6 months......both on MSNBC and on Fox cable.
When you fire people for making errors, everyone in the team stops taking risks. If they’re not making errors, they’re not performing to their full potential. It’s only when they m make the same error twice that they should be fired..
Well, as I've said many times before, I don't always post columns with which I agree. It's a good idea, don't you think (?), to put up some which can generate discussion threads.
Not everyone is proficient in military matters. In my opinion, the whole topic is mostly a man's domain, and I actually am very interested in seeing what people think about arguments like Bowden's, with which I personally have problems, although he's a good friend of mine.
The only element with which I might agree is possibly that we should have had more "boots on the ground," but I agree with the response that mentioned the refusal of Turkey to allow us access to northern Iraq. That was really the major twist which allowed many problems to emerge for our troops. It is self-evident.
Char :)
Rumsfeld I am sure, gives the services enough rope to hang themselves. They have to be flexible, and that is what Rummy is trying to forment within the Army. TRADOC does not run wars, the JCS, the theater CINC, and the Secdef -do. They have the bigger picture of what each of the services and supporting agencies are capable of.
Like the Army is going to reach out and touch China - I dont think so. China is just as hamstrung as we are, limited air/sea lift. The only other option is Specops and Airpower to beat em back until sealanes and airlanes of communication can be had.
One thing this article has right is that McNamara was a piece of crap for a Sec. of Defense.
The current plan of keeping a lid on the 3 different cultures of Iraq appears to come more from Bush than Rumsfeld. Bush wanted to bring democracy to the region. I think H*** will freeze over before our version of that happens.
If Bush had made the decision to split Iraq into 3 pieces, we'd already been out of there, or at least would be over most of the continuing terrorist work in the Sunni triangle. A faster strategy would have been to pick a new Western-leaning dictator. This has always worked in the past, giving us a 15 year breathing room before a guy like Sadaam outgrew his leash.
If we'd partitioned we'd been able to play one off against the other more easily, yet still keep them separated.
The problem with Bush's Tito option of keeping it all together like the mish-mash of old Yugoslavia is that there has to be a strong dictator or a strong will to fight the terrorists. Right now both do not exist. But if we stay the course, and spend $$$, I imagine a government will kick start. It's just a matter of time and money. The partition approach avoids those problems with the loss of a central control of their biggest resource: oil. It appears that a central control of oil is now producing less than before the war.
Rumsfeld did and is now doing a great job, given the constraints placed upon him politically.
Bush's desire to bring democracy to the region unfortunately outruns the 2 year election cycle that it has to fit in. The Republicans will pay at the ballot box for this delay.
Hoppy
Robert Strange is one of the few people to deserve the title "worst public official of the last 100 years" more than Janet Reno. McN got more people killed...
I hope you show your "good friend" James Bowden these replies?
Hey? Way to take all sides of an arguement and then claim you are right. Nice!!
Whenever I post an article, I immediately send the author confirmation of the posting, with the link, so that they can track the "incomings!"
James will most surely be watching all of the reactions. He's a "big boy" and doesn't take any offense to negative replies.
As for this particular subject matter, or anything else which is negative toward any part of this administration's policies or activities, I actually test myself from time to time.
I tend to be such a terrifically loyal team player, that I really hesitate to criticize anything about "my team." But it's healthy, I think, to be open minded enough to at least consider contrary points of view. In my opinion, it is not healthy to refuse to think that the administration might have made mistakes. Whether this article is accurate about mistakes in the Iraq war (or planning), is beyond my "pay scale" to analyze or be sure of, because - as I've said before - I'm just a little civilian lady and not a military analyst.
The bottom line for me is that our planners did the very best they could at the time. I personally am put off with those who are quick to criticize after the fact.
I'll say one thing. There have been a lot of people saying that we're always "fighting the last war." In this regard, Rumsfeld was specifically NOT "fighting the last war." His whole idea has been to modernize our forces, right from the beginning of his tenure as Sec. of Def.
Thanks for your ideas, Horn Dude! (what a name!)
Char :)
Cheney/Rumsfeld '08
OH WOW !!! Now THAT would knock the pants suits right off of the Killster! Can you IMAGINE Killery attempting to spar with those two brilliant, seasoned, experienced professionals?! WhooHA! I love your idea!
Thanks for that! You've made my evening!
Char :)
Thanks for the ping!
Bush gave a speach right after we endered Bagdad and said it would take years to finish the job.
This writer is using 20-20 hindsight and making it look like total failure. Well, go back to WWII and look at the thousands of mistakes that were made in both Europe and the Pacific. Look at the tens of thousands who died in those mistakes. They are mistakes now but at the time they were what happens during war. It's not clean and it's not a video game where you know all the moves. It took us more then 5 years to give back control of Japan to Japan and 5 years for the Germans to finally accept the fact that they could vote on their own Gov't and to stop fighting the Americans!
Lets look at a few things the armchair brass all said would happen. First, they all said we would have 5000-10,000 GI's Killed - didn't happen.
Second, they all said we would get slaughtered going house to house fighting - didn't happen. Most of the deaths are from roadside bombs and accidents not fighting hand to hand.
Third, they all said support wouldn't last more then 6 months - support is still 50% two years in !
Look at Iraq in 5-6 years and it will be much better then it is today.
The bottom line is war never happens the way it does on the computer models and the human factor changes every day so hindsight is useless because the next war will be different !
Wars are more easily fought afterwards. I am not a military expert. I have not served in the military. I have read about a lot of major mistakes we made in WWII, not to mention Korea.
Alexander the Great was right all of the time, but he was also absolute in his leadership. Eventually even his own men got tired of his leadership and refused to conquer India.
I am amazed that we did so well in Iraq with so little help from our so-called allies and so much opposition in the area. The overall effect has been to grant freedom to two countries where people never voted before.
I am also astonished that we did so well given Clintons' (plural possessive) hatred of the military and their absolute desire to bankrupt and humiliate our forces whenever possible. Give them credit for overcoming eight years of neglect and poor funding from the Democrats and the GOP.
Defense is in our constitution. Wiping every dripping nose in the world is not.
The more I think this one over, the more I'm inclined to agree with you. It's just not a picture-perfect situation. No war is...........and it's just too easy for arm-chair critics to get all cranked up and spew out drivel as though they would have run a "well-oiled machine."
Hindsight being what it is, most of us could run a better Iraq war from where we're sitting now.
I appreciate your comments very much.
Thanks!
Char :)
You mean Gen. Shinseki, John Kerry's other wife? Lurch mentioned him in the campaign more often than he mentioned Nurse Fuzzy-Wuzzy"...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.