Getting the Lowdown on Iraq

Time ^ | Nov. 20, 2005 | SALLY B. DONNELLY

[NickatNite2003]

If the Repulblican Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee wants to get a second opinion on how the war in Iraq is going, where does he turn? To the Pentagon, but not to the top brass this time. In an unusual closed-door meeting on Capitol Hill last week, Virginia's John Warner, joined by Democratic Senators Carl Levin of Michigan and Mark Dayton of Minnesota, sat across the table from 10 military officers chosen for their experience on the battlefield rather than in the political arena. Warner rounded up the battalion commanders to get at what the military calls "ground truth"--the unvarnished story of what's going on in Iraq.

"We wanted the view from men who had been on the tip of the spear, and we got it," said John Ullyot, a Warner spokesman who declined to comment on what was said at the meeting but confirmed that some Capitol Hill staff members were also present. According to two sources with knowledge of the meeting, the Army and Marine officers were blunt. In contrast to the Pentagon's stock answer that there are enough troops on the ground in Iraq, the commanders said that they not only needed more manpower but also had repeatedly asked for it. Indeed, military sources told TIME that as recently as August 2005, a senior military official requested more troops but got turned down flat.

[R. Scott]

*I* will be calling for our troops to be brought back home until honorable and competent command can be re-established.

Unfortunately, politics has always played a role in warfare. Unfortunately, political animals most often are the ones promoted to high level command positions.
Fortunately, our military manages to do their job even with this handicap.

[R. Scott]

LTC's command battalion size elements whose subordinate units have MTOE's that provide for a specific number of personnel and equipment. If a specific mission requires more personnel, the battalion can be augmented by the temporary attachment of one or more units.

I am very familiar with battalion level structure. I also know from experience that battalions are often under strength and augmentation is often not available. There are times when a battalion will be at full strength but be responsible for an AO far too large for its capabilities.
The “Strategic view at the 2 star and above level” can often bear little resemblance to the tactical reality.

[stocksthatgoup]

"a senior military official requested more troops but got turned down flat." --

Amazing they found someone who didn't get what he requested. The Spartans felt the same way.

[R. Scott]

There were times when we had to make missions short handed – not enough people to man gun positions. When casualties hit 40% per mission we were allowed to take US Navy volunteers to help man our boats.
Just because a commander requests more people does not mean they aren’t needed.

[ConsentofGoverned]

"Most critics of the Iraq war from our side, myself included, question the will-crushing aspect of combat operations."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>...........
The goal is to provide a stable country which is a friend of the USA. Any objective look at the war there shows we are firmly in control, with the enemy hiding or leaving to other countries, most attacks are of a low level type ..the enemy is using attrition and hoping the LEFT and MSM in America will convince the public to pull out.
It worked in VietNam very well..those who served there know the country was under our control with hit and run
low level attacks all the enemy could muster..but the press painted a country engulfed in a bloody fight daily.
Looking at Iraq with the few casualties and the political progress the current force structure looks very appropriate.
The left and MSM will try to convince us otherwise (per the Vietnam model) and some RINO's such a Warner will go along. I as a Nam viet will try to counterbalance the MSM and Lefts attempts to portray this war as UNWINABLE, our troops should not come home to ridicule and dishonor, if I can do anything about it.

[PureTrouble]

Its all about killing the generation that was brought up to hate the Americans and Jews. We can seal the area and stop the flow, but we leave too many alive.

Better to kill 100 of them a day then to let them come here and kill people in the US.

[bnelson44]

Sounds like they specifically wanted more explosive experts.

[McGavin999]

Why would you be mad at Rumsfeld? These guys don't send their requests to the pentagon, they send them to CENTCOM and the commanding generals make the decisions based on more facts than what is seen right on the ground. They take into consideration the long view.

One of the considerations is having too many US troops on the border with Syria, unless you are pressing for war with Syria right now instead of waiting for the right time. Stationing Iraqi troops in the towns as they are cleared is the right answer, they are less vulnerable to resentment from the local tribes and are beginning to get cooperation instead of resentment. Yes, it would have been great if we could have done this a year ago, but the Iraqi troops weren't ready. We had to let Saddam's troops go because the army had to be completely reformed. There was MASSIVE corruption and it was filled with men who would have no loyalty to the new Iraq. They're bringing some of them back now, but the structure is completely different and the culture is different as well.

Sometimes, when you can't go around a fire, or over it, you just have to go through it.

One of the worst mistakes we made in Vietnam was allowing the people in Washington to make decisions instead of the generals on the ground. This time, we are letting the generals on the ground make the decisions and still attempting to run the war from our armchairs. They are making the tough decisions and we should have what it takes to stand behind them.

[Eagle of Liberty]

First, this was in TIME magazine.

Second, who are these officers?

Third, why were staffers present?

Fourth, every General that has been in charge of the battle has said that our footprint is THE RIGHT SIZE!

Can we stop going back to old LIB talking points? We are not losing. Our troops are not being slaughtered.

Let me say this again. WE ARE WINNING!

[stocksthatgoup]

my point is that ...... they found someone who didnt get what he asked for. Likewise just because he asks for more doesn't mean he should get it.

[gooleyman]

Oh Come On!!! What Field Commander EVER thought he had enough men? "Give me all you've got and then some." This is just another spoke in the "Get Bush" wheel.

[Eagle of Liberty]

*I* will be calling for our troops to be brought back home until honorable and competent command can be re-established.

What kind of strategy is this? You are going to bring 159,000 troops back home just to send them back?

You can't have it both ways. If the Generals are TRULY calling for more troops, they should get more troops. But, you cannot be calling for them to come home at the same time you are calling for more troops to be added. The argument makes no sense. Either you want a BIGGER footprint or you want NO footprint. Which is it?

[stocksthatgoup]

Wars are not decided by plebiscite.
NSS - but support bespeaks liberators, NOT invaders.

[NickatNite2003]

What i don't want to see happen, is what happened in the Korean and Vietnam wars. That our troops are not
allowed, or given what they need, to achieve complete
victory. No more Koreas...No more Viet Nams..If that's happening, heads need to roll, or we might as well
surrender to the DimoSocialist traitors *now*,
and save our sons & daughters for the inevitable
second civil war.

[USS Alaska]

That question was asked of Rummy by chris wallace yesterday, and his response was,"Of course there are field commanders that want more of everything, there has never been a war fought that some one didn't want more. If the generals that are in charge make a request, it will be honored". {words to that effect, not an exact quote}

[Eagle of Liberty]

What i don't want to see happen, is what happened in the Korean and Vietnam wars. That our troops are not allowed, or given what they need, to achieve complete victory.

If you do not want another Vietnam, then you should redirect your fire to the ANTI-WAR crowd who are trying vigorously to create another one by getting Congressional Funding removed.

[stocksthatgoup]

That question was asked of Rummy by chris wallace yesterday, and his response was,"Of course there are field commanders that want more of everything, there has never been a war fought that some one didn't want more. If the generals that are in charge make a request, it will be honored". {words to that effect, not an exact quote}

Thanks USS Alaska......This needs to be repeated.

[johnny7]

Do a Google on the author... tells you all you need to know.

[McGavin999]

So, who do you think should be making those decisions? Senator McCain, or General Casey?

[McGavin999]

One of the things you HAVE to keep in mind is that General Abizad is from that region and he understands not only the culture, but the mindset as well. There is the quick fix, the heavy hand and a set back in the freedom and independence of the area, or there is the long range goal of getting the Iraqis to fully participate and take over the security of their own country. The generals in the field have opted for the latter.