Not-So-Special Operation

National Review ^ | ? November 19, 2001, issue of National Review. | Andrew J. Bacevich

[Quicksilver]

It's sad to see that National Review continues to slip. This is an especially inaccurate piece.

[Travis McGee]

Andrew J. Bacevich,

I can let you have a parachute and a rifle, and then you can jump out of a C-130 over Talibanland, and show us how it should be done.

Until then, SHUT YOUR STUPID REMF MOUTH about "half hearted measures".

[StockAyatollah]

Weak, very weak indeed. Who is the author and what qualifies him to judge a military operation? Does he not understand that this is a different type of war than Desert Storm? We are fighting a country whose government controls only parts of its territory. We are also fighting a terrorist organization stretched across dozens of countries. And last but not least, for the umpteenth time its only been a friggin' month since we started this campaign!

[There's millions of'em]

Perhaps someone would be kind enough to enlighten us regarding Mr. Bacevich's experiences as a commander during the gulf war. He is quite the wordsmith and ever the critic.

[SmartBlonde]

Bacevich bio: B.S., US Military Academy; Ph.D. Princeton

23 years officer in Army. Teaches American foreign policy, national security studies, WAR AND STATECRAFT.

[Nick Danger]

I'm not so quick to dismiss what this author is trying to do. It's also not obvious that he can be easily dismissed as a REMF. This piece, and another one here, both look to me like attempts by well-meaning and knowledgeable people to reach Bush's ear via the media, to lend support to those in the Administration who are trying to warn Bush that a combination of The Usual Suspects in the State Department, and a senior officer corps composed of the sort of men who would rise under Clinton, is not pursuing this war according to what Bush says he wants.

I'm not talking about any expectations that this is supposed to be some sort of walk in the park, or that after three weeks we should expect to see bin Laden's head on a stick. I am talking, as I think these authors are talking, about the timidity and caution that seems to characterize the entire effort so far.

Osama bin Laden took down two of the largest buildings in the United States, and attacked the headquarters of our military. It's a miracle that tens of thousands of people weren't killed... that was certainly bin Laden's intent. Does anybody here believe that an F-16 dropping a couple of bombs here and there, every day for a couple of weeks -- stopping on Fridays so as to observe our enemy's day of prayer -- is the proper response to such an act?

Oh look, a B-52. That's right, a B-52. Not a hundred B-52s, or even 30 B-52's. One goddamned bomber dropping a stick and then going home for the day. This isn't war, this is some clown with a calculator playing a video game in Florida, with one poor pilot out in the real world tasked with living out General Franks' push-button fantasy.

I do not trust Seymour Hersh, so I'm not inclined to believe the story that Franks allowed a lawyer to talk him out of blowing up Mullah Omar when he had the chance. I'd like to think that's not true. But nothing in Franks' behavior so far suggests that he would do otherwise.

When bin Laden attacked, we should have roared like a lion. Instead we peeped like a little bird. That moment is gone; it will never be back. The whole psychological moment when we could have scared those camel jockeys sh*tless was spent being timid, moving our little pieces around as if we were opening with the King's Bishop's gambit. Now the camel jockeys think they have seen the mighty United States, and they haven't seen squat. They couldn't be more wrong, but fighting them now is going to be a lot harder than if we had made it clear from the beginning that they had messed with the wrong guys.

I share the concern of these authors that our military is in the hands of Clinton's favorite officers, and so long as that obtains we will never do what Bush says he wants done. I applaud the efforts of these authors to prod Bush into going farther down into the ranks, to see if there are any warriors down there that we can put in the place of Clinton's peacekeeping bureaucrats.

[blondee123]

i tend to agree with you, nick, as we are being too cautious & too concerned about civilian casualties, as i've said before you cannot be Nice & fight a war. it's one or the other.

[self_evident]

It's a miracle that tens of thousands of people weren't killed...

Thank you for your post. I simply don't understand what is going on anymore. I am baffled by those that think the mere act of writing an article pointing out the timidity of our response to date are somehow not supportive of our effort. If we don't even ask for an aggressive effort, is there any chance that we will get it?

[self_evident]

23 years officer in Army. Teaches American foreign policy, national security studies, WAR AND STATECRAFT.

I found a bio here. He is certainly qualified to comment from what I can determine.

[Jim Noble]

Travis, please see Nick Danger's post #7 above (with which I totally agree), and reconsider.

You know very well that success in war requires the relief of many high level REMFs who have achieved their positions of command under peacetime conditions, using inside the beltway skills that are a detriment on the battlefield. This was true in 1861, it was true in 1917, and it was most certainly true in 1941-42.

In 1950 we still had a few experienced combat commanders to send to ROK. The failure to replace political commanders in 1965 with real soldiers was a catastrophe from which we have barely recovered.

I can see you thinking Bacevich should not publish at a time like this (I don't agree, but I can see it).

But do you really think he's wrong? What do you think you had to do to get a third or fourth star from Cohen and Clinton? What sort of a man do you think you had to be?

[aBootes]

I also agree with Nick. Perhaps our leaders thought the Northern Alliance was more fit to fight, and perhaps they thought that the southern tribes would rise in revolt. Whatever. Now it is clear that we are going to have to go it mostly alone and therefore the eagle must be more fully unleashed. One bomber is a joke.

[bimbo]

In spite of the poll numbers, Bush will be a one-term president, undone by HIS OWN FAILURE to remove the Clintonites from the executive branch.

[Freedom'sWorthIt]

"What do you think you had to do to get a third or fourth star from Cohen and Clinton? What sort of a man do you think you had to be?"

Exactly.

Uncle Bill - do you or others have a link to the story about a group of military top brass who threatened to resign en masse to protest certain Clinton actions (or maybe just to protest his treacheries en masse)? I seem to remember that these generals were told - oh no you won't - and they were all removed from their positions BEFORE they had the opportunity to go public and do the mass resignation action.

If that story was just a part of the nightmare of the Clinton years - my apologies. But, I do remember reading it - here of course.

If it's true - President Bush could start his search for military leaders he needs right now among that group perahps.

[Freedom'sWorthIt]

"What do you think you had to do to get a third or fourth star from Cohen and Clinton? What sort of a man do you think you had to be?"

Exactly.

Uncle Bill - do you or others have a link to the story about a group of military top brass who threatened to resign en masse to protest certain Clinton actions (or maybe just to protest his treacheries en masse)? I seem to remember that these generals were told - oh no you won't - and they were all removed from their positions BEFORE they had the opportunity to go public and do the mass resignation action.

If that story was just a part of the nightmare of the Clinton years - my apologies. But, I do remember reading it - here of course.

If it's true - President Bush could start his search for military leaders he needs right now among that group perahps.

[Harrison Bergeron]

bttt

[Razz]

This is an especially inaccurate piece.

Is it? The whole thing, or just parts? If the latter which parts?

I find it disturbing, and see no factual inaccuracies. As for opinion, it fits the bill from my perspective.

Mostly, it seems that this 'war' is targeted more at our civil liberties and Constitution moreso than any foreign enemies.

[Razz]

Until then, SHUT YOUR STUPID REMF MOUTH about "half hearted measures".

Sir, are you then on the front lines of this 'war'?

[Travis McGee]

So what did he do in the Army, polish General's buttons? Make coffee for the Chief's of Staff? If he had any specops experience, his bio would have mentioned it prominantly.

[jwh_Denver]

So far from what I've seen I'm not impressed with the way this "war" is going. One question I ask is how in h are we going to be able to say we've won in Afganistan? Even if we do stop fighting the country is going to be a sink hole for billions of dollars of aid paid by us and the dump will always be screwed up because the people are.

I do have one hope and that is to fight a smart war. We are only hearing a fraction of what I hope is going on in finding these freakin fanatics. When we do make em talk, bring on the drugs and get everything you can out of them and kill them. Boom. Dead, no more problem from that moron. (side note here. I would not kill bin Laden but rather place him in a small jail in solitary confinement for the rest of his life. No mail or communication in or out). I figure there are people who know how to get these Arabic countries to start fighting each other. Be sneaky, ruthless, and smart.