Posted on 01/12/2004 6:49:58 AM PST by dead
A scathing report published by the Army War College criticises the US's handling of the "war on terrorism", accusing it of taking a detour into an unnecessary war in Iraq and pursuing an unrealistic quest against terrorism that may lead to US wars with nations posing no serious threat.
The report, by Professor Jeffrey Record, of the war college at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, warns that as a result of those mistakes, the US Army is "near breaking point".
The report recommends scaling back the scope of the war on terrorism and instead focusing on the narrower threat posed by the al-Qaeda terrorist network.
"The global war on terrorism as currently defined and waged is dangerously indiscriminate and ambitious, and accordingly . . . its parameters should be readjusted," Professor Record said.
The anti-terrorism campaign was "strategically unfocused, promises more than it can deliver and threatens to dissipate US military resources in an endless and hopeless search for absolute security".
The report was released at a time of heightened criticism and doubt about the war in Iraq.
On Sunday, the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said he did not know whether any weapons of mass destruction would ever be found in Iraq.
Mr Blair told BBC television interviewer the weapons had not been at sites where military chiefs expected to find them and they might never be found.
In a book published today, a former US treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, said he never saw any evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
In an interview with Time magazine, Mr O'Neill said: "In the 23 months I was there, I never saw anything that I would characterise as evidence of weapons of mass destruction."
Professor Record is a veteran defence specialist and author of six books on military strategy and related issues.
The director of the war college's Strategic Studies Institute, Colonel Douglas Lovelace, supported the essay. "I think that the substance Jeff brings out in the article really, really needs to be considered," he said.
Professor Race expected the study to be controversial, but a colleague at the war college added: "He considers it to be under the umbrella of academic freedom."
A Pentagon spokesman, Larry DiRita, said he had not read Professor Record's study. He added: "If the conclusion is that we need to be scaling back in the global war on terrorism, it's not likely to be on my reading list anytime soon."
Many of Professor Record's arguments, such as the contention that Iraq was deterred and did not present a threat, have been made before by critics of the Bush Administration. Iraq, he concludes, "was a war-of-choice distraction from the war of necessity against" al-Qaeda.
However, it is unusual to have such views published by the war college, the US Army's premier academic institution.
Professor Record's chief criticism is that the Administration is biting off more than it can chew.
He likened the US's ambitions in the war on terrorism to Hitler's overreach in World War II. "A cardinal rule of strategy is to keep your enemies to a manageable number," he said. "The Germans were defeated in two world wars because their strategic ends outran their available means."
The essay concluded with several recommendations, including one that the US scale back its ambitions in Iraq and be prepared to settle for a "friendly autocracy" there rather than a genuine democracy.
The Washington Post; Reuters; The Telegraph, London
He has written Think tank for the National War College...his project assays have been part of the U.S. *Deep Strike format for the Airforce.
Other evaluation projects..most on PDF..concerning Iraq.
His veiws and others as too what would occur in Iraq has been correct...yes..some do not like the candid assay.
A Lt Col in the Airforce..presently writting for the Joint Chiefs.
A freeper who flew A-10'S in the Gulf knows him.... also bumps into him on his business activities at the Pentagon.
Like yourself..do not view the War College think tanks as hot beds for leftists.
Rather..it is reasonable to consider the quality of the evaluators which exist to serve the nation..ones with combat and logistical experience.
"My husband, (A War College Graduate, 1984), was yelling at Chris Mathews tonight for using this same incorrect, intentionally misleading headline.
This was NOT an Army War College Study! It was study written by one person at the War College. Several posters have already explained the important and distinctive difference.
The Army War College, like the Naval War College, The Air Force War College, and The National War College publish papers and studies all the time. These independent papers are prefaced with:
"The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government."
But of course Chris Mathews, like Reuters, prefer a negative spin anytime they can get away with it, truth be damned.
During my husband's year at Carlisle, even I got permission to put out what Chris Mathews would call "a War College Study". LOL! I solicited articles from other wives in the class, and edited Leaders' Wives Speak Out. This was published by the War College, but in no way did it reflect War College opinion.
......And because Bush refuses to increase the size of the Army while committing them to vast overseas deployments.
|
Search Criteria: |
Sort by Name |
Total for this search: $200
|
Contributor |
Occupation |
Date |
Amount |
Recipient |
|
RECORD, JEFFREY MR |
INFO REQUESTED |
11/30/1999 |
$200 |
McCain, John |
CLINTON ON SIGNING THE "IRAQ LIBERATION ACT OF 1998" OCT. 31
(Backing elements advocating very different future for Iraq)
Washington -- President Clinton October 31 signed into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998."
"This Act," the President said, "makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.
"Let me be clear," Clinton said, "what the U.S. objectives are:
"The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.
"The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else.
The President said that the United States "looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life."
Clnton noted that his Administration "has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership."
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, he said, "provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's prohibited weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well."
Following is the White House text:
(Begin text)
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
October 31, 1998
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.
Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are:
The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else.
The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.
My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.
In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.
On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participa--tory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities
under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's prohibited weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well.
Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
October 31, 1998.
(End text)
Exactly. I don't know why the Administration doesn't emphasize the fact more that Iraq was on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism for more than a decade. Couple this with the fact that the US was bombing Iraq almost daily for nearly 12 years to enforce the Northern and Southern No-Fly zones, which was costing us billions annually to maintain and you have legitimate reasons after 9/11 to lance this boil called Iraq. Moreover, Saddam, an overt enemy of the US, had billions of dollars of oil revenue to do all kinds of mischief including purchasing nuclear weapons from North Korea or Pakistan. Iraq was not/not a diversion in the War Against Terrorism, but rather, part and parcel of the problem.
|
The Soviet Union and Afghanistan, 1978-1989: Documents from the Russian and East German Archives
|
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.