US Army Report Criticizes Handling of Fight Against Terror

VOA ^ | 01/13/04 | Alex Belida

[Pikamax]

US Army Report Criticizes Handling of Fight Against Terror Alex Belida Pentagon 13 Jan 2004, 18:46 UTC

The Bush administration's handling of the global war on terrorism, including the decision to invade Iraq, is being criticized by an unexpected source: a study published by the U.S. Army's War College. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld routinely acknowledges the war on terrorism will be neither quick nor easy.

But Mr. Rumsfeld also asserts repeatedly that the United States will not back down from its commitment to fight that war, especially when it comes to the ongoing struggle with insurgents loyal to the ousted regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. "We will continue taking the battle to the terrorists. And as the president has said, the coalition will stay as long as it takes to finish the job, and leave only when the task is finished," he said.

But a newly-released report published by the U.S. Army War College has taken issue with the Bush Administration's decision to invade Iraq.

The 56-page study by defense expert Jeffrey Record calls the U.S. intervention in Iraq "an unnecessary preventative war of choice" that was "a detour" from the global war on terrorism.

It criticizes, as a "strategic error of the first order," the administration's linking of the al-Qaida terrorist organization and Saddam Hussein's Iraq as a single, undifferentiated terrorist threat.

The study is accompanied by a disclaimer stating its views are those of Mr. Record, a professor at the U.S. Air Force's War College, and not those of the Army or the Department of Defense.

But Douglas Lovelace, the director of the Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute that published the study, hails the analysis as what he calls "a contribution to the national security debate over the aims and course of the war on terrorism."

Nevertheless, at the Pentagon, senior officials do not appear to be pleased. Bryan Whitman, a top Defense Department spokesman, admits he has not seen the study but suggests its conclusions are irresponsible. "Any study that concludes that we should not aggressively pursue the global war on terror would be irresponsible. In fact, it is inconceivable to me that any responsible government would not do everything possible to protect its citizens," he said.

The study says the administration's identification of a multitude of enemies, including rogue states, weapons of mass destruction, and terrorist groups of global, regional and local scope, may have set the United States on a course of open-ended and gratuitous conflict with states and non-states that pose no serious threat.

Mr. Record, a former staff member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, also asserts U.S. military involvement in Iraq has strained the armed forces. As he puts it, the war has saddled the armed forces with costly and open-ended imperial policing and nation building responsibilities outside the professional military's traditional mission portfolio.

Email this article to a friend.

[inPhase]

Yeah, if the U hired the person as faculty (professor, scholar, associate etc) then they get the official letterhead and publishing rights. Their judgement in picking you is supposed to be enough. Then there is tenure, another story.

Remember the peanut butter fusion? Nearly ruined a few schools' reputation in physics.

[Tempest]

So according to you, this would be the opinion of Columbia University:

At an anti-war "teach-in" this week, a Columbia University professor called for the defeat of American forces in Iraq and said he would like to see "a million Mogadishus" - a reference to the Somali city where American soldiers were ambushed, with 18 killed, in 1993.

The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military," Nicholas De Genova, an assistant professor of anthropology and Latino studies at Columbia University, told the audience at Low Library Wednesday night. "I personally would like to see a million Mogadishus."

So I'm curious, how do you suppose that the tripe presented by Mr. Record has been adopted by the Army college. Unless you really do assume that any tripe coming out of a guest speakers mouth is the domain of the Univ.

[Tempest]

According to your original claim he doesn't even need to be hired or paid staff, but instead he just needs to attend the school.

"The students and the faculty are the university."

Geee you're going to get alot of conflicting opinions on what the school actually thinks under that formula. . .

[inPhase]

I do not know his position do you?

If he is faculty, visiting or otherwise, then he has the right to use the University cover for his work that he did there forever. There is no official someone, just the faculty group he is a part of.

When the APS (AM Phys Society) did their study of missile defense, they made the claim that the study was sponsored by the APS! They have zillions of members who do not agree with most of it if they even know about it. Same thing.

Seems to me that there is a group there AWC, that has been in this debate (similar work same group) for some time. There is another paper of theirs that is similar on Afghanistan,

[inPhase]

No reason to transfer. There are no original claims. Just the way universities are, what they stand for -- it's the sum of what the faculty stands for and to some extent the students.

And yes, the infighting in a University especially about faculty makeup, makes the Pentagon infighting, the beltway infighting look like vanilla.

[Tempest]

You don't know his position?!?!? Did you even read the post I made. I highlighted that particular professor's opinion in BOLD for ease of reference.

Would you stop dancing around the subject and acting like blindsided apologist for such ludicrous claims.

[inPhase]

Can't believ everything you read. I do not know the Joe.

But if he is faculty...

and on and on

I have not read the article, nor am I interested in such sleep inducement but

you want to get out a conclusion that won't come out in any rational way.

[inPhase]

by the way can you please define
"blindsided apologist"?
sheesh

I will not stay up too long.

[Tempest]

Blindsided Apologist?!

Oh that would be a liberal extremist that has a bad habit of apologizing for liberal ignorance by sidetracking the topic and diverting the main issue with anedoctal references and semantics. . .

[inPhase]

look again,

first
blindsided

[RustysGirl]

Appreciate the distinctions. BIG QUESTION: Why did the U.S. Army's War College publish it under its imprimatur? Why did they publish it at all? Even with all the disclaimers about whose opinions the report represents, the confusion is inevitable. Do you think the War College is trying to have it both ways? Maybe they agree with some or all of the opinions expressed in the report but, if things get too hot, want the option to point to the disclaimers? Just a thought.

[Howlin]

From what I gathered on Brit Hume's show, almost everybody that is at that "college" at one time or another pens some kind of "study."

Rumsfeld characterized it as an "op-ed" piece.

If you get a chance, watch Brit Hume's rerun.