Another Year at War

The New York Post ^ | December 20, 2004 | Ralph Peters

[quidnunc]

As 2004 draws to a close, our military can be proud. Once again, our troops defeated our enemies, redeemed the mistakes of our civilian leadership and defied the prophets of disaster.

Iraq will shortly hold national elections. Afghanistan is a functioning democracy, despite the critics who claimed the goal was impossible. Islamic terrorists remain on the run, unable to strike our homeland. And the battle with terror in the Middle East has taken a terrible toll on our enemies.

This was a year of major policy errors and deadly challenges. U.S. election requirements conflicted with military necessity. Troop levels were capped too low. Their civilian superiors prevented combat commanders from taking decisive action, fearing that casualties would become a political football. The terrorists and insurgents put down deep roots while our election campaign dragged on.

But our troops always came through for us, no matter the limits imposed upon them. Whenever they were allowed to fight, they won. Our tragic reverses, such as the disastrous First Battle of Fallujah or the initial rounds of fighting in Najaf, resulted from indecision and miscalculations at the highest levels of civilian leadership, not from any military failings.

Throughout the year, commanders and soldiers reinvented warfare under fire. Old doctrine was cast aside in favor of combat techniques suited to a new century. Urban warfare lessons were studied in the field and combat in cities was revolutionized — the triumphant Second Battle of Fallujah shattered every historical precedent.

-snip-

[MNJohnnie]

As 2004 draws to a close, our military can be proud. Once again, our troops defeated our enemies, redeemed the mistakes of our civilian leadership


Isn't it amazing the sheer arrogance of the uninformed, unqualified commentators in the Dinosaur media? Maybe the Civilian Leadership is in the right and THEY have redeemed the errors of the second guessing hacks in the so called "new media"? Just as the Civilian Military Leadership would not presume to tell the Dinosaur Media how to do their job, perhaps the unqualified, uninformed bigots in the so called "News Media" would return the favor and refrain in the New Year from lecturing on Military topic they CLEARLY know NOTHING about.

[tet68]

Naaaaah, it never stopped them before.

[centurion316]

Isn't it amazing the sheer arrogance of the uninformed, unqualified commentators in the Dinosaur media?

In future you might want to check someone's biography before firing away. You may disagree with Ralph Peters, but you'd be hard pressed to prove that he's an unqualified, uninformed bigot on matters military.

[MNJohnnie]

Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters (USA, Ret.) was assigned, prior to his recent retirement, to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, where he was responsible for future warfare


Does not make him qualified to render judgement on Counter insurgency ops. Just cause he wore the uniform does NOT make him qualifed to command.

[centurion316]

Does not make him qualified to render judgement on Counter insurgency ops...

Quite true, but I believe that he is expressing an opinion, not rendering judgment. I'm not sure what command has to do with it.

[MNJohnnie]

"Troop levels were capped too low"


Funny, they said the same thing in Vietnam. "Man, if we just send enough troops we can win this thing easy"

Funny how the Conventional Military are so gung ho to make the same mistake all over again in Iraq.

NOTE to Heavy Armor Mafia at the Pentagon and the usual Media Whores in the US Senate. MORE troops does NOT equal MORE security. Read "Masters of Chaos" by Linda Robinson. Read about what the Special Ops guys had to do to protect your troops. Conventional Troops are trained to kill people and wreck stuff. They are NOT trained to separate the sheep from the goats. They are Not trained to live among the Idies. It is entirely PROBABLE that more troops would EXASBERATE the problem by alienating large swaths of Iraqis rather then making Iraq more secure.

As I pointed out, "Get a bigger hammer" did NOT work in Vietnam, Afganistan for the Russians nor in the early stages in Chechnya. Can anyone give me an example historically where "get a bigger hammer" HAS worked in a Counter insurgency op?

[centurion316]

Well, I'm sure they will defer to the stunning logic of your argument and the clear superiority of your experience.

[mdittmar]

Article. II.Section. 2.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

Our Military is,and will always be run by civilians.

The key is making sure the right civilians are in charge,we have that now,in Vietnam we didn't.

[Qatar-6]

Algiers 1957

Malaya 1948-1960

Syria 1976

Lebanon 1982

You asked

Qatar-6

[centurion316]

Good list.

To that I would add El Salvador, Dominican Republic, and (this might raise some eyebrows)- Vietnam. Most people conveniently forget that by 1971 we had defeated the insurgency. Vietnam fell to a massive conventional attack by the Regular North Vietnamese Army after we had withdrawn all of our combat troops.

[Qatar-6]

Be careful man

People who've drank the Rumsfeld kool aid will be after you

Mustn't updset armchair generals with unpalatable facts

Everyone tends to forget that almost all of the training going on in Iraq is being done by non-SF troops. The 98th Reserve Division (TNG) just activated and deployed over there

In Vietnam MACV was made up of regulars. The SF didn't train the South Vietnamese RA. They did mountainyards Ruff Puffs etc.

You can argue Vietnam as a successful COIN op. Unfortunately the operation was a success... but the patient died.

Most people in the world fight COIN with regular old light infantry.

Merry Christmas

Qatar-6