Mission Failure

On 05 October I commented on an AP article that outlined US hopes and dreams for an offensive to secure Baghdad.  Essentially the article outlined a US plan to concentrate efforts within the capital in hopes of achieving a significant victory a "decisive moment".

Today Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV says the two-month U.S.-Iraqi military operation to stem sectarian bloodshed and insurgent attacks in Baghdad has failed, stating the mission "has not met our overall expectations of sustaining a reduction in the levels of violence."

This comes in a week when Bush finally admits that there is a reasonable comparison between Iraq and Vietnam. James Baker and crew come to the amazing conclusion that there is no magic bullet for Iraq (no Stay or The Course are not separate options) and finally Bush is "considering" different tactics in Iraq.

The entire idea of concentrating so much combat power in Baghdad - to the detriment of places like Al Anbar seemed foolish.  To announce that this "Together Forward" campaign might be a decisive moment in the war was just plain insane.  It appears now that the insurgents, not being so foolish took advantage of the situation and decided to claim a town or two for their own. (don't believe the Iraqi minister).

 

Not sure that there is anything I can say that I have not said already.  I am a Soldier, a lot of Soldiers and Marines have died in this recent spike in violence.  These failures do not bring me joy, they make me righteously indignant.

 

A friend of mine (another Soldier and fellow historian) had the opportunity on a long trip today to talk in depth and candidly about our experiences in and views of Iraq.  Anyone that has read much military history knows of examples of failures where the military ultimately blamed the politicians for the failure.  Vietnam is another good analogy. However like any story their are two sides.

To be certain the military was not responsible for conducting the initial invasion on the cheap - but moral generals that knew better could have resigned. 

The military was not responsible for the myriad errors under Paul Bremmer and his group of idiots (giving away thousands of cell phones later used to detonate IED's; disbanding the army - eliminating the one thing the Iraqi people respected; shunning the clerics - alienating the only other power structure; refusing to allow former army members to enlist in the new army - leaving thousands of trained soldiers unemployed; refusing to acknowledge the plight of the Kurds - making an enemy of a former friend).

But the US Military is responsible for being ill-equipped to change to effectively fight and win in Iraq.  As I have stated before we have 150,000 troops in Iraq and probably 100,000 (or more) of them do nothing more than generate powerpoint slides or provide support for desk-jockeys that create endless slides and briefs.  Folks create briefs based upon briefs - it is all a convoluted fantasy would but it briefs well.  It doesn't do a damned thing to win the war. 

Who is to blame?  As the late Col. David Hackworth would say the perfumed princes - the worthless careerist that know nothing about soldiering and everything about briefing well, protecting their worthless careers and making their worthless boss happy. 

Are the politicians to blame?  Darn right?  Does the military get a pass, no way.  In the years to come - after the obvious political shake-up, don't you dare ever say "if only the military had been allowed to fight".  I heard that weak argument all my life growing up reading the history of the Vietnam War.  I know now that the military was sick then, it is sick now.