Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq

[kyleb]

Buddy, I don't care about football. Stop talking about it or leave.

You are just missing his point; battles should be chosen wisely rather than made up as you go along.

 

[Cyrus]

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH I misread what he wrote.

I am sorry buddy!

 

[Tsu]

Tonight on Charlie Rose there was an interview with Thomas Ricks, reporter for the Washington post, concerning his new book: “Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq.”

It was really sad to hear him tell account after account of how the US did nothing short of sell a war that was a lie to the American public. Not only was it a lie, they were not prepared for this war. The troops were not prepared, Rumsfield was not prepared.

Adding insult to injury, the people who did have competence, the Military and the CIA, were ignored when they told the Rumsfield et al. that the intelligence was NOT certain, there was NOT enough planning, we only sent in half as many troops as we needed, the list goes on and on.

I am waiting for the transcripts to come online and then I will post with actual quotes.

-A side note, he is not the only one who has openly stated the total and complete failure of the planning that went behind this war. Nearly everyone Rose interviewed has said the same thing, including the Military. Not enough planning, no plan for insurgency, no exit strategy, turmoil between Rumsfield and the Generals, congress sitting idly by and not pressuring the president.

I saw that. It was an excellent interview. I love Charlie Rose. Can't wait to read this book.

 

[Cyrus]

I saw that. It was an excellent interview. I love Charlie Rose. Can't wait to read this book.

A woman of impeccable taste

 

[WarrickF]

I'd like to take a moment to point out something that I find interesting. The majority of the people who take the time to post here are people who are willing to look beyond what the media feeds them and generate more intelligent discussion\opinion.

I think the majority of people feel that what's transpired here is terrible and that we're going to see the repercussions of this for many years to come.

If we are to make any use of our time I think there should be some form of objective in mind:
1.What is the best outcome that we could hope for at this time?
2.How could this be accomplished?

I hate to say it be I feel like the majority of people spend to much time explaining why we are were we are instead of focusing on the fact that we could save many lives if we thought about how to address the problem going forward.

It seems to me that even if the monkeys running this show acted in the perfect way, we would not know they did so because we've not decided what the correct action should be (not that I'm qualified to make this decision).

I think of the problem similar to littering – people will always tell you that dropping one piece of paper is not going to make any difference – the reality is that if everyone thinks like this, the street will be a mess. How we as individuals effect the environment around us at this point in time makes a big difference – but unless we know exactly what it is we're trying to do, we can't hope to accomplish it.

Bottom Line: Let's focus on the resolution – how do we resolve \ improve the problem?

 

[Skyhunter]

Bottom Line: Let's focus on the resolution – how do we resolve \ improve the problem?

As long as the US is run by the neo-cons, there is no viable solution. If the opposition cannot get control of one of the Houses, then the arrogance, secrecy, and incompetence will continue. The current Congressional leadership has shown no willingness to conduct any oversight.

This is the most important mid-term election in my lifetime.

Nice link, I read the transcript, and am now listening to the interview.

Later today I will visit my friend at the local non-chain book store and purchase the book. I only have so much time for reading, so I am selective in the books I read. This is one I feel is a must read.

With the events in Lebanon, there is an escalation of violence in the middle east. According to a plan called "Clean Break", Iraq was phase1, Lebanon is phase2, phase3 is Syria, and phase4 Iran.

My greatest fear is that the timetable is set to escalate before the midterms. What will be the effects on the Congressional races if the US military is engaged in a hot war in the ME?

 

[pcorbett]

It was really sad to hear him tell account after account of how the US did nothing short of sell a war that was a lie to the American public. Not only was it a lie, they were not prepared for this war. The troops were not prepared, Rumsfield was not prepared.

If it were universally true, then how is it we were able to deploy force to theater in the first place? You have to admit that the United States was ready and successfully deployed. Perhaps you're missing a qualification or two?

 

[Cyrus]

That was a pretty pointless post, with all due respect. Do you have any real facts to present?

What does the deployment of force have to do with what we are talking about? No one is questioning our capability to deploy force, are they? No.

Read the sources I have provided to you, they are missing no qualifications. If you have problems about qualifications with the Director of the CIA, Bob Woodward, and Thomas Ricks, stay far, far away from my thread.

 

[Cyrus]

Look, I am not trying to be rude to you pcorbett, but I do not want this post to become diluted with posts of peoples opinions. I only want facts from credible sources.

I am trying to avoid a bandwagon of people giving every opinion under the sun and this thread running off on wild tangents.

We are not going to proceed with the discussion of our military capability and deployment any longer, sorry. You are more than welcome to start a thread on it if you would like to.

 

[Bystander]

(snip)I am trying to avoid a bandwagon of people giving every opinion under the sun and this thread running off on wild tangents.

OK.

We are not going to proceed with the discussion of our military capability and deployment any longer, sorry. You are more than welcome to start a thread on it if you would like to.

"Fiasco" w'out military capabilities --- not sure I see what you're after then. Politics behind the war?

 

[Cyrus]

Yes, the politics leading up to and during this war, which have all be a terrible lie to the American public.

The title of this thread is after Ricks book. That should have been clear from my first post if you have been following this thread.

I will try and dig up more good transcripts later.

 

[Bystander]

All "politics" is all lies --- you have specific lies in mind, or Rick (Ricks?) has --- you up to trying a "one at a time" approach?

 

[Cyrus]

I do not follow what you are saying, sorry.

 

[Bystander]

I'm assuming you have particular lies in mind. Do you want to try discussing them one "lie" at a time, and establishing whether they're really lies, or information gaps through which interpolations have been made based on previous history of, and experiences with the ME?

 

[Cyrus]

The infromation is in the transcrips I have provided. There is no 'information gap,' there has been a clear selectivity in the usage of facts presented to the American public.

It is clearly explained in the transcript of Ricks.

 

[Bystander]

Ricks is omniscient?

 

[Cyrus]

Respectfully, do you have anything meaningful to contribute, other than opinion? If you take issue with what Ricks has presented, the provide something tangible to argue your point.

 

[Bystander]

Respectfully, do you have anything meaningful to contribute, other than opinion?

No opinions have been offered --- I've asked a couple questions in an effort to clarify the point of this thread. You won't say what lies. You assert "no information gap." Cyrus, there's a huge amount of information that isn't publicly available --- of course Ricks isn't omniscient. So, what's the point of this thread?

If you take issue with what Ricks has presented, the provide something tangible to argue your point.

He hasn't presented anything with which to "take issue" based on the transcripts you've posted. He's a journalist chasing a Pulitzer. That's what journalists do.

 

[vanesch]

I guess that, of the transcript, the gist is:

TOM RICKS: Exactly. It was a war of choice. It wasn`t necessary to do. It wasn`t necessary to do in the way it was done, and the occupation didn`t need to be bungled in the way it was bungled. So that`s -- it`s profligate, is the word I use.

It is amazing that the above text, full of evident truths clear to a lot of people since a long time, comes out as a kind of revelation at this point.
How come that, in most of Europe, say, this was about clear from the start to most people ?

I don't say this in a rhethorical way, but just: were we, in Europe, deluded by self-realising propaganda somehow, or was/is the American people deluded by (a huge dose) of propaganda so that now, they are surprised somehow by all these evident statements ?

 

[pcorbett]

That was a pretty pointless post, with all due respect. Do you have any real facts to present?

What does the deployment of force have to do with what we are talking about? No one is questioning our capability to deploy force, are they? No.

You are, by arguing that US general purpose forces were universally unprepared to execute this mission. Seems to me the obvious presence of a deployment schedule belies that claim.

Read the sources I have provided to you, they are missing no qualifications.

What sources? Forgive me for not reading the entire thread, but I have no intentions of doing so.

If you have problems about qualifications with the Director of the CIA, Bob Woodward, and Thomas Ricks, stay far, far away from my thread.

I have problems with the fact you present none of the qualifications surrounding Ricks' judgements. You've not evaluated anything pertinent by Woodward or whatever mystery DCI you're talking about.

 

[pcorbett]

Look, I am not trying to be rude to you pcorbett, but I do not want this post to become diluted with posts of peoples opinions. I only want facts from credible sources.

Then you might start by actually addressing the planning and preparation process actually in place, separating judgement (that is, assessment from performance) from empirical facts.

We are not going to proceed with the discussion of our military capability and deployment any longer, sorry.

So you're going to discuss the alleged unpreparedness of the US military in waging this mission without actually discussing the state of the force at the start and during the mission? So I guess we're going by anecdote now?

Also be mindful that not everyone here has read Ricks' book or intends to. On the other hand, if you feel free to present his arguments you should, at the very minimum, present his defense (if you abhor presenting your own). You know...common courtesy.

 

[Cyrus]

No opinions have been offered --- I've asked a couple questions in an effort to clarify the point of this thread. You won't say what lies. You assert "no information gap." Cyrus, there's a huge amount of information that isn't publicly available --- of course Ricks isn't omniscient. So, what's the point of this thread?



He hasn't presented anything with which to "take issue" based on the transcripts you've posted. He's a journalist chasing a Pulitzer. That's what journalists do.

He already has a Pulitzer prize.

 

[Cyrus]

I guess that, of the transcript, the gist is:


It is amazing that the above text, full of evident truths clear to a lot of people since a long time, comes out as a kind of revelation at this point.
How come that, in most of Europe, say, this was about clear from the start to most people ?

I don't say this in a rhethorical way, but just: were we, in Europe, deluded by self-realising propaganda somehow, or was/is the American people deluded by (a huge dose) of propaganda so that now, they are surprised somehow by all these evident statements ?

My dear vanesch, we were given a big shovel of propganda.

 

[Cyrus]

You are, by arguing that US general purpose forces were universally unprepared to execute this mission. Seems to me the obvious presence of a deployment schedule belies that claim.

Unprepared for an insurgency. Prehaps you should have read all of my posts. This is NOT a topic of debate, it is a *fact.* Read the transcripts.

[/quote]What sources? Forgive me for not reading the entire thread, but I have no intentions of doing so.[/quote]

If you do not wish to take the time to read the thread, then please leave.

 

[Bystander]

He already has a Pulitzer prize.

--- and, chasing another.

NYT catches hell for blowing an intelligence project tracking terrorist finances, and Ricks blows strategy, tactics, and planning for a whole war and gets ignored? He's got fairytale information from fairytale sources --- the war's still on, Cyrus --- disinformation is the name of the game --- the American press is the most efficient means of transmitting disinformation to the opposition. This isn't the Johnson administration w' R. Strange McN. passing plans to Hanoi so they can redeploy AA for maximum effect, or Kissinger or Nixon spouting plans in public.

 

[mathwonk]

I am glad to see this discussion. What puzzles me somewhat is how there could still be any room for doubt on this. Anyone who watched television during the run up to bush's war must recall hans blick patiently explaining there were no weapons of mass destruction, asking for more time to prove this conclusively, and the right wing attack journalists denouncing him as an easily deceived fool who could not find his rear end with both hands.

When I see the chaos, the death, the hatred mounting daily, the increase in terror recruits, I feel guilty at not doing more to stop this government from its near insane level of damage.

When i was a college student I demonstrated (peacefully) for years against rascism and the related vietnam war, and was clubbed and beaten by police, and spent time in jail until I could not take it any more.

I do not know what methods are best, but at least I hope everyone will discuss these issues, and ultimately go to the polls, to turn these self seeking profiteers out of office. it is the future of your generation that is being mortgaged to the hilt, not just in money but in good will abroad.

Has it ocurred to you why terrorists are throwing bombs? They see that we sit by and let these madmen kill and maim their families and destroy their countries, and they are trying to get our attention.

Maybe their leaders are as cynical as ours, maybe even more insane, but their young recruits believe this is a fight for their religion and sovereignty. And the bombs are falling primarily on their lands.

We cannot abandon our own democratic methods, even in the face of terror, but we must at least use them. We must organize, contribute, and vote. i sent a reluctant political contribution yesterday where I hoped it would do the most good. You get at best what you pay for, and big oil is willing to pay a lot for access to the resources of people throughout the world, including here.

If you like to travel in the US wilderness, do you make your voice heard when bush sells off access rights to public land and public resources for a song?

I apologize if this may offend someone who disagrees, as everyone must act on his/her own conclusions and conscience in our society, but I feel partly responsible for the innocent deaths that are being paid for by my taxes and encouraged by my silence.

good luck to you.

 

[pcorbett]

Unprepared for an insurgency. Prehaps you should have read all of my posts. This is NOT a topic of debate, it is a *fact.* Read the transcripts.

The word "preparation" is implicitly judgemental. You cannot honestly claim that it is fact. For one, you have to articulate some sort of metric for preparedness. Since you haven't, I assumed you meant universal preparedness--this is obviously not the case as the force was clearly prepared to mobilize to theater.

And, in fact, your claim is apparently based entirely on reading Ricks' citing one Maj. Isaiah Wilson, Army historian and planning officer while ignoring Ricks' citing one Capt. Chris Karns and Gen. Tommy Franks--two persons intimately involved in USCENTCOM's end of the JOPES pipeline. So tell me, is your definition of "fact" based principally on reporting only those second hand judgements that support your assertion?

If you do not wish to take the time to read the thread, then please leave.

If you don't wish to lay out even an overview of your case (read, Ricks' case) for unpreparedness, then why even carry on a discussion?

 

[Cyrus]

TOM RICKS: Yes. I was struck when I was out there, that General Casey had started up a counterinsurgency academy. The Coin Academy.

CHARLIE ROSE: I read that, yes.

TOM RICKS: In Taji. But think of that for a moment. The fact that the commander out there says the officers you`re sending out here are inadequately prepared. These are people who have been in the Army for 10 or 15 years. And he said, you can`t command in Iraq until you go to my counterinsurgency academy, a week-long course.

CHARLIE ROSE: Basically saying, they haven`t taught you what you need to know to fight this war.

TOM RICKS: That`s right. And so, here`s the tool kit. That`s a condemning fact, I think, that the commander in Iraq felt that the troops, the officers coming out were not adequately prepared by their institution.

For the last time, if you don't read what I write, then don't post. That is what is called a fact, and we are NOT going to debate facts.

 

[pcorbett]

For the last time, if you don't read what I write, then don't post.

I do read what you post, from the moment I stepped into the thread. You need not discuss anything with me, but don't complain when posters raise objections to your points. It's unseemly.

That is what is called a fact, and we are NOT going to debate facts.

Apparantly we are going to debate facts; in fact, I'm starting to default to skepticism whenever you present something as fact. What you have there, at best, is Ricks surmising Casey's intent in reinstituting COIN school as force recovery rather than optimization. The phrase "I think" should've been a dead giveaway. That's what we call a judgement, my friend.

Oh. Here's something for you to chew on. If there are no officers and enlisted prepared for the counterinsurgency mission, where do COIN instructors come from?

 

[Cyrus]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/20/AR2006022001303.html

Back then, U.S. forces rounded up tens of thousands of Iraqis, mixing innocent people in detention with hard-core Islamic extremists. Commanders permitted troops to shoot at anything mildly threatening. And they failed to give their troops the basic conceptual and cultural tools needed to operate in the complex environment of Iraq, from how to deal with a sheik to understanding why killing insurgents usually is the least desirable outcome in dealing with them. (It is more effective, they are now taught, to persuade them either to desert or to join the political process.)

Again and again, the intense immersion course, which 30 to 50 officers attend at a time, emphasizes that the right answer is probably the counterintuitive one, rather than something that the Army has taught officers in their 10 or 20 years of service. The school's textbook, a huge binder, offers the example of a mission that busts into a house and captures someone who mortared a U.S. base

The major criticism offered by students is that it would have been better to have the education six months earlier, when they were training their troops to deploy to Iraq, not after the units have arrived. Short had a tart response: It's not a bad idea, he said, but the Army back home wasn't stepping up to the job. "They didn't do it for three years" -- the length of the war so far, he noted. "That's why the boss said, 'Screw it, I'm doing it here.' "

Facts.

 

[pcorbett]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/20/AR2006022001303.html

Facts.

Says who? Why aren't the excerpts you provided better characterized as analysis? I'm quite sure you find Ricks' judgements entirely credible. You should make that case for the rest of us, and to do so you might start with introducing supporting evidence other than single source testimony.

Also, why haven't you answered my question? It's a simple one. Where are the instructors for the COIN school coming from?

 

[Cyrus]

Is that the best response you have? "Says who?" You are questioning what has been said by Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the U.S. commander in Iraq.

Good god. Please leave this thread, you refuse to listen to what experts are saying.

 

[pcorbett]

Is that the best response you have? "Says who?" You are questioning what has been said by Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the U.S. commander in Iraq.

I haven't questioned anything General Casey has said. I've questioned what Ricks argues and more importantly I question both the accuracy of your presentation of Ricks judgements and your categorical characterization of them as facts.

Good god. Please leave this thread, you refuse to listen to what experts are saying.

That's hilarious. How about an answer to my question? Where are the COIN instructors coming from? In a show of good faith, you should be able to find the answer covered briefly in the article you've posted.

 

[Cyrus]

That's hilarious. How about an answer to my question? Where are the COIN instructors coming from? In a show of good faith, you should be able to find the answer covered briefly in the article you've posted.

Yes, the COIN academy is taught by people in the Military. So what? Because there are a few people in the military that has this training does not mean the entire military sent to Iraq was given the proper training. Was this supposed to be a "good" question?

Did you bother to read what I posted?

The major criticism offered by students is that it would have been better to have the education six months earlier, when they were training their troops to deploy to Iraq, not after the units have arrived. Short had a tart response: It's not a bad idea, he said, but the Army back home wasn't stepping up to the job. "They didn't do it for three years" -- the length of the war so far, he noted. "That's why the boss said, 'Screw it, I'm doing it here.' "

I haven't questioned anything General Casey has said. I've questioned what Ricks argues and more importantly I question both the accuracy of your presentation of Ricks judgements and your categorical characterization of them as facts.

Well, the COIN institute is a FACT. What Casey has said about lack of proper training is a FACT.

Now, this is the LAST time I am going to defend a fact.

 

[pcorbett]

Yes, the COIN academy is taught by people in the Military. So what? Because there are a few people in the military that has this training does not mean the entire military sent to Iraq was given the proper training.

Now we're getting somewhere. Now pop quiz. What segment of the force (let's make it easy and stick with the US Army) consistently receives coinsurgency training). And while you're at it, consider the pros and cons of providing counterinsurgency to the remaining (combat) force. Finally, ask yourself how much of the force actually requires this training to complete not just any counterinsurgency mission, but the one in Iraq. Then, my friend, you can arrive at a judgement.

Was this supposed to be a "good" question?

Yes, actually.

Do you actually read anything I post?

Of course I do, which is why I'm glad you've backed away from your previously uninformed claim that the force was without qualification unprepared to take on the counterinsurgency mission. Now this discussion can proceed along the serious lines you aspired to in the beginning of the thread.

Well, the COIN institute is a FACT. What Casey has said about lack of proper training is a FACT.

The Center (there is no COIN institute) does exist, yes. So is the Small War Center for Excellence (which has been around for decades), as well as various other schools addressing stressing different areas of warfighting competence in all the services and occasionally in the unified commands. And I happen to agree with Casey's judgement that the US Army is not optimally structured to conduct a counterinsurgency mission. I do not agree with your judgement, a judgement you share with Ricks, that the US Army is unprepared to do the job. Neither does Casey in his assessment of the situation before he stoop up COIN Center of Excellence: "I'm convinced that with our support, the Iraqis and the Iraqi people will prevail in this struggle." [http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2005/tr20050930-secdef4002.html]

Now, this is the LAST time I am going to defend a fact.

I think you and I should review the definition of fact before moving forward. Trust me, it'd really help you make at least as strong and serious a case as Ricks is making.