Obama:Future Commander-in-Chief Gives Advance Notice To Enemy He Will Retreat

[kotzabasis]

OBAMA: FUTURE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF GIVES ADVANCE NOTICE TO ENEMY HE WILL RETREAT

Barack Obama has committed in military strategic terms the cardinal “sin”: Giving advance notice to the enemy when America will withdraw its troops from Iraq, which is the inverse of giving advance notice to the enemy when he is going to be attacked. It’s neither surprising nor astonishing that Senator Obama committed this “hellish” mistake. Sprinkled by Saint John the Baptist with the holy waters of populism--which in present day America many politicians consider it to be the primary pass that will guarantee a presidential candidate to enter and ensconce himself into the Oval Office--the springy and eloquent senator has entered along with other Democrats the contest for the golden trophy of the candidature for the presidency. The White House however, in our dangerous times, is no longer an easy entry for the smooth and the eloquent--as it was in Clinton times--is no longer a treat for the weak. So Senator Obama even if he wins the golden trophy as the Democratic candidate for the presidency, it’s most unlikely that he will be given the chance to put his trophy on the desk of the Oval Office. It’s more likely that he will place it on the mantelpiece of his lounge room rusting as memorabilia. As G.K. Chesterton observed, "a dead thing can go with the stream...but only a living thing can go against it'. Senator Barack Obama is "a dead thing". ......

[SteveMetz]

OBAMA: FUTURE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF GIVES ADVANCE NOTICE TO ENEMY HE WILL RETREAT

Barack Obama has committed in military strategic terms the cardinal “sin”: Giving advance notice to the enemy when America will withdraw its troops from Iraq, which is the inverse of giving advance notice to the enemy when he is going to be attacked. It’s neither surprising nor astonishing that Senator Obama committed this “hellish” mistake. Sprinkled by Saint John the Baptist with the holy waters of populism--which in present day America many politicians consider it to be the primary pass that will guarantee a presidential candidate to enter and ensconce himself into the Oval Office--the springy and eloquent senator has entered along with other Democrats the contest for the golden trophy of the candidature for the presidency. The White House however, in our dangerous times, is no longer an easy entry for the smooth and the eloquent--as it was in Clinton times--is no longer a treat for the weak. So Senator Obama even if he wins the golden trophy as the Democratic candidate for the presidency, it’s most unlikely that he will be given the chance to put his trophy on the desk of the Oval Office. It’s more likely that he will place it on the mantelpiece of his lounge room rusting as memorabilia. As G.K. Chesterton observed, "a dead thing can go with the stream...but only a living thing can go against it'. Senator Barack Obama is "a dead thing".

The present attack by the leader of the Opposition Kevin Rudd on Prime Minister Howard for the latter’s critique of the doltish and politically and militarily irresponsible announcement of Senator Obama, that if he became the next president he would withdraw the troops by March 2008, is a shameful diversion from the real issues of the war, that Rudd will have to carry with obloquy in his public persona. In answering Laurie Oakes’s question Howard by spelling out the verities of the war and reminding Australians of the impending dire consequences that an American defeat in Iraq would have not only in our region but in the West generally, he acted as a responsible leader, unlike Rudd who is gamboling with the vital interests of the nation for his own narrow egotistical political interests. The fact is that the defeat of the US will embolden all the terrorist organizations in our region and will turn the Indonesian archipelago, as I have said in a previous article of mine, into a tidal wave of Islamic fanaticism crashing on the shores of Australia. To defend our country from being subdued the losses of our military will be in the thousands in comparison to the few loses that Australia might sustain with the new strategy of the Coalition forces under general Petreaus. Moreover, the protection of Australia from this great portentous threat will require America to come to our help.

We are at war with a remorseless, fanatic, mortal foe, who furthermore is irreconcilable and deaf to the sounds of reason. The clever thing to do is to destroy this implacable enemy whilst he is still weak and not to give him time to become stronger and hence make his defeat more difficult in the future, and at an enormously higher cost in human lives and materiel. To achieve this strategic end, the new strategy under the command of general Petraeus must not be constrained in using overwhelming force as a last resort to defeat the insurgency in Iraq. History pellucidly illustrates that all protests and demonstrations against war are dissolved in the cup of victory.


Delenda est furor religiosus

I'm no Obama fan, but I'm uncomfortable with logic of this essay. Iraq--like all counterinsurgency--is not a two-way game which pits the United States against the insurgents. While I personally disagree with the set-a-time-definite-for-withdrawal crowd, I can understand their argument (even while I do not accept it): the Iraqi government is not fully motivated to do what it needs to do to resolve the conflict as long as the American presence remains what it is. Moreover, every conflict forces the participants to decide whether the costs of persisting outweigh the costs of disengagement. Certainly an American withdrawal from Iraqi would be trumpeted by AQ as a victory, but the question is whether that is worse than the costs of persistence (in terms of blood, money, the erosion of the military, political prestige, etc.)

Not sure if you wrote the essay or someone else did, but I also take great issue with the contention that Petraeus can or should defeat the insurgency in Iraq. Primary responsibility lies with the Iraqis; secondarily with the U.S. embassy. Petraeus, in military jargon, is the "supporting" participant, not the "supported."

[John T. Fishel]

One problem, among many, in Iraq is that its sovereignty is a legal fiction. Without the Coalition, the Iraqi government controls little. So, in a very real sense, the occupation has not ended. If that is true, then as the de facto occupier, we are also the de facto sovereign. Thus, responsibility for defeating the insurgency falls on the Coalition/US. Because of the sovereignty fiction, the American embassy is the lead agency but because there is an ongoing major military operation, GEN Petraeus does not report to Ambassador Crocker.

To pose the question you raise, Steve, a bit differently: Who is the supported commander and who the supporting? And, who should be whom? My opinion, for what it is worth, is that Crocker should be the supported commander - supported by both Coalition and Iraqi military and security forces. Crocker's mission should be twofold: 1. Achieve reasonable security in Iraq and 2. build sufficient capcity in the Iraqi government so that de facto sovereignty can be transferred as well as de jure.

Note that I made no attempt to answer the first question. I simply don't believe that the answer to that one actually exists but to the extent it does, it depends on persoanl relationships.

[SteveMetz]

One problem, among many, in Iraq is that its sovereignty is a legal fiction. Without the Coalition, the Iraqi government controls little. So, in a very real sense, the occupation has not ended. If that is true, then as the de facto occupier, we are also the de facto sovereign. Thus, responsibility for defeating the insurgency falls on the Coalition/US. Because of the sovereignty fiction, the American embassy is the lead agency but because there is an ongoing major military operation, GEN Petraeus does not report to Ambassador Crocker.

To pose the question you raise, Steve, a bit differently: Who is the supported commander and who the supporting? And, who should be whom? My opinion, for what it is worth, is that Crocker should be the supported commander - supported by both Coalition and Iraqi military and security forces. Crocker's mission should be twofold: 1. Achieve reasonable security in Iraq and 2. build sufficient capcity in the Iraqi government so that de facto sovereignty can be transferred as well as de jure.

Note that I made no attempt to answer the first question. I simply don't believe that the answer to that one actually exists but to the extent it does, it depends on persoanl relationships.

It may be a de facto fiction, but it's not a legal fiction--the government does have legal standing and the nation has legally recognized borders.

My position is that one of the conundra in the way we approach counterinsurgency support is that we, on one hand, admit that we cannot attain decisive, strategic success through military means, but we emphasize military means, treating counterinsurgency as a variant of conventional war. If I were king, I would have made Iraq a three star command and had him report to the ambassador (but would have made someone like Zinni ambassador). But, then, that could be why I'm not king.

[John T. Fishel]

Steve--

Certainly, Iraq is, de jure, a recognized state.

Whether it was wise to end the formal occupation when we did or not is not the question, we are stuck with the results.

If I were King, I would have Petraeus report to Crocker, but then I, like you, am not King

Cheers

JohnT

[Uboat509]

My experience with the DOS, although limited, has not given me any reason to believe that the military should be reporting to them. The guy I met is supposed to be this hot shot. He speaks fluent Arabic and has spent quite a bit time in the ME but he totally discounts the tribal aspects of this culture. He seems to be another of the many cool-aid drinkers who believes that we can undo 4,000 years of tribal culture and create a western style democracy in five years.

SFC W

[kotzabasis]

Walrus

If you were a defensive lawyer compelled to plead your cause of peace in conditions of war you would send, as sure as hell, your cause or client to the gallows.

Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions , than to be ruined by too confident a security. Edmund Burke,writing before the terror of the French Revolution.

MARK O'NEIL

I concede that I might have been ingloriously wrong about the motorcycles as a result of being a greenhorn in this area. I thought in an environment where your enemies are too fearful to engage you directly, that cycles, equipped with some armor to protect their riders, because of their speed, smallness, and maneuverability to traverse on both smooth and rough grounds, would be more effective vehicles, and less easy to target than humvees, for the transit movement of your troops in urban warfare conditions.

But as an upstart in this field and a "pigeon" to boot, I have learnt my hard lesson not to perch where eagles fear to tread. And I will stick to my perch where I think I can make a modicum contribution.

As to the style of my prose is like the color of one's skin, each person has his own and cannot help it. But I can assure you that I will not be using it to abuse anybody, especially military personnel of whom I have the greatest respect.

[kotzabasis]

SteveMetz

It's certainly true that the U.S. is in the unenviable position of being damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. Bur I would still argue, in the face of the great and ominous dangers that the West is facing and America being the only power that can defeat global terror, it's better to be damned for doing something than for doing nothing. ("Nothing comes out of nothing" King Lear.)

This despite all the errors that inevitably are committed in all wars as a result of human limitations. And before the daunting huge scale operations involved in war, it's nigh impossible to probe and foresee all the unknowns embedded in them.