Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Quiting...the US Military forced to loose?

  1. #1
    Council Member TROUFION's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    212

    Default Quiting...the US Military forced to loose?

    Quiting...the US Military forced to LOSE?

    This question could be asked under the thread of rear area politics, but I prefer to couch it in future war theory. The rhetoric of late has ratcheted up nicely, the war in Iraq has dropped in opinion polls to about 29% approval or less. We have addressed the idea of quitting in many different forums but lets bring it home here.

    Put the brain power of SWC together and imagine the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. Imagine it forced by the election of 2008. What happens to us (the US Military) when we quit?

    A major black eye for the Army and Marines, humiliatingly abandonded by the country we defend. I heard today on the news a unique statement. The Congress was debating the war talking to a General, stating that while they (congress) support the troops, they are disgusted by the constant statements by military officers claiming increased progress levels in Iraq, they no longer "trust" the Generals to give candid assesments. But they reiterate they support the troops. --Ok, I are confused. They say the US Military is one of the most respected professions in America, they profess support, they express undieing devotion AND yet they don't trust us, or our leaders (reminds me of a pitbull in the closet). When they voted for the invasion of Iraq we went gladly. When they vote us out of Iraq we will leave sadly. When we went in we were invincible, superman. And now Iraq is our kryptonite--it is the stuff that weakens us from within.

    Can we demonstrate in the next few months that we can do this, that 'winning iraq' can be done? (may just be a rhetorical question). WHat happens if we cannot convince the powers that be that the war and the sacrifice can be won? What happens next after we withdraw?
    Last edited by TROUFION; 07-21-2007 at 02:28 AM. Reason: should have been "lose" fat fingered an extra O.

  2. #2
    Council Member SteveMetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Carlisle, PA
    Posts
    1,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TROUFION View Post
    Quiting...the US Military forced to LOSE?

    This question could be asked under the thread of rear area politics, but I prefer to couch it in future war theory. The rhetoric of late has ratcheted up nicely, the war in Iraq has dropped in opinion polls to about 29% approval or less. We have addressed the idea of quitting in many different forums but lets bring it home here.

    Put the brain power of SWC together and imagine the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. Imagine it forced by the election of 2008. What happens to us (the US Military) when we quit?

    A major black eye for the Army and Marines, humiliatingly abandonded by the country we defend. I heard today on the news a unique statement. The Congress was debating the war talking to a General, stating that while they (congress) support the troops, they are disgusted by the constant statements by military officers claiming increased progress levels in Iraq, they no longer "trust" the Generals to give candid assesments. But they reiterate they support the troops. --Ok, I are confused. They say the US Military is one of the most respected professions in America, they profess support, they express undieing devotion AND yet they don't trust us, or our leaders (reminds me of a pitbull in the closet). When they voted for the invasion of Iraq we went gladly. When they vote us out of Iraq we will leave sadly. When we went in we were invincible, superman. And now Iraq is our kryptonite--it is the stuff that weakens us from within.

    Can we demonstrate in the next few months that we can do this, that 'winning iraq' can be done? (may just be a rhetorical question). WHat happens if we cannot convince the powers that be that the war and the sacrifice can be won? What happens next after we withdraw?
    My opinion is that if Iraq turns out badly, we will not see a repeat of the post Vietnam experience where the military was "blamed." I think the majority of Americans recognize that the mistakes that were made were at the policy and strategy level. I think there will be some attempts to blame the military on the part of administration loyalist. I began to hear that from Feith a few year s ago. But I don't think most Americans will buy it.

  3. #3
    Council Member T. Jefferson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Texas Hill Country
    Posts
    34

    Unhappy Dark predictions for a post-withdraw world.

    Ripples of Retreat

    In fact, “redeployment” is a euphemism for flight from the battlefield. And we should no more expect an al Qaeda that won in Iraq to stop from pressing on to Kuwait or Saudi Arabia than we should imagine that a defeated U.S. military could rally and hold the line in the Gulf. Would the IEDs, the suicide bombers, the Internet videos of beheadings, the explosions in schools and mosques cease because they now would have to relocate across the border into Kuwait or Saudi Arabia?

    In essence, the American military would be reconstituted for a generation — and recognized as such by our enemies — as a two-pronged force of air and sea power. The army at best would stay capable of fighting non-existent conventional wars but acknowledged as incapable of putting down increasingly frequent insurgencies. If Vietnam, Beirut, or Mogadishu left doubt as to the seriousness of American guarantees, Iraq would confirm that it is a dangerous thing to ally oneself with an American government and military. Aside from realignment in the Middle East, South Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines would have to make the necessary “readjustments.”

    The “surge” would be our high-water mark, a sort of 21st-century Pickett’s charge, after which skilled retreat, consolidation, holding the line, and redeployment would be the accepted mission of American arms.

    It is not easy securing Iraq, but if we decide to quit and “redeploy,” Americans should at least accept that the effort to stabilize Iraq was a crushing military defeat, that our generation established a precedent of withdrawing an entire army group from combat operations on the battlefield, and that the consequences will be better known even to our enemies than they are to us.
    Sun Tzu said: The art of war is of vital importance to the State.

    It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to
    ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be
    neglected.

  4. #4
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Heh. Victor's trying to rally the troops...

    Unnecessarily gloomy.

    Predictions about what will happen in the ME by any westerners (or even its denizens) are best avoided, little there is as it seems.

    Disagree with his second paragraph also; if the Army acknowledges the pretty obvious fact that the domestic political will does not accord with long scenario counterinsurgencies and I think it has; and that the possibility of future insurgencies is quite good then the key is to develop tactics, techniques and equipment to deploy, rapidly secure an acceptable outcome to us -- not a 'victory' -- and depart. It would only take one or two of those to dispel any lingering reservations. The nations he names as needing to readjust are in process of doing so and have been for some time. He, like most talking heads must've missed that -- rather surprising in a historian. Though, as I said, he is trying to rally the doubters so a little hyperbole is probably required.

    While I agree with his last sentence and think the penultimate one is correct, I also think '"crushing defeat" is, umm, excessive...

  5. #5
    Council Member T. Jefferson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Texas Hill Country
    Posts
    34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post

    While I agree with his last sentence and think the penultimate one is correct, I also think '"crushing defeat" is, umm, excessive...
    I have to agree with you that “crushing defeat” is excessive, yet both our enemies and any potential allies might well interpret it exactly that way. Seems to me that insurgency relies upon political theater and perceptions at least as much as any military capabilities or victories. If the world ends up believing that we are paper tigers then much of our deterrent capability is lost.
    Sun Tzu said: The art of war is of vital importance to the State.

    It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to
    ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be
    neglected.

  6. #6
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default True on all counts

    Quote Originally Posted by T. Jefferson View Post
    I have to agree with you that “crushing defeat” is excessive, yet both our enemies and any potential allies might well interpret it exactly that way. Seems to me that insurgency relies upon political theater and perceptions at least as much as any military capabilities or victories. If the world ends up believing that we are paper tigers then much of our deterrent capability is lost.
    However, the downside of the potentially wrong perception of paper tigerism on our part is offset by the knowledge by most that the capability to be infinitely worse than a hide of Tigers is still resident; that and the knowledge that we now have the most combat experienced Army in the world will keep the knowledgeable honest. Many know that they can push us because we're nice guys and they will do that but will also be very careful, like Iran, not to push too hard.

    The only worry is the unwitting that are out and about. I still believe that a successful operation or two -- which we are more than capable of pulling off with a little thought -- will deter them and offset any negativity if we do leave Iraq abruptly. Personally, I don't think that too early departure's going to occur. Though predicting Congress is akin to predicting the ME...

    The nominal opposition of today will, of course, declare a victory no matter what. Some will believe that, most will know better. We've been in worse shape in my lifetime. VDH may be too young to remember, I was back on the street after a hitch in the Marine Corps when he was born...

  7. #7
    Council Member TROUFION's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    212

    Default

    Is the recent Hezbollah-Isreal conflict a small scale template for what to expect after a withdraw of US forces from Iraq? Hezbollah claims survival of the Israeli offensive a victory, Israel views the non-destruction of Hezbollah as a failure. It is a lot more cut and dry when there are only two players.

    Iraq is a far greater scale of mess. I see AQIraq claiming a victory. I also see the internal fighting for supremacy within Iraq raging violently for a time, thus keeping the local insurgents focused on local issues. But the AQI types? Will they push out to neighboring states? What is next for them?

  8. #8
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Morning Calm
    Posts
    177

    Default

    There will be plenty of blame game stuff in Dc betwene the politicians. Fortunately, the military really won't be dragged into it, other than in a couple of very specifci instances where the militayr can be directly put on the hook for something (very few and far between). I think Ken white is on to something with the paper tiger concern. I think Trouifon really hit the nail on the head with AQI. A rapid pull out from Iraq could potentially hand AQI and AQ a stategic victory. I find it interesting that in the past AQ has issued sateemnts stating that they consider Iraq their "central" front, yet we continue in the political leadership level to fail to acknowledge that who is doing what in Iraq today ain't the same people who were there doing what under Saddam. Regrettably, a rapid pull out would provide AQI/AQ the opportunity to declasre a Caliphate in Western Iraq near in the Euphrates reiver valley area, wht the goal of getting part of Bagdhad. This would immensly increase the legitimacy of AQ do to the significance of Baghdad and Mesopotamia in early Islamic life. This creates a huge IO defeat for the US, and, if we are lucky, results in nothing more than bad rhetoric out of that part of the world.

    The real problem about preciptously leaving Iraq, is that if we get attacked on level equal to or greater than Sept. 11 in less than 10 years after we leave Iraq, the political leadership is going to have to determine how the will manage the passion of the people. That potentially could be a big problem for the U.S.

  9. #9
    Council Member Culpeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Roswell, USA
    Posts
    540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TROUFION View Post
    Quiting...the US Military forced to LOSE?


    The Congress was debating the war talking to a General, stating that while they (congress) support the troops, they are disgusted by the constant statements by military officers claiming increased progress levels in Iraq, they no longer "trust" the Generals to give candid assesments.
    The is the common denominator on why we lost the conflict in Vietnam. America quit trusting her leaders. All the denominators that resulted in this common denominator were such things as too much waste, ridiculous rules of engagement that a democracy fall prey to in small wars, shameful opportunist politicians and "YES" military leaders that say and do anything for their own benefit at the overall cost of success, the press antagonizing the fighting men in uniform by selling support out of an empty paper sack fueled by anti-war activists, sunshine patriots, and hypocritical political leaders, lifeless leftover energy towards the war effort sapped by too much uneventful and irrelevant debate based on sketchy information that suits the user, the use of political correctness to a fault, which is an understatement, and just plain ignorance on such things as the Constitution trumping the long term national security of our own nation. Now, what is happening in today's small wars are rather minute with what was happening in America during the 1960s, which directly influenced what was happening in Vietnam, at that time. But it doesn't mean that these shortcomings we embrace as a society at war isn't a real danger to our own success.

    If we were to take one example that did succeed. Just pluck one example and let it stand alone. It would be the devastating but rather small in comparison to the overall scheme of things at that time would be the battle on Tarawa. "The Canal" was already secured by USMC standards at that time. America trusted its leaders and accepted the losses to gain success there. But Tarawa was a completely different complexity. In this battle the USMC and Navy suffered similar number of losses as Iraq to date but in about three days. The military decided to release those photographs of the aftermath of the battle to the public. The result was outrage by the American people that resulted in such things as congressional investigations and so forth. A rather peculiar phenomenon occurred. The rage settled down to acceptance due to the overall trust in American leadership at all levels. Americans came to grips that the enemy held no quarter for the American fighting man. From this point on it was the enemy that forced a democracy to accept the enemy's fanatical, as opposed to brave, rules of engagement. It was the USMC and the Navy that made the conscious decision to bring the same brand of merciless fighting to the enemy. And America accepted this decision. A single decision by our society that America began to understand and accept losses. Something today's America is unable to accept as a means to an end. We allow the enemy to fight by their rules of engagement as stand alone and come up with our own rules of engagement that actually benefit the enemy rather than destroy the enemy. This results in propaganda boom that is prone to lean towards our failures and ignore our successes. As if the successes have absolutely no correlation to any setbacks. Successes, no matter how small or large, that have a direct or indirect link to losses, have no meaning. The score is always at a fictional two minute warning with America 0: Enemy 999.
    Last edited by Culpeper; 07-28-2007 at 06:00 AM.
    "But suppose everybody on our side felt that way?"
    "Then I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way. Wouldn't I?"


  10. #10
    Council Member Nat Wilcox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    106

    Default

    The current public political debate is very frustrating... Biden appears to me to be the only Democratic pres. candidate trying to think squarely and talk honestly about Iraq in a future-oriented and strategic way, thinking about the next ten years. The Republicans...I don't know. Do any of y'all see anything encouraging coming from any of the current candidates in either party...I mean in terms of placing Iraq consequences in a long-term perspective, and deriving long-term lessons?

  11. #11
    Council Member Culpeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Roswell, USA
    Posts
    540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nat Wilcox View Post
    The current public political debate is very frustrating... Biden appears to me to be the only Democratic pres. candidate trying to think squarely and talk honestly about Iraq in a future-oriented and strategic way, thinking about the next ten years. The Republicans...I don't know. Do any of y'all see anything encouraging coming from any of the current candidates in either party...I mean in terms of placing Iraq consequences in a long-term perspective, and deriving long-term lessons?
    Have you not been listening the current President or its Administration? If there is one thing they have been forthwith since the beginning about is the long term commitment that is needed. Biden is no Mecca to justice and fortitude. Biden's only enemy is the Republican Party. I agree that the current candidates have their heads up their butts. I listen to their debates and they make me want to throw up. I'd rather go to a high school debate contest to get a better picture of the future for our nation. The current candidates are pathetic and afraid. They all know they can't do the job so they look at issues that are easier and softer, which will loosen their own job performance. We will need a strong leader with a backbone in the next Administration. I have yet to see any prospects that qualify for the job.
    "But suppose everybody on our side felt that way?"
    "Then I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way. Wouldn't I?"


  12. #12
    Council Member Nat Wilcox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Culpeper View Post
    Have you not been listening the current President or its Administration? If there is one thing they have been forthwith since the beginning about is the long term commitment that is needed.
    I wish the current President and Administration the best of luck, but you and I certainly agree that a truly sensible strategic handling of Iraq will necessarily extend well beyond their tenure. I try to avoid talking about the current Prez and Admin whenever it doesn't seem germaine, given the passions those folks stir. Please interpret my omission of them as neither positive nor negative commentary on them or their strategies, but rather avoiding unnecessary fireworks where possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Culpeper View Post
    .Biden is no Mecca to justice and fortitude. Biden's only enemy is the Republican Party.
    In the last Dem debate, Biden seemed to me to be the only one of the Dem bunch who didn't simply throw red meat out to the audience; he seemed more realistic (and unpopularly so, given the audience of such a debate) than any of the other Dem candidates. He was definitely not on the same page as (say) Richardson or Clinton.

    I'm trying to form a sense of which one of these characters--Dems or Republicans--is perhaps worth supporting. And, for me, some strategic seriousness in their thinking about Iraq will be key. I don't know why I should expect such seriousness in a televised debate...or perhaps in any public announcement during primary season, since at this stage of the political game their most important audience is their "base". Perhaps we must be stuck waiting until after nominations are sown up to hear anything remotely serious.

    Yet Biden did sound strategically serious in the last debate...To me he publicly posed the right political question (essentially, "How do we proceed so that I don't have to end up sending your current ten-year-old son back to Iraq eight years from now"), a question none of the other Dem candidates even seemed willing to pose, much less entertain. Biden's answer to that question may be wrong (for instance, Turkey may not stand for a loose Federal way out so perhaps that political vision for Iraq is flawed from the get-go), but any candidate willing to even pose it publicly at a current Dem debate is showing some political guts, I think.

    Of course, the real reason I asked is that y'all may know of something serious coming out of any of the candidates...and I would be interested in anything like that.

  13. #13
    Council Member Culpeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Roswell, USA
    Posts
    540

    Default

    The Democrats are trying to make Iraq something of importance in par with FDR politics during the Great Depression. As a strategic platform they want to exploit the poor at home and then discuss Iraq. That tells me they don't have a commitment. And the current Administration has made it clear that a war should not be fought with Presidential tenures in mind. The Democrats, as a platform, have never come up with a plan themselves for small wars. They wasted nearly eight years complaining about the current Administration's conduct of the war. They don't have a plan today anymore than they had a plan during the last race for President. As for the Republicans. Well, they seem to be laying low as a tactical platform. Let the Democrats argue nearly every night looking at YouTube snips and showing all of us just how unprepared they are for the future of this nation. I'm more concerned with amputations of casualties being twice as high as those of the Vietnam Conflict than I am about some bum on YouTube who's primary objective is to stay on SSI disability income and keep their Internet provider so they can get on moveon.org or democraticunderground.com. The Democrats have to stay away from battle. They simply do not have that type of leadership. As for their prime objective, even WalMart came up with a better plan for medication for everyone. Their plan was very simple. Charge $4 for most generic prescription. That is better coverage than I have and I work for state government. This tells me that health care for everyone can be best handled by organizations that are not a political entity. This sort of thing leaves the Democrats high-and-dry. In fact, I have not heard a single Democratic hopeful commend WalMart for providing affordable prescription medications to all Americans.
    "But suppose everybody on our side felt that way?"
    "Then I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way. Wouldn't I?"


  14. #14
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    21

    Default Military Smeared in Aftermath

    My gut says that many are being too sanguine regarding the US military escaping involvement in a post-OIF "blame game." I don't see it. I hear very little insistence upon specificity in fault finding in general and for the military in particular. For instance, Tom Ricks often writes of the failure of the generals during these past six years or so in a fashion that creates the vision of pervasive imbecility. I don't say that Tom intends this effect, but I don't see the balance. In a day when folks aren't reading, and they are forming their oppinion on what they're told by someone else, the role of pieces and approaches like that cited above will be much greater than just direct readership. Bottom line: the general public believes that the senior military folks are generally not good, and while there is always room to debate this, it misses the point.

    The point seems to be that when an administration in the US decides to engage in a protacted conflict without engaging the national will, John Q. Public doesn't understand why the effort is necessary in the long run. When the administration fails to provide a plausible vision of success and a general plan to get there, the lack of durable domestic support is exacerbated.

    So "what will play out in the public discourse?" is one question, and "what lessons will be learned?" is another, and "what subsequent action will be taken to improve capability and capacity?" is yet another.

  15. #15
    Council Member TROUFION's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    212

    Default blame

    Current example, Pat Tillman. Just the begining, if/when a withdraw occurs, from Iraq, the way the withdraw is conducted, the timing of it, positive or negative spin, all will come back to one point. The administration conducting the withdraw will either take credit or cast blame on someone else. The military is an easy target, active military cannot defend well against these attacks.

    The only way to defend the military from blame is to end Iraq successfully. This will be difficult (understatement) as even the defenition of success is in question.

  16. #16
    Council Member Dominique R. Poirier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    137

    Default The Hinge of Fate in Iraq.

    Here is an interesting article published on RealClearPolitics.com that some of you might find worthy of interest.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...e_in_iraq.html

    It begins thus way:

    "That this House, while paying tribute to the heroism and endurance of the Armed Forces, in circumstances of exceptional difficulty, has no confidence in the central direction of the war."

    "That would be June 25, 1942. The House would be the House of Commons in London, England. And the government in which no confidence was expressed was that of Winston Churchill.

    Almost three years into World War II, repeated military failures had induced considerable war fatigue in Britain. In February 1942, Singapore fell to the Japanese with 25,000 British troops being taken prisoner. In March, Rangoon fell. This was vastly damaging to Churchill's prestige in Washington as Rangoon was the only port through which aid could be shipped to China's Chiang Kai-shek -- a very high priority for the United States in Asia.”

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •