Quote Originally Posted by 82redleg View Post
...your're mis-reading the facts of what we did on that deployment in support of your points.
Not the facts of what you did, that's a matter of record and you acknowledge the mission. We only differ on the matter of how and why you got the mission.
The change in mission, that you find "particularly troublesome" changed because of the surge...
Based on things told me at the time by several people not related, your points contributed to the change but were not the determinant.
We politicked for the special mission (if its the one I'm thinking of), but were never assigned it.
Those folks also disagree on that first point but do agree on the second. The original was requested by one GO and was disapproved of, verbally, by another leading to a staff decision. There is no question that the original mission was ever agreed to or assigned by CentCom and MNF-I.

No matter, really, water under the bridge. Without being directly involved, we'll never know the totality of the rationales -- if any...

The basic point -- and the 'surge' effort and chaos clearly proves it -- is that the overall Iraq mission was not well conducted and, specifically, that the assignment of experienced infantry BCTs to route security while assigning Armor and FA Bns re-roled duty as Infantry is, ummm, questionable...

To go to such extremes in an existential war is understandable. To do it in a war of choice is folly.