Roadside Bombs & IEDs (catch all)

[Ken White]

I appreciate Lt. Col. Gentile's article. I also appreciate Rob's elucidation of the thoughts behind it and of his own. Allow me to weigh in.

At the risk of getting even further off thread, while I disagree with you on several points, most of them like Afghanistan and the admittedly inexcusable treatment of Shinseki are not at all germane to this thread. Let me address one factor you emphasize that is slightly less off thread.

"Point? The failure is at the HIGHEST LEVELS OF SENIOR LEADERSHIP, and always have been.

That is, IMO generally correct. I suggest there have also been failures at intermediate levels as well. However, those at lower levels have several reasons that led to many of their failures (they also recovered far more rapidly). You cited one, very poor intelligence at the national level and both Langley and Bolling are to blame. Another is that which Rob mentioned, a failure prior to commitment to address the potential battlefield and problems realistically. The latter is indeed directly attributable to poor performance by the senior leadership. So is the possible greater failing by earlier senior leaders -- poor training.

Let me provide some boring background. The US army was sent to Viet Nam. For seven long years under the command of Paul Harkins and William Westmoreland, the Army tried to fight a land war in Europe. Those two commanders had such a war as their formative war and they tried unsuccessfully to emulate it. Fortunately, another WW II in Europe graduate was smarter and Creighton Abrams turned Viet Nam around. Too late; the politicians, more concerned about their reelection than the nation pulled the plug. Many of today's politicians would cheerfully do the same thing for the same reason -- reelection over national aims -- they do not need to be encouraged

Contrary to much common wisdom, the politicians were not the cause of the loss in Viet Nam (other than in their hubris and failure to understand what they were doing prior to commitment) -- nor were the Media (who like to credit themselves with that...). The Army blew it. The politicians do what they will always do, take the easy way out. The Media do what they will always do, credit themselves with far more clout than they really have.

The point of all that -- the Army allowed the pols and the media to share the blame and set themselves to the task of rebuilding the army to fight a land war in Europe. They did that in spite of all evidence that such a war was unlikely. Thus, the Army got to skate because their failings were obscured.

That's important because some will try do the same thing again if they can. You correctly point out that the senior leadership failed. What you do not point out is that the mid level leadership compensated and pulled us back from the so-called brink. What you do not point out is that most -- not all (and that is important and germane to this point and the entire thread) of the senior leadership has done a course correction and is trying to repair the damaged legacy their predecessors bequeathed. That is unfair on your part.

No question the flaws in intelligence and leadership need to be cited so that those errors are corrected. We failed to learn the lessons of Viet Nam -- we better not fail to learn the lessons of this one because it's far more important. There should also be no question that stating the problems as knowledgeably, accurately, concisely and fairly as possible is important.

Back to the thread. You say:

"Not that anyone in a position of authority listens to me, but I don't want my son to go for a second combat tour under these conditions. If we continue to argue for more troops in Europe and continue to deploy forces along the DMZ to allow South Korea to pursue its childish "sunshine diplomacy" while troops in Iraq are doing 15 month deployments, and ignore the EFP factories in Iran while Carriers with aircraft and ordnance sit in the Persian Gulf unused, then bring all of our boys home, and immediately."

To use your term, I am not "professional military" though I once was; I've been a civilian, disregarding my first 17 years, since 1977, thirty years and I too interface with civilians from all walks of life on a daily basis. Like you, I have a serving son though mine has three tours and is more than ready (not eager, but ready) to go back again and again if necessary.

Unlike Gian and unlike you, that son and I are quite convinced that the all sentiments you express in that last quote I provided and in particular the "...bring our boys home, and immediately" sound bite is badly misguided. It's in the interest of the serving and it's in the interest of the institution(s) which will try to protect itself (or themselves) at any cost -- it is not in the national interest. That trumps.

As an aside, I'm over 75, so a lot of people are boys to me -- the men and women in Iraq and all over the world in the Armed forces are not.