Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 91

Thread: Scrutinizing Petraeus's Record

  1. #21
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Heh. Agree on the "know it when they sees it."

    I never cease to be amazed at how that competitive spirit shows itself -- and at the absolute wisdom of the collective in most cases.

    In fairness to the Robert C. Byrd State of West by God Virginia, it's the system and they just take advantage of it because if one does not, another will. The tragedy is that the Feds take in over 60% of all revenue and expend less than 40%. The difference is made up with grants and transfers to the States, Counties and Cities who are really responsible for most government functions.

    Aside from the sheer waste and inefficiency and the bureaucracy supported at all levels to request, process and massage the grants and transfers; it wrongly puts local government which is most responsive to the populace in the supplicant mode and, even worse, the surplus allowed the Feds in the system encourages profligate spending by Congress and, far more importantly, encourages a lot of sloppiness in the federal government. The Federal government used to do most of its jobs fairly well, today it does not do most of its jobs at all well because it is too busy sticking it's nose into too many voter buying things that are not its business.

    I've long believed that a part of the failure of the Armed Forces to lose their WW II mentality is an excess of money that allows too much to be spent on the wrong things and the political meddling that keeps it that way. The system is at fault.

  2. #22
    Council Member MattC86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    REMFing it up in DC
    Posts
    250

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Not a fan of metrics. They have a purpose but in war, that purpose seems to be to totally confuse issues. They are incredibly hard to obtain with any accuracy and have a tendency to change rapidly, thus they are routinely manipulated by both sides in any discussion to counter each other. That seems totally intuitive to me but others apparently don't see it that way...

    The bulk of Americans don't care about casualties. There are many that make much of them on both sides but IMO, the majority of noise is mere political theater. Most Americans want results, period and they want them rapidly. Not going to happen.
    You didn't say so explicity, but I think you touched upon the dilemma we still don't have an answer to. I agree metrics are crappy, and are particularly worthless in COIN. Yet you can't expect Petraeus to testify before Congress that "things are getting better - I know it when I see it," which seems to be the real message both from high command and many of the guys (including RTK, Cavguy, and others here). They may be right, and probably are - I sure as hell don't know sitting around in Ithaca.

    But the politicians want the metrics because it's their substitute for visible, tangible, progress. The American people aren't going to see Iraq in person, and we know just how well the news media will cover it. Even visits by think-tankers (O'Hanlon and Pollack got absolutely crucified for their moderate, cautious endorsement) or politicians (how many jokes has the Daily Show done about that moron Indiana congressman's "it was just like a market in Indiana") are discounted because they're slammed as unrealistic PR tours by the media and left-leaning segment of the public.

    In a conventional war, we don't need the metrics because the American citizen can look at newspaper or a map and see how we're doing. For all the horror over American casualties at, say, Tarawa or the Bulge, the average American still saw the continuing (if bloody) progress of armies and navies towards Berlin and Tokyo. And that meant "bringing the boys home." The Korean War, which was very unpopular from late July-August 1950 (the Perimeter phase) and from 1951-53, was palatable to the public in those few months in between, when we were dashing towards Pyongyang and the Yalu and the war seemed as good as over.

    It happened again in 2003 - when Baghdad fell, Bush's popularity rose. They all thought it was won.

    But as we know, with COIN, there is no map to show the people. There are no daily news reports of Americans crossing another river, liberating another city. The news becomes the car bombs, the beheadings, or crimes committed by Americans.

    I think that the political necessities have forced Petraeus and others into using metrics quite unsuited to truly judging success in COIN. Those metrics, which are not indicative of the progress being made, are then torn apart, analyzed ad nauseam, and declared by a sea of "experts" to mean either "we've turned the corner and are gonna win" or "we're still losing heavily." Take your pick - I lean more to the left than most of you.

    But until there's a tangible way to measure the progress made in a limited or COIN strategy - no tanks rumbling towards Berlin - we're going to be forced to use those poor metrics.

    And we need to figure out that tangible way to SHOW the progress we've made. Because as Ken says, the casualties are not what kills support. Lack of progress kills support. Or rather, the perception of a lack of progress.

    Matt
    Last edited by MattC86; 09-19-2007 at 05:17 AM.
    "Give a good leader very little and he will succeed. Give a mediocrity a great deal and he will fail." - General George C. Marshall

  3. #23
    Council Member tequila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,665

    Default

    After the surge report: views on the war in Iraq - CBS News poll 14-16 Sep (pdf file).

    No real public opinion shift after the Petraeus/Crocker testimony, if you don't want to click on the link.

    I have a hard time understanding those who do not want to see metrics. They do not provide the whole picture, but they do provide critical data. If you define part of your mission as securing the population, then data that indicates whether or not the population is not being secured (i.e. increasing or decreasing numbers of dead civilians, increasing or decreasing sectarian migration) would appear to be somewhat important. Sure, no one may be laying IEDs for your patrols anymore, and the local militia appears quiescent. Perhaps this is because the militia has killed or expelled the local minority population, taken over their homes, and are now busy stripping their businesses for profit. Is this local progress? "Bottom-up" reconciliation? If you discount the dozen bodies found in the local garbage dump, or fail to recognize the 60 refugees who have just moved into abandoned homes, you just might think that's the case. After all, the place "feels" more peaceful and no one's shooting at you, no?

    Uboat -

    Yes, the Anbar awakening started before the surge but without help from us it would have died there. No one is lying about it and I am sick and tired of hearing people who do not have enough information to have an opinion on the issue make grand sweeping statements like "We're being lied to."
    Does the President's quote below sound accurate to you?

    Anbar Province is a good example of how our strategy is working. Last year, an intelligence report concluded that Anbar had been lost to al Qaeda. Some cited this report as evidence that we had failed in Iraq and should cut our losses and pull out. Instead, we kept the pressure on the terrorists. The local people were suffering under the Taliban-like rule of al Qaeda, and they were sick of it. So they asked us for help.

    To take advantage of this opportunity, I sent an additional 4,000 Marines to Anbar as part of the surge.
    RTK -

    1. Horrbile analogy. There's a difference between listening and hearing. Most of the public has been hearing what they want to hear and not listening to the full story since the beginning of this war, typically hearing what suits their own preconceived notions.
    I think you're missing the boat on this one. If most of the public is, according to you, only "hearing what they want to hear" and thus, I suppose, antiwar, you would not have seen public support for the Iraq War detioriate as it has --- it would have never been high at all. According to you, the public has always been antiwar. This is demonstrably false.

    2. The Surge isnt' the strategy. Clear, Hold, Build is. What 1/1 AD was doing in Anbar that set the stage for the Anbar Awakening is a macro level of Tal Afar. People are missing the big picture here. The strategy has changed sginificantly in the last year. The surge has only accelerated progress with a new strategy.
    As noted by David Kilcullen, success in Iraq has come largely by surprise and counter to expectations by surge planners. The surge was presented by the President and others, especially principle architects like MG Keane and Fred Kagan, as a means to secure Baghdad through an increased troop presence. This would, in turn, "buy time" for or spur national reconciliation. "Clear-hold-build" is nothing but a slogan, and a pretty meaningless one at that given that it has supposedly been the plan since 2005. Getting off FOBs and into neighborhood patrol posts has delivered tactical success in many places, but this is tactics, not strategy, and has certainly not been a cornerstone Iraq-wide policy until Petraeus & Co. arrived.

    If that's the only metric you're looking at, then you aren't seeking the bigger picture. What improvements are being made in sewage disposal, water treatment, electricity per day, academic institutions, trash removal, medical services, and local security? If you're looking for body counts only, that's about the poorest metric I can think of.
    Data about this has been posted repeatedly on this message board. The number of Iraqis with access to clean water has risen from 50% to 70% since 2003 (now with cholera outbreaks!), electricity per day remains flat, academic institutions have been devastated by violence and refugee flight, medical services are in the same place. Frankly none has been looking up, with the possible exception of local security and perhaps electricity.

    Not in 4 years its not. TX Hammes makes an excellent point in a History Channel Documentary dated 2004, stating words to the effect that the Malaysian Counterinsurgency Campaign took around 15 years. Others have taken upwards of 40. So the gold standard in the last century is 15 years, with an average of about 25. The American people don't have the patience to prosecute a war they don't understand nor do they care about understanding. For the vast majority of them, it doesn't affect them.
    If this is the case, then we probably should not get involved in insurgencies, since it is hopeless from the start.

    BS. All many people care about is what Brittney Spears is doing this week or how OJ Simpson is going to get out the next jam. They could care less about what the strategic military objective in Iraq is, or, much less, how it's affecting the family of some poor Iraqi they'll never have to deal with anyway.
    If this was the case, then public support would not be an issue. No one would care about whether or not the war was successful or not. Instead, polling indicates that the Iraq War is seen as the No. 1 issue facing the United States.

    Leaving Iraq is morally and ethically irresponsible (How dare I bring morals and ethics into a discussion like this). Regardless of the reasons we invaded, however valid or invalid any of them are, we created the situation over there. I'm sick and tired of the same old line; "We haven't found WMDs," "This is about Oil," "We went there to fight Al Qaeda." At this point, 4 years into this, we need to get over ourselves and face reality. We're there. We're going to be there for a while. Deal with it. How do we, as an American people, make things better?
    Are we in Iraq now for morality and ethics? Really? If so, one could question the priorities and tasking of our national resources, since there are many other areas where we could extend "morality and ethics" in our foreign policy and national governance.

    I feel, as an American, like I'm on the New York Giants, with the entire country as the team. It's always someone else's fault and no one wants to accept responsibility for what's going on. The team sucks right now. No one is on the same page. Most people are so damned preoccupied with blaming someone else that they don't see the real issue right in front of their faces. We're in Iraq. We're tasked with building a government and providing security. We are. Not the Army, not the Marine Corps. We. What has John Q. Public done besides slap a yellow ribbon on his bumper or perhaps sent a package around Christmas? Not a damned thing.
    John Q. Public has not been asked to do anything but sign off on whatever the President has put in front of him, which has been a politically spun happyface since Day 1. If the case had been put to the public in 2003 as rebuilding the government of Iraq and providing security and economic reconstruction for years on end with an eventual pricetag of $500+ billion and thousands of American lives, I doubt it would have ever sold.

    If a leader had the courage to tell the American people that failure in Iraq is not an option, but actually laid out the real costs and sacrifices necessary for success, the American people might have responded. Hard to put all the blame on John Q. Public for not wanting to continue to be treated like mushrooms and being skeptical of the government's new storyline --- even if the new storyline might have more truth than the last.

  4. #24
    Council Member RTK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Wherever my stuff is
    Posts
    824

    Default

    [QUOTE=tequila;26347]

    RTK -



    I think you're missing the boat on this one. If most of the public is, according to you, only "hearing what they want to hear" and thus, I suppose, antiwar, you would not have seen public support for the Iraq War detioriate as it has --- it would have never been high at all. According to you, the public has always been antiwar. This is demonstrably false.
    It is what it is. And it's my opinion without any factual basis.


    As noted by David Kilcullen, success in Iraq has come largely by surprise and counter to expectations by surge planners. The surge was presented by the President and others, especially principle architects like MG Keane and Fred Kagan, as a means to secure Baghdad through an increased troop presence. This would, in turn, "buy time" for or spur national reconciliation. "Clear-hold-build" is nothing but a slogan, and a pretty meaningless one at that given that it has supposedly been the plan since 2005. Getting off FOBs and into neighborhood patrol posts has delivered tactical success in many places, but this is tactics, not strategy, and has certainly not been a cornerstone Iraq-wide policy until Petraeus & Co. arrived.
    All due respect, I know many of the surge planners. This is exactly what they were looking for.





    If this is the case, then we probably should not get involved in insurgencies, since it is hopeless from the start.
    Hard is not hopeless - Gen Petraeus in Jan 2007.


    Are we in Iraq now for morality and ethics? Really? If so, one could question the priorities and tasking of our national resources, since there are many other areas where we could extend "morality and ethics" in our foreign policy and national governance.
    In the Army, as long as we have the Army Values, then it is and always has been a morality and ethics issue. Some have created problems by not upholding these values. The vast majority of Soldiers hold leadership, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage close.


    If a leader had the courage to tell the American people that failure in Iraq is not an option, but actually laid out the real costs and sacrifices necessary for success, the American people might have responded. Hard to put all the blame on John Q. Public for not wanting to continue to be treated like mushrooms and being skeptical of the government's new storyline --- even if the new storyline might have more truth than the last.
    Couldn't we crack a book and look at historical precedence? When has failure ever been an option? In Patton's speach to Third Army on 5 JUN 1944 he said:

    "Men, this stuff that some sources sling around about America wanting out of this war, not wanting to fight, is a crock of bull####. Americans love to fight, traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle. You are here today for three reasons. First, because you are here to defend your homes and your loved ones. Second, you are here for your own self respect, because you would not want to be anywhere else. Third, you are here because you are real men and all real men like to fight. When you, here, everyone of you, were kids, you all admired the champion marble player, the fastest runner, the toughest boxer, the big league ball players, and the All-American football players. Americans love a winner. Americans will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win all of the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost nor will ever lose a war; for the very idea of losing is hateful to an American."

    That's the American I hope I'm still a part of.
    Example is better than precept.

  5. #25
    Council Member tequila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,665

    Default

    It is what it is. And it's my opinion without any factual basis.
    To track the change in opinion over time:



    All due respect, I know many of the surge planners. This is exactly what they were looking for.
    David Kilcullen:
    The other implication is that, to be perfectly honest, the pattern we are seeing runs somewhat counter to what we expected in the “surge”, and therefore lies well outside the “benchmarks”. The original concept was that we (the Coalition and the Iraqi government) would create security, which would in turn create space for a “grand bargain” at the national level. Instead, we are seeing the exact opposite: a series of local political deals has displaced extremists, resulting in a major improvement in security at the local level, and the national government is jumping on board with the program. Instead of coalition-led top-down reconciliation, this is Iraqi-led, bottom-up, based on civil society rather than national politics.
    In the Army, as long as we have the Army Values, then it is and always has been a morality and ethics issue. Some have created problems by not upholding these values. The vast majority of Soldiers hold leadership, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage close.
    The Army does not decide if we stay in Iraq or not, nor should it. The Army is the instrument of national policy, not its origin.

    Couldn't we crack a book and look at historical precedence? When has failure ever been an option?
    Respectfully, that has nothing to do with the question of whether or not Iraq is a good use of national resources and manpower. The American people have been told over and over again that Iraq is somehow worth the struggle --- but the price will be low, the enemy is on the run, the struggle is easy, in fact is almost over (just another six months!). Most of this has been BS, quite a bit of it propagated by spokesmen in military uniform. That the American people now distrust messengers bringing what looks like more of the same happytalk should hardly be cause for dismay --- frankly it is reassuring that the American people are not willing to shut up and sing at whatever the government hands them.

  6. #26
    Council Member Cavguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawaii
    Posts
    1,127

    Default Change in Anbar Predates Surge

    Point of order:

    The transformation in Ramadi was underway well before the surge (Snowballing as of Sept 06)

    Two companies of Marines from a MEU (approx 300 marines) were added into Ramadi AO in November 2006. They increased our ability to "clear, hold, build" in a few more areas. Most of the troops went elsewhere in Anbar.

    While the initial surge forces certainly expanded our options, they were by no means decisiive. Arguments claiming Anbar was because of the surge are false, in my opinion, but it is true the surge has left the units better able to exploit the gains and expand them than would have been possible before.
    "A Sherman can give you a very nice... edge."- Oddball, Kelly's Heroes
    Who is Cavguy?

  7. #27
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Metric lovers unite! I'm fully aware that the US

    is metric-happy and that COIN doesn't provide the instant hard knowledge that HIC provides. I'm equally aware that due to those factors there will be metrics. That doesn't change the fact that most of them will be flaky, will prove little, will change frequently, will be manipulated by each side in the argument and that they really will prove little.

    Also suggest the the neat graphs prove that polls are metrics. Not to mention that they 'prove' the "1/3 and two year rules." Again.

    The public is fickle but they want rapid results. When they do not get them, they get surly. No news there.

    Quoth Tequila:
    "...Most of this has been BS, quite a bit of it propagated by spokesmen in military uniform. That the American people now distrust messengers bringing what looks like more of the same happytalk should hardly be cause for dismay --- frankly it is reassuring that the American people are not willing to shut up and sing at whatever the government hands them."
    Regrettably, BS is a fact of political life -- and not just in the US, it's worldwide. If people are dumb enough to pay much attention to it, I'm not terribly sympathetic. Interestingly, it is my sensing that most Americans do NOT pay much attention to it, only the politically attuned seem to do so.

    In essence, I think the American people have pretty good BS detectors and that they have never, in my lifetime, been willing to sing the government tune. No news there...

  8. #28
    Council Member Armchairguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Sugar Land, Texas
    Posts
    42

    Default Quality of information

    I see one of the big problems (for me anyways) is that I only have so many information sources (news media, government, here) and out of the sources I have I see contradictory messages. As one poster put it "I'm not there" so everything I consume has already been shaded by the mind, emotions, politics and agenda of the reporter or organization they represent. I guess it comes down to picking the color of pony we want to see since we can't see it for ourselves.
    On the main topic of General Petraeus and his record I really can't say much other than I believe that he is a straight shooter. On what he says he is trying to do, my mind concludes it is the best course available.

    On the subject of the neat little graphs courtesy of Tequila they really say "Crap, I thought this thing was going to be easier".

    The real bone of contention is whether the troops should stay or go, with many on both sides in the argument honestly believing what they want is in the countries best interest, some it is pure partisan politics. So regardless of who General Petraeus really is each side will build him up or tear him down to support their viewpoint.

  9. #29
    Council Member Rob Thornton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    1,510

    Default Some definitions on the Levels of War

    RTK:
    2. The Surge isnt' the strategy. Clear, Hold, Build is. What 1/1 AD was doing in Anbar that set the stage for the Anbar Awakening is a macro level of Tal Afar. People are missing the big picture here. The strategy has changed significantly in the last year. The surge has only accelerated progress with a new strategy.
    Tequilla:
    [QUOTE]As noted by David Kilcullen, success in Iraq has come largely by surprise and counter to expectations by surge planners. The surge was presented by the President and others, especially principle architects like MG Keane and Fred Kagan, as a means to secure Baghdad through an increased troop presence. This would, in turn, "buy time" for or spur national reconciliation. "Clear-hold-build" is nothing but a slogan, and a pretty meaningless one at that given that it has supposedly been the plan since 2005. Getting off FOBs and into neighborhood patrol posts has delivered tactical success in many places, but this is tactics, not strategy, and has certainly not been a cornerstone Iraq-wide policy until Petraeus & Co. arrived.[/QUOTE]

    Maybe its a given, but lets start with some common definitions. I'll use Colin Gray's (from "War, Peace and International Relations: an Introduction to Strategic History - 2007 pg. 40), but most others are pretty close - and he is pretty well known and respected:

    -Tactics refers to the actual use of armed forces, primarily, though not exclusively, in combat. In essence, tactics are abut how to fight, about military behavior itself. Rob's note: I heard another one I liked a bit better which was - " the thinking human application of technology on the battlefield to achieve a purpose"

    -Operations refers to the use made of tactics for the conduct of a military campaign.

    -Operational Art is the skill with which forces are maneuvered so that they are well positioned for tactical advantage. But it refers also to the ability to know when to accept or decline combat, with a view to advancing campaign wide goals. Operational Art uses the threat and the actuality of battle to win a campaign.

    - Strategy refers to the use made of operations for their impact upon the course and outcome of a war. Strategy is the bridge between military power and policy.
    As stated many times - although it has become synonymous to the point where it has entered the record - a surge in BCTs is an increase in the means available to implement a strategy - the strategy was already being implemented - but it required the additional means to do it on a larger scale - so yea - there was lots of places where it may have started early because some CDRs understood that is what needed to happen, had the freedom to implement it, and then fed the results back up the Chain of Command.

    The big shift in the strategy then came with a focus on securing populations - vs. infrastructure, or institutions - call it a different way of looking at the problem - but that led to operational and tactical consequences. As mentioned it also required the means (a surge in available units) to make it happen on a large scale. The shift at all three levels of war has offered up opportunities and MNF-I is doing the right thing - they are identifying success on the different LOOs and LLOOs and trying to exploit it for long term gain.

    So yes, there is a big difference - the current leadership is more recognitional in terms of how it fights. It picks up on what is working, considers it in respect to policy objectives and makes decisions to retain the initiative vs. trying to pursue things that won't work just because that is how it was written - it realizes that this is a non-linear (not to be confused with non-contiguous) fight and does not necessarily conform to linear equations. Because people are dynamic, emotional, not always rational you can't operate on that an equal input will result in a guaranteed output.

    All of that to explain what I thought RTK said in a very simple and concise manner.

    Best Regards, Rob

    -for a good article on the non-linearity of war, check out Alan Beyerchen's "Clausewitz, Nonlinearity, and the Unpredictability of War" International Security, Vol 17, No. 3 pgs. 59-90 - pub. MIT
    Last edited by Rob Thornton; 09-22-2007 at 05:19 PM. Reason: citing a ref.

  10. #30
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    567

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
    Well, without speaking for RA, I took his points as being "popular understandings" more than anything else..
    You would be the most educated person who ever spoke for me so don't worry about it.

    From The President's official web site

    Our Success In Meeting Surge Objectives Allows Us To Begin Bringing Some Of Our Troops Home. The premise of our strategy is that securing the Iraqi population is the foundation for all other progress. This week, General Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testified before Congress and made clear that our challenge in Iraq is formidable. Yet they concluded that conditions in Iraq are improving, that we are seizing the initiative from the enemy, and that the troop surge is working.

    If you'd dumped your chief spokesperson after "Mission Accomplished" you might have more support. People listen to the Commander in Chief. If he's wrong too many times in a row, they stop listening. That's marketing. That's the hearts and minds of most American people.

  11. #31
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    567

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RTK View Post
    How do we, as an American people, make things better?
    Honestly, this is a socialist question. The capitalist answer is that only Americans can build America and only Iraqis can build Iraq.

    If I were a Democratic spin doctor I'd call Iraq "the largest failed welfare experiment in history."

    Quote Originally Posted by RTK View Post
    It's my opinion without any factual basis.
    As a marketer, I deal with this all the time. That's why I like the Powell doctrine. It allowed you to employ your unique skills without having to worry about anyone's opinion, but if you want to get into the hearts and minds business - and you want to be effective - you need to accept that opinions don't match facts and facts don't always change opinions.

    American body count might be the worst possible metric, but none the less it's what most of the public cares about. (And really, the fact that people care whether you live or die isn't the worst thing in the world.)

    If people stop listening to the president it really doesn't matter if you think he's a great leader. People have stopped listening. (For that matter, it really doesn't matter whether John Kerry deserved his medals or not.) The Iraq war has been "swift boated." Ironically, not by the left, but by the people who said "WMDs" "greeted as liberators," "Iraqi oil will pay for it" "mission accomplished" "dead enders." They've lost their credibility.

    Final point. As a marketer I'm 99.99% sure that no much how much better things get under President Hillary, , you're never going to become a Democrat. Some people might think that doesn't make sense, but it wouldn't make any difference. You'd still be who your are. That's your right. If you honestly accept how difficult it would be for an Iraqi to change your opinion, you might be able to have more realistic hearts and minds objectives during your next tour, and you just might be more successful. (Thought it's much more likely that you'll ignore everything I say, because you have preconceived opinions about the most valuable sources of information, and some marketing guy on the net isn't one of them. )

  12. #32
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    567

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uboat509 View Post
    My issue is not so much that he does not understand what the strategy is but rather that he takes what little knowledge he has and makes the leap to "We're being lied to."

    SFC W
    Fair enough. We feel like we're being lied to. Like I said above, we feel how we feel. It's our right. Once people are wrong about, "WMDs," dead enders" and "mission accomplished," we're allowed to stop listening. We're allowed to feel like we're being lied to. We don't need to believe "we've finally figured out what we're doing."

    For the record though, I know the difference between tactics and strategy. The strategy - last I heard - was to reduce violence, in order to create "breathing space" which would lead to reconciliation. I think most people admit the strategy isn't working.



    I suspect that the new strategy is to try some different tactics and see if something salvageable emerges from the chaos, which makes some sense. Or it's to arm the Sunni in order to curb Iranian influence and no one has the courage to admit that our strategy is arming the ones who killed us and who used to work for Saddam. (Of course, my last suggestion may be caused by my incorrect belief that I've been lied to. I have biases just like everyone else.)

    PS: When you're talking about hearts and minds, pictures are almost always more effective than words. I was thinking about how stupid the anti Paetreus moveon.org ad was and thinking that they should've run the above picture with the headline, "Do you want America's best and bravest to die in order to give Maliki more time?" But that was just off the top of my head. I'm sure I could come up with a pretty good pro war ad too. It wouldn't use any of the following terms: Bush, Maliki, surge or benchmarks. I'd probably go with some version of Petraeus knows what he's doing and he deserves our support. He seems to be the only one the public trusts, so it makes sense to reinforce those beliefs. Or maybe I'd let RTK talk directly to the camera about why he wants to go back to Iraq. It depends on whether or not RTK could talk calmly about Iraq for 30 seconds without raising his voice.

  13. #33
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rank amateur View Post
    American body count might be the worst possible metric, but none the less it's what most of the public cares about. (And really, the fact that people care whether you live or die isn't the worst thing in the world.)
    You'll have to define "care about". If you mean sensible people are genuinely concerned, then yes. Most find any troop's death horrible. But I think the antiwar crowd..maybe only the extreme anti-war crowd...it just seems to me they are waiting for round numbers, almost excited about it. "We're coming up to 2500". I've been on Leftist websites where they make predictions of how many days it's going to be until it reaches a certain round number. That's not concern. That's self-centeredness. They are only using the number of deaths to justify taking the stance they do.
    And how many politicians do we see do this? Do you really think they are concerned or are they using it for political purposes? Some may be genuinely concerned, but I think many of them aren't sincere in their concern.

  14. #34
    Council Member RTK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Wherever my stuff is
    Posts
    824

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rank amateur View Post
    Or maybe I'd let RTK talk directly to the camera about why he wants to go back to Iraq. It depends on whether or not RTK could talk calmly about Iraq for 30 seconds without raising his voice.
    You'd be suprised how many times you've probably seen me on camera doing just that without knowing it.
    Example is better than precept.

  15. #35
    Council Member Rob Thornton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    1,510

    Default

    For the record though, I know the difference between tactics and strategy. The strategy - last I heard - was to reduce violence, in order to create "breathing space" which would lead to reconciliation. I think most people admit the strategy isn't working.

    I suspect that the new strategy is to try some different tactics and see if something salvageable emerges from the chaos, which makes some sense. Or it's to arm the Sunni in order to curb Iranian influence and no one has the courage to admit that our strategy is arming the ones who killed us and who used to work for Saddam. (Of course, my last suggestion may be caused by my incorrect belief that I've been lied to. I have biases just like everyone else.)
    RA, I'm not so sure you do - although I'm sure you believe you do. The strategy is to secure the population while working on some of the other things (infrastructure, economic and both high end (national) and low - end (local, provincial and even tribal) politics to take some of the pressure of the hatreds, animosities, etc. that further put Iraqis at odds. People don't change fast - particularly when they are threatened with the idea that what little they have left might get taken away as well - we not only have to establish security for a week or a month, but establish the conditions that allow for the type of sustainable security long enough where people, families, tribes can live with they otherwise might only accept for a short term - this is hard, dangerous work - most of us understand that all too well - nobody said any difference to Congress, nor did anybody sugar coat consequences, or guarantee a damn thing.

    The strategy determines the direction, and the direction frames the tactics - even if the tactic was first tried on a small scale then adapted - for theater wide "means" to be redirected to a new purpose requires a change in strategy I was there when the strategy started to change, and it changed the way resources were being used, and it changed the way TF AND BCT CDRs saw the battlefield.

    As for what most people agree - well when they put on the uniform, or accept some other position of responsibility their opinion takes on a different set of values. Any elected president - whether it SEN Clinton, GOV Romney, former Mayor Giuliani, SEN Obama, fmr SEN Thompson is going to have to govern - and going to have to work foreign policy in a post 9/11 world. They are often going to have to make the best of a slew of bad choices - and often those in uniform are going to have to march out and execute those policies and some of us are going to have to die for them - think of it as a serious turn in market shares. Both parties have a history of presiding over and during wars - its their responsibility - we follow regardless - its who we are.

    I also recall GEN Petraeus saying it was damned hard to go out and court folks who'd just recently been trying to kill you - trust me, nobody on the ground has any illusions about that - but that is not the whole story - not every Iraqi on the ground who is working for a tribal sheik has tried to kill Americans or ISF - many just want the damned violence to stop.

    ref RTK not valuing the input of those out of uniform -its the same no matter if you are in or out of uniform - if you want somebody to listen, the package matters and so does the content.

    There are somethings that are only going to make sense if you've spent a year or so there as a soldier outside the FOBs (or in some place like it where what goes on there passes for normal) - even then, if you are in one place or another and face a different set of conditions - your perspective is going to be different. But if you have not been there, no amount of T.V., blog reading, testimony hearing, etc. is going to provide you the internalized experience set to see either the frustrations or possibilities that exist. While RTK (and the rest of us) may have a set of beliefs or opinions that are hard to quantify or qualify, they were not cheap in the making - and we are going to weight them against others with regard to what they understand without us having to say or write a word - that is the bias of having been there.

    Best Regards, Rob

  16. #36
    Council Member RTK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Wherever my stuff is
    Posts
    824

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Thornton View Post
    While RTK (and the rest of us) may have a set of beliefs or opinions that are hard to quantify or qualify, they were not cheap in the making - and we are going to weight them against others with regard to what they understand without us having to say or write a word - that is the bias of having been there.
    Here's another way of saying it:

    Unless you've been covered in your brother's blood, stood at attention while your First Sergeant calls his name three times, and written that damnable letter to a family none of us wishes ever to write, then you don't understand the reasons why we feel the way we feel.
    Example is better than precept.

  17. #37
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Ok...I'd really prefer not to see this turn into a "soldiers versus civilians" thread. Neither side is more "special" here: I've seen and heard equally uninformed opinions from both sides of the equation...in a number of areas. Bias applies on both sides...that's the nature of bias.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  18. #38
    Council Member Rob Thornton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    1,510

    Default

    Steve, that is good Sunday morning wisdom. Its a line we all walk here in distinguishing where war is different from any other human social undertaking. I think its important to discuss those if the public wants to understand why War is different, as are the people who wage war on behalf of the state or the political purpose and goals of non-state entities.

    The words "tactics" and "strategy" have been applied to many other activities and professions - however, there is no place like war where their implementation is so subject to "fog, friction & chance" - its the confluence of the objective and subjective, rational and irrational, man and machine under circumstances where the outcome is often final in horrific terms. While intuition can be a hallmark of many professions, few others if any determine physical life and death of yourself, the men & women you are responsible for, the innocents and the enemy like war. Its a poker game of the highest and most final order.

    As we discussed on the "greatest generals" thread, about what makes a great general, its often hard to judge that just based on the outcome of one battle or one campaign because of the difficulty with examining the context of the battle or war in which the decision was made.

    On a side note:

    I saw where Fox is dong a piece on the "forming" of GEN Petraeus today. I'm not sure how I feel about that (not that it matters) - it just has something to do with timing - I guess that is just the modern media. However, it may offer a chance for at least part of the public to be exposed to how military leaders are made today, as opposed to those we often see on the History Channel. Perhaps it will generate interest in service - also a good thing.

    Best Regards, Rob
    Last edited by Rob Thornton; 09-23-2007 at 04:26 PM. Reason: Changed for reasons cited below.

  19. #39
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Hi Rob, following up on the history channel. Tonight at 8pm EST they will have the complete history of "Hillbilly's"... does not have anything to do with this thread but I know everyone wants to watch this.

  20. #40
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Thornton View Post
    Steve, that is good Sunday morning wisdom. Its a line we all walk here in distinguishing where war is different from any other human social undertaking. There are differences in how beliefs are formed, and I think its important to discuss those if the public wants to understand why War is different, as are the people who wage war on behalf of the state.
    Agree completely, but at the same time it's important that the exchange remain two-sided. By that I mean it's important for those in uniform to understand (as much as possible) how the beliefs of those out of uniform are formed (and of course the reverse applies as well). Ignorance is certainly not confined to one community or the other, but neither is brilliance. Just as I grow concerned when certain segments label all in uniform as baby killers, I worry when certain segments label all those out of uniform as ignorant Joe six-packs or whatever. It is indeed a fine line, and one that we need to be aware of as we continue our discussions. SWC is in many ways (I feel) unique in that we attract both sides of the coin, and encourage them to talk and discuss (and even debate and rant from time to time).

    I do wonder what Fox will do with that segment. Personally I get frustrated with things like the History Channel and its popcorn history, but on the plus side it at least gets people who might not normally care about history watching and possibly asking questions.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

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
  •