Letters from Baghdad

[tw]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

Jesus, fuck what was said with this mission accomplished bullshit. Deal with the reality of the world. If it turns out to be a 10 year long struggle. So be it.

A ten year war means the war is lost. Once military operations have finished, Phase Four operations must begin - and quickly. As so many great American commanders noted even in WWII, the conquering army has six month to implement Phase Four planning - of that war is lost.

"Mission Accomplished" is just that. All the potentially good work conducted in military operations was completely undermined by what happened to day after Baghdad fell. There was no Phase Four planning - a basic violation of military doctrine. What was in the second wave on D-Day? Civil Affairs officers. Why? Phase Four planning is just that - critical to victory.

"Mission Accomplished" is the proper name for the Iraq invasion - as named by George Jr. As George Jr said, "America does not do nation building." No phase four planning. Therefore he accomplished the mission he was destined to achieve. "Mission Accomplished" is the resulting civil war created because - just as they did in Desert Storm - those same Washington power brokers even subverted any Phase Four planning.

Where is the strategic objective in a civil war? No negotiations (what ends a war) can occur until domestic parties decide to do so. America cannot achieve (or create) that strategic objective. Did you not hear Petreaus say the exact same thing? Tactical success (winning every military engagement) does not automatically achieve a strategic victory. Whereas Petraeus said he can made a strategic victory possible with tactical accomplishments (and he has achieved some tactical victories), Petraeus also said he cannot make the strategic victory possible. Only Maliki (or someone equivalent) can make a strategic victory possible. And Maliki is not doing so.

Six months after military operations terminated, nothing was done to win that war which is more years in Iraq can end us just as useless as the 10 years in Nam - for the exact same reasons.

Why are we not fighting ten years later in Bosnia? Phase Four planning was implements immediately. Where are thousands of American dying in Bosnia? Where is routine fighting and bombings ongoing in Bosnia? None because the solution was properly implemented immediately AND because all combatant parties were talked to constantly and immediately. More problems that mean Americans will only continue to die uselessly in "Mission Accomplished".

Meanwhile, another war that should have been concluded well over five years ago has only gotten worse. Again, the same idiots in Washington who have no respect for the American soldier have done the exact same mistake in Afghanistan. So now we have two Quagmires - defined by the same 1963 reasons that created the original quagmire - Vietnam. Why was Nam a quagmire? Look at what Westmoreland did to make that war unwinnable.

How bad did America make "Mission Accomplished"? Gen Odiero is considered the perfect example of why "Mission Accomplished" was being lost. Ironically, Gen Odiero is also the perfect example of how a military commander can learn from his mistakes. Gen Odiero's change demonstrates how good commanders learn quickly from their mistakes. Cited is even his Colonel’s 'revolt' that apparently started him reassessing his mistakes in weeks. Unfortunately, too much damage had already been created which is why America cannot create a strategic victory in “Mission Accomplished”.

Deal with reality well proven from history. Ten years to spend $trillions on a third world nation? Do you really have no respect for America? We did the same stupid mistake in Nam. Fortunately we had smarter leaders who kept us from making the same mistake in Somalia, he Balkans, and Desert Storm.

Nothing here comes from wacko extremist sound byte on TV and radio. These concepts are well understood by those who do and learned military concepts. You heard Patton say the same thing in post VE-day Germany. You saw MacArthur do same in post VJ-day Japan. You saw Westmoreland so violate these principles as to make Vietnam an unwinnable quagmire. You saw these principles properly implemented in the Balkan where negotiations even got Malosevik all but negotiate himself out of power. Why? In every case, the final military victory is only achieved at the negotiation table and requires (there is no exception) Phase Four planning starting before the first battle happens. No Phase Four planning - Nam and "Mission Accomplished" is why ten year later we would still waste the nation's most precious treasure. Just another example of another well proven principle: 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management.

Are you officer material? Then you either know this stuff or have the mindset to want to learn what a nation's best commanders must know.

[regular.joe]

You, um, missed the point.

[tw]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

You, um, missed the point.

If the 'point' was missed, then define what that point was. You asked about "Mission Accomplished". Defined was why it is named as George Jr defined it. What point was missed? Defined is why ten more years in Iraq traditionally only means defeat and is directly traceable to George Jr (actually Cheney).

[regular.joe]

No, you asked about "mission accomplished". I told you that I really don't care. I know what the situation is on the ground, and I'll go back, we will deal with what ever the politicians get us into.

It sounds to me like you know what the answers are, but are unwilling to earn a commission, or some stripes in the military, to go and put that solution into action. Civil Affairs is a wide open carreer field in the military right now. As far as the Army goes, they only recruit Civil Affairs on active duty from soldiers who have been in a while. Captains and above, Staff Sergeants and above. You really need to get busy. The reserve side of the house might take you into the Civil Affairs field if you have some expertise that lends to the civil military operations ongoing around the globe. City management, law, construction etc... Call a recruiter and ask about it.

Perhaps a position in the State Department. Something.

My point is: I don't care about the politics, and rhetoric and general hot air here in the states. I'm going to be out working on the solution on the ground. Long after President Bush is gone, and long after the next President is gone. I'd love for you to join me.

[tw]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

No, you asked about "mission accomplished". I told you that I really don't care. I know what the situation is on the ground, and I'll go back, we will deal with what ever the politicians get us into. ...

My point is: I don't care about the politics, and rhetoric and general hot air here in the states. I'm going to be out working on the solution on the ground.

What is the purpose of war? To move the conflict back to the negotiation table. Boots on the ground (ie civil affairs officers) are how that can be accomplished only if a viable strategic objective exists with all necessary planning (including Phase Four).

Some in the military never understand that. For example, Air Force officers have claimed they alone can win a war. They don't understand their principle function - to support the army. After victory, the army has six months to achieve the actual victory. A strategic objective is won (accomplished) at the negotiation table, making possible execution of the Phase Four planning. Phase Four planning can complete the victory. Politicians must not throw away all that good work performed by the military and make possible that six months consolidation.

Shameful is how much was lost after Schwarzkopf's stunning victory in Desert Storm. Again, the purpose of a war. When he went to accept the Iraqi defeat, he asked Washington for surrender terms. Well, those politicians were too busy 'drinking champaign' to bother. George Sr noted that something did not appear right. But he never grasped mistakes being made by his subordinates.

Schwarzkopf had to invent those surrender conditions on the fly. Protected was the only thing that kept Saddam in power. Eventually the US Army watched Saddam massacre maybe 10,000 insurgents in Basra from five miles away and could do nothing to stop it.

Why did Saddam stay in power? Why were Iraqis - encouraged by Americans to rebel - massacred by Saddam? Because that good work in Desert Storm was subverted by who must finish a war - the politicians. Purpose of war is always to move that conflict to a negotiation table. A victory so stunning in Desert Storm was tarnished by politicians who did not do their job - did not plan for the peace.

Same in Iraq. There is no military solution because same politicians (including Bremer, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Feith, Wolfovich, etc) so screwed up the political settlement. Success now lies somewhere between Maliki, Sistani, Sadr, a Kurdish leadership, etc. The Iraq Study Group also noted other necessary parties including Iran, Syria, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Worse, none appears interested or capable yet of that solution. Like it or not, the only "Mission Accomplished" solution lies with the politicians - as Petraeus noted.