Whatever happened to the McCarthurs and the Pattons

[iamthewalrus109]

With the offensive in Fallujah clearing up, some issues have become evident to this writer. The most glaring of these issues is the complete rank and file nature of our military now. Generals and upper level commanders are not taking initiative and are listening to civilian orders too closely. Accordingly, as pointed out in his latest KnightRidder article by Joe Galloway, these civilan commanders, have never seen a day of combat, or know anything outside political expediency.

Now that we are heavily engaged in Iraq there needs to be decisive action waged by commanders in the field to ensure defeat of foriegn insurgents in Iraq. The micro managing by civilian authorities in the name of politics is going to ruin us in the end, lead to more destruction and further death, than if operations can persist with commanders in the field discretion. This is a huge problem, and I see nothing but further set backs for our military unless one of these generals or colonels. WWI and II saw some insubordination at times, but I think it's essential to winning victory.

The boys in DC are second guessing and monday morning quaterbacking way too much these days. There needs to be a maverick here that gets results.

-Walrus

I don't think any General dares to be a MacArthur or a Patton these days -even MacArthur or Patton wouldn't dare to do today what they did back then. War has become a media event, and you have to play by the rules, such as they are. The dilemma is that the nature of conflict is evolving faster than the law. Civilians, the media, and technology all impact the present operational environment. The line between combatants and non-combatants has become blurred and humanitarian issues are coming under world scrutiny.

According to the definition of "Declaration of War" under treaty law, a "just" war (Jus ad bellum) embodies these components:

1) Just cause
2) Last resort
3) Lawful declaration
4) Political objectives proportionate to costs of fighting
5) Reasonable chance of success
6) Rightful intentions

Under international law, the UN charter, Iraq did not break any law that would have necessitated our attack on that nation. The fact that Saddam was a despot and opposed to the idea of Western democracy is not sufficient justification for what we did under international law. There has been no proof EVER that Saddam intended to destroy the US or that any attack by Iraq upon the US was imminent. In theory,our military commanders could one day find themselves facing a war crimes tribunal because of this.

Naturally, such an outcome is unlikely, given the military superiority of the US over other nations, but the thought must give our commanders in the field some pause, since they have studied the laws of war and the international implications of breaking them.

[atropos]

I find it hard to believe that any international war crimes tribunal would find in favor of Saddam over our guys. Give me a break!

[flippant]

Ok. Take a break.

[iamthewalrus109]

The type of talk that Marchiko is using is exactly why we can't earn a decisive victory in Iraq. It comes down to the man in the field now. George Bush and the Congress of the United States are responsible for deploying the troops, not generals. They need to wage the war they see fit once deployed.

I hate to say it but we are descending into a Vietnam style mess up here. We need decisive action from a non-partisan soldier, period. None of this, "Well what will these people think?" That was done the day we stuck it to the UN. If you truly follow a policy of pre-emptive war, and a go it alone attitude then heckling with international governments for 4 months while Saddam packs up any illegal goodies and gets the terror war ready is exactly the kind of thinking that got us in this mess. Yeah, let's tell people were coming and give them plenty of time to booby trap the position and get key personell out of the hot zone. This is the worst offensive tactics I've ever seen. We fight a blitzkrieg style war in Spring 2003, then lead a flopy occupation effort. The night we got into Bagdad it should have been 0 tolernence curfiew. We should have kept more Saddam era funtionaries in place longer, offerred them more power in the new government, and set about
creating a new government. Starting from scratch was a disaster and foolish to boot.

And what if we actually get these foriegn insurgents on the run, and they start to cross back over the borders to Syria, where most of these crazys are from, what then? We stop at the border and call the UN, screw that. This is where we stand now. Furthermore many of the countries on the security council had much to gain from keeping Saddam in power. The new invesitgatiion into the oil for food program shows that France, Germany, and Russia may all be implicated in this scandal, hmmmm, isn't that strange, the same bozos who didn't want to topple Saddam. Besides the fact that if all these countries could they would have been selling the guy nuclear secrets and missle guidance systems.

The bottom line: We now find ourselves in a precarious situation in Iraq obviously. Pulling out is going to earn us any respect anywhere, decisive victory is our only recourse. With Iraqi popular sentiment turning towards outside combatants I think there needs to be a non stop offensive effort by commanders in the field, not Washington, to kill and or neutralize these fighters, period. It comes down the guy next to you out there in the field, we all know that, and these commanders need to put the lives of their men first. This means whatever it takes to meet security standards for free elections. Then, and only then, do you consider an exit strategy. Too many folks have died, as GW Bush would say, and in part he's right, but you don't honor their memory by fighting the same stupid war. Now its not just about Saddam and whether or not he had arms, its about foriegn fighters and terrorism. They're not fighting for Iraqis, in fact popular support for these foriegn fighters is starting to erode. This is not like the VC here people, these individuals are not fighting for a free communist Iraq.

Finally, in regards to the UN's standards of a "just war" are simply outdated and irrelevant in today's context. These standards are just as irrelevant as the Leauge of Nations standards were in 1933. This goes for the Geneva standards as well. We are fighting an enemy that recognizes nothing but Allah. Western conventions, and civilities are only going to end up getting us all killed. There needs to be some sort of logical and coherent suspension of these "play nice" rules to root out this plauge on humanity, once and for all.

-Walrus

[vsp]

So do you go straight to the nukes, or try the strategy of smallpox-infected burkhas first?

[Happy Monkey]

The only excuse for war that has not turned out to be false was to save the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator. In a war with that justification, aren't we obligated even more to be humane and careful with human life?

[iamthewalrus109]

I don't think taking it to these individuals will mean the use of nuclear armaments. Its as simple as following all available intel from the field, and recognizing tactics that work for this context. We are acting to slow and beuracratic to solve these issues. These people don't work on petitions and committees lets get real here. We need to work outside the box to defeat this enemy is all I'm saying. As far as UN standards, I'm not saying no standards, but new ones. Western style standards need to be applied to Western style nations. You can't apply them to non-tiethed terror organizations, its just ridiculous. You can't fight these people with the same tactics you use for countries with organized armies and a civilian population, for these people there one and the same. Same goes for borders of Islamic countries, they were drawn in the sand after WWII for the most part, hence part of issue there, these people see only the fidels and the infidels, that's it. Compartmentalizing is not going to work here. The nukes will be dropped without our help, we're just facilitators. Letting that cat out of the bag, it's only a matter of time before those missles fly, but in the meantime, we need to mount offensives in Iraq in a shorter period of time. Civilian casualites will be higher in this case, but there needs to be a comprimise, what's really acceptable here. I think the Iraqi people will turn against these fighters after Falluja, so there may be no need for this type of action to take place. Having said that though, if they set up shop someplace else, we need to take action sooner, that's it. We're going to get called on it anyway, might as well try to get some of these bastards.

-Walrus

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by iamthewalrus109

You can't fight these people with the same tactics you use for countries with organized armies and a civilian population, for these people there one and the same.

THEN WHY ARE WE THERE? Our only excuse for being there is to help the civilian population. If we can blithely classify them as one and the same as the enemy army, or as expendable as long as we get some actual enemy, then we have lost any justification for being there at all.

[jaguar]

So do you go straight to the nukes, or try the strategy of smallpox-infected burkhas first?

Someone knows their biowarfare history.

So let me get this right walrus....you suggest that basically, kill anything that moves, torture suspects and assume everyone is a tango and whatever it left gets to vote in 'free and fair elections'? Now i've smoked some damn good stuff and come up with some interesting concepts but you, well, how much for a 1/8?

Originally Posted by iamthewalrus109

The type of talk that Marchiko is using is exactly why we can't earn a decisive victory in Iraq. It comes down to the man in the field now. George Bush and the Congress of the United States are responsible for deploying the troops, not generals. They need to wage the war they see fit once deployed.

The kind of talk I used is from the law of armed conflict and is part of basic training for officers and most NCO's, as well. It is not some liberal hype or peacenik diatribe. It comes from both international law and a US doctrine known as the Bellum Americanum that hinges on precision-guided bombs, standardized targeting, accepted levels and types of collateral damage, and higher bomb flight altitudes. Officers who "wage the war as they see fit once deployed" are going to face court martial or worse if they overstep certain boundaries and break the laws of armed conflict.

Originally Posted by iamthewalrus109

I hate to say it but we are descending into a Vietnam style mess up here. We need decisive action from a non-partisan soldier, period. None of this, "Well what will these people think?"

In other words, you want a soldier to commit an act of insubordination against the Commander in Chief and the upper level brass in the Pentagon. Do you have the faintest understanding of what would happen to such an individual? He could kiss his career good-by, and that's just for starters.

Originally Posted by iamthewalrus109

The new invesitgatiion into the oil for food program shows that France, Germany, and Russia may all be implicated in this scandal, hmmmm, isn't that strange, the same bozos who didn't want to topple Saddam. Besides the fact that if all these countries could they would have been selling the guy nuclear secrets and missle guidance systems.

hmmmm, remember that 2nd rate Hollywood actor who starred in "Bedtime for Bonzo"? What WAS his name? Oh yeah, Reagan. Reagan sent arms and munitions to Iraq and Saddam until the country was abristle with weapons. People (and countries) who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Originally Posted by iamthewalrus109

The bottom line: We now find ourselves in a precarious situation in Iraq obviously. Pulling out is going to earn us any respect anywhere, decisive victory is our only recourse. With Iraqi popular sentiment turning towards outside combatants I think there needs to be a non stop offensive effort by commanders in the field, not Washington, to kill and or neutralize these fighters, period.

In other words, we have met the enemy and he is us. Let's be as ruthless or more so than Saddam ever was. Since it's difficult to distinguish civilians from combatants, let's kill 'em all. Poison the drinking war, use nuclear weapons, engage in biological warfare that would make the 7 plagues of Egypt seem like a bunny hop by comparison and find a second General Sherman (to hell with MacArthur and Patton - they had too much integrity) to lead a scorched earth march to the sea. The US has almost zero credibility in the MidEast, anyhow, so what do we care whatever what is left of them will think? And our allies can go to hell because we're Americans, and, by definition, America does no wrong. Right.

Originally Posted by iamthewalrus109

Finally, in regards to the UN's standards of a "just war" are simply outdated and irrelevant in today's context. These standards are just as irrelevant as the Leauge of Nations standards were in 1933. This goes for the Geneva standards as well. We are fighting an enemy that recognizes nothing but Allah. Western conventions, and civilities are only going to end up getting us all killed. There needs to be some sort of logical and coherent suspension of these "play nice" rules to root out this plauge on humanity, once and for all.

-Walrus

"Sweet is war to him who knows it not" - Pindar, Fragment, 110 (500 B.C.) Again, these are not just the UN's standards of a "just war". They are also (in theory, anyhow) a part of US standards, as well, and derive from the thinking of various statesmen and philosophers going back to Clausewitz and Grotius (who wrote De Jure Belli ac Pacis in 1625) and as recently as 1998 when Schmitt formulated the Bellum Americanum. Soldiers are not just stupid fighting machines as you seem to imply. Upper level officers are well aware of the fact that when world opinion or the tides of war turn the wrong way, it is the commander in the field who will go before the world court, not the politicians. This was true in recent history in the war crimes trials in the wake of the Rwandan and Kosevo conflicts.

Your desired course of action for some US commander is both inhumanitarian, illegal, and impossible.

[Undertoad]

It seems all sides will spin it however they like anyway; one can, for example, do a remarkable job of avoiding civilian casualities and still have whining, frightened people wringing their hands over invented ones. Kill them all or kill only the bad ones, the argument will be the same. So I'm with Walrus; separate politics from war, both will be more effective for it.

[jaguar]

So I'm with Walrus; separate politics from war, both will be more effective for it.

Tell me when you get to the 21st century. War has always been a political tool, to try and separate the two is foolish, to attempt to do so in the this day and age, where the relationship between political machinations and military muscle has never been closer is silly. The way in which forces operate is dictated by the environment they operate in, to try and disconnect it is to deny reality. Asymmetrical warfare is not a new concept, while the realities of it are only starting to hit home to the armchair crowd there are enough papers and discussions on the topic to fill a stadium, if there was a better way of doing it that was accepted by the US military establishment, they would be doing so.

Furthermore, this isn't world war two. This isn't the US in shining armour rescuing the world for fascism, this is, really, a morally bankrupt conflict, better than Vietnam only by virtue of scale. The forces aligned against the US are fighting in essence a downhill battle, they only have to destroy. While Hearts and Minds has become yet another addition to the political lexicon it doesn't yet seem to have sunk in. The British forces managed to hold a peace in soft hats though engagement and understanding, the US tries to win by force. Guess who is doing a better job.

The funny thing noone seems to be mentioning is that the US does not want 'free and fair' elections in Iraq. It'd be a disaster, Shia hardliners in power, Sunnis up in arms and the Kurds threatening to go off and form their own state properly. I'm looking with trepidation and what kind of dodgy dealings they're going to do to pull that off without a disaster.

[Undertoad]

Nothing like a little whining and frightened hand-wringing over invented dangers to underscore my point.

If you're scared, get a dog.

[iamthewalrus109]

In response to Marchikos response: Well your right it may be immoral and wrong, but at some point after sustained casualties and zero results, I think there will be dissent on tactics. I by no means advocate scorched earth tactics, please marchiko, you read too much into my comments. I simply think it's time for a commander to continue when it's ammeable to do as such. My case in point is the ceasing of the initial foray into Fallujah, which was stopped by Bremner.

Now I'm hoping that after this election we have a more effective war effort in Iraq. Now that Bush doesn't have to worry about winning and we have 4 years I hope something is done. Pulling out will only embolden the terrorists, and hostile or semi-hostile states to assume we are on the retreat. They'll beat the hell out of us in a trade war or be working a way to get surretripous agents through our borders, regardless it's either now or never. Sitting and bitching about the Geneva convention or delveing into the ramblings of the diplomacy set isn't going to help us now.

As far as Reagan is concerned, Iraq's build up was deemed necessary at the time. I think we have learned our lesson, or maybe we haven't, point being that was then this is now. There are true stakes for the future of Western civilization as we know it. It's too late to close up shop and hope that by reconginzing Western style laws and edicts we can appease the zealots out to kill all of us.

-Walrus