The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Army's History of Iraq After Hussein Faults Pentagon

By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 29, 2008; A03

A new Army history of the service's performance in Iraq immediately after the fall of Saddam Hussein faults military and civilian leaders for their planning for the war's aftermath, and it suggests that the Pentagon's current way of using troops is breaking the Army National Guard and Army Reserve.

The study, "On Point II: Transition to the New Campaign," is an unclassified and unhindered look at U.S. Army operations in Iraq from May 2003 to January 2005. That critical era of the war has drawn widespread criticism because of a failure to anticipate the rise of an Iraqi insurgency and because policymakers provided too few U.S. troops and no strategy to maintain order after Iraq's decades-old regime was overthrown.

Donald P. Wright and Col. Timothy R. Reese, who authored the report along with the Army's Contemporary Operations Study Team, conclude that U.S. commanders and civilian leaders were too focused on only the military victory and lacked a realistic vision of what Iraq would look like following that triumph.

"The transition to a new campaign was not well thought out, planned for, and prepared for before it began," write Wright and Reese, historians at the Army's Combat Studies Institute at Fort Leavenworth, Kan. "Additionally, the assumptions about the nature of post-Saddam Iraq on which the transition was planned proved to be largely incorrect."

The results of those errors, they add, were that U.S. forces and their allies lacked an operational and strategic plan for success in Iraq, as well as the resources to carry out a plan.

Their analysis is to be released tomorrow, but the 696-page document was posted last night on the Army's Combined Arms Center's Web site. The New York Times first reported the study's findings yesterday.

The study also calls into question the focus of then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on issues such as a modernization of the U.S. military, rather than on the war.

"The intense desire to continue DOD's transformation to smaller and lighter forces, to implement a perceived revolution in military affairs in the information age, and to savor the euphoria over seemingly easy successes in Afghanistan using those techniques seemed to outweigh searching through the past for insights into the future," the study reports.

It also reports that Army National Guard and Reserve soldiers have demonstrated in Iraq and Afghanistan that they "are a fully capable, and indeed, an absolutely essential part of the Army." But it warns that "the price paid by reservists and communities to sustain the long and repetitive mobilizations, however, may not be sustainable in the future.

policymakers provided too few U.S. troops and no strategy to maintain order

"The transition to a new campaign was not well thought out, planned for, and prepared for before it began,"

the assumptions about the nature on which the transition was planned proved to be largely incorrect."

The results of those errors, they add, were that U.S. forces and their allies lacked an operational and strategic plan for success as well as the resources to carry out a plan.

See

http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/CSI/OP2.asp

to order or download a copy of the study.

GSPODS wrote:

policymakers provided too few U.S. troops and no strategy to maintain order

"The transition to a new campaign was not well thought out, planned for, and prepared for before it began,"

the assumptions about the nature on which the transition was planned proved to be largely incorrect."

The results of those errors, they add, were that U.S. forces and their allies lacked an operational and strategic plan for success as well as the resources to carry out a plan.

This could have described Korea, VietNam and several other mistakes in the history of the U.S. military. We do not learn from history and are therefore doomed to repeat it.

Bob 0119 wrote:

GSPODS wrote:

policymakers provided too few U.S. troops and no strategy to maintain order

"The transition to a new campaign was not well thought out, planned for, and prepared for before it began,"

the assumptions about the nature on which the transition was planned proved to be largely incorrect."

The results of those errors, they add, were that U.S. forces and their allies lacked an operational and strategic plan for success as well as the resources to carry out a plan.

This could have described Korea, VietNam and several other mistakes in the history of the U.S. military. We do not learn from history and are therefore doomed to repeat it.

Kind of apples to oranges here since we never came close to toppling the regimes in either of those wars.

If I understand things correctly, a large part of the end-game in Iraq relied on the Iraqis to keep showing up for work as police officers, soldiers, utility workers, mail carriers, etc. and that we hadn't counted on most of them to just quit.

I'm not sure what history they would have had to follow on this (not being a historian on Iraq, and how many times it's been conquered) but the only time I can think of where we toppled a regime was in Germany near the end of WWII, and even with the fall of Adolph Hitler, the Nazi's continued to run most of the country's infrastructure until they could be replaced.

Though I could be wrong.

Bob 0119 wrote:This isn't a war on religion. We haven't been trying to "convert" anyone in Iraq or Afghanistan to Christianity. The few soldiers that have been caught attempting to do so, have been disciplined.

If we were trying to eliminate the muslim religion, than the first thing we would have done is vaporize all the Mosques. While some have been damaged, and some destroyed, it's pretty clear that we are making an effort NOT to destroy them.

The Muslim religion no more teaches terrorism than the Christian religion teaches racial bias.

Believing that the people of Iraq and Afghanistan are all terrorists is akin to believing that everyone in the Southern United States is a member of the KKK.

If we soley relied on history for our battle plans we would have had serious trouble in the first Gulf War. The reason we were so successful is because we came in through the desert. Saddam wasn't expecting that because no army had ever successfully done so. So instead of facing his forces head on, we flanked them by doing something never before attempted in history.

GSPODS wrote:

Bob 0119 wrote:This isn't a war on religion. We haven't been trying to "convert" anyone in Iraq or Afghanistan to Christianity. The few soldiers that have been caught attempting to do so, have been disciplined.

If we were trying to eliminate the muslim religion, than the first thing we would have done is vaporize all the Mosques. While some have been damaged, and some destroyed, it's pretty clear that we are making an effort NOT to destroy them.

The Muslim religion no more teaches terrorism than the Christian religion teaches racial bias.

Believing that the people of Iraq and Afghanistan are all terrorists is akin to believing that everyone in the Southern United States is a member of the KKK.

If we soley relied on history for our battle plans we would have had serious trouble in the first Gulf War. The reason we were so successful is because we came in through the desert. Saddam wasn't expecting that because no army had ever successfully done so. So instead of facing his forces head on, we flanked them by doing something never before attempted in history.

This is a war on religion, but the President can't say "This is a war against extremist Muslim factions. He has to say things like "War On Terror", "War against Al Queda", "Enemy Combatants", etc. There is no doubt or question from anyone that ALL of the "enemies of freedom", (another favorite Bush expression), are Muslim Extremists. We are not trying to eliminate orthodox Muslims. They are not only one of the most peacable religions, but also one of the largest. Any evidence of the United States attempting to take out all of the Muslim religion would likely result in World War III. So, thank God even Bush isn't that far gone from the will of the American People.

As far as the desert tactics are concerned, there was a German General named Erwin Rommel, a.k.a. "The Desert Fox", who taught the world everything there is to know about war strategy in the desert. Although the equipment has improved, the tactics have remained the same. Had Hitler actually listened to Rommel, we probably would have at least one-half of the world speaking German today.

"Terrorism" is a matter of perspective.
We think those who would attack us are terrorists.
Much of the rest of the world thinks the United States is the kingpin of terrorist nations. For one thing, we always stick our nose into the affairs of foreign nations. Not every foreign nation appreciates that. A large part of the reason for many Middle Eastern nations disliking America and Americans is our baseless defense of Israel. But that is another discussion.

Bob 0119 wrote:
We are trying to do the same with Iran and look, they are talking about the nuclear annihalation of Israel.

So when is it appropriate to take action? After they have fulfilled their promise and wiped Israel off the face of the Earth?

So the answer to all of this is just to sit back and mind our own business? Now who's not learning from history. Maybe next we'll start moth-balling our military since we won't need them under our new isolationist policy.

"peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."

Bob 0119 wrote:The nuclear annihilation of ANY country wouldn't be doing anybody, any favors.

So, we sit back, and watch Iran wipe Israel from the Earth as they promised and then what? We condemn them, but still do nothing?

Wait for them to bomb someone else?

Let someone else bomb them? Then let someone else bomb that person for bombing Iran? Meanwhile, we just sit back and hope it doesn't make it's way around to us?

Unlike most other nuclear armed countries, the Iranians have not exactly shown any kind of responsible restraint. They have said fairly outright that when they have a nuclear weapon, they intend to use it.

Of course, they also said that we made up the horrors of the Nazi Concentration Camps.

The only difference between Iraq and Iran at this point is that Iraq actually did use WMD's (in the chemical attack on Halabja, one of Iraq's own cities) while Iran only threatens to do so.