Wars And Their Aftermath
#21
12-25-2004, 01:23 PM
#22
12-25-2004, 03:15 PM
Wars And Their Aftermath
this military historian was in todays paper.
Army Historian Cites Lack of Postwar Plan
Major Calls Effort in Iraq 'Mediocre'
By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 25, 2004; Page A01
The U.S. military invaded Iraq without a formal plan for occupying and stabilizing the country and this high-level failure continues to undercut what has been a "mediocre" Army effort there, an Army historian and strategist has concluded.
"There was no Phase IV plan" for occupying Iraq after the combat phase, writes Maj. Isaiah Wilson III, who served as an official historian of the campaign and later as a war planner in Iraq. While a variety of government offices had considered the possible situations that would follow a U.S. victory, Wilson writes, no one produced an actual document laying out a strategy to consolidate the victory after major combat operations ended.
Looking at the chaos that followed the defeat of the Saddam Hussein regime, a military officer's study says, "The United States, its Army and its coalition of the willing have been playing catch-up ever since." (Michael Robinson-chavez -- The Washington Post)
"While there may have been 'plans' at the national level, and even within various agencies within the war zone, none of these 'plans' operationalized the problem beyond regime collapse" -- that is, laid out how U.S. forces would be moved and structured, Wilson writes in an essay that has been delivered at several academic conferences but not published. "There was no adequate operational plan for stability operations and support operations."
Similar criticisms have been made before, but until now they have not been stated so authoritatively and publicly by a military insider positioned to be familiar with top-secret planning. During the period in question, from April to June 2003, Wilson was a researcher for the Army's Operation Iraqi Freedom Study Group. Then, from July 2003 to March 2004, he was the chief war planner for the 101st Airborne Division, which was stationed in northern Iraq.
A copy of Wilson's study as presented at Cornell University in October was obtained by The Washington Post.
As a result of the failure to produce a plan, Wilson asserts, the U.S. military lost the dominant position in Iraq in the summer of 2003 and has been scrambling to recover ever since. "In the two to three months of ambiguous transition, U.S. forces slowly lost the momentum and the initiative . . . gained over an off-balanced enemy," he writes. "The United States, its Army and its coalition of the willing have been playing catch-up ever since."
It was only in November 2003, seven months after the fall of Baghdad, that U.S. occupation authorities produced a formal "Phase IV" plan for stability operations, Wilson reports. Phase I covers preparation for combat, followed by initial operations, Phase II, and combat, Phase III. Post-combat operations are called Phase IV.
Many in the Army have blamed Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other top Pentagon civilians for the unexpectedly difficult occupation of Iraq, but Wilson reserves his toughest criticism for Army commanders who, he concludes, failed to grasp the strategic situation in Iraq and so not did not plan properly for victory. He concludes that those who planned the war suffered from "stunted learning and a reluctance to adapt."
Army commanders still misunderstand the strategic problem they face and therefore are still pursuing a flawed approach, writes Wilson, who is scheduled to teach at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point next year. "Plainly stated, the 'western coalition' failed, and continues to fail, to see Operation Iraqi Freedom in its fullness," he asserts.
"Reluctance in even defining the situation . . . is perhaps the most telling indicator of a collective cognitive dissidence on part of the U.S. Army to recognize a war of rebellion, a people's war, even when they were fighting it," he comments.
Because of this failure, Wilson concludes, the U.S. military remains "perhaps in peril of losing the 'war,' even after supposedly winning it."
Overall, he grades the U.S. military performance in Iraq as "mediocre."
Wilson's essay amounts to an indictment of the education and performance of senior U.S. officials involved in the war. "U.S. war planners, practitioners and the civilian leadership conceived of the war far too narrowly" and tended to think of operations after the invasion "as someone else's mission," he says. In fact, Wilson says, those later operations were critical because they were needed to win the war rather than just decapitate Saddam Hussein's government.
Air Force Capt. Chris Karns, a spokesman for the U.S. Central Command, which as the U.S. military headquarters for the Middle East oversaw planning for the war in Iraq, said, "A formal Phase IV plan did exist." He said he could not explain how Wilson came to a different conclusion.
Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks, who as chief of the Central Command led the war planning in 2002 and 2003, states in his recent memoir, "American Soldier," that throughout the planning for the invasion of Iraq, Phase IV stability operations were discussed. Occupation problems "commanded hours and days of discussion and debate among CENTCOM planners and Washington officials," he adds. At another point, he states, "I was confident in the Phase IV plan."
Asked about other officers' reaction to his essay, Wilson said in an e-mail Monday, "What active-duty feedback I have received (from military officers attending the conferences) has been relatively positive," with "general agreement with the premises I offer in the work."
He said he has no plans to publish the essay, in part because he would expect difficulty in getting the Army's approval, but said he did not object to having it written about. "I think this is something that has to get out, so it can be considered," he said in a telephone interview. "There actually is something we can fix here, in terms of operational planning."
In his analysis of U.S. military operations in 2003 in northern Iraq, Wilson also touches on another continuing criticism of the Bush administration's handling of Iraq -- the number of troops there. "The scarcity of available 'combat power' . . . greatly complicated the situation," he states.
Wilson contends that a lack of sufficient troops was a consequence of the earlier, larger problem of failing to understand that prevailing in Iraq involved more than just removing Hussein. "This overly simplistic conception of the 'war' led to a cascading undercutting of the war effort: too few troops, too little coordination with civilian and governmental/non-governmental agencies . . . and too little allotted time to achieve 'success,' " he writes.
Army Historian Cites Lack of Postwar Plan
Major Calls Effort in Iraq 'Mediocre'
By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 25, 2004; Page A01
The U.S. military invaded Iraq without a formal plan for occupying and stabilizing the country and this high-level failure continues to undercut what has been a "mediocre" Army effort there, an Army historian and strategist has concluded.
"There was no Phase IV plan" for occupying Iraq after the combat phase, writes Maj. Isaiah Wilson III, who served as an official historian of the campaign and later as a war planner in Iraq. While a variety of government offices had considered the possible situations that would follow a U.S. victory, Wilson writes, no one produced an actual document laying out a strategy to consolidate the victory after major combat operations ended.
Looking at the chaos that followed the defeat of the Saddam Hussein regime, a military officer's study says, "The United States, its Army and its coalition of the willing have been playing catch-up ever since." (Michael Robinson-chavez -- The Washington Post)
"While there may have been 'plans' at the national level, and even within various agencies within the war zone, none of these 'plans' operationalized the problem beyond regime collapse" -- that is, laid out how U.S. forces would be moved and structured, Wilson writes in an essay that has been delivered at several academic conferences but not published. "There was no adequate operational plan for stability operations and support operations."
Similar criticisms have been made before, but until now they have not been stated so authoritatively and publicly by a military insider positioned to be familiar with top-secret planning. During the period in question, from April to June 2003, Wilson was a researcher for the Army's Operation Iraqi Freedom Study Group. Then, from July 2003 to March 2004, he was the chief war planner for the 101st Airborne Division, which was stationed in northern Iraq.
A copy of Wilson's study as presented at Cornell University in October was obtained by The Washington Post.
As a result of the failure to produce a plan, Wilson asserts, the U.S. military lost the dominant position in Iraq in the summer of 2003 and has been scrambling to recover ever since. "In the two to three months of ambiguous transition, U.S. forces slowly lost the momentum and the initiative . . . gained over an off-balanced enemy," he writes. "The United States, its Army and its coalition of the willing have been playing catch-up ever since."
It was only in November 2003, seven months after the fall of Baghdad, that U.S. occupation authorities produced a formal "Phase IV" plan for stability operations, Wilson reports. Phase I covers preparation for combat, followed by initial operations, Phase II, and combat, Phase III. Post-combat operations are called Phase IV.
Many in the Army have blamed Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other top Pentagon civilians for the unexpectedly difficult occupation of Iraq, but Wilson reserves his toughest criticism for Army commanders who, he concludes, failed to grasp the strategic situation in Iraq and so not did not plan properly for victory. He concludes that those who planned the war suffered from "stunted learning and a reluctance to adapt."
Army commanders still misunderstand the strategic problem they face and therefore are still pursuing a flawed approach, writes Wilson, who is scheduled to teach at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point next year. "Plainly stated, the 'western coalition' failed, and continues to fail, to see Operation Iraqi Freedom in its fullness," he asserts.
"Reluctance in even defining the situation . . . is perhaps the most telling indicator of a collective cognitive dissidence on part of the U.S. Army to recognize a war of rebellion, a people's war, even when they were fighting it," he comments.
Because of this failure, Wilson concludes, the U.S. military remains "perhaps in peril of losing the 'war,' even after supposedly winning it."
Overall, he grades the U.S. military performance in Iraq as "mediocre."
Wilson's essay amounts to an indictment of the education and performance of senior U.S. officials involved in the war. "U.S. war planners, practitioners and the civilian leadership conceived of the war far too narrowly" and tended to think of operations after the invasion "as someone else's mission," he says. In fact, Wilson says, those later operations were critical because they were needed to win the war rather than just decapitate Saddam Hussein's government.
Air Force Capt. Chris Karns, a spokesman for the U.S. Central Command, which as the U.S. military headquarters for the Middle East oversaw planning for the war in Iraq, said, "A formal Phase IV plan did exist." He said he could not explain how Wilson came to a different conclusion.
Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks, who as chief of the Central Command led the war planning in 2002 and 2003, states in his recent memoir, "American Soldier," that throughout the planning for the invasion of Iraq, Phase IV stability operations were discussed. Occupation problems "commanded hours and days of discussion and debate among CENTCOM planners and Washington officials," he adds. At another point, he states, "I was confident in the Phase IV plan."
Asked about other officers' reaction to his essay, Wilson said in an e-mail Monday, "What active-duty feedback I have received (from military officers attending the conferences) has been relatively positive," with "general agreement with the premises I offer in the work."
He said he has no plans to publish the essay, in part because he would expect difficulty in getting the Army's approval, but said he did not object to having it written about. "I think this is something that has to get out, so it can be considered," he said in a telephone interview. "There actually is something we can fix here, in terms of operational planning."
In his analysis of U.S. military operations in 2003 in northern Iraq, Wilson also touches on another continuing criticism of the Bush administration's handling of Iraq -- the number of troops there. "The scarcity of available 'combat power' . . . greatly complicated the situation," he states.
Wilson contends that a lack of sufficient troops was a consequence of the earlier, larger problem of failing to understand that prevailing in Iraq involved more than just removing Hussein. "This overly simplistic conception of the 'war' led to a cascading undercutting of the war effort: too few troops, too little coordination with civilian and governmental/non-governmental agencies . . . and too little allotted time to achieve 'success,' " he writes.
#23
12-25-2004, 10:19 PM
Wars And Their Aftermath
Originally posted by: hondabuster
"Do we let the barbarians take control of the worlds primary oil supplies??"
If they get their way,... bush, cheney and rummy, and their big oil friends are trying very hard to.
Now that i reread your post...are these the barbarians, you were referring to?
"Do we let the barbarians take control of the worlds primary oil supplies??"
If they get their way,... bush, cheney and rummy, and their big oil friends are trying very hard to.
Now that i reread your post...are these the barbarians, you were referring to?
The BARBARIANS I'm refering to 'Hondabuster' are the Islamic extremists who think that Terrorism is a wonderful and splendid thing......who demand the implimentation of brutal and BARBARIC social dictums......who HATE all societies and peoples that are non-Islamic (the Infidels)......who teaches their children in school (boys only because girls and woman are not allowed to be educated) that everything Western is evil and that the USA is "The Great Satan"......the BARBARIANS are the ones who blew up the World Trade Center in 1993......the BARBARIANS are the ones who blew up American Embasies in Africa........the BARBARIANS are the ones who blew up the USS Cole.......the BARBARIANS are the ones who blew up the nightclub in Indonisia.........the BARBARIANS are the ones who have performed so many other acts of terrorism including flying airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon killing thousands of innocent Americans........just like YOU.
The BARBARIANS 'Hondabuster' are the backward Islamic religious fan atics who see nothing but their own ideals and self interests and have not done anything productive for society or the betterment of mankind for centuries.
The BARBARIANS 'Hondabuster' are bound and determined to jamb their BARBARIC dictums down the throats of the rest of the world through terrorism or whatever means possible until THEY are in total and complete control of Petroleumland.
Does THAT clear up your 'foggyness' 'Hondabuster' on just who the >>>BARBARIANS<<< are???
#24
12-25-2004, 10:27 PM
#25
12-25-2004, 11:48 PM
Wars And Their Aftermath
<<<<The BARBARIANS I'm refering to 'Hondabuster' are the Islamic extremists who think that Terrorism is a wonderful and splendid thing......who demand the implimentation of brutal and BARBARIC social dictums......who HATE all societies and peoples that are non-Islamic (the Infidels)......who teaches their children in school (boys only because girls and woman are not allowed to be educated) that everything Western is evil and that the USA is "The Great Satan"......the BARBARIANS are the ones who blew up the World Trade Center in 1993......the BARBARIANS are the ones who blew up American Embasies in Africa........the BARBARIANS are the ones who blew up the USS Cole.......the BARBARIANS are the ones who blew up the nightclub in Indonisia.........the BARBARIANS are the ones who have performed so many other acts of terrorism including flying airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon killing thousands of innocent Americans........just like YOU.
The BARBARIANS 'Hondabuster' are the backward Islamic religious fan atics who see nothing but their own ideals and self interests and have not done anything productive for society or the betterment of mankind for centuries.
The BARBARIANS 'Hondabuster' are bound and determined to jamb their BARBARIC dictums down the throats of the rest of the world through terrorism or whatever means possible until THEY are in total and complete control of Petroleumland.
Does THAT clear up your 'foggyness' 'Hondabuster' on just who the >>>BARBARIANS<<< are???>>>
I don't see any reference to Iraq, at least before before we stirred up that hornet's nest......
The BARBARIANS 'Hondabuster' are the backward Islamic religious fan atics who see nothing but their own ideals and self interests and have not done anything productive for society or the betterment of mankind for centuries.
The BARBARIANS 'Hondabuster' are bound and determined to jamb their BARBARIC dictums down the throats of the rest of the world through terrorism or whatever means possible until THEY are in total and complete control of Petroleumland.
Does THAT clear up your 'foggyness' 'Hondabuster' on just who the >>>BARBARIANS<<< are???>>>
I don't see any reference to Iraq, at least before before we stirred up that hornet's nest......
#26
12-26-2004, 02:05 AM
Wars And Their Aftermath
Originally posted by: Backinthesaddleagain
And Ohhh yeh.......BTW.......'Hondabuster'........MERRY CHRISTMAS........my fellow infidel.
And Ohhh yeh.......BTW.......'Hondabuster'........MERRY CHRISTMAS........my fellow infidel.
Its a chicken and egg thing. Which came first? America's treatment of the world...and how the world reacts to it. Or did this just come out of the blue on 9-11?
Anyone who is a student of history, or isnt an american citizen, knows of the injustice of america.
In case you arent aware, of the truth, heres a couple of sites , which do a good job of explaining why america is so hated accross the world.
I happen to believe things dont happen in a vacumn. Theres reasons why people fight back...sometime we even throw the first blow.
Oh ya, my inference of barbarian...to the current administration. Are they not responsible for pushing aside the geneva conventions, which every civilized nation follows? Thats barbaric in my dictionary, and in the dictionary of people all over the world.
website
2nd website
#27
12-26-2004, 12:01 PM
Wars And Their Aftermath
Why do you focus on how BAD America is and try to portray American as being BAD???
America is not perfect........but it is THE MOST benevelent and philithropic nation on the face of the Earth.......by a FAR margin.
Why is it that you don't mention that???
We are also the worlds only superpower and there are responsibilities that get thrust upon us to address because we (and usually Great Britian) are the only ones with the power and fortitute to take action. There are many who will hate us simply because of that........because we ARE the only only superpower and they resent us for that regardless of the fact that we are benevolent, philithropic and stand for Liberty and Freedom of all peoples.
If one should so choose.......they could find literally REAMS of information, case studies and documentation of all of the GOOD that America has done over the course of it's short history. I assure you 'Hondabuster' that the mountains of good would certainly make your little press clippings and anti-America websites seem quite miniscule and very tawdry by comparision. When one views the colossal achivements and accomplishments of America for the sake of all peoples in addition to our unequalled benevolence and philithropy, I think it becomes quite evident what this country is all about.
So 'Hondabuster'........I'll repeat my intial question...........Why do focus on how BAD America is and try to portray America as being BAD???
America is not perfect........but it is THE MOST benevelent and philithropic nation on the face of the Earth.......by a FAR margin.
Why is it that you don't mention that???
We are also the worlds only superpower and there are responsibilities that get thrust upon us to address because we (and usually Great Britian) are the only ones with the power and fortitute to take action. There are many who will hate us simply because of that........because we ARE the only only superpower and they resent us for that regardless of the fact that we are benevolent, philithropic and stand for Liberty and Freedom of all peoples.
If one should so choose.......they could find literally REAMS of information, case studies and documentation of all of the GOOD that America has done over the course of it's short history. I assure you 'Hondabuster' that the mountains of good would certainly make your little press clippings and anti-America websites seem quite miniscule and very tawdry by comparision. When one views the colossal achivements and accomplishments of America for the sake of all peoples in addition to our unequalled benevolence and philithropy, I think it becomes quite evident what this country is all about.
So 'Hondabuster'........I'll repeat my intial question...........Why do focus on how BAD America is and try to portray America as being BAD???
#28
12-26-2004, 01:57 PM
Wars And Their Aftermath
Seens to me, your posts seem to only find fault with others. That all americans and their government , do no wrong. Im just trying to add balance, to discussion. There are others who read this thread, and some of them would like to read facts (facts which arent taught in school), in response the the unreasonable insistance that we are faultless, and how unreasonable it is for others to hate us.
Im willing to admit , that in our past, our country did some things right.
We as americans need to take responsibility for our government, and see to it the right things are done. Being quick to war, and being in denile of our past, doesnt sit well with the other 5 billion people on the planet.
Its been said before...what goes around...comes around. Paybacks are hell, and were recieving one now.
Its important to know history, and the reasons why people hate us. And seeing how the propaganda machine, wont allow the truth to be taught in school, Ill take the libery of informing the unknowing.
If we as americans become a bit more humble, and less arrogant, and learn we have to get long with others, we wouldnt be having all these people hate us.
If you are willing to acknowledge, that we are to blame for our messes, im willing to acknowledge weve done some good.
Im willing to admit , that in our past, our country did some things right.
We as americans need to take responsibility for our government, and see to it the right things are done. Being quick to war, and being in denile of our past, doesnt sit well with the other 5 billion people on the planet.
Its been said before...what goes around...comes around. Paybacks are hell, and were recieving one now.
Its important to know history, and the reasons why people hate us. And seeing how the propaganda machine, wont allow the truth to be taught in school, Ill take the libery of informing the unknowing.
If we as americans become a bit more humble, and less arrogant, and learn we have to get long with others, we wouldnt be having all these people hate us.
If you are willing to acknowledge, that we are to blame for our messes, im willing to acknowledge weve done some good.
#29
12-26-2004, 03:10 PM
#30
12-26-2004, 09:56 PM
Wars And Their Aftermath
<<< I will not ever let myself get dragged down the road you seem to be going to blame America inordinately for the ills of the world. >>>
You're missing the point entirely. No offense, but when some of us see our country undertake something that is as huge financially, militarily, and historically as the Iraq conflict.....Something that to us, appears to be completely asinine, with no possible good outcome, done in a completely irresponsible manner, and blundered over years.....Some of us.....Beleive that it is our responsibility to point it out.....Our forefathers demanded that the success of our republic requires a distrust for leaders from it's citzens and a healthy dose of outspokeness against idiotic undertakings.....
If you don't understand this, you were not paying attention in history class as a kid, sorry...
Another thing, I feel many of us are very forceful in our opinions on this topic for one reason. Every time I walk away from this forum, or keep quiet in real life. I see supporters of this war begin High-fiving and celebrating the trivial propaganda supporting the war....Not giving any real thought to the consequences of this war( Tens of thousands of dead Iraqis, Breeding a whole new generation of Al Queda, Deficites that our kids already owe over $40,000 each, alliances being made between Iran and China/Rusia and China both caused by a need to counter US aggression, A sinking dollar being sold in mass by those in the world community who see no other way to vote against our war besides selling US dolars, rising gold, rising oil prices) There are tons of implications when you **** off a majority of nations, especially when you conduct it like a bunch of blundering cowboys with no regard towards outside opinions....
It's too important to stay quiet.....This is not a sport, nor a pep-rally....It is the lives of our soldiers, it is our countries standing in the world, it is the economic future of our children! $200,000,000,000 is nothing to take lightly. The cost of the Iraq war already exceeds 5 years of US social Security payments in total, for crying out loud............
This war will bite us in the azz, in more ways than one, I hope all of you pro-Bush people remember that you were compliant in it when the doo hits the fan...
You're missing the point entirely. No offense, but when some of us see our country undertake something that is as huge financially, militarily, and historically as the Iraq conflict.....Something that to us, appears to be completely asinine, with no possible good outcome, done in a completely irresponsible manner, and blundered over years.....Some of us.....Beleive that it is our responsibility to point it out.....Our forefathers demanded that the success of our republic requires a distrust for leaders from it's citzens and a healthy dose of outspokeness against idiotic undertakings.....
If you don't understand this, you were not paying attention in history class as a kid, sorry...
Another thing, I feel many of us are very forceful in our opinions on this topic for one reason. Every time I walk away from this forum, or keep quiet in real life. I see supporters of this war begin High-fiving and celebrating the trivial propaganda supporting the war....Not giving any real thought to the consequences of this war( Tens of thousands of dead Iraqis, Breeding a whole new generation of Al Queda, Deficites that our kids already owe over $40,000 each, alliances being made between Iran and China/Rusia and China both caused by a need to counter US aggression, A sinking dollar being sold in mass by those in the world community who see no other way to vote against our war besides selling US dolars, rising gold, rising oil prices) There are tons of implications when you **** off a majority of nations, especially when you conduct it like a bunch of blundering cowboys with no regard towards outside opinions....
It's too important to stay quiet.....This is not a sport, nor a pep-rally....It is the lives of our soldiers, it is our countries standing in the world, it is the economic future of our children! $200,000,000,000 is nothing to take lightly. The cost of the Iraq war already exceeds 5 years of US social Security payments in total, for crying out loud............
This war will bite us in the azz, in more ways than one, I hope all of you pro-Bush people remember that you were compliant in it when the doo hits the fan...