On October 3, Blogcritics published my article titled, Why Do Politicians (of Both Parties) Think They Know More About Fighting a War Than the Military? One of its themes was how politicians have more and more gotten involved in how a war is to be fought. In the article I cited Carl Philipp Gottfried von Clausewitz and what he said about war being an extension of politics.
Well, now we have proof that both von Clausewitz and I (though I am not comparing myself to von Clausewitz) are correct.
On Friday, October 21, 2011, President Barack Obama declared the Iraq war to be over. Obama announced, "After nearly nine years, America's war in Iraq will be over." He did not acknowledge the negotiations with Iraq about whether to keep U.S. forces there. The Iraq war, first started during the George W. Bush administration to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction (WMD), lasted nearly nine years and killed nearly 4,500 Americans since the U.S. invaded Iraq in March, 2003.
What about Iraq's future without U.S. forces? As the U.S. withdraws its soldiers from Iraq, Iraqis could revert to settling their political disputes in the streets, says Diyala province Governor Abdul-Nasser al-Mahdwe. And there is still the Sunni, Shi'ite, and Kurdish population problem. For example, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Shi'ite-led governing coalition took Diyala deputy governor, Mohammad Hussein al-Joubouri, a Sunni, and nothing has been heard since.
Does Obama think, just because he made an announcement that U.S. troops will be leaving Iraq by year's end, that fighting will cease, that Iran will cease its terrorist activities, and that all will be just "hunky dorey?" I don't think that even Obama is that naïve. If he is then this country is in REAL trouble.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Glenn Contrarian
Warren -
On October 3, Blogcritics published my article titled, Why Do Politicians (of Both Parties) Think They Know More About Fighting a War Than the Military?
Yes, and I promptly pointed out that you were ignoring the importance that logistics play in any war, that you were ignoring the lessons of history, and that you were implying that micromanagement and/or strategic incompetence was more to blame for our losses than logistics.
To my knowledge, you did not reply, at least not for the week or so that I checked back afterwards.
You and I are both retired military. I DO know and you SHOULD know the paramount importance that logistics plays in any war, and that if we can't break the logistics chain of the enemy, then it becomes damned near impossible to beat the enemy. Obama got saddled with one unwinnable war (thanks to the realities of logistics) and one war that was illegal by both international and American law since Dubya lied us into it.
The only possible winner in the Iraq war was Iran. Saddam Hussein provided a balance of power against Iran, but NOOOOO, Your Boy Dubya just HAD to go make a War President of himself...which was why even in the first week of his presidency, he held a meeting on the possibility of an invasion of Iraq!
So it was either we continue spending American blood and American treasure occupying Iraq with absolutely NO end in sight (thanks to Iran's decision to not fight us openly, but simply to cement their newfound Bush-given power base in Iraq., or we get the hell out of there.
So stop trying to use Iraq as an excuse to attack Obama. If you wanted to lay the blame where it belonged, you SHOULD be calling for war crimes tribunals for Bush, Cheney, and every other politician that lied us into Iraq in the first place!
2 - El Bicho
How much are you willing to have your taxes go up to pay for continuing in Iraq?
3 - Warren Beatty
Two points:
1. Logistics, as Glenn points out, is quite important in war. But, Glenn, logistics deals exclusively with tactics, not strategy. Logistics deals with how war-making materiel gets to the battle field, not about how it is used, which is strategy. Glenn, do you really think an unfettered military could not break any supply line?
2. Both articles delt ONLY with strategy, yet Glenn and El Bicho want to focus on tactics.
I challenge either of you to, on a strategic level, find fault with my logic.
BTW, Glenn, you make this statement: "even in the first week of his presidency, he held a meeting on the possibility of an invasion of Iraq!"
Can you provide a source, or it your opinion?
4 - jamminsue
Warren, you say: We can't be srue fighting will cease, that Iran will cease its terrorist activities.
First, Al-queda wasn't in Iraq until we attacked the country.
Second, Iraq will never resolve the awful problems that exist when the US is there, they have to do it themselves. They can and will, just not on your timeline.
5 - Glenn Contrarian
Warren -
But, Glenn, logistics deals exclusively with tactics, not strategy.
WRONG.
Field-Marshal Montgomery summed it up thus: "Strategy is the art of distributing and applying military means, such as armed forces and supplies, to fulfill the ends of policy. Tactics means the dispositions for, and control of, military forces and techniques in actual fighting. Put more shortly: strategy is the art of the conduct of war, tactics the art of fighting."
In other words, logistics is a strategic-level matter that enables actions on the tactical level. Without logistics, you have no maneuver, no supply, and not much hope of success in battle.
That said, Warren, I would not presume to teach you about non-Naval tactics - but yes, I do know a little bit about military strategy.
Glenn, do you really think an unfettered military could not break any supply line?
- Ho Chi Minh Trail.
- Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
- American invasion of Iraq.
- American invasion of Afghanistan.
There's many more examples of nations that tragically overestimated the capabilities of their lines of communication - Napoleon's and Hitler's invasions of Russia come to mind - but the above examples CLEARLY show that a nation's native insurgency whose lines of communication from across its borders cannot be cut can stand up to and sometimes even defeat a vastly overwhelming occupying force.
In other words, it doesn't matter what Obama did or did not do - the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were unwinnable from the start, for short of invading Pakistan and Iran, we could never cut the insurgents' lines of communication. The only reason we can leave Iraq with some small measure of stability is because the real winner of the Iraq war - Iran - felt no real need to continue supporting the insurgency because there was a majority-Shi'a government in place...which was what Iran wanted all along!
6 - Glenn Contrarian
And Warren -
BTW, Glenn, you make this statement: "even in the first week of his presidency, he held a meeting on the possibility of an invasion of Iraq!"
Can you provide a source, or it your opinion?
Oop! My bad! I was off by THREE DAYS! From CBS News' 60 Minutes:
And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.
"From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.
"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."
As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."
And that came up at this first meeting, says O'Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.
He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. "There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, 'Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,'" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.
He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.
"It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions," says Suskind. "On oil in Iraq."
7 - Zingzing
I thought all this was common knowledge by this point...
8 - El Bicho
No, I want to focus on how you are going to pay to enact that strategy. If that doesn't enter it, you are just blowing smoke
9 - Jordan Richardson
Warren, I don't see how you can divorce tactics from strategy. Can you explain?
10 - Glenn Contrarian
I'm really, really curious to see what Warren's reaction will be to his new understanding that yes, Dubya DID begin discussions about Iraq ten days after he took office.
Will he see the light that YES, Dubya knowingly and willingly lied us into an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation that posed NO clear and present danger to America?
Will he double down on blaming anybody but Dubya, or at least on refusing to hold Dubya accountable?
Will he refuse to address the issue by saying that it's too far in the past, that we should let bygones be bygones (never mind that it was the worst war crime committed by a president since Vietnam) and just pay attention to the guy who's presently in the White House?
Or will he simply ignore it and just write another article?
My guess is that it will be one of the latter two, since BC conservatives haven't shown much of a tendency to admit error no matter how obvious it is.
11 - Clavos
Will he see the light that YES, Dubya knowingly and willingly lied us into an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation that posed NO clear and present danger to America?
A grand old American tradition, dating back to the War of 1812, and running through the Spanish-American war, Korea, and Vietnam. In none of those countries was "America the beautiful" threatened.
In the latter, JFK and LBJ acted just the way GWB did, but with the complete cooperation of Congress.
More than 50K American lives would have been saved if Oswald had only acted sooner.
And, of course, later there are America's invasions of Grenada Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.
12 - Igor
Clavos seems to revel in war, mayhem and even assassination, viz., "... if Oswald had only acted sooner."
Actually, my understanding is that JFK was about to pull out of Vietnam, had he lived, and Oswalds effect was to throw the decision to the frail ego LBJ who was easily manipulated by the warriors.
13 - roger nowosielski
@12
Was that what he said?
14 - Clavos
Actually, my understanding is that JFK was about to pull out of Vietnam...
Well, your "understanding" is wrong. The fact is, JFK escalated American presence in Vietnam significantly, and at his death, had no intention of backing down. In 1961, he tripled the number of US troops in country, and tripled them again in 1962. As late as September of 1963, he is quoted as saying about America's commitment to Vietnam, "If we withdrew from Vietnam, the Communists would control Vietnam. Pretty soon, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Malaya, would go..."
The Democratic Party owns the Vietnam war. By the time Nixon came into power, the Dems had escalated US involvement in the war to the point that Nixon had no choice but to continue what they had so recklessly built.
15 - handyguy
Right, but your gutter level comment "if only Oswald had acted sooner" is pure bunk [besides being deliberately ugly and gross]. LBJ was the principal escalator of a war he knew was difficult/impossible to win. And JFK was more ambivalent than you allow. Sometimes you write BS just to stir up trouble cuz you're bored, I think.
16 - Dr Dreadful
'Does Obama think, just because he made an announcement that U.S. troops will be leaving Iraq by year's end, that fighting will cease, that Iran will cease its terrorist activities, and that all will be just "hunky dorey?"'
Warren, after the events of a couple of weeks ago I'm fairly confident that the Obama administration is well aware of Iran's belligerency.
And how confident can you really be that the cost of maintaining a military presence in Iraq (indefinitely) would be outweighed by the cost of an Iranian attack on the US?
17 - Tommy Mack
Some of you should know what a SOFA is. For those who have no military training, SOFA is an acronym for Status of Forces Agreement. That agreement between a sovereign nation and the US determines conditions by which US military personnel may operate and what the rules are. Things as simple as military dependents making too much noise during nap time (Italy) or accidentally touching the host nations colors (Turkey) can have dire consequences. Too much noise by your children, you go home. Touch the flag of Turkey, you go to a Turkish jail for a year.
There is nothing personal here. It is the SOFA with Iraq that precipitated the end to US military involvement there, not the president’s opinion of the matter or a temperamental recommendation by the Secretary of State.
Tommy
18 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
So by your references to the 1812 War, the Vietnam war, et al, are you excusing Dubya for knowingly and willingly lying us into Iraq?
And the Vietnam War, FYI, is not a clear-cut matter, as I'm sure you know. There is no one here who really knows who approved/initiated the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. We don't even know if Kennedy knew before his initial response that it was all a hoax, a fabricated attack just like the one that Hitler used to 'justify' his invasion of Poland. It wouldn't have been the first time that hawks in a nation's military fabricated an attack that forced the government's leaders into doing something stupid!
Furthermore, that was the time when the Cold War paranoia was at its worst - anyone (R or D) who showed any weakness against the Soviets and their allies would be quickly condemned and ostracized. Think about it - would a president today survive something like the Bay of Pigs, given the level of incompetency at all levels that was immediately obvious at the time! But was there a nationwide backlash against the Kennedy administration as a result of the Bay of Pigs? Some, but not so much, since it was all part of the ongoing Cold War.
Okay? So don't try to excuse Bush. He lied America into an even worse strategic mistake than Vietnam. Yes, we lost ten times as many of our troops in Vietnam, but the Vietnam War never came close to destroying our economy. The Iraq War did.
19 - Clavos
So by your references to the 1812 War, the Vietnam war, et al, are you excusing Dubya for knowingly and willingly lying us into Iraq?
Not even remotely.
No, I'm not excusing GWB. Not now, not ever -- for anything. I AM pointing out that the USA is an imperialistic, war-mongering nation that, unfortunately, has the power to dominate almost anywhere it decides to intervene, and a long line of presidents willing to do so, often without justification.
GWB is only one in a long line of rogue US presidents.
20 - Warren Beatty
First, I must ask: Glenn, are you for real? After my first strategy post, I thought that you were someone from Blogcritics thrown in to try to increase traffic. Now that you are back, still pitching hanging curve balls, I'm not so sure.
Anyway, regarding comment #1, we do NOT dsisagree on the importance of logistics. You say, "So stop trying to use Iraq as an excuse to attack Obama. If you wanted to lay the blame where it belonged, you SHOULD be calling for war crimes tribunals for Bush, Cheney, and every other politician that lied us into Iraq in the first place!" Assuming that what you say is true (a VERY big "assumption") then you had better call for war crimes tribunals for some prominent Democrats as well, as this source will illustrate. And, I may add, much of the "lying" took place before Bush took office.
Regarding comment #5, you quote Field Marshal Montgomery, and you further strengthen my point. Once gotten to the battlefield (logistics) how war materiel is USED can be tactical (a military decision) or strategic (a political decision). Look at the last line of Montgomery's quote: "Put more shortly: strategy is the art of the conduct of war, tactics the art of fighting."
You quote me: "Glenn, do you really think an unfettered military could not break any supply line?"
Then you cite four supply trails:
- Ho Chi Minh Trail.
- Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
- American invasion of Iraq.
- American invasion of Afghanistan.
Do you know the definition of "unfettered?" It means free or unrestrained. You cite four logistics trails where the military, because of political influence, was/is NOT free to break the enemy's supply line.
Regarding comment #6, you cite a 60 Minutes source. Is that the same 60 Minutes that aired Dan Rather's expose about George W. Bush falsifying (or having someone falsifiy) his flying records? Assuming 60 Minutes has any credibility (the subject for a future post), did you even bother to read the transcript? Look at these lines: ""From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic..." and "From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime."
So, Glenn, can we conclude that you are a supporter of (the late) Saddam Hussein? You can't have it both ways. Either you support the 60 Minutes source and Hussein staying in Iraq, or you don't.
Regarding comment #10, I must refer you to my responses to comments 1 and 5. And, son of a gun, I am logically responding, much to the displeasure of the rantings of Glenn.,
Regarding comment #18, I refer you again to my response to comment 1.
Regarding comment #9, Jordan, I never suggested that strategy can be divorced from tactics. I am suggesting that strategy can inhibit and/or restrain tactics.
Regarding comment #8, El Bicho, I never said anything about paying for anything.
Regarding comment #17, Tommy Mack, far too people know about SOFA, which is negotiated by politicians and has nothing to do with fighting a war (tactics).
21 - Dr Dreadful
Warren, there are at least two screaming fallacies in your response to Glenn, above.
First, poisoning the well. Just because Dan Rather presented false information about George W. Bush on 60 Minutes does not automatically make everything that 60 Minutes airs false.
Second, false dichotomy. It is possible for a person to have disapproved both of Saddam Hussein and his actions and of President Bush's eagerness to invade Iraq.
22 - roger nowosielski
Since they're screaming, they're also outrageous.
23 - Glenn Contrarian
Warren -
You're tap-dancing around, trying to justify what you said about strategy and tactics and the importance of logistics. I know better...and I suspect you know better, too, but are simply unwilling to own up to having been schooled on one of the most basic considerations in military strategy.
On your 60 Minutes rant, let me get this straight - you point out a couple of mistakes that 60 Minutes made over how many DECADES of newscasting, but you did NOT point out what happened to those individual newscasters who made those mistakes, did you? FYI, Dan Rather - then one of the most popular and most trusted newscasters - got CANNED. And the real kicker is that the issue that Dan Rather broadcast was NOT proven false, but simply could not be proven TRUE.
Now look at the news that's probably on your own television, and CERTAINLY is on the television of most hardcore conservatives - Fox News.
Tell me, Warren - how many outright lies - proven lies - did Glenn Beck have to tell before Fox News canned him? Do I really need to go to Politifact.org or Factcheck.org or (horrors!) mediamatters.org to point out a hundred or more outright lies and fabrications by Glenn Beck? Probably not - you (along with most of the rest of BC conservatives) will probably admit that Glenn Beck was looney-tunes.
BUT HERE'S THE RUB, Warren - Fox News did NOT get rid of Glenn Beck because he was telling lies and making crap up! They got rid of him because his ratings were tanking!
THAT is the difference, sir. Most of the time (not ALL, but MOST of the time) when someone on the left - or someone who is held to the standard of REAL journalistic integrity - does something wrong, they're called on it...not only by those on the Right, but by those on the left as well!
But when someone on the right screws up, it matters little what we on the left say, for those on the right circle the wagons and decry the attacks by the 'lamestream media'.
What happened when left-winger Wiener posted his junk on twitter to a young woman but did NOT have extramarital sex? He's gone!
What happened when right-winger David Vitter not only had extramarital sex with hookers, but also enjoyed wearing diapers in the process? He got re-elected! Heck, the ONLY way that one gets expelled from the right-wing fold is to either have homosexual (or underage) sex (and get caught), or to have the nerve to actually come out and say that conservative dogma is wrong on a particular issue!
But I'm just wasting my time here because you're not about to consider holding your right-wing echo chamber to the same standards of journalistic integrity that we on the left generally do for our own. You'll claim that's a lie, that we're just as bad...but one of the things I found back in the early 1990's during my journey out of the Republican party that yes, generally speaking, accurate and factual reporting IS more important to those on the left than those on the right.
24 - Warren Beatty
Regarding comment #21, Dr. Dreadful, you make two very cogent points. Let me see if I can point out the fallacies of your thoughts as they apply to these specific arguments and/or lines of reasoning.
First, regarding the 60 Minutes transcript, how do you KNOW that to be valid? You were not there, or if you were I will stand corrected. Once credibility is lost, it is lost forever and for all occasions. Just like a person caught in a lie, you can never again believe anything he says, even if it is the truth. 60 Minutes did, in fact, broadcast a demonstrable lie, so anything they say can now be discounted, even if what is being broadcast is truthful. Unless we are actually there, how can we tell what is truthful or untruthful?
Second, I agree with you - it is possible to dislike BOTH Hussein and Bush. But, please examine Glenn's remark from comment #1: "The only possible winner in the Iraq war was Iran. Saddam Hussein provided a balance of power against Iran, but NOOOOO, Your Boy Dubya just HAD to go make a War President of himself...which was why even in the first week of his presidency, he held a meeting on the possibility of an invasion of Iraq!" So even if we assume (BTW, my favorite word because it is so descriptive: it makes an "ass" of "u" (you) and "me") the 60 Minutes transcript to be truthful, Glenn's remark affords us only one of two choices. To be specific, Glenn said "the only possible winner ..." and " ... Dubya just HAD to go make a War President of himself...", so we are, based on his remarks, left with only two choices. My comment regarding comment #6 stands.
Ultimately, Dr.Dreadful, whether we agree or not is immaterial. What it all boils down to is a difference of philosophy, and we can argue that until we are both "blue in the face."
Regarding comment #23, Again, Glenn, I have to ask - are you for real? All you can ever do is obfuscate, change the subject, never address specific points made by others, and offer liberal talking points. And how does Glenn Beck enter into anything?
I find it rather amazing that my original general comments about politicians (in my first article I said "both parties") has morphed into specifics.
BTW, Warren Beatty is my real name, I was named after my paternal grandfather, I live in LA (that's Lower Alabama), and, although I wish I had his money, I am not the liberal actor.
25 - Warren Beatty
BTW, Dr. Dreadful, regarding comment #21, I really like the two sources that you offer.