My fellow Rockheads, consider if you will. Operation Fadr al-Qanoon (which the media calls the “Baghdad security plan”) is underway. Progress is measurable, remember though, that this is a marathon, it’s still a bit early to know how it will turn out, but there is reason to hope.
The message for all of us, especially professionals like me who do this for a living, is patience, family members who have loved ones in Iraq can also counsel patience to their friends and acquaintances, we need to steady the nerves of our fellow Americans. The war has been going for almost four years, the current strategy just few weeks. We need to give it more time.
It will take time to bring security to the people of Baghdad and the Al Anbar Province. To do this , we need to build trust with the people, engage community leaders, develop intelligence and trusted networks, then compete with the insurgents and death squads to deny them access to their targets – their fellow Iraqis, whom they cynically exploit and kill. All these things we are doing, but the process cannot be rushed, and requires detailed local understanding: so we move at the pace the Iraqis can sustain.
Patience, determination, courage and stamina are vital. Political reconciliation at the grass roots level is what is going make this work, with security as a buffer. Needless to say, we are not leaving this to luck: some commentators have focused on the troop surge, but the main effort isn't the surge, the anti war crowd as usual focuses on the narrow, missing the big picture almost entirely. The main effort is a political effort, by Iraqis with our support, to reconcile at the local level. The surge is simply to create an environment for this political effort to take place. This is going to be a lot like heavy peace enforcement or police work, not so much like classical counterinsurgency, let alone conventional combat. And with just one additional brigade in Baghdad and four more on the way, look at the result; we are getting somewhere now on a political level. And there is an oil revenue sharing agreement; we've cleared a high hurdle.
Our task is to stay alert, focused, and with a keen eye, read the situation, ready to modify our approach as this develop.
I think these are the major trends:
Muqtada al-Sadr has run off to Iran, leaving some of his thugs scratching their heads and wondering if they have been Persian stooges all along.
Iraq on the whole has been relatively quiet, as it has been for much of the past year, nearly two. At least half the incidents in Iraq still happen within Baghdad city limits; control Baghdad, and you have the upper hand, the insurgents and terrorists knew this inherently having lived in the country all or most of their lives, it just took us a while to catch up.
Al Qa’ida in Iraq has successfully been marginalized, with alliances of local Sunni leaders, and some other jihadist groups, opposing its brutality and murder, its terrorist campaign of viciously murdering fellow muslims in the streets. They are contesting its self-styled, self proclaimed leadership.
Increased targeting of helicopters has led to increased shoot downs (out of hundreds of flights every day) a Baghdad helicopter ride is still safer than a cab ride in New York City..
Security in key neighborhoods of Baghdad shows positive signs of improvement, as Americans and Iraqis partner at the grass roots to clamp down on violence and insurgent influence. Terrorists have are now using car bombs against innocent bystanders in markets and public places a sign that they know where the danger lies (loss of influence with the population) and are trying to kill the “surge” using the most mass casualty producing terrorist weaponry available, in other words, they are truly desperate now to influence not only Iraqis, but the American public, you need to keep that in mind.
Some sectarian and insurgent groups have seemingly appeared out of nowhere to attack outposts, local communities working with the government, and security forces; more desperate measures.
This last trend is the most professionally intriguing. In counterinsurgency operations killing the enemy is not difficult, finding them is difficult. But finding them, and distinguishing them from the innocent population, can be terribly difficult. In shifting our tactics away from directly hunting down insurgents, and to protecting the people, we have undercut insurgent influence and they know it, their options are to flee, wait us out, or come into the open to fight, to contest control of the neighborhoods, they will not do this for it means certain death. But the fact that some are coming into the open suggests they realize that waiting us out is not an option. It also makes the job of finding the enemy far easier. This is good, but we must not lose sight of the focus; protect the people.
On this score, again, it’s too early to say for sure but initial signs are really encouraging. One indication that is not very useful is car bombs, we can expect these to be one of the last insurgent tactics to diminish, for a couple of reasons. It takes an entire community, coupled with its local security forces to defeat a clandestine suicide bomber, and it will take a while to build effective networks to achieve this. Second, insurgent tactics are driven by the need to capture the attention of the nearest television camera, nothing does this better than a big bomb; remember that. The bad guys will hang on to this method as long as the news media reward it.
Overall, then, though early signs give us genuine reason to hope, prudence, patience and professional judgment must be our watchwords. There will be tough days as always; the problems remain daunting, complex and deeply ingrained in the social and political fabric of the Iraqi society. Violence will ebb and flow, come and go, and there will be “spikes”. But over time, if the strategy works (and I think it will), we should see a downward trend in violence and an increase in trust and reconciliation at the local level, in remaining ready, as we certainly are, as we always have been, as we have been doing, to refine our approach if needed.
We must not allow ourselves to confuse the country of Iraq, where there is a real war, a real people, and a real obligation to provide security for them, with constant harping of the "Vietnam template, quagmire Iraq" of popular liberal, anti war, anti American, Democratic, wild-eyed imagination. The professionals have a duty to be clear-headed and to accurately analyze and assess the situation in a professional fashion, adapting as the situation dictates. We have a duty to care for our people, their families, and the Iraqis, America must give this time, take it slow and carefully, we must not allow the Democrats, liberals, or any other anti war organization rush us either to judgment or failure. We have a real shot now, we can do this. We will do this.

Thank God for our troops, for the overall professionalism, courage and determination to get this job done despite the best efforts of congress to stop them from reaching their goals.
I think we've learned much over the past four years, about our Army, our troops, our president, the congress, and the Iraqi people.

American liberals, Congressional Democrats and anti war idiots across the fruited plain are doing their best to ignore something, they don't want you to notice either and are pulling out all the stops to divert your attention from it.

We are winning the struggle for Iraq.

I submit for your consideration. The main stream media, with it's predominantly anti war agenda has almost imperceptibly begun to broadcast positive news coming from Baghdad. And never forget, Baghdad is the key to Iraq. Baghdad and the Al Anbar Province is where the violence is concentrated, but Baghdad is generally recognized by the experts as the linchpin of Iraq. Control the situation in Baghdad and you control Iraq.

Mooky Al Sadr has fled Iraq and is now safely tucked away in Iran. Do you need any further proof that Iran has been supporting Mooky and his ilk all along?

Iraq has ordered her borders with Syria and Iran sealed.

Since our courageous troops began offensive operations in Baghdad, there have been no attacks on our troops.

The spectre of our troops going on the offensive and taking the fight right at the militias and death squads in Baghdad was enough to force them into hiding. Our troops are weeding them out and killing or capturing them at breakneck speed. And high ranking terrorists have been killed or captured as well.

Liberal bloggers both professional and amateur are going nuts! They have gone off the deep end. Our troops are now regularly being called mercenaries. In general, the liberal blogesphere has pulled out all the stops in a desperate smear campaign directed at our Commander in Chief and our Soldiers and Marines. It has been a very disgraceful display.

The Democratically controlled Congress, now full of yellow bellied anti war cowards have spent the last week debating a useless nonbinding vote to oppose a troop surge that has already begun?! Talk about desperation. I hold any representative who votes in favor of this measure in utter contempt! Words fail to describe how I feel about these traitors! Lets suffice to say that I think our troops will remember this in the next election; I know I will.

Consider if you will, the mass and power of the United States Army, and Marine Corps. If our ground forces are determined to out last the insurgents they can. It is a matter of numbers. While I don't think that ten Iraqi lives are worth one of our troops, I submit to you that our overall casualty rate in Iraq is mild in comparison to wars past. And considering what our troops have accomplished in Iraq, the casualty rate is astounding. Our troops, even with draconian rules of engagement and other rules that interfere with their ability to protect themselves have performed miraculously.

All classic insurgencies eventually transition from guerrilla tactics to conventional military tactics. Read your military history, there are a plethora of examples. Where is the insurgent Army? Where is it hiding? Fact is, they don't have an army and they can't take control of Iraq when or if we leave. One of the features of this war that makes it different from insurgencies of the past is that the conventional component of the insurgents is non-existent. In other words, the insurgents and the foreign terrorists goal is simple, to force us out of the country. Once this was accomplished, what you would have seen, was the Iranian military moving in and taking over the country and we can all agree that would be a disaster.

Our troops have turned the corner my friends. And the worst nightmare of the screeching anti war crowd is on the verge of coming to fruition. We are going to win! Our troops have had to fight against the odds since the day widespread looting broke out upon the fall of the Hussein regime. But our troops never gave up, they watched, and they learned. The applied those lessons learned and became experts in this kind of war.

During this operation, I had faith in our military, hell, I helped train some of the troops over there and I know their quality. While I became frustrated with Rumsfeld and the OSD, I never lost faith in the military. Now, we have who I consider the best General Officer in the entire US Military leading the best Army we have ever had. We are going to win.

Be happy my friends, be happy indeed. And witness the three ring circus on Capital Hill as the Democratically controlled Congress attempts to convince the American public that we are losing, that we can't win and that we simply must leave Iraq.

Too late. We're winning.

We are going to defeat the Iraqi insurgents, and we are going to accomplish what we set out to do!

My fellow Rockheads. That movement you have been detecting underfoot over the past few days is the earth shaking. And the reason that the earth is shaking, is because some are beginning to say that we can achieve our goals in Iraq. Finally, people are beginning to think about Iraq in a logical manner, leaving politics and personal feelings out of the equation.

Can it be? Is America beginning to understand the consequences of leaving Iraq undone? It must be so. I'm beginning to see articles offering hope.

It is far too early to tell if this idea will catch on, and of course there is that stubborn, reflexive, unthinking element on the far left determined to relive the "glory days" of the anti Vietnam War movement. Never mind the fact that we were beating the shit out of the enemy in Vietnam, and the ONLY reason we did not win there is because we gave up. Lets hope the America is coming to that realization about Iraq.

Insurgencies take a long time to put down because the insurgents objective is so easy. All they have to do is create doubt long enough that the counter insurgents give up. Some car bombs here, a few midnight murders there, and they have the American public ready to throw in the towel in no time. But maybe, people are coming around to the President's way of thinking.

George W. Bush, while maybe not the most intelligent president we have ever had, certainly is the most determined since Lincoln. I admire his determination and his ability to keep faith while those around him crumble, criticize and complain.

What folly it would be to give up on Iraq after investing what we have to date! My friends, we are winning in Iraq. The insurgents control very little ground in Iraq, they have to hide and operate in secrecy. They have to threaten and murder to stay in the game. They have no conventional Army to speak of, how are they going to control the urban areas? All insurgencies have to move from the insurgency and guerrilla operations into conventional military operations sooner or later, the insurgents in Iraq don't have such a force. We will out last them if we have the will to see it through.

The newspapers tell of an insurgency getting the hell beat out of it over the past week, with hundreds of enemy killed and captured. And of the cleric Muktada Al Sadr ready to cooperate with the realization that with the additional troops on the way the handwriting is on the wall. Rather than giving up and going home as the insurgents were counting on, and as the mindless anti war cabal has been screaming about, when all is said and done George Bush is sending MORE troops? I think that maybe the insurgents are beginning to realize that they miscalculated the determination of President Bush and the United States Military!

My friends, the fastest way to bring this operation to a close and to get our troops back home is to get on board and support our troops, support the president and bring Operation Iraqi Freedom to an historic and successful close.

How to solve Iraq.

My fellow Rockheads. My Holiday hiatus at an end, it is time to begin posting to my blog once more.

Over the Holiday break, the war in Iraq weighed heavily on my mind as it always does. With the Democrats taking over the majority in Congress it is time for the Bush Administration to do something bold or the Democrats will most assuredly doom any future attempts to bring the operation to a successful close. The mindless anti war crowd in America continues their inane screaming, and it's giving me a headache. So, here is my proposal.

What do we have in Iraq today? Who are we dealing with? Well we are essentially dealing with the same groups. We have the Kurds in the oil rich north and their region is relatively peaceful but for tension with Turkey, nothing that level headed people can't deal with.

In central Iraq we have the Sunni, Saddam Hussein's people. They are the ethnic minority in Iraq, but enjoyed most favored status while Hussein was in power. The area of Iraq in which the Sunni live however, is resource poor. The Sunni made up the bulk of the insurgency, at first because they actually harbored the illusion that Hussein would come back. Now, they are fighting for their survival.

This brings us to the Shia. For over four decades they were governed and abused by Hussein, Hussein's tribe and his fellow Sunni Muslims. Now, the Shia (in my opinion) want to be the only real power in the new Iraq government, I don't think they are into any kind of power sharing with the Sunni. The Shia have the Sadr Army, militias and death squads who are prosecuting a sort of ethnic cleansing of Shia neighborhoods and towns of the minority Sunni. This isn't good. While the Shia are the majority in Iraq, it is the Sunni that are the majority in the whole of the middle east. The Shia simply are in no mood to relinquish a thing to the Sunni and I think Prime Minister Malaki is one of those people, but that's just me, and I could be wrong but I don't think I am.

We are reaching the limits of the American publics support for the effort in Iraq. I have to confess that as a supporter of the effort my will has been tested too. But, it is the essence of war to have ups and downs, victory and defeat. But like a football game, you don't know who the winner is until it is over. For the anti war crowd to say we are not winning is to forget this concept because you can also make the claim that we are not losing either. A classic case of is the glass half empty or half full?

Nobody had presented to me a good case for why we should leave Iraq now. Or that we are losing. And I'm still of the opinion that most of the anti war crowd is composed of people who hate President Bush. And I think they hate him because they have not been able to put the 2000 and 2004 elections behind them. In 2000 the election results were contested and we waited weeks for ballots to be examined, we saw the election issue go to the US Supreme Court and Bush prevailed. 2004, most of the main stream media was forecasting a Kerry victory, but by next morning Bush had made a furious comeback; he won by a hair. Losing elections that way has to be disappointing but it is no reason to turn into a Bush hating moron. And due to this and more it is my opinion that the left simply can't stand to see Bush get credit for anything and they are willing to suffer defeat in Iraq to prevent it.

But what to do about Iraq? The most basic component that is missing is resolve from the folks on the home front. But it is also a fact of history regarding counterinsurgency operations that the local populace must get involved. We seem to be missing both in Iraq. So, I must admit that we have gotten to the brass tacks of the issue. Prime Minister Malaki is going to have to prove he is serious about sharing power with the Sunni, he is going to have to take on his Shia militias, the death squads, insurgents and terrorists that are feeding upon the people of Iraq. Malaki must preside over a national reconciliation process and spread around the oil revenue. Short of that there is always the option of creating three autonomous sectors in Iraq, Sunni, Shia and Kurd with perhaps a central government in Baghdad.

We must put training and equipping the Iraqi Army on the fast track. The Police force is an unmitigated debacle and I think General Patreaus will have to address that issue with a clean slate, because the police are key to ending the insurgency, more so that the military.

Let me close by saying that this effort would be over more quickly if the American public stood shoulder to shoulder. It is our infighting that is encouraging the enemy to continue the fight. To be quite honest about it, I'm ashamed of the American people. We have our kids over there in Iraq trying their level best to accomplish a mission that we approved of initially. We shouldn't have (we don't deserve) the luxury of changing our minds in the middle of the fight or when the going gets tough. Americans used to be made of tougher stuff. I think we can all agree that our troops have proven their mettle. How about you?

Are you brave?

My fellow Americans. It has come to my attention that support for the war in Iraq is falling. Why? I ask you to sincerely reflect upon this in your quiet moments.

During discussions I've participated in with people who support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq I have attempted to understand their point of view. I'm perfectly willing to be convinced that we should withdraw from Iraq. But nobody has convinced me. I have yet to hear a war opponent give me a good argument for leaving Iraq. And now, I'm beginning to think that their opposition to the war is grounded in the selfish, short sighted and possibly disastrous desire to oppose anything and everything that comes from the Bush Administration; in other words, their opposition to the war is based on politics. Since the presidential election of 2000, I've heard people claim that the election was stolen by Bush. And in 2004, sure that they would see John Kerry win only to see him lose in another close election, the opposition to Bush has grown into irrational hate. When I cruise the World Wide Web, and I come across chat boards in which I find images of George Bush photo shopped into grotesque images of Adolph Hitler, or a chimpanzee or any number of childish things, I automatically tune them out. I refuse to listen to anyone devoid of the self discipline to participate in a discussion in an adult, civil manner.

The war in Iraq is an unconventional fight. It is a kind of war we have little experience with. It is not quite an insurgency, and it is not quite a fight against terror, it is something else, something in between, it is a hybrid war, a war with the hallmarks of several different kinds of war, but for the sake of this entry I refer to it as an insurgency. It will take us some time to figure out how to fight it effectively, the history of warfare tells us that. To expect the insurgency in Iraq to be put down by now is unrealistic. Historically insurgencies have always been lengthy efforts, requiring patience and determination from the counter insurgent. But in the society we live in, where we routinely receive instant gratification our ability to stay focused, our willingness to accept delayed gratification seems to have gone the way of the Do Do Bird. My friends, the only way we will lose in Iraq is if we allow it. Our military has had a steep learning curve, but they've figured this out and now, they need our unwavering support. Indications are, that our government has finally figured it out as well, and they need our support as well. This will not require any sacrifice on the part of the average American family, all it requires is for America to stop being hyper critical.

And now my friends, what will happen to Iraq if we leave? First, you must answer this basic question; do you care? It seems to me that in listening to the war opponents lament the loss of innocent Iraqi lives, that America does care. And since that is the case, pulling out of Iraq now makes no sense at all. Because if we do, Iraq will become a blood bath. If you think the sectarian violence is bad, consider this. If we leave, an all out civil war will erupt in Iraq, pitting the Shia majority with the active support of Iran, against the Sunni and Kurd minority. The killing will be countrywide, it will be Kosovo all over again only worse, ethnic cleansing on such a massive scale that it might be better described as genocide.

Do any of you trust Iran? Why would you possibly support our withdrawal and hand Iraq over to Iran complete with gift wrapping and ribbon? This my friends, without a doubt, will give international terrorism a home base, a sanctuary the likes of which they have never had before, complete with military arms, ammunition and equipment sitting around unattended ready to use. If we leave, who will be left in Iraq to prevent this? The Iraqi government is not strong enough, the Iraqi military isn't strong enough, there will be nobody to oppose the bad guys and the Iraqi people will be at their mercy.

The basic problem, most Middle East experts agree is the situation with Israel and the Palestinians. If we leave Iraq, our credibility or whats left of it, will be in tatters. It was bad enough that upon driving the Iraqi Army out of Kuwait during Operation Desert Storm that President Bush told the Iraqi Shia that if they took up arms against Saddam Hussein that we would assist them, and then to have abandoned them allowing Saddam to massacre them by the thousands. What will remain of our credibility, if after overthrowing Saddam, allowing chaos to ensue, only to leave before the job was done? Who would possibly take the chance in trusting us again? Iran will become the sole dominant force in the Middle East, along with a much weakened Israel. Israel, still smarting from the Lebanon conflict, and with the prospect of unilateral withdrawal completely discredited, will have little leverage with Iran. And my friends, it would only be a matter of time. A simple matter of time if we left, that the sectarian violence in Iraq turned into all out civil war, drawing in Iraq's neighbors, igniting a regional conflict and ultimately resulting in a military attack against Israel. And then, guess what? We will be back in the Middle East, participating in a bigger, more costly, more deadly war as an ally of Israel.

It is time for Americans to find their backbone. It is time to draw from the well of the generations of Americans past. For, they had the courage, discipline, the basic understanding that if they did not do the hard thing now, that they would be required to do a much harder thing later.

This fight is more important than perhaps most of the war opponents think. This fight isn't about oil or imperialism, those are just meaningless buzzwords used cavalierly by the opponents. It is a fight for our survival. This is a fight to change the attitudes of future generations of Iraqis, Arabs, and muslims. If we do not defeat the enemy in Iraq, they will have virtual free reign to recruit, finance, plan future terrorist operations and to train future terrorists for generations to come. Is that the kind of prospect that you want to leave to your children and grandchildren? Radical Islam is on the march. Who is going to oppose it if we do not?

My friends, it is far too early to give up. You defeatists out there who lack the courage of our ancestors, you need to educate yourselves and you need to wake the hell up. For all of the talk of how grim the situation is, to those of your prone to believe the politically motivated doomsday sayers I say; think for yourself! We overthrew the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein, liberated more the 50 million people from these two murderous, oppressive regimes. Don't you feel good about that? To write off the effort in Iraq as lost at this point would be like writing off the possibility of democracy in Europe because the failure of the revolutions in 1848. The problem in Iraq isn't that the people reject democracy. It is that there is not enough democracy there yet.

The enemy is getting support from Iran Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Syria. Do you note any democracies in that bunch? For all the yammering about how democracy doesn't stand a chance to grow in Iraq, has a credible alternative been offered by the anti war crowd? That's my whole point. The anti war crowd isn't thinking this through! Are we to return to the pre 9/11 paradigm and supporting our "friendly" dictators like Mubarak or the Saudi Royal Family? If our support for the Shah of Iran or of Yasser Arafat taught Americans anything, it should surely be that a secular strongman cannot keep the lid on indefinitely. We have to fix this, just like we did in Europe and Japan.

Again, we will not win overnight so stop acting like we should people! The President has told us from the outset that this fight would be a long one, and since the American people aren't suffering in support of it, whats the beef? Do not forget my friends many Americans were in utter despair at the prospect of the Cold War. In the late 1940s, communism appeared to be an unstoppable force, just as Islamism does to us today. Our enemies then; China and the Soviet Union were far, far more powerful than Al Qaeda and Iran are combined today. When Whittaker Chambers publicly broke with the Communist Party in 1948, he declared, "I know that I am leaving the winning side for the losing side." Yet the West ultimately prevailed. And just as the Soviet Union collapsed in record time, with the dismantling of the Berlin Wall and the Inter zonal German Border Fence, so, the cancer of Islamism in the Middle East could fall apart even faster than any of us expect! It could be, that all that is required is for a functioning model of democracy in a major Middle Eastern country. There is a little talked about fact of the Middle East the main stream media doesn't tell you about, there is a huge, underground, grass roots hunger for democracy among the younger generations in the region, yes, it's true. In Egypt, Iran, the people of the region yearn for change, to modernize, the dissatisfaction is palpable in the streets from Cairo to Tehran and the spark these people may only need is for Iraq to succeed and they will set themselves free.

My fellow Americans, as we well know, only democracy can satisfy the deepest desires of human nature. The question is not the outcome in Iraq now, it is how many people on both sides will die in the intervening decades? As our historic fight against communism and fascism suggest, determined American leadership can lower the death toll and speed up freedom's victory.

A retreat from Iraq now, will only serve to delay the inevitable emergence of democracy in the Middle East, it will only prolong the suffering of the Iraqi people and the people of the Middle East (for they are indeed suffering) and it will almost preordain, a major conflagration in the region, a conflagration that will draw us back to the region only under much more dire circumstances.

Think about it.

Support the troops!

I know Iraq hasn't turned out quite like we were told it would. But I want America to think about something. Just because the going has become tough doesn't mean we should give up, cut and run, whatever you want to call it. All it means is; the going has become tougher and we knew that it would. This is an insurgency, and historically an insurgency is a tough nut to crack.

The one thing that should be foremost in the minds of every American is that our troops need and deserve our unwavering, total support. Americans, with the exception of higher fuel prices and inconveniences of additional security measures at airports have not been asked or required to sacrifice anything. We should be exceedingly grateful to our troops, who have taken 100% of the sacrificing in this war on their shoulders alone, they are sacrificing, we aren't. Except for the occasional homemade billboard displaying "We Support Our Troops" or the yellow magnetic stickers on vehicles, I don't see an outpouring of support for our Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airmen and Coast guardsman and frankly as a combat veteran myself this just flat out pisses me off. Don't they deserve our support no matter what our individual opinion of the war is? I hear it time and again, "I support the troops but not the war," but nobody has been able to explain how to do that, I call bullshit on them!

How has the war impacted your lifestyle here at home? What's the beef really? Be honest about this, your life has hardly been negatively impacted at all with very few exceptions and those are more inconveniences than sacrifices. What we have in Iraq, are dirty, filthy, scum of the earth, murdering bloodthirsty, power hungry terrorists, mufisden, who deliberately murder innocent Iraqis, kindnap civilians, cut the heads off of innocents and desicrate the dead in an effort to do exactly what seems to be happening, to divide Iraq along sectarian lines, and scare and demoralize the Americans back home. Why are we giving the enemy exactly what he wants? Did you not understand the nature of these animals? We have come to a crossroad. What will America do? What are YOU willing to do?

As for me? I'm supporting the troops as I always have. I will support their mission as well, for the two cannot be separated. I'll continue to write on my little blog, and call for the redoubling of our efforts in Iraq. That means sending more troops to Iraq to get this civil war thing under control, to deny freedom of movement to the mufisden, to expose them as the liars they are, and to provide adequate security for the Iraqi people. To do that, we must make some adjustments to our strategy and tactics. I think the prime concern should be in providing a secure environment in Iraq, to do that we have to have Soldiers everywhere. They need to be visible to the Iraqi people, they need to mingle with average Iraqis, to build good relations, the Iraqi people need to get to know our Soldiers as people, not just Ninja Turtle looking stormtroopers laden with battle gear stuck under a kevlar helmet passing by on patrol, this does not build trust.

There is one basic reason for the current situation in Iraq and that is that we failed to project our military might in sufficient strength and numbers to control the terrain, towns and cities of Iraq. Our troops are not being out-fought, they aren't being out-thought, however in the strategic realm, our civilian leaders seem to be stuck in reactive mode. The insurgents have the initiative. Americans need to demand we fight this war harder! Demand we fight seriously with every means at our disposal rather than whining like whipped puppies to withdraw! My God, I can't for the life of me figure out what happend to America's backbone!

We are just a few adjustments away from turning things around in Iraq permanently. Insurgencies have been defeated before and this one can be defeated too. President Bush warned us early on that this war would be a long one and it would take resolve to see it through. Back then the Congress and the American people supported him in this endeavor. Why have we turned out back on him, and our troops?

Everyone knows the the mainstream media lie. There are multiple instances of prominent media personalities being caught red handed lying, even manufacturing documents to damage the president's reputation. Everyone knows the media sensationalizes, everyone knows they will tell the tragic story while ignoring the boring good news, highlight the alleged war atrocities as though they were fact, they are quite content in sullying the reputation of our military over unsubstantiated accusations, painting our recruiters as rapists and thugs who press kids into the military, it's crap! The media is every bit as culpable for the drop in support of the war effort as anyone, probably more so. But they could care less, it gets ratings and to the media moguls, that's what its all about, that's all that matters, and Americans are sucking it up. If today's media were reporting on world war II, do you think we would have had the guts to stick with it? Close your eyes and imagine Dan Rather informing the country of American casualties at Iwo Jima, imagine him describing the landing at Normandy, The Axis would have won and Jews might be extinct. Imagine the main stream media reporting the Civil War. The media would have taken a neutral stance on the issue of slavery no doubt. And would have supported the Confederates in their right to secede from the United States. Face the facts America, we knew this war would get tough at some point and we would have to adapt, innovate and overcome, we have always had to do that, in every war we've ever been involved in! Face the fact America, the main stream media doesn't mind lying to you if it gets them ratings. Think for yourself! Terrorism isn't going away anytime soon, even if we gave up in Iraq today!

Remember your roots, remember your history! Forget about what Europeans think about us, how do they impact your life? Do you think they really care about us? Screw the UN! What have they done for America lately? Remember what our ancestors faced, remember the sacrifices that every day Americans made in support of the troops back then, and that you have sacrificed nothing. At least not yet. But if we give up in Iraq, we will feel the ramifications for generations, and we'll fight them again (if we survive), you can count on that, only next time we might be fighting them in our own backyards. You had better wake up America, nothing can stand in the way of a united American people. The only reason we will lose in Iraq is because the folks back home gave up on the troops. Don't let that happen!

Despite Mr. Murtha's best efforts I have had the weekend to think the situation over in quiet solitude, reflecting on my Army career and experiences which include combat, I have placed myself (mentally) in situations that would test my professionalism and self discipline. To be perfectly honest, I can see how a squad of young Marines, or Soldiers might commit such an atrocity. This should in no way be taken as an indictment of the Marines in question on my part, I don't know what transpired. The facts of life in wartime, are brutal, the life of a Soldier or Marine under fire in Iraq are as far from the reality of life for the average American that it can be. A modicum of understanding from the American public is called for in this situation. The average American doesn't have the slightest idea what life is like for our troops in Iraq. The average American doesn't have the knowledge, expertise or the right to pass judgement on the outstanding young Americans serving this nation.

To date, a certain population of the American public has demonstrated what I consider to be a sickening tendacy to show support or remove support for our troops, depending on the situation. Our troops deserve all of our support, all of the time. Our "I want it now" mindset has proven to be our Achille's Heel. Americans want immediate justice, immediate service, immediate results, and in the case of Iraq; immediate victory. If you have never served in the military you don't have the slightest idea how important it is for our troops to know that their country supports them and that that support is unconditional. And yet, the support of the average American for our troops changes with the wind. America has done as much to sap the moral of our troops as the enemy has, probably more. But, being the fine professionals they are, they soldier on, fighting for each other if nothing else. As professional as our troops are however, they have a chip on their shoulder. The chip on their shoulder is the knowledge that if they don't conduct every mission perfectly, the anti war politicians the likes of Murtha and the anti war left will (and have) attempt to convict the entire United States Military. Should America's support for her military contingent upon always being in the right? I say no.

Put yourself in the combat boots of a Soldier or Marine on patrol in Iraq. You are driving through an Iraqi village on narrow streets. The Iraqis are out and about doing what they do. Kids are playing, men and women are chatting with neighbors and doing chores. You get an occassional wave, a suspicious look, some turn their eyes away after making brief eye contact with you. For the most part, you and your patrol drive through the town uneventfully. Later in the day, as you return to base, you drive through the same village. Immediately you realize a big difference, it looks like a ghost town. You see nobody outside. As you drive through the last intersection and can relax to some degree and cruise the last few miles of patrol to the safety of your base you see your lead vehicle engulfed in a violent cloud of dust, you see the gunner of the vehicle blown from the turret, his mangeld body flung through the air like a sock puppet. A split second later you hear it, the sharp crack of a detonation the thunder of the full explosion and the air is knocked from your lungs, your eyes feel as though they have turned to painful spoonfulls of jelly as the concussion wreaks havoc on your body; it really hurts. Your ears are ringing, you can't hear a thing. Instinctively your men exit their vehicles and form a defensive perimeter as they have been trained to do. The medic rushes with his aid bag to begin evaluating the casualties of the lead vehicle. The gunner is dead, one of his legs is blown off, his body is mangeld horribly. The driver can't see, he is blinded, blood runs from both of his ears, he has shrapnel wounds to the left side of his body, blood spurts from his neck like a grotesque fountain, long, powerful, gushing spurts, and with each heartbeat he is closer to death, the medic does not know if he can stop the bleeding, the vehicle commander is unhurt, but he is shaken, blood is running from his ears too, he is more pissed off than hurt. He dutifully takes a position on the perimeter anyway, scanning for enemy movement. In the village all is silent, no movement, no sound, nothing to indicate any enemy activity, or any activity at all for that matter. As the medic struggles with the wounded driver, and one of your men tries to contact dustoff on the radio to get a medevac to your location you feel anger, it slowly grows like a thunder cloud, the more you think about what just occured, the more pissed of you get, couldn't a friendly Iraqi have waved your patrol off? One of your men is dead, another lies in an ever growing pool of blood, dying. You had almost completed this patrol, but at the last intersection before base, your lead vehicle is hit with an IED. Your anger contiues to grow, the frustration you feel with the Iraqis in the village is incomprehensible. You are in this country to liberate these people, to free them from a mad dictator, to protect them from radical jihadists, to establish a democratic form of government, to rebuild the infastructure of their nation. And this is how they repay your efforts? They don't even give you a warning that after you passed through this morning, that some foreginers came to the village and emplaced an IED? Surely, the foreigners would not have gone unnoticed by the villagers and yet, they didn't make any effort to warn you in fact; they all took shelter in their homes and allowed your patrol be blown up and one of your men, an eighteen year old kid, killed, another dying.

You still can't hear anything but ringing in your ears. None of your men can hear, you communicate using hand and arm signals. Along with a couple of your men, you see what appears to be the flash of a rifle barrell muzzle from a home in the village. One of your men returns fire. In an instant, all your men are blasting away. You begin to manuever your men toward the house in question. You break down the front door and you find crouching bodies, before you realize it, they are all dead. Your men have shot them dead.

That my friends is a scenario that has played out hundreds maybe thousands of times in Iraq and Afghanistan. Up till now perhaps, our troops have for the most part, made the correct decisions. But this time, due to anger, frustration and fear, perhaps, just perhaps you and your men made the wrong decision. When your dead and wounded are evacuated, your patrol returns to base where you report the incident to your immediate supervisor. What they do about it, you cannot control. You made an on the spot decision, you did what you did, you can't take it back.

Whether or not our Marines are guilty of war crimes has yet to be determined. I for one will wait for the results of the investigation. The media should assume these Marines are innocent until proven otherwise. And yet, I have read articles describing the event as a "massacre" "murder" and an assortment of other omionous adjectives. I can't help but recall the recent past, reading accounts of terrorists killing innocent civilians or cutting the heads off of hostages described as "slayings," "killings," "executions." Does anyone else detect a double standard here? It seems that the press is almost giddy at the opportunity to dig up the specter of Vietnam war crimes. The use of colorful language to describe alleged war crimes by our troops and the almost sanitary language used to describe the numerous war crimes perpetrated by the enemy puts the agenda of the liberal main stream media on display.

Lets all realize something right here and right now. War crimes are committed in all wars, thus it has been since the dawn of time. It doesn't excuse them but, it happens. Everyone has a breaking point, even our magnificent troops do. As a population we have done a very poor job of showing support for our troops. The media never misses an opportunity to bring the conduct of our troops into question. And yet, we never hear about acts of courage, heroism and sacrafice. Shame of us for that, and shame on the press in doing a lousy job in supporting our warriors in the field. From the first war in human history, to Vietnam, atrocities have taken place. The only difference is that today, with the advent of the 24 hour cable news services, the news is in your face, we hear the news repeatedly, its the same story rehashed over and over and over again. The court of public opinion is in session and Judge Murtha has reached his verdict. The Marines in question are guilty and he seems hell bent on pushing the responsibility for this alleged war crime as far up the chain of command that he can. Shame on you Mr. Murtha. As a Marine, as a former officers, it seems that Mr. Murtha would be counseling the media and the American public to wait untill the facts are in. That at the moment, the most important thing is to protect the constitutional rights of these Marines. I think if Mr. Murtha could, he would hand these Marines over the the Iraqis.

If this alleged war crime is substantiated, we must ask ourselves why? As I previously indicated our troops in Iraq hear what is being said back here at home. Can we honestly look ourselves in the mirror and say that we have done more than put a magnetic yellow "support our troops" sticker on our car? Have you written your elected officials and told them to stop politicizing the war for their own selfish political gain? Do any of you realize that the Army is for all intents and purposes broke as you read this? Yes, its' true, Congress in a rock solid demonstration of support to the troops adjourned for the week long Memorial Day Break without taking action on the emergency supplemental spending bill that the Army desperately needs to continue operations. And this does not apply exclusively to our forces in Iraq, it applies to the entire Army! Take a look at the bill if you have time, and also take note of the riders that our selfless elected officials have tacked onto the bill; yeah, its pork barrell spending in all of its sickening glory.

As for me? I will maintain that these Marines are innocent and I refuse to beleive they are guilty of anything unless you can prove otherwise to a jury of their peers. There is a time and place for that to occur. But the time is not now, and the place is not in the media.

God bless our troops. They are doing a job that 99% of Americans are afraid to do. All this talk about being against the war? It's just thinly veiled cowardice. If you aren't going to join the fight, then how about supporting the troops?

I want the reader to understand that I am not one who is calling for Mr. Rumsfeld's resignation, at least, not yet.

I was channel surfing the other day as I flicked through the channels, Donald Rumsfeld flashed upon my televison screen, so I watched. What I saw troubled me.

Mr. Ray McGovern, a 27 year CIA analyst seemed to be getting the better of Mr. Rumsfeld with some specific, pointed questions. With facts and quotes in hand Mr. McGovern was well prepared to take on Mr. Rumsfeld on the question of WMDs in Iraq, and pre war intelligence in general.

The most troubling portion of the event came when Mr. McGovern bluntly asked Mr. Rumsfeld why he "lied to get us into a war that was not necessary?" Mr. Rumsfeld replied that "I didn't lie then," and the audience applauded loudly, he also said Colin Powell worked for weeks on his UN presentation and that he really believed what he said at the UN regarding WMD in Iraq. And further he stated "I'm not in the intelligence business." Now to me, this is a strong indication that Mr. Rumsfeld was beginning to feel some heat. Mr. Rumsfeld continued "It appears that there were not weapons of mass destruction there." At that point Mr. McGovern told him, "but you said you knew where they were." Obviously deflecting the question Mr. Rumsfeld said, that no he did not say that, that he said that he "suspected" there were some areas where they "might" be. At this juncture, I'm sitting straight up on my sofa, engrossed in the exchange because although I did not enjoy seeing Mr. Rumsfeld squirm, I cannot deny that he was indeed, squirming like a worm in hot ashes. It would do the reader well to remember that Mr. McGovern served this country for 27 years in the intelligence field, and that he is highly educated and served in the military too, a distinguished record regardless of his political affiliation. Mr. McGovern shot back with another quote, reminding Mr. Rumsfeld of statements he made on George Stephanopoulos' show on March 30, 2003, which was "We know where they are" refering to WMD "they are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." The uncritical audience began to applaud every word Mr. Rumsfeld said and Mr. McGovern stated in an interview with BuzzFlash, that the audience began to shout him down saying "get him out of here!" As security personnel began to remove him from the room, Mr. Rumsfeld instructed them to let him stay. Mr. McGovern moved on to Mr. Rumsfeld's comments refering to the Al Qaeda-Saddam Hussein relationship, pointing out that Zarqawi was in Kurdish territory, not under Saddam's control, except for a trip to the hospital. Obviously, Mr. McGovern had turned his sights to the claim that there was a direct link between Hussein and Al Qaeda. Mr. Rumsfeld, normally very adept at press briefings was totally off of his game at this point and he told Mr. McGovern, "your getting plenty of play sir."

What is America to make of this brief, yet pointed exchange? To me, it is rather ominous, for I clearly remember Mr. Rumsfeld making the statements, or statements very, very close to the quotes offered by Mr. McGovern. To see Mr. Rumsfeld rocked, totally on the defensive, using deflecting tactics and obsfucation, avoiding questions, trying to change the subject indicated strongly to me that he had been had.

I do beleive that Mr. Rumsfeld and most of the Bush Administration felt that invading Iraq was necessary, but that doesn't make it right. I see cracks beginning to appear in the administrations justifications for the invasion.

History will be the judge, and we shall see if the righteousness of invading Iraq will stand the test of time.

I think I'm like many Americans, I find myself in an untenable posititon. I want our troops to come home, but I know that the mission they are on is worthwhile if for nothing else, to liberate and entire nation. While I have full faith in our troops, and I support them 100%, I cannot say the same for the administration. At the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, I was fully behind the adminstration, slowly, but surely my attitude has begun to change. I'm uncomfortable with this because I want to beleive the President and his cabinet members. What is an American supposed to do now? I fully support the troops, yet, I find myself seriously questioning the integrity and honesty of the administration regarding the war in Iraq. That is a feeling I do not like, one that causes me much emotional turmoil.

Regarding the criticism of Mr. Rumsfeld by a growing list of retired general officers, I want to know one thing. Will it mean a thing at the end of the day?

As a retired Soldier, I am at times amused and others, very concerned. I am amused in reading and listening to the commentary of people who know absolutely nothing about the Army make absurd claims, and concerned that the matter will be ignored until it is forgotten.

I am not among those who believe that Mr. Rumsfeld need resign. I am not among those who make the idiotic claim that the retired generals are trying to take control of the military from civilian command. Something is going on inside the Pentagon, and we need to learn what it is. I suggest that the President appoint a panel of subject matter experts to compile a report. Perhaps he might convene a group of retired general officers and former civilian leaders of the Pentagon to examine the facts, view evidence and conduct interviews. The fact that so many general officers have come forward to put their credibility and reputations on the line is a solid indication to me that something in the Pentagon is broken. What could it be that has compelled these generals to take such extraordinary measures? Certainly, squabbles between the Commander in Chief and a few generals have erupted in the past, but never, has this many generals come forward.

Those who claim that the generals would have the military removed from civilian oversight are missing the point. They practice selective recall when addressing the subject. Let us review the main complaint, which is; a failure to plan for a post war Iraq. When I reflect back to the liberation of Baghdad it seems to me that there was no plan for controlling the streets of Iraq after the combat phase was over. And why was that important? Recall if you will, watching the television news on the day that the mass looting began in Baghdad. I saw it right there on my television screen, thousands of giddy Iraqis flitting about Baghdad in chaos, carting off fire extinguishers, air conditioners, toilets, anything that was not bolted down; stacked precariously upon the wheel barrows or rickety one burrow carts and wheeled away right under the noses of overwhelmed, bewildered troops who appeared to realize something was very wrong with the picture but lacked any guidance as to what they should do about it. This was my epiphany. Important government records and other irreplaceable documents vital to the reconstruction effort and capture of former Hussein officials disappeared among the looters, lost to the four winds forever. That was the day we lost the initiative in Iraq. Since that day, we began to see the ravages of the IED, we heard the news reports of Soldiers going down to sniper fire, kidnappings, beheadings, assassinations. All indisputable signs of a failure to prepare for maintaining law and order upon the collapse of the Hussein regime, and the main reason that the mission has been as dangerous and as difficult as it has.

I hope that a search for answers will be initiated. We should take a look at the unvarnished truth, learn from any mistakes that were made and implement measures to ensure we don’t do it again. The world is an increasingly dangerous place; the stakes are growing ever more ominous. We are fortunate that the consequences of our missteps in Iraq have not been catastrophic, but with Iran looming on the horizon, our military needs to operate with the efficiency of a Swiss clock.

The recent criticism of the Secretary of Defense by several retired General Officers compells me to write on the topic.

I have heard one crackpot politician after another attempt to put some kind of spin on the issue in order to position themselves in a favorable political position and from Rush Limbaugh complete with some moronic callers to his show, to John Stewart, I've heard radio and TV personalities characterize the dispute as an all or nothing affair yet they only succeed in demonstrating how precious little they know about the inner workings of the Army. I'm not a retired General Officer, I'm a retired Noncommissioned Officer, just a dumb crusty old grunt with an opinion. But I do know a little bit about leadership, gained through twenty years of continuous, honorable active duty service to this wonderful nation in the United States Army including combat in Iraq. I most certainly understand this issue better than 90% of our current elected members of the federal government, Rush Limbaugh or John Stewart.

I will begin by saying that there is blame enough to go all around regarding the disintegration of cohesion between the uniformed and civilian leaders at the Pentagon.

Some are asking the obvious question, where were these retired Generals with their critical statements before the war began? First of all, none of us are privy to any conversations that may have occurred in the planning phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom, (OIF).

It is the opinion of The Rock that most of the General Officer Corps hesitated to voice disagreement with Mr. Rumsfeld prior to OIF because they feared that their career may have been in jeopardy, why? Let us go back in time shall we?

If you are familiar with the military you might know what the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) is, if not, look it up. During the most recent QDR, there were some questions raised concerning a new artillery weapons system known as the Crusader. It had been pretty much common knowledge that the land forces of the USA had been at a disadvantage in the indirect fire weapons systems for some time in fact, the Iraqi Army during Desert Storm was in possession of more and better quality artillery systems that the Army so it’s a good thing they did not know how to employ them, but I digress. The Crusader had gone over budget as usual, and it became the issue of an internal Pentagon debate. Former Chief of Staff of the Army (CSA) General Eric Shinsecki supported the Crusader platform as did the former Secretary of the Army (SA) Brigadier General (Retired) Thomas White. The Secretary of Defense (SecDef) Donald Rumsfeld as well as the Deputy Secretary of Defense (DSecDef) Paul Wolfowitz was not as inclined to support Crusader. To cut to the chase, the Crusader was cancelled. I think this apparently disappointed some Army brass. I think this is where the cohesion between the civilian and uniformed members of DoD suffered a parting of ways and the command climate began to degenerate with the civilian leadership of the opinion that Army brass was stuck in Cold War mode and the uniformed leadership of the opinion that they were being ignored.

During testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, the CSA was responding to general questions in reference to the QDR. General Shinsecki was asked what his thoughts on troop level deployments were. The CSA obviously did not want to answer that question but he eventually relented and gave an estimate; several hundred thousand troops. Not to win the battle, but to keep law and order in the streets of Iraq. The former SA, Thomas White echoed the sentiments of the CSA on the matter in his own testimony before the committee. So, we have two honorable men giving an honest answer to direct, specific questions asked by members of a committee assigned to provide a measure of oversight to military matters. What was the result of their testimony? Well, the liberal media had some fun with it, attempted to spin it in the usual manner. But shortly after both the CSA and the SA provided these estimates the DSecDef, Paul Wolfowitz appeared before the same committee and was asked his opinion of General Shinsecki’s remarks pertaining to troop deployment numbers. Wolfowitz said General Shinsecki was “wildly off the mark” He went on to say that he thought a much smaller force would be sufficient to police and rebuild postwar Iraq. He said that since there was no history of ethnic tension in Iraq, as there was in Bosnia or Kosovo. He said Iraqi civilians would welcome our troops as liberators that “stayed as long as necessary but left as soon as possible,” but would oppose a long-term occupation force. Continuing, he said that nations that oppose war with Iraq would likely sign up to help rebuild it. “I would expect that even countries like France will have a strong interest in assisting Iraq in reconstruction.” Mr. Wolfowitz also offered that he could not think of a scenario where it would take more people to keep the peace than it would to win the war. Remember that these comments were all made before the war began. What did Mr. Rumsfeld have to say about the matter? “The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. Forces I think is far off the mark.” When General Shinsecki retired from active duty, guess who was conspicuously absent from the ceremony? Was that also a silent message to the rest of the General Officer Corps? I believe it was interpreted as such.

General Shinsecki, had about eighteen months left to serve in his term as CSA, when out of the blue, his replacement was identified publicly. Within Army circles this was perceived as a shot across the bow, a slap in the kisser, no CSA’s replacement had ever been named that far in advance before. General Shinsecki was more or less marginalized for the rest of his term, and the Secretary of the Army, Thomas White was issued his pink slip and vanished almost overnight quietly. What was the question again? Why did the current batch of retired Generals not speak out earlier? I offer this as a possible explanation; they didn’t want to be Shinseckifried.

I like to listen to Rush Limbaugh, but the last few days, I’ve been rather angry at the almost cavalier manner he has written off the comments of the Generals as a simple case of sour grapes over Mr. Rumsfeld’s leadership style. Excuse me Rush, but these men have all been in the Army for over thirty years, am I to understand that they never encountered a leader with Mr. Rumsfeld’s style before? I reject that theory. Rush also theorized that the Generals were trying to hype books they were writing, but as far as I know only General Zinni has a book coming out. I heard a caller to Limbaugh’s show, claiming to be a retired officer who stated, that the Generals are all cowards, he asked where they were before the war. That they were derelict in their sacred duty to raise these concerns before the war began. Once again, I refer you to the example of General Shinsecki and Thomas White. I heard another caller to Limbaugh’s show ask why, if these Generals felt such strong doubt about the campaign plan why did they not resign? I offer the example of my own experience in the Army. You can disagree all you want, but you support the boss’s decision and that’s all there is to it. You must be a team player in the Army if you want to survive and prosper. For a General Officer to resign in protest seems counter productive to me. My experience taught me that since seeing to the overall welfare of my troops was priority number one during peace time and number two during war that the best course of action when faced with this dilemma is to go along with the plan and do your best to lesson any negative impact on your troops as much as possible. To maintain positive control over everything you can within your sphere of influence, whatever that might be. That is what I call acting on a sacred duty, making the best of the situation. Resigning in protest is tantamount to quitting on your troops, leaving them flapping in the breeze under brand new leadership on the eve of war is stupid and selfish.

The victory that those critical of the Generals always point to in the overthrow of the Hussein regime was not due to any brilliant campaign plan. It was the result of courageous, smart, ingenuous captains, lieutenants and sergeants leading their troops during the run up country and in the Thunder Runs. Our troops were victorious in the combat phase of OIF despite the campaign plan, not because of it. And while I’m on the subject of the campaign plan, I have heard the statement along the lines that look, General Franks was in command and yet he is not criticizing the prosecution of OIF. Well, yeah. Of course he isn’t going to offer a criticism for to do so would mean he is criticizing himself. Lost in the debate are small facts not widely known, facts like General Franks’ original campaign plan called for the deployment of some 300,000 troops and a prolonged air campaign similar to Desert Storm. How did the troop level get cut by 100,000 or so you might ask; good question. Because I think that is not what the SecDef wanted, General Franks was sent back to the drawing board on multiple occasions until I believe it incrementally morphed into Mr. Rumsfeld’s campaign plan. Mr. Rumsfeld had been eager to shake the Army up, to transform it, this is a good thing. But the Army, being as steeped in tradition as it is, as big and cumbersome as it is, and given it’s deadly profession is an organization that plans slowly and methodically if time permits, so large that it moves slowly and cautiously if time permits, and with the consequences of failure so ominous, that it is somewhat risk averse, Army brass wants to try and make sure they have all bases covered, and I happen to think that is a good thing. With the luxury of hindsight, it seems to me plausible, that Mr. Rumsfeld used the battle fields of Iraq as a way to validate his vision of the new, transformed Army, in forcing the Army to speed up the planning process, forcing it to send in the ground forces without a prolonged air campaign he was showing the Army brass that the old ways may not always be necessary. This is why I say our troops obtained victory despite the campaign plan, not because of it. But this forced our troops to fight without a tested and approved doctrine. According to some Army leaders every unit movement during the combat phase was movement to contact, this form of movement is more physically and emotionally exhausting than you can imagine, it is also the slowest. But the greatest disadvantage to this form of tactical movement is that you do not control the terrain, you move through it and bypass it, leaving it empty for the enemy to reoccupy and attack the next formation to move through. This is where a higher troop level makes sense, along with giving the land forces more flexibility to keeping law and order in the streets during the post combat phase. Mr. Rumsfeld is also an advocate of high tech equipment, nothing wrong with that. However, when it comes to gathering raw intelligence, nothing can beat a scout team with binoculars and a radio. These are the commander’s eyes and ears, helping him to form a picture of the enemy disposition in his zone so that he can plan accordingly. Satellite photographs are of little use to a division commander, and of no use to the tactical commander. Intelligence should be pushed up, not down. The intelligence information in a satellite photographs are degradable, it loses its usefulness quickly as the enemy moves his forces. In short, our troops fought OIF using an ad hoc; make it up as you go doctrine against an enemy they did not expect. I contend that OIF should have been prosecuted using the latest doctrine that our troops were trained in, equipped for and expert at, rather than to fight relying almost solely on their ingenuity.

What we have in Iraq is a slow, ponderous move toward some form of democracy. I’m not personally in agreement that Mr. Rumsfeld need resign. We have come too far in this effort under his leadership. I think we should see it through until he sees fit to resign, or we win. But the lesson we seem to relearn over and over again is that this is what you get when civilian leadership puts any kind of constraints on an Army at war. Politicians and statesmen have years to try and solve international issues peacefully, but when they decide that further negotiations will bear no fruit, and they turn it over to the military they should turn it over to them completely, that they should not demand or even suggest to the military how to prosecute it. History tells us that when this occurs, we end up with an unsatisfactory conclusion to the war. Korea, it was seen by our politicians as a police action, and our forces were constrained for fear of widening the war and the entrance of China, what happened? China entered the war and prolonged it. Vietnam, politicians told our troops where you can bomb and shoot and where you can’t, and what happened? We lost. Desert Storm, rather than complete the annihilation of the Iraqi Army retreating north, we were ordered to cease fire, in order to appear humane, what happened? We are back there now, fighting over some of the same territory yet again. Do you see a pattern here?

Mr. Rumsfeld is an honorable man, and a great Secretary of Defense. But he was a Navy pilot. With this being his military background, it is understandable that he is the kind of leader who demands quick action, some pilots fly by the seat of their pants, it is the nature of their kind of war. But this does not translate well when it comes to an infantry company commander, too many moving parts; a lot of coordination is required. It seems that Mr. Rumsfeld has little patience for this, but I think he would have been better served to have heeded the advice of General Shinsecki, and the former Secretary of State General Powell. There is no shame in deploying more troops than you need in the opening stage of a war. The Rock is just a grumpy, crusty old noncommissioned officer, but I think it better to have more troops than you need and have the luxury of withdrawing them at your leisure as the mission permits.

Let me be very clear, I support our beleaguered president; he occupies the oval office during what in my estimation is the most difficult, complex and ominous era in world history. I have no doubt that he firmly believes that he is doing the right thing regarding the global war on terror (GWOT). And I’m behind him every step of the way. Even so, it is clear that mistakes have been made at several levels of government and opportunities missed that can now be examined with the passing of time and the luxury of hindsight. This article is not intended to point out failures for the sake of bashing the president or any of our national leaders. It is my small contribution offered as a basis for considering future endeavors in conducting the GWOT. Call it constructive criticism, for that is exactly what it is intended to be.

The next time that we must take the military option in conducting the GWOT, I suggest that our civilian leadership remove itself from the picture in the planning stages and allow the experts, our military leaders to formulate a plan that will maximize the use of our military personnel and equipment to the greatest extent possible. You see, some civilian leaders had the view that the Army had become cumbersome and too slow to get moving and into the action. They thought the Army had become risk averse, afraid of making a mistake. Prior to 9/11, under the guidance of the then Chief of Staff of the Army, General Eric Shinseki and the former Secretary of the Army, General (Retired) Thomas White, the Army had embarked on a path of transformation. The goal of this transformation was to turn the Army into an organization able to deploy specialized units of action to a theater more rapidly, an agile, mobile yet lethal smaller force. But transforming an organization as large and steeped in tradition as the Army takes time. After 9/11 time was a luxury the Army no longer had. It became crystal clear; we must take the fight to the enemy, in their backyard. Fortunately, the terrain of Afghanistan allowed us to deploy small teams of Special Forces to guide Air Force, Navy, Marine and Army attack aircraft to their targets. OEF was a rousing victory, the Taliban were routed and Al Qaeda took to their heels trying to make the Pakistan border.

I think the biggest mistake regarding OIF was in not sending enough troops to Iraq initially. The Army, in the process of transformation should have been allowed to fight the war in Iraq under the old doctrine, the doctrine in which our troops were trained, expert at and equipped for instead of being forced to conduct the operation as a way to validate the vision of the new Army our civilian leaders held. It is always better as per the Powell Doctrine that when on the attack you seek numerical advantage over the defender. Further, it is my opinion that it is always favorable to deploy more troops than you need and withdraw them at your leisure as time and mission permit, rather than to send in too few and discover tragically that you should have deployed more, this is the case in Iraq. In testimony before Carl Levin and the Senate Armed Services Committee, after being painted into a corner on the question of how many troops he thought we should deploy, General Shinseki said significantly more, 200,000. This was still under half the number deployed for Desert Storm (in which the writer participated). The Secretary of the Army Thomas White said the same thing, and he was fired from his position shortly thereafter. General Shinseki’s successor was named almost 18 months prior to the end of his term as the Chief of Staff of the Army. Clearly, this was a slap in the face. And when General Shinseki retired, conspicuously absent from the ceremony, was the Secretary of Defense, so, it is clear to me that there was some disagreement at the Pentagon on the issue of how many boots to put on the ground and probably other matters as well. Also, testifying before Carl Levin and the Armed Services Committee, Paul Wolfowitz had this to say about General Shinseki’s troop numbers comment; “wildly off the mark.” Further, he said he “couldn’t conceive of how you would have a case where it takes more people to secure peace than it does to win the war.” Well, I was just a grunt in the Army, but I do read and there is a definite pattern that emerges if one reads enough about military history. It indeed does take more troops to keep the peace then it does to win the war. This axiom was quantified the day looting broke out on the streets of Baghdad, as bewildered Soldiers stood around without clear orders and giddy Iraqis criss crossed the streets with anything they could get their hands on, including important records and documents from government buildings. Records that perhaps contained information on where other bad guys were or who they could contact to get public services back online, records that may have helped speed up the reconstruction effort, where to find military leaders necessary to get the Iraqi Army on the streets to keep law and order. But we didn’t have enough troops to keep order and that is what it boils down to.

The war in Iraq started out well enough. The combat phase was a stunning display of élan by our troops. And lets be honest about this, it was not brilliant planning that brought about the capitulation of Baghdad and overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime. It was the quick thinking, improvisation of our squad to company level leaders. It was the actions of our captains, lieutenants, sergeants and the guts of our Soldiers and Marines on the ground that made it possible.

The intelligence community was faced with a very daunting task with Iraq. I know that erring to the side of caution is good policy. But because intelligence was in essence fed to combat units in Iraq from the top down and often times wrong, our small unit leaders were forced to employ movement to contact tactics which are time consuming and physically exhausting. Intelligence of use to tactical leaders does not come from satellite photographs, it comes from the bottom up and that intelligence is collected and forwarded by radio report by people, by the Special Forces, cavalry scouts, long range patrols and forward observers, we need more of these kinds of units.

When will our civilian leaders learn that General Officers of the United States Military are experts in planning military operations? They may take longer than civilian leadership would like, but if the military is rushed into an operation, or if their efforts are altered by our civilian leaders, one thing is certain; it will result in higher casualty rates and perhaps more collateral damage. From the War in Korea forward, our civilian leaders have become more involved in planning military operations than they ever had in the past and the results are recorded for history. The result is a negotiated end to hostilities and an unsatisfactory outcome that may well re-ignite in the future, just like Iraq did, and Korea probably will. Once our politicians have run the course of diplomacy and military action becomes the last option, they should turn it over to the military and stay out of the way.

Iraq is not a lost cause. The president, Vice President, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, numerous General Officers and more, have stated many times over that this fight could be one that lasts for generations. We can achieve the end state if we will unite in the endeavor, recognize what the stakes of this fight are and steel ourselves and our families for what might come. The only way we will lose this war, is if we allow ourselves to.