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.

My fellow Americans, I've had it up to here! If I see one more illegal alien with a stupid toothless smirk on their face, Mexican flag in one hand, upside down American flag in the other I might just go postal. Maybe all of us should?

We have allowed our compassion and our good will, coupled with the cancer of political correctness to bring us to the brink of chaos.

What is so hard to understand that 70% of Americans want action now on our southern border? What is so hard to understand that illegal aliens broke the law to get into our sovereign territory? I don't give a rats behind what job an illegal alien is willing to take. They do not have any right to be here and we don't owe them a thing!

I don't care how well behaved the illegals demonstrating in the streets of our cities are. They do not have the right! The liberal media and Ted Kennedy would have us beleive that we are witnessing the civil rights movement II. How stupid does the liberal media and Ted Kennedy think we are? As illegal aliens, modern day squatters, these people are not in a legal position to demand a thing! In order to enjoy constitutional rights you must be a US citizen, something they seem to conveniently forget and something they do not possess.

The border with Mexico is perhaps the second biggest threat to our national security at home, following closely behind our ports. Can the government tell us with any accuracy, that terrorist have not hidden among the wetbacks who sneak across the border and are now awaiting orders to strike? How many terrorist have we allowed entry into our country already? What about the mountains of drugs that are moved over and under the border? Aren't we as a nation about tired of that as well? Twelve million illegal aliens, twelve million bodies unaccounted for. Twleve million people who like parasites suck from our social systems, health care and schools, how many of these twelve million people are paying their fair share of taxes?

Where is our government?

Speaking of our government, they are obviously paralyzed with fear. I strongly suggest that you write your representatives and remind them they are in the business of making tough choices. Rather then trying to figure out how to squeeze some votes out of this issue, instead of trying to craft a bill that will keep everyone happy I want the government to do what is right for the country, track these illegals down wherever they are hiding and put them on the first thing smoking back to Mexico where they rightfully belong, they are President Fox's problem, not ours. President Bush never seems to tire of reminding us that his first priority is to protect the American people, Mr. President, this is one of those times!

President Fox, what a piece of work huh? The man is an abject failure, eager for the dollars to be returned to Mexico via the illegals in America he has taken a page from Castro's playbook, export your poor and your criminal element. Mexico is on the verge of legalizing drugs! Not just marijuana, but hard drugs! What kind of president is that? The Mexican government is corrupt, rotten to the core, 40% of the Mexican population lives below the poverty line! Mr. Fox preaches to Mr. Bush that putting up a fence is an insult to Mexico, who cares? Mexico has militarized their side of the border, I have read reports of Mexican military personnel trespassing on our side of the border and actually firing on our border agents. The next time that Mr. Bush and Mr. Fox meet, it is my fervent wish that Mr. Bush advise Mr. Fox to shove it! The illegals demonstrating in our streets would be well advised to take their placards and bullhorns to Mexico City and improve their own country.

What is so hard to understand about this issue? Have you ever heard of Aztlan? This is what many Mexicans call the American southwest region; Aztlan. They feel the freedom to migrate to America unhinderd is their birthright, do you know why? Yes, thats right, because it used to be part of Mexico. A radical element of the illegal alien population and it's supporters see the migration of illegals as nothing short of righteous military action, an invasion, an insidious plan to take back Aztlan through a rapid shift in the demographics of the region. They say that the Anglos are not making babies, they are dying. Sounds like the makings of American patriots doesn't it? I don't need to remind the reader that history will show, all great civilizations are built upon conquest and this includes Mexico, does anyone remember a civilization called the Aztecs? We fought a war with Mexico and we won, to the victor go the spoils. Thats just a brutal fact of life.

God bless the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps. Volunteers who monitor the border on their own time. As a symbolic gesture meant to be a clear message to our government, they have begun to build a fence along a strategically important portion of the southern border. What is not to understand about this issue? Its simple, stop the flow of illegal aliens, pass a bill to document illegals already in our country and give them a path to citizenship and lets just see if citizenship is really what they desire.

The demostrations by the illegals and their idiot supporters have taken so much pride in over the last couple of weeks has backfired. The sight of so many illegals, so many ungrateful malcontents who think they have any right to demand anything from us has gotten Americas dander up. Historically the American people have been slow to anger, they have an ability to temper their passion. But this is reaching critical mass. America does not have the capability to absorb and infinite number of illegal aliens. There is a saturation point, there is a limit not only to our ability to support the additional people, but to our patience as well.

If the illegal aliens continue to throw these demonstrations in our face, if they continue to brag about how they have seized the attention of our congressmen and senators, the more likely it becomes that the reaction they get from the American people, and hopefully from our government will not be the one they are counting on.

I heard Trent Lott on FOX news this morning opine that the tougher congressional bill on illegal immigration has the momentum. Lets hope he is right.

On a placard held high by fat greasy wetback in Los Angeles I saw on TV proclaimed threateningly, that "Today we march, tomorrow we vote." Well, let me tell you something you fat good for nothing squatter! Today I vote, tomorrow I vote too!

Illegal aliens, GO HOME! And stay on your side of the river!

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.