See other Editorial Articles
Title: Befuddled President, Befuddled Superpower
Source:
Worldnetdaily
URL Source: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53044
Published: Nov 21, 2006
Author: Pat Buchanan
Post Date: 2006-11-21 10:48:43 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 262
Comments: 19
Posted: November 21, 2006 "For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?" On reading the Washington Post story by Robin Wright, "Bush Initiates Iraq Policy Review Separate from Baker's Group," about a new internal review of U.S. war policy, St. Paul's words return to mind. Here we are, longer in this war in Mesopotamia than America fought in World War I or World War II against Germany; yet, consider what our commander in chief – a successor to war presidents Lincoln, Wilson and FDR – is even now seeking to discover. "The president," said an anonymous White House official, "has asked the national security agencies to assess the situation in Iraq, review the options and recommend the best way forward. ... The president indicated Monday that he is interested in hearing interesting ideas both within the administration and from the Baker-Hamilton commission." So critical is this review that Condi Rice postponed her departure for the Asia-Pacific summit to participate. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told the Post the secretary has been "doing a lot of thinking" about Iraq over the last two months. Thinking about what? Replied McCormack: "The primary focus is on the State Department role in Iraq and are we pursuing the proper policies. Are we asking the right questions, are we seeking the right objectives, are we using the right means to achieve these objectives, following the right strategy and tactics?" Excuse me, but this sounds like some lost soul crying in a wilderness. Yet it is the voice of the foreign ministry of the world's last superpower in the fourth year of a war to decide the fate and future of the entire Middle East. Should not these questions have been asked, and answered with finality, by our war leaders before they marched us up to Baghdad? Are these not the questions a Democratic Senate should have asked Don Rumsfeld and Colin Powell before they gave Bush a blank check for war? Incredible. The U.S. government is tasking the NSC, CIA, State and Defense to bring forward new ideas to extract us, without defeat, from a war into which we have been plunged by the elected leaders of that same government. How can the American people have confidence in war leaders who still do not know how best to fight, win or end this war, but must seek guidance from the bureaucracy? Whatever is said about Eisenhower and Nixon, both came in with clear ideas of how they intended to extricate us from unpopular wars. Both did so and won landslide re-elections. Both set out a clear goal, made the necessary military and diplomatic moves, and took the political heat. Apparently, our present war leaders, four years into the war, have no policy to win or end this war. They are throwing up questions, asking advice, pleading for ideas, begging for answers. Even the U.S. joint chiefs of staff have joined in the hunt. "One component of the larger (review) effort is likely to be a military review initiated in mid-September by Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff," writes Wright. "His assessment of anti-terrorism efforts, with a core focus on Iraq, includes 16 top commanders meeting daily to brainstorm on questions such as: 'Where are we going? What are we trying to do? Are we going to get there this way?'" Is this not disconcerting? The most experienced warriors of the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines are sitting around every day, asking one another: "Where are we going? What we are we trying to do?" Can one imagine Douglas MacArthur, Chester Nimitz, "Bull" Halsey and Curtis LeMay sitting around day after day in Honolulu, asking each other: "Where are we going? What are we trying to do?" A senior defense official provided added guidance: "Nothing is off the table. They are looking at the whole spectrum of less forces, more forces." This remark suggests the U.S. joint chiefs are open to all options, including defeat. For once U.S. forces begin to pull out of a war that is far from being won, we risk losing that war. Heretofore, President Bush had said America's goal is "victory" and that we will not depart until it is achieved. By victory, he has meant eradication of al-Qaida in Iraq, defeat of the insurgency and an Iraq on America's side in the war on terror. What these strategic reviews suggest is that not only do our leaders not know how to achieve "victory," they are no longer sure it is worth the cost. What these strategic reviews also suggest is that George Bush, the defiant leader atop the pile of rubble at the World Trade Center, George Bush "The Decider," George Bush the resolute war chief who will stay the course in Iraq if only Laura and Barney are still with him, has vacated the White House. In his stead sits a president asking questions, seeking ideas, searching for answers. If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Brian S (#0)
Bush is a blustering gambler, with a gambler's mindset on a long losing streak. I expect him to "double down" yet again, on hopes he'll "win it all back" - that's what losing gamblers do, and escalate the military options in Iraq and elsewhere. But he won't back down. Everything he's ever been in charge of, he's driven into the ground through his own "decisiveness".
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
I agree. Short of a military coup, we are going to see some radioactive mushroom clouds before too much longer. Buchanan is focusing too much on Bush. I'm not sure Cheney has been defanged yet. He is the "Darth" of the administration. He even jokes about the nickname. I never thought I'd see a leader of the U.S. joke about being evil incarnate.
Depending on one's frame of mind (such as it is) that is one "definition" of victory, and then let the historians sort it out. :-/
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Brilliant. We're losing two Americans and about a hundred Iraqis every goddamn day and these guys want to have a "focus group" and do some "brainstorming", like they did in Business School for extra credit. What a bunch of pathetic amateurs.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
do we or we do not have a three branched government--one of checks and balances? last time i looked the legislature and judiciary went along with the executive on all of this.
What a bunch of pathetic amateurs. One would think that the military leaders of Russia and China have taken notice of such indecisiveness. Chimp is a coward and a bully. Psch 101. Only cowards and bullies talk tough and start fights with those weaker than themselves. If the SHTF via an attack on the CONUS by a REAL power, it's gonna' be "feet don't fail me now" and "just get me to my bunker!" for these bastards. We, of course, do not have such luxuries.
Ssshh.
The first problem with that is that they're asking the wrong people to assess what works. None of them really knows, and it's doubtful that the whole truth of the situation is being reported higher, for various reasons. It's a really depressing situation, if no one seems to know what they're trying to do, after three years of being there. Since they don't know what they're trying to do, they sure can't have any clue how they're going to get there. There seems to be a lack of strategic guidance. Without that, it's impossible to know what kinds of tactical changes are to be made. We seems to forget that it's very possible to suceed tactically nearly all the time, but lose strategically (ask the Germans.)
No kidding, if the Holy Grail of bringing democracy is dead, then there is no raison d'etre, apart from a paralysis due to an existential crisis.
You said it brother Pat.
And we did not exactly volunteer for those engagments. The Brits had to twist our arm to join their side for WWI. And w/o Pearl Harbor, who knows when we would have joined the party for WWII?
"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer." The Pentagon needs a good housecleaning of both suits and generals. Unfortunately, some of the good generals have already retired in the past several years.
You're correct. I'm not sure how it could be accomplished, because there is a cultural change needed and a new way of thinking. I've got to read the book "The Roots of Blitzkreig" again to see how von Seeckt did it to the Wehrmacht in the 1920s. But the Army needs to embrace maneuver warfare, alleviate the centralized control mentality of the officers, and accept that urban warfare is probably the most common battlefield we'll encounter. They need to build huge urban training areas (or use closed military bases) and include subways and other underground access points, and train with large civilian populations everywhere. A body of tactical doctrine that makes sense needs to be established. The Cold War zero defects mentality officers we've got now aren't going to be able to do such a change, but at the same time we can't be like the Red Army in 1941 with senior commanders having no experience leading units. It's a large problem. At the same time we've got to get better strategic minds involved (that's both the military and civilian leadership) so that we don't have articles like with that show that everyone is floundering around trying to figure out something a 10 year old could handle.
The scaling down to a 100,000-man army imposed by Versailles gave Seeckt a great opportunity to weed out all but the best people. Even the NCO's were thought of as the future junior officers of an expanded army, once that became possible, and that is what they turned out to be.
Katrina was America's Chernobyl.
A few months ago I saw captains going through their battlefield training in some sort of TOCOP or TOCEX (tactical opns center exercise - indoor simulation with radios and interactive display). It was just like the battles in WW2. I agree, we're not going to face that type of enemy or tactics in the future, although they are nice to know battlefield skills to master. The focus should be on what you just mentioned in toto.
I expect him to "double down" yet again, on hopes he'll "win it all back" - that's what losing gamblers do, and escalate the military options in Iraq and elsewhere. All the symptoms of a dry drunk.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Alistair Horne's A Savage War of Peace: Algeria 1954-1962 has just been reissued, after having been out of print for a long time. It got a great review in last Sunday's Washington Post. (I read it years and years ago, and recall liking it, but don't remember much besides about it.) Galula's Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice was recently published in English translation. Weren't there reports of showings of Pontecorvo's Battle of Algiers in the Pentagon just before we invaded Iraq in 2003?
Katrina was America's Chernobyl.
Hitler admitted that he always bet the house.
Katrina was America's Chernobyl.
I don't know the answer to your question but, I recall you linking to that film a long time back and it piqued my interest at the time.
In his stead sits a president asking questions, seeking ideas, searching for answers. If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?
#2. To: Starwind (#1)
#3. To: Sam Houston (#2)
Short of a military coup, we are going to see some radioactive mushroom clouds before too much longer.
#4. To: Brian S (#0)
"The primary focus is on the State Department role in Iraq and are we pursuing the proper policies. Are we asking the right questions, are we seeking the right objectives, are we using the right means to achieve these objectives, following the right strategy and tactics?"
#5. To: ALL (#0)
#6. To: bluedogtxn (#4)
Brilliant. We're losing two Americans and about a hundred Iraqis every goddamn day and these guys want to have a "focus group" and do some "brainstorming", like they did in Business School for extra credit.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
#7. To: Brian S (#0)
Are these not the questions a Democratic Senate should have asked Don Rumsfeld and Colin Powell before they gave Bush a blank check for war?
#8. To: Brian S (#0)
"One component of the larger (review) effort is likely to be a military review initiated in mid-September by Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff," writes Wright. "His assessment of anti-terrorism efforts, with a core focus on Iraq, includes 16 top commanders meeting daily to brainstorm on questions such as: 'Where are we going? What are we trying to do? Are we going to get there this way?'"
#9. To: historian1944 (#8)
There seems to be a lack of strategic guidance.
#10. To: Brian S (#0)
Apparently, our present war leaders, four years into the war, have no policy to win or end this war.
#11. To: Brian S (#0)
Here we are, longer in this war in Mesopotamia than America fought in World War I or World War II against Germany; yet, consider what our commander in chief – a successor to war presidents Lincoln, Wilson and FDR – is even now seeking to discover.
---Henry Kissinger, New York Times, October 28, 1973
#12. To: historian1944 (#8)
The first problem with that is that they're asking the wrong people to assess what works.
#13. To: Fred Mertz (#12)
#14. To: historian1944 (#13)
#15. To: historian1944 (#13)
#16. To: Starwind, bluedogtxn (#1)
Bush is a blustering gambler, with a gambler's mindset on a long losing streak.
#17. To: Fred Mertz (#15)
#18. To: Destro (#16)
Eine wirkliche Alternative zum Kriegsentschluß konnte es für Hitler jedoch nicht geben. Ein letzter Versuch Görings in den frühen Morgenstunden des 29. August machte die unterschiedliche Einstellung zu Politik und Krieg deutlich. ???Wir wollen doch das Vabanque-Spiel lassen“, mahnte Göring. Hitler aber sagte nur: ???Ich habe in meinem Leben immer Vabanque gespielt.“ Als neuer Angriffstermin wurde der 1. September festgesetzt. Alle weiteren Verhandlungen wurden nur noch zum Schein geführt.
#19. To: aristeides (#17)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest