Ship Page Index

Katrina, the Third Strike
September 4, 2005

First they came into office with warnings of a terrorist threat. They ignored it until the towers fell and the leader sat frozen on My Pet Goat before fleeing all over the country to undisclosed locations. They predicted a "cake walk" in Iraq and joyous greeting of the liberators with flowers for the exercise someone described as analogous to Roosevelt ordering the invasion of Brazil after Pearl Harbor.

The "cake walk" to Baghdad was more or less accurate. The flowers were brief and the ignored warnings of more experienced military experts came to pass. Lots more boots were needed on the ground and we were stretched. Instead of ramping up to the levels so well predicted he leaned on the National Guard. The men of the Guard repeatedly deployed, but worse for what transpired, their equipment was plundered. Men rotated home, equipment did not.

As the welcome flowers mutated into nearly two thousand flowered graves of our people Katrina arrived to fulfill scenarios long predicted—frightingly so in a 2002 Times Picayune article. In the sunny Monday quiet after the storm New Orleans began dying in water and the Gulf Coast wandered in the rubble. Where was the help? That question was still being asked by the barely living and the dying Thursday night.

On Friday the convoys arrived while the leaders, who had ignored warnings from consequences in Iraq to the state of levees in New Orleans, held self congratulatory photo opportunities. I'll bet that was no coincidence! By Sunday the echo chamber was gearing up to go full cry blaming the victims again. This gang screws things up time and again and neither accepts responsibility nor fixes its basic flaw of incompetence. It covers itself in clouds of corporate spin. It is the Enron of government. Buy employees, buy; while we sell and know it is all a sham. Spin and blame shifting is what they truly excel at doing.

How many blunders and ignored dangers does it take before these people are seen by all as the pathetic choice for leadership they are?

Foolish Leadership—It is Time for a Change
September 18, 2004

I am still waiting for those Iraqis strewing flowers, celebrating and dancing. Hell, I'm just waiting for some common sense in the Bush administration's actions in Iraq.

Oh sure. They knew better than all those active and retired military leaders, those who had some real war experience, who warned that "invasion lite" was folly. We now know those old retired guys knew something these newbies did not. The occupation that was to be a celebration has, as predicted, cost so much more life and maiming than did the invasion lite curtain raiser.

Remember Wolfowitz's "wildly off the mark" Shinseki? A man right on target it appears. Unlike almost everyone else in this administration he had some real experience in war. Remember Zinni? They were insulted and disparaged by administration "chicken hawks" and this President let that happen. Even I said:

I hope we are lucky. I hope our people get home safely, but also know they are dreaming if they think it is going to be a quick trip. I feel for the troops I've heard hoping for a quick war and return home. They somehow forget or haven't quite realized the occupation that very likely will not be easy or short. We don't have an Army built for occupation. Our military is counter force. That is entirely different from occupation force—that takes lots of people on the ground exposed to attrition. I can now only wish our people well, but I never confuse support for our forces placed in harm's way with support for the politicians who unwisely do so.

The ideologically fogged and "think tank war" experienced brains of these folks in power just cannot see beyond their own hype.

First they put our people in harm's way and tie our forces up with now provably false claims of urgency on Iraq. Meanwhile they claim, again with no hard supporting evidence being found by even friendly investigations, that this disastrous side venture is part of the war on terror. I have to concede it may be if one assumes creating more terrorist is part of a war on terror. Hey, that makes for a target rich environment and perpetual war—a reason to keep a "War President" in office. Good for the administration's survival perhaps—not so good for the survival rate and bodily integrity of the good people they send to do the job.

The "War President" keeps saying stay the course. As I see it, in nautical terms, the captain first diverts us from a safe port in a storm to enter the ice. He tells us the ice is a great danger but will just melt before a ship such as ours. He and his intimates ignore advice of experienced ice pilots. Now the floes are beginning to cause damage aggravated by inept actions the experts had advised against. The effort is burning fuel at a horrid rate. Lookouts, call them our Intelligence Community, are warning of big stuff, even bergs ahead. The Captain doesn't care. He has already blamed the lookouts for his problems after ignoring their warnings before.

Look at reality? Examine the mistakes he made at great cost? Admit he should listen to experience now and adjust to reality? Hell no! Steady on course. Damn the bergs, full speed ahead. Meanwhile we will just claim we are on course and things are just fine to keep the crew happy. The storm is still out there and we have no maneuvering room. We are now committed to the ice and our resources are strained just coping with the result of that foolish entry into the ice field. Not recognizing the mistake and "steady on course" is not the answer to anything except how do we get deeper into this mess. We need new thinking about how to get out without making a bigger mess of things before we get into those bergs!

Sure the "ice" was dangerous. Iraq was a hazard sitting out there on the horizon, but we did not have to get into that mess at that time. We certainly did not have to get into it in a way that makes it a bigger mess. The issue was the storm of radical Islamic terrorism and now we have increased our exposure to that very real danger. We diverted before fixing the failed state that was being used as a base and now have a probable new failed state. Now we have to do repair, extract ourselves, stabilize what we stirred up and address the even greater original problem without the help we might have had before this folly.

Worse, the same blind, opinionated, "faith based" ignoring of science and facts extends to actions across the board. It extends from the folly of the stem cell policy to the economy. This Bush Administration is "leading" in wrong directions all over.

World history is full of examples of strong leaders, really steadfast in their course, ignoring evident facts and leading armies, navies and their nations into disaster. Well, a ship's crew or a German in 1945 might have to live with that foolishness. We citizens do not. It is time to toss that captain for proven lack of wise leadership. It is time to send into retirement a "War President" that ignores, even allowing ridiculing from his subordinates, those with real experience in war. A strong leader leading in the wrong direction is just about the worse case. These people are believing their own pipe dreams and see facts just getting in the way of their illusion of—No! delusional truth. We do not have to join that history. It is past time for a change.

Presuming the General's Stars

March 2, 2004

This President seems to do a lot of talking about what God wants and how this nation, through him, is doing it. In the military a junior staffer who goes about trying to get what he wants by saying it is what the flag officer wants is accused to trying to "wear the general's stars" and is considered a presumptive jackass; a real bush leaguer. What do we call a President who presumes to wear God's mantle? Some might call it blasphemy. This is a God fearing person? I think not!

Whether one believes in God or not, the spectacle of someone presuming the mantle of God has to lead to the conclusion of "presumptive jackass!" I'm for sending this one back to jackass around with the Texas jackrabbits and not the nation.

Wrong Diagnosis
January 30, 2004

Your doctor gives you the diagnosis: colon cancer. Act immediately or you will be in a horror in the near future. You do it. No colon and you empty the bags that replace normal excretion. You are paying a price, but it is better than what your doctor told you would happen otherwise.

Now you have the second opinion and review of the data. The bleeding was not cancer. It was something far less serious, not an imminent threat at all.

Your doctor says it is all for the best. He says the lab made a mistake. You see that the lab report has all sorts of qualifiers the doctor never mentioned to you. He really wanted that operation! He is upbeat. You won't get colon cancer now. You will use the bag and things are pretty miserable for some time, but hey, trust me! It was all for the best.

Yeah, keep that doctor! (Shall we say reelect that doctor?)

Fool me once . . .

Oh! By the way, where are the cheering crowds, the flower strewn streets and the happily democratic Iraquis?

Vietnam here we go again! Insurgent warfare and the drip, drip of our blood.

Revisionist Historians?
June 18, 2003

Now let me get this straight. We went to war in Iraq because there was an immediate threat from WMD the U.N. team was too incompetent, despite our coaching, to find. This threat was so real, so immediate, we knew exactly where these things were and they could be used on two days notice. We absolutely had to act right now!

Off we go, unprepared to secure the nuclear site that lay unguarded for days. Off we go, trashing carefully built alliances and world order built up by every Administration over the last fifty years. Off we go with civilian chickenhawks in the Pentagon trashing our own military experts who dared note that against a competent foe our strung out running start could be "cut off and killed" just as Colin Powell announced he would do to them last time. (Wait a minute! Wasn't it some of this same gang that failed to carry that promise through so that they could proclaim the neat little "100 Hour War" for political purposes?) Off we went with not a real thought to what an occupation would mean and what costs in blood and funds would be involved. Remember Wolfie's testimony and the trashing ot the Army's Chief of Staff? Hell, the people would greet us with flowers and flags and fall right into good ole capitalist democracy safe for our grand corporate enterprises and the missionaries of the religious right to add more rabid religion to an already boiling pot.

Now nobody can find much beyond two trailers. Those were crowed over with great glee. One is reminded of celebrating elephants when one gave birth to a mouse! The trailers were designated WMD sites because all the other uses are discounted. Ah ha! The White House is a whore house because it is too large and ill placed to be a residence, too "residential" to be an office building, too (keep on adding). . . It is a whore house!

Oops, an official British investigation confirmed they were not WMD sites and one expert, who examined them, says they actually were weather balloon trailers for an artillery system. It is a bit embarrassing because a British company possibly provided them years ago.

Now that this little adventure has us bogged down into maybe a body bag a day and, what else, sniping and body counts, since no other concrete results are lying around, we notice the stated major reasons don't exist. This horrible threat's military vanished in days instead of cutting supply lines and causing Rummy real embarrassment. Worse, his WMD as described for getting us into this mess do not exist—only hopes something will turn up someday. Remember; they were in vast quantities, ready for immediate use and we knew precisely where they were.

Shuffle, shuffle, dissemble, dissemble, prevaricate, prevaricate—oh, those really weren't the reasons at all. Be thankful the Iraqui people are free of the monster and under our occupation that is going to cost us blood and treasure in quantities we will not estimate. Those of you so rude as to point out precisely what we said earlier are "revisionist historians." Bullshit! Absolute bullshit!

It is patently obvious the revision is not being done by the "historians" here. Simply read the statements leading up to the war. They are readily available and one has to be blind or blind stubborn not to go look. And these are the people so exercised about a President lying about a very personal matter? Hypocrites, lying hypocrites, may be the best description.

As far as I am concerned, if they weren't lying before they went into Iraq their "spinning" now forms a lie. Sounds to me like Orwell's 1984 is just twenty years late for now they call the ones simply pointing to the record of what they said a few months ago as being the revisionists!

Previously:

See Sanity Checks (30 March 2003); Sanity Check 2, (31 March 2003); Sanity Check 3, (12 April 2003)

My Views on the Public's Attention and the Iraq Invasion*

March 19, 2003

Some that know me might be surprised that I'm not supportive of this venture in Iraq. My attitudes have more often been characterized by those old Cold War terms "warmonger" rather than "peacenik"—though I'd characterize them as being hard realism instead of any prepackaged viewpoint. Those views, based on nearly fifty years of study and experience, have not changed.

First, I have to say I am shocked and disappointed by the reaction of many to the events of September 11, 2001. On that morning I was called and asked if I were watching. I turned on the television in time to see the second hit on the World Trade Center for confirmation this was no accident. I wasn't shocked. I would describe my reaction more as that of watching a ship finally sink with all hands a ship I'd long known was unsafe. I was mildly surprised at the coordination demonstrated and hoping those aircraft were not carrying what they could be carrying or that the intense fires would destroy two of the three possibilities.

You see, I'd never gone off into some fool's paradise when the Wall came down. I'd paid attention. Among other things I'd watched was the issue of chemical, biological and nuclear leftovers all over the old Soviet Union now under little to no protection. Some were literally lying about on the ground. Many sites were in areas of intense instability.

I'd also observed over twenty years of casual airport security in the United States. More than once I'd left from overseas and arrived at domestic terminals only to shake my head at what I saw. That was in the old days of Cuba as a likely destination and continued through the Black September and other threats. I'd made the mistake of leaving my bag in Reading station while waiting for my train to Wales. I only walked a few yards away to look at something. I became an object of immediate attention and the platform attendant shouted at me to get back to my bag immediately. The IRA had been in the habit of leaving very nasty surprises and leaving a package was not acceptable in civilized Britain.

No, the world did not change on 9-11. The unrealistic sweet, and I might say ignorant, dream of many of our citizens was disturbed. Despite the warnings of Oklahoma and the previous World Trade Center events all too many seemed to be in some sort of escapist dream world. Along with legitimate sorrow for the victims I began to see a form of self pity and hand wringing that made me wonder what had happened to the "home of the brave." Then I began watching a government react in ways that made me wonder about the "land of the free" as it proposed and even began actions more akin to the old Gestapo or Stalin's NKVD than those allowed by that Constitution so many of us had sworn to protect. Meter readers spying on customers? I'm old enough to remember when that was a key difference on how we lived vice how the poor Soviets lived.

Call me an old grouch, but what I seemed to be seeing all too often was a bunch of spoiled and ignorant children suddenly exposed to some hard and chilling reality. They were in a panic tantrum. To an agonized interview with someone saying "I want to be safe again!" I'd snarl "Only in your dreams you idiot! You never were!" Instead of fixing our attitudes and real problems much of the nation seems to be still in that tantrum. Instead of holding the agencies responsible for our national security up to examination and fixing them we create an entirely new massive bureaucracy with the movie like title of Homeland Security (Fatherland? Motherland? Homeland? Those were terms used by those sinister regimes of mid 20^th Century Eurpoe.). No, I'm seeing people without history demanding from politicians, mostly with no military experience, to be safe again and willing to part with what all too many had supposedly died to protect. That which so many of us swore to protect, the Constitution.

Now I'm seeing what I view as a strange and obsessive diversion from a legitimate campaign to control international terrorism in this Iraq venture. Note that I did not use the term war in connection with terror. I consider that a misuse of the term and as degrading as "war on poverty," "war on drugs" or "war on unprotected sex" it demeans a much more serious thing. Those combat veterans still with us were not in anything comparable to these so called wars. That veteran who watched his fellow attempt to stuff his guts back into his belly was not in a PR campaign. But then note. Almost none of the core of this Administration's "hawks" have even experienced basic training.

Why am I opposed to the action they have made inevitable? Why, when the opponent is led by ideal candidates for a good dose of blackened, oozing, fried skin and hanging guts?

Perhaps I'm being unfair because when I heard of the "Hundred Hour War" while watching clips of the "Highway of Death" my reaction was shock. When I heard that those political types were horrified by that highway I wondered what they thought all this was about. It is about making Falaise Gaps! Go read your history about the gap or the Falaise pocket if the term is strange. It is about calling in massive artillery on retreating forces, even those containing refugees, to make sure they are not there and organized another day. Now we had General Powell, who'd made the speech about "cutting off and kill it" about the Iraq's army involved in what I can only imagine as the neat political ploy of the "Hundred Hour War" before that job is finished.

That was a mistake and I've agreed with myself it is unfair to place too much emphasis on this being the son carrying the sword of the father. It is still interesting from the standpoint of what may be driving this obsession, but I'll just let that pass. I have made a conscious effort to go only with what this Bush administration has and has not done.

First, it has trashed half a century of building international institutions that came out of the blood shed by our and other's armed forces in crushing two actual world powers who had gone really bad. It did so not to correct actual deficiencies in those institutions and agreements, but to aggressively assert its view of America over all.

Second, it diverted from the real dangers of terrorist activity and increasing hostility among adherents of one of the world's great religions to take care of what appears to be a relatively inactive threat in a way that only increases the likelihood of that hostility and threat increasing over the long term—with trashed support systems behind us. It has presented the reason of the day for doing so without clear and convincing evidence. Even military leaders have been puzzled about why now, why this course and why not aggressive containment. That includes a public interview with the field leader of the last Gulf War. As to the UN Presentation of evidence? My reaction to the photo of the terrorist chemical and biological training camp photo was simply this:

Why are we not seeing before and after pictures? We've hit targets all over that place without negative reaction. Why did we save the camp for "evidence" instead of waiting for it to be full of campers and turning it into moonscape? Trucks ducking out the back with inspectors on the way? Mini-highway of death in the making, not "evidence."

No, all that did was convince me we'd possibly ignored a target rich environment to build a case for something where the real reasons were not so politically acceptable.

The one thing that has oozed out is the vision of a little group of people without military experience and closely allied with the neo-conservative movement. They had produced a paper for the Likud party of Israel that outlined nearly this scenario. Now they are in a position to implement that plan. It is a bold plan to break the deadlock and bring "democracy" to the Arab world. If it had a strong chance of success I might be a supporter.

In my considered view it is a plan based on hope, smoke and mirrors. That view is shared by real experts in the region. An equally likely result is increased instability of a nasty sort. When I saw Paul Wolfowitz, in repudiating an estimate from the Army's top general, testifying indicating that Iraq had no history of internal ethnic strife I could only shake my head. As for democracy in the region? It is probably more likely to bring about Islamic states that are hostile than anything we would like to see. But we see a particular arrogance in this bunch of civilians without military experience when dealing with people who've made military knowledge their lives. According to an article in the Washington Times (February 28, 2003), hardly a left wing paper, this is the sort of attitude we can expect:

The Washington Times reported on an internal memo four weeks ago from Mr. Rumsfeld that criticized the quality of reports coming from the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Asked later at a press conference about his direct management style, Mr. Rumsfeld said, "The Constitution calls for civilian control of this department. And I'm a civilian."

What arrogance! I've never seen an administration so lacking in respect for actual military credentials! But then these are the same people who went public with backstabbing our most organized internal supporters, the Kurds, before they had the deal done with the people we were doing the stabbing for! Hey Turks! We are selling out the Kurds. Come on in and get them under control. Oops!

I think the Brits did right when they arranged to get group photos of Nazi puppet government folks secretly conspiring to come over and then, just before D-day released the photos. The German reaction tied up lots of troops as they wiped out that bunch of fools. That is real war and its consequences. Then the Brits didn't blow the treachery before the deed was complete.

I consider this a dangerous gamble on long odds, the equivalent of betting the house on drawing three to make four aces or betting most of a life's savings on rolling the dice for boxcars. I'm also anything but convinced these gamblers are particularly adept after seeing the blunders. Well, the dice are in the air.

Even if this bunch are somewhat lucky gamblers I've no confidence. In fact, I've less as they may feel lucky again. I feel as helpless as an airline passenger aboard a crippled jet that cannot reach altitude whose cockpit crew has decided to weave through fog shrouded mountain peaks rather than burn available fuel to get around the peaks to the nearest field. Even if I get off alive, I would never choose them for crew.

I hope we are lucky. I hope our people get home safely, but also know they are dreaming if they think it is going to be a quick trip. I feel for the troops I've heard hoping for a quick war and return home. They somehow forget or haven't quite realized the occupation that very likely will not be easy or short. We don't have an Army built for occupation. Our military is counter force. That is entirely different from occupation force—that takes lots of people on the ground exposed to attrition. I can now only wish our people well, but I never confuse support for our forces placed in harm's way with support for the politicians who unwisely do so.

Just look at Belfast, West Bank, Malaya, Kenya for the sort of thing needed. Oh, but we did it in Germany and Japan! Consider those cultures a moment. Both became dangerous because they had populations that were highly disciplined with undue respect for authority, any authority. Our conquering troops in Germany were met with heel clicking mayors asking what was expected. In Japan there were bows and Imperial troops placed themselves under our command. Think that will happen in Iraq? Sweet dreams again. It could, if we hit boxcars toss after toss. I have considered the path against the real desirability of eliminating such filth as Saddam. At this time, with that country no clear and present danger (Korea, the ignored, may well be!) I find this obsession Quixotic. Nope, gamblers of this sort in high office can only lead to eventual disaster.

Ramon Jackson

* Before anyone takes exception to "Invasion" remember the "invasion beaches"? Utah was one. Juno, Sword, Gold and Omaha were others. It is a proper military term devoid of political context other than for those into Orwellian perversions of language.

The Dice Are in the Air

We won't know what they say until well after the immediate victory. It may take years to know the real result of this disdain for and trashing of the rule-of-law built at considerable cost to this nation's blood and treasure over the last sixty or more years. We can be assured that when we object to another country taking unilateral military action we will be laughed out of the room if we object on those grounds.

Our forces are doing their usual loyal and professional job as directed. They deserve the best support our nation can give them in that job. On the other hand I'm disgusted by those who confuse support for them with support for politicians and "respect" the Commander-in-Chief" hat to the exclusion of reality. I'd ask them this: If a general sent his troops on a needless mission to take a hill without good reason and where casualties were assured, would one consider criticism of the general non-support of the people he'd sent to do the job?

I don't think so. Those people in uniform are doing what they have to do and deserve respect and support. I think they also deserve better political leadership—leadership that does not gamble with their lives and our future without much sounder reasoning than any I've seen here.

Sanity Checks
30 March 2003

Current and former U.S. military officers are blaming Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and his aides for the inadequate troop strength on the ground in Iraq, saying the civilian leaders "micromanaged" the deployment plan out of mistrust of the generals and an attempt to prove their own theory ... Retired Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, who commanded the 24th Infantry Division during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, said yesterday that he told a senior member of Rumsfeld's staff shortly before the war that the secretary's office had to stop meddling in the deployment process and let Army commanders have the units they believed they needed to fight the war. ... Rumsfeld, McCaffrey said, "sat on each element for weeks and wanted an explanation for every unit called up out of the National Guard and Reserve and argued about every 42-man maintenance detachment. Why would a businessman want to deal with the micromanagement of the force? The bottom line is, a lack of trust that these Army generals knew what they were doing." ... McCaffrey said he warned a senior defense official shortly before the war began that although the Pentagon's assumptions on how strongly Iraq would resist were probably sound, planners were risking a "political and military disaster" if they were wrong. [emphasis mine]

Rumsfeld Faulted For Troop Dilution-Military Officers: Forces in Iraq Are Inadequate
By Vernon Loeb, Washington Post Staff Writer, Sunday, March 30, 2003

Field commanders this past week have spoken openly of a "pause" in the allied campaign to rest, regroup and reinforce, while securing supply lines by pacifying southern Iraq. But yesterday's session of the War Council reaffirmed a battle plan that was crafted in Washington, and reminded any dissenters what the commander in chief wants. ... Bush has been reading and talking in recent months about the need for strong civilian leadership to keep the military focused in wartime. [emphasis mine]

Push Toward Baghdad Is Reaffirmed-Bush Backs Battle Plan Of Top Pentagon Officials
By David Von Drehle and Mike Allen, Washington Post Staff Writers, Sunday, March 30, 2003

The failure of the Bush Administration to manage its diplomacy is staggering, and the price paid, even if the war ends quickly, could be higher than anyone now anticipates. ... Yet the Bush foreign policy of unilateral preemption is so ill-defined and open-ended that it could weigh heavily on the global economy well after the bombing stops. Look at the Administration's agenda. The war in Iraq will be followed by an occupation that could last years, cost many billions of dollars, and involve tens of thousands of occupying troops. That's a big price to pay if bungled diplomacy means that the U.S. bears most of the financial burden. ... Can capital, trade, and labor flow smoothly when the world's only superpower maintains such a confusing and threatening stance? U.S. corporations may soon find it more difficult to function in a multilateral economic arena when their overseas business partners and governments perceive America to be acting outside the bounds of international law and institutions. ... But the seeds of the current diplomatic disaster were planted in the first year of the Bush Administration, well before September 11. That's when Washington defined its foreign policy, which has come to be seen as the three "D's" -- disdain, disregard, and disrespect for treaties, allies, and friends. [And it appears our experienced military commanders.] ... The U.S. will win militarily in Iraq, but a victory in the period after the war is still in question. [emphasis mine]

Business Week; March 23, 2003, "Commentary: The High Price of Bad Diplomacy" by Bruce Nussbaum

Sanity Check #2

31 March 2003

Let SecDef chuckle and say all is "on plan," as he did March 30. Let no one say they weren't warned. Mr. Lind is one among many, often highly decorated military men, who did warn. But then the current briefer at CENTCOM dismissed all of them as over the hill (I believe "out of date" was the quote.) the moment they retired! And that from a downright brilliant one star. What trash! What disrespectful trash!

William S. Lind is Director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism at the Free Congress Foundation, an organization with views I probably would never fully support based on their statement that "our main focus is on the Culture War. Will America return to the culture that made it great, our traditional, Judeo-Christian, Western culture?"—something of which I'm deeply suspicious. That said, I take comfort that my own logical conclusions seem supported by a wide variety of people with entirely different views on other issues. It is a sanity check.

Here are some of Mr. Lind's comments from brief articles published on the Defense and the National Interest website where all these articles are found in the On War Archive.

From: ON WAR # 7: Some German Lessons, William S. Lind, March 12, 2003

There are several ways of defining levels of war. One is John Boyd's trinity of moral, mental and physical. Another is the more traditional strategic, operational and tactical. One of the reasons Germany lost both world wars was that she thought operational excellence would trump strategic failure. In reality, a higher level of war always trumps a lower.

America seems now to have taken this German error and extended it. The present American way of war assumes that superiority at the tactical (or perhaps merely technical) level, manifested in high technology, will overcome massive failures at the strategic and moral levels. Strategically, a war with Iraq will help, not hurt, our real enemies, non-state forces such as al-Qa'ida. Morally, we are launching an aggressive war against a weak enemy for no clear reason. Putting the two together leads to self-isolation, which is exactly what happened to Germany. The notion that Wunderwaffe [editor's note" "wonder weapons," like the V-2 ballistic missile or the Me-262 jet fighter that Germany fielded during WW II] will somehow overcome isolation and strategic failure will prove as viable for Washington now as it did for Germany in 1944-45.

From: ON WAR # 9: No Exit, William S. Lind, March 26, 2003

The third possibility [The first two are worse] is what the adventurers who now run American foreign and defense policy seek: we take Baghdad, liberate Iraq and turn it into a modern, peaceful democracy. The probability of this happening makes a snowball's chances in Hell look pretty good, but even if it does, it too is a long-term disaster. Why? First, because democracy in the Islamic world probably means the election of people like Bin Laden, whose campaign slogan would be, "Death to the Christian and Jewish dogs!" Second, because what the American Establishment means by "freedom and democracy" is Brave New World. And third, because the adventurers, emboldened by success, might then go on to wage war against Iran, Syria, Libya, and possibly North Korea. If their goal is American world hegemony, that goal is certain to drive everyone else into a coalition against us, state and non-state elements alike. [emphasis mine]

In short, so long as American policy remains what it is today, the war in Iraq offers us no exit.

ON WAR # 8: Hippos Can't Tap Dance, William S. Lind, March 19, 2003

The subtle risk that comes with this Blitzkrieg-type war plan is that Blitzkrieg requires a Third Generation, German-model military and America has Second Generation, French-model armed forces.* Directing Second Generation forces to do Blitzkrieg is asking hippos to tap dance. They may want to, but they just can't.

The problem is that fast-moving warfare requires fast decision-making, not just rapid movement by columns of armored vehicles. Unless everything goes exactly according to plan—and wars seldom do—commanders at every level must adapt often and rapidly. But our hierarchical, process-oriented military decision process, dominated by vast staffs, misleading virtual realities and political generals, does not permit local commanders to adapt. As is essential in Second Generation warfare, the duty of commanders at all but the most senior levels is to follow the plan. At those most senior levels, a cynic might suggest that the main question is whether Saddam's political generals are even worse than our own.

(* First Generation warfare relies on massed manpower; Second Generation on massed firepower. Both First and Second Generation warfare are essentially linear. Third Generation warfare shifts to non-linear tactics based on speed and flexibility. Fourth Generation warfare is also non-linear; the fighting is conducted by non-state forces unbound by the rules of conventional warfare. However, the strategic objectives of Fourth Generation warriors extend beyond mere terrorism, which is only a technique.)

ON WAR # 2: Will The Enemy Fight?, William S. Lind, February 4, 2003

Washington is so confident that the Iraqis will not fight that our operational plan depends on them not doing so. We will invade Iraq with a force as small as two Army divisions and one division from the Marine Corps. That is enough Americans to take Iraq's surrender, but nowhere near enough to defeat Iraq if Iraqis fight (which also says that our operational plan is very fragile.). Washington's reason for believing the Iraqis will not fight is moral: Saddam is a tyrant, and many, perhaps most Iraqis hate him. They will welcome as liberators anyone who promises to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

That may prove correct. But counting on it could prove dangerous. Many Iraqis may feel, "Yea, Saddam is an SOB, but at least he is our SOB." Not without reason, Iraqis may see our invasion having more to do with oil than with spreading democracy. Nationalism and tribalism may also work for Saddam, as many people unite to fight a foreign invader. After all, an earlier Saddam Hussein named Joe Stalin was also a tyrant. Many Russians hated him. Many welcomed the Germans and even fought for Germany against the Soviet Union. But enough Russians stayed loyal for Stalin to win that war.

Sanity Check #3

12 April 2003

The actual war is going a bit better than I'd actually expected, though far short of the neo-con's flower strewn victory march we are seeing the lid off Baghdad. As for the looting, as one General is reported to have said, I guess they've got a right to celebrate. Of course is isn't quite over yet. The taking of Iraq is probably nearly over, but the real problems are most probably just beginning.

I'm still a bit apprehensive about where and what the vanished core has gone. Too many good people have died when things were almost over. Two come to mine immediately: Ardennes (Bulge) and Tet. In both cases victory was just around the corner, the enemy could not reasonably be much more than a nusiance and then ... No, I won't be convinced we are safely even out of the forgone conclusion part until this "Fat Lady" has sung and into what I've always considered the hard and dangerous part. What is obvious is that Saddam's incompetence is far greater than any reasonable planner should count upon. Any vaguely competent military would have us paying a much higher price, so we can be very thankful for that. So, my assessment at the moment is that the forces are doing well and being quite lucky. May that continue.

Of course we still have the occupation to get through and that was what I thought most risky all along. As I said above: We don't have an Army built for occupation. Our military is counter force. That is entirely different from occupation force—that takes lots of people on the ground exposed to attrition.

I'm not nearly as optimistic about how the U.S. is doing. I've been looking at English media all over the world and can only conclude that ours is offering a highly filtered version even accounting for some hype in the foreign press. What I see here is sort of cheer leading. What I'm seeing elsewhere is deep suspicion and considerable anger. Even those nations in the "coalition of the willing" are not liable to stay so for long. Close examination shows many were weakly "willing" all along and the popular sentiment in those existing democracies is running very heavily against the governments that have been "willing." That indicates they may not be "the government" long. Even Tony Blair, if he cannot deliver a modified U.S. commitment to post war Iraq, may see his political career end. Mr. Lind's scenario of a coalition against a power seen as running amok may have life.

Many people in the U.S. might be surprised at the economic consequences of that. We already have a three trillion dollar payments imbalance. We depend upon, get this, a daily capital inflow from the rest of the world of $1.5 billion to fuel our under saving consumerist society. If that flow drops significantly due to us having renounced our traditional foreign policy for one seen almost everywhere else, even among long time allies, as military domination our economic mess will get far messier. While our electronic media avoid almost all mention of these problems, and it appears about two thirds or more of our citizens depend on that one source, the world press is fairly unified in reports of storms ahead. The Euro's value has reversed in about a year. On March 30, 2002 $1 bought 1.15 Euros while today it takes $1.07+ to buy one Euro. Is there a link to what has happened politically in the meantime? Probably. Will it continue? Possibly.

While Congress renames French fries ( appearing to forget our economy) and some fools pour good wine out, they seem to forget that many "American" companies, such as Chrysler, are owned by Europeans and others not happy at all about this new doctrine. If this gets nasty with business decisions that this country cannot be trusted to follow "rule of law" in business, that its economy is second to war budgets and that it is a bad investment now watch for some damaging disinvestment with more people here out of work.

That, conventionally, is bad for Europe's exports, but perhaps not now. In other press I'm seeing non European countries talking about buying from Europe instead of the U.S.—and I'm not talking about wine and cheese. There has been some serious mention of removing U.S. construction and engineering firms from competition in favor of European or Japanese firms. What some of our firms gain in Iraq they may lose elsewhere. We just do not yet know.

When you decide to shift the world and run these risks you had better have a damn good reason. Was there? If one thing has been proven it is that Iraq was no military threat to anyone. Nothing has really come to light proving anything beyond perhaps a sympathy with terrorist. Maybe a few barrels of nasty chemicals are turning up, but those can probably be found in several dozen countries. There may be more, but we now even have a credibility problem with some normally trusting people fully ready to be convinced of a "plant" and that is pretty terrible. A solid and respected reputation is so difficult to gain and so easy to lose. In just a short year we've been taken from "beacon on the hill" to "bully" in the eyes of people who truly had respect for the U.S. by this administration's insistence on neglecting diplomacy for pique and strutting. Bill Keller, in the New York Times on March 22 put it this way:

I happened to be in Pakistan, where those who speak up for the values we espouse live with death threats from Islamic zealots. As America moved on Iraq, it was heartbreaking to hear the despair of these beleaguered liberals. They are convinced that their cause—our cause—will now be suffocated by anti-Americanism, not because we are going to war but because of the way we are going to war. [my emphasis]

There is a final bit that sticks in my craw very big time. If you look closely at the group that cooked up the policy shift and pushed this war so hard you find a clique of wealthy "CEO" types and their stable of so called "neo-conservative" intellectuals forming a basis for these new policies and the war. Their companies are lining up for a reported $100 billion "reconstruction" at the Federal trough while our own infrastructure crumbles. Many are joined at the hip with the current DoD civilian management in the industry-government group many citizens had never heard of until Richard Perle resigned the chairmanship under allegations of conflict of interest.

The grunt with sand in everything, existing on MREs and exposed to sniping in Iraq is going to get his pay and the gratitude of the public for doing what he or she must do, follow the orders resulting from that collaboration for a new policy. Even the officers aren't generally rich. We've recently seen the CEO types loot the nation while pushing to scale back things like that "promised" lifetime health care for that dying generation of grunts, dog faces or GIs who believed it. I have a nasty feeling the Enron game is in play again. In fact, I believe a new budget has just been pushed through Congress with cuts in veterans' benefits. Different tree, same monkeys.

Of course the U.S. public watches the cheer leading and thinks everything is going to come up roses. Then only about 13% of us between the ages of eighteen and twenty-four could find Iraq on a map and no few couldn't find their own country or the Pacific Ocean. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see things getting any better and see them perhaps getting much worse. Are there unpleasant chickens on their way to roost?

We will see, perhaps in about a year.