E-MAIL THIS LINK
To: 

US war in Iraq ’strategic error’
A report published by the US Army War College has criticised the war against Iraq as a strategic error. It also suggests that the Bush administration’s global war on terror may be unsustainable. The report, by academic Jeffrey Record, has been dismissed by US defence officials, who say it does not represent the view of the US Army. But BBC Pentagon correspondent Nick Childs says the report could be an embarrassment for the Pentagon.
The BBC? Now there’s a unbiased opinion.
The author of the report is a visiting professor at the prestigious college in Pennsylvania and his conclusions about the Bush administration’s conduct of its war on terrorism appear quite damning. He calls the invasion of Iraq "an unnecessary war of choice" and a "detour".
He forgot quagmire....
Mr Record says that by lumping together a host of threats - from the destruction of the al-Qaeda network to stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction - the administration has set goals in the war which are unsustainable. "The United States may be able to defeat al-Qaeda, but it cannot rid the world of terrorism, much less evil," he says in the report.
It'll always be there. But if we're successful, it won't be organized, and it will draw the opprobium it deserves. Our war is as much against the image of the Heroic Mujaheddin™ as it is against al-Qaeda. The two are inextricably intertwined...
Mr Record adds: "[The war] against a deterred Iraq has created a new front in the Middle East for Islamic terrorism and diverted attention and resources away from the security of the American homeland against further assault by an undeterrable al-Qaeda."
The new front is the entire idea. You *want* to fight the war on the enemy’s territory and not your own.
US officials have played down the report. They say the views are those of the author alone and do not represent any official policy. In a disclaimer, the US Army’s War College’s Institute for Strategic Studies adds that the report does not represent the views of the college. They said staff and students at the War College are encouraged to be critical and that the college was founded to promote independent analysis. Our correspondent says the suspicion will nevertheless be that the views are shared by some in the US Army. Mr Record’s views also echo many of the criticisms made by the administration’s political opponents.

I doubt the views are shared by many staff and students at the War College. I don't know what Mr. Record teaches, but if it's strategy, I hope they don't renew his contract. There is room for legitimate differences of opinion on the course the WoT will take. Iraq had some points against it as a target for military action, but military action against a terror-supporting state was a desirable move in the war. That would have meant Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya or Sudan, possibly Somalia. Had I been Bush, I may have gone with Syria and Iran — the two are closely intertwined. But because they're so closely intertwined, Iraq was a simpler target. Libya was peripheral, Sudan was protesting that it was no longer involved in the terror business, and Somalia's such a mess, with so many targets to hit, that there isn't really anything there to beat up. Pakistan, the root of terror muscle, is our Friend and Ally™. Soddy Arabia, the root of all terror money, would represent a declaration of war against all of Islam due to its status as protector of the holy sites. I suppose we could have cleaned out the Pankisi Gorge, but that would have tweaked the Russian nose; or we could have cleaned out Gaza and the West Bank with three or four divisions, but the Israelis are dealing with that, and the targets aren't al-Qaeda. So Iraq was it, by process of elimination and by virtue of Ansar al-Islam, with the PLA and Abu Nidal as a bonus.


Posted by: CrazyFool 2004-01-13
http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=24272