| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| The Point: What Bush got right offers clues for Obama |
| 2009-09-28 |
| By Mark Bowden Three years ago, the war in Iraq seemed lost. There was little disagreement that the Bush administration, having toppled Saddam Hussein with relative ease, had badly bungled the aftermath. Tank units led by Gen. Tommy Franks had led U.S. forces triumphantly into Baghdad. There had been a ceremonial toppling of Hussein's statue, and the presidential "Mission Accomplished" news conference . . . and then the real war started. It was a mistake seemingly made in every war in human history; commanders enter superbly prepared to fight the last war, not the one they are in. It turned out that the war in Iraq was not about seizing territory but battling a stubborn, murderous, and determined insurgency embedded in the Iraqi population. President Bush made a courageous decision in the summer of 2006 to reverse direction, but not the reversal sought by Congress (including then-Sens. Barack Obama and Joe Biden), the American public, the overwhelming majority of the press (including this newspaper), and even most of his own military advisers. Instead of cutting our losses and pulling out of Iraq, as we did in Vietnam, Bush doubled down. He invested more troops and, more important, embraced an entirely new strategy. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #18 I'm probably being an optimist but I like to think that someone might have a clue what's going on. Perhaps it's not a completely crazy idea to let "the people" have "democracy" and elect their own disasterous and neandrathal dictatorships. If you can keep their version of democracy from destroying the neighbors, eventually the "people" will get sick of their fanatical overlords. The British did some of this stuff with lord Cromwell and various other interesting folks several hundred years ago. |
| Posted by: Unimble Panda1935 2009-09-28 23:57 |
| #17 Still not sure why we didn't find a way to flatten the opium fields and deny drug money to our enemies. LIke buying off drug growers is any kind of long-term strategy. Still not sure why we didn't play Sepoy mutiny and spread rumors of pig fat used in various munitions (Ak-47 or semtex). Still not sure why the trails leading between Pakistan and Afghanistan were not heavily mined, and/or set up as free fire zones, and or sniper areas. Still not sure why we pushed democracy in Afghanistan. I understand the point in Iraq, but a strongman in Afghanistan, perhaps restoring the monarchy, would have been helpful. Can't fathom why the pro-Iranian warlord in the SouthWest of Afghanistan is still alive. So many questions. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2009-09-28 19:47 |
| #16 No Broadhead has it - Like Jury duty. Would be better than everyone we've had since Reagan. |
| Posted by: Hellfish 2009-09-28 19:18 |
| #15 maybe we should draft a President. That was to be the purpose of the Electoral College. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2009-09-28 16:25 |
| #14 yeah, we could make drafting a president like Jury Duty. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2009-09-28 15:28 |
| #13 ..maybe we should draft a President. Did that before. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-09-28 13:00 |
| #12 How long as he had McChrystal's report? Not a priority. He needs to jet off to Copenhagen to pitch for the Olympics. Maybe the pretender-in-chief will give it a read when he gets back. |
| Posted by: Woozle Uneter9007 2009-09-28 12:57 |
| #11 NS - Normal people don't run - maybe we should draft a President. The US doesn't wage unlimited war anymore - and unfortunately that is what is needed most in this case. The total breaking of the islamist belief system. We hold back to be humane - they believe it's allan's will. Total war will save more American lives in the long run - and those are the only one's our government should be concerned with. |
| Posted by: Hellfish 2009-09-28 12:23 |
| #10 he'll obviously do whatever he thinks will best help him retain the WH in 2012 That's because he's a warped human being, like the two Presidents who preceded him. Look at their childhoods and early adulthoods. This trio is far from normal in any sense of the word. And not in a way that is good. Bush had so much inner drive that he felt no need to reconcile the desires of the people to the direction in which he was headed with disastrous consequences for his party and the nation. Clinton and Obama have an unquenchable thirst for approval that leads them to do whatever the crowd wants at the moment. That will lead to them seizing up and gridlock when there is strong division in the public. That's OK in a post-Cold War holiday, but fatal in wartime. Obama may end up pulling an LBJ in 12 when the radical dems go after him for the wars. Maybe then we can get a normal person in the White House. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2009-09-28 12:03 |
| #9 NS/Beso - good points guys. Again, I don't think Obambi is the least bit decisive. How long as he had McChrystal's report? My guess is that he'll obviously do whatever he thinks will best help him retain the WH in 2012, whether it's good for our military or not. I think he has little idea how the public will react to a surge or drawdown in afghanland and how that will play out in two yrs. Not to mention how he likes to be admired by the rest of the world. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2009-09-28 10:28 |
| #8 Except the Indians weren't under the thrall of a self-destructive murderous cult. That was reserved for their Mexican brethren of whom the Spanish solved the problem in a sort of Mongol way. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-09-28 10:25 |
| #7 This isn't something new, but it isn't post-war Germany, Italy or Japan. They were literate, scientific, integrated nation states. AfPak are illiterate, superstitious, tribal territories. Sounds more like the American Indians. Except the Indians weren't under the thrall of a self-destructive murderous cult. And we have not yet attempted, much less achieved decisive military victory in the sense in which we utterly destroyed Germany, Italy and Japan. Much remains to be done. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2009-09-28 09:03 |
| #6 All is not well in Iraq. As you may know, the "battle" has been handed off to the Iraqi Security Forces with the US Army in FOB overwatch, no longer under DoD C2 and missioning but rather the.... US State Department. The FOB's are crowded and morale in the ranks is at an all time low with the majority of the US effort going to night time convoy operations. Many in the military have concerns not only about Afghanistan, but the future situation in Iraq as well. |
| Posted by: Besoeker in Duitsland 2009-09-28 07:27 |
| #5 The Small Wars Manual was written back in the 1920s/30s...along w/The Phillipine Insurrection of the 1900s this was a blueprint for a lot of COIN strat - not much new in war, only new wars. I'd like to know what the over-arching grand strat is for Afghanistan is as well. If it's the iraq model then we'd better be prepared to stay there even longer. Also, like Iraq/Iran we need to deal w/the Pakistani issues linked to Afghanland, otherwise, it's pretty much a moot point. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2009-09-28 07:18 |
| #4 The Western 'insurgencies' in Germany, Italy, and Japan were dealt with in exactly this fashion - decisive military victory, followed by occupation and slow rebuilding of their society and culture into something different than it was before the war. This really isn't anything new. |
| Posted by: no mo uro 2009-09-28 06:45 |
| #3 Three years ago, the war in Iraq seemed lost Given the close Iraq-Iran ties, the war in Iraq is lost. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2009-09-28 01:58 |
| #2 In an interview on 60 Minutes tonight, McChrystal was asked how often he talks with Pres. Obama. He replied that he has talked with him once in the past 70 days. |
| Posted by: Woozle Uneter9007 2009-09-28 01:10 |
| #1 If the reports I have heard are correct, General McChrystal believes that we might need to elevate troop levels by 60,000-100,000(!) in order to gain control in Afghanistan - and even then there is no clear political solution or winning endgame strategy leading to permanent stabilization. The comments on the situation in Afghanistan by Ralph Peters and George Will are clearheaded in elaborating why our underlying strategy needs to be questioned: Click on names for articles Ralph Peters George Will |
| Posted by: Grumenk Philalzabod0723 2009-09-28 00:29 |