[IP] more on Mid-level military officers on responsibility for Iraq
Begin forwarded message:
From: Jock Gill <jg45@xxxxxxx>
Date: April 24, 2006 9:48:11 AM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Jock Gill <jg45@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [IP] more on Mid-level military officers on
responsibility for Iraq
Dave,
For another perspective on a core problem, please feel free to share
this pointer with IP.
"U.S. Intelligence, like the Department of Defense, is a dinosaur
from the Cold War, a direct outcome of allowing the military-
industrial-congressional complex to specify how we spend the taxpayer
dollar without regard to reality or proper intelligence. We have a
special interests spy world and a special interests heavy-metal
military."
<http://www.greaterdemocracy.org/archives/000470.html>
10 Threats to the Public Interest & Security
Robert David Steele
04.18.06, 6:00 PM ET
Why Secret Intelligence is Bad
Director of National Intelligence [DNI] Covers 17.5%
In the Age of Information, when secret sources are less valuable and
open sources are more essential in understanding reality and crafting
responsible public policy, what are the ten greatest threats to the
United States of America? What ten questions should the reformed and
revitalized Director of National Intelligence (DNI) be able to answer
for Congress and the public? This challenge has been answered
generally by the Report of the High-level Panel on Threats,
Challenges and Change, A more secure world, Our shared responsibility
(United Nations, 2004), but nothing the DNI is doing today is helpful
in actually addressing, in a substantive sustained way, each of these
threats.
-------- continued at: <http://www.greaterdemocracy.org/archives/
000470.html>
Regards,
Jock
On Apr 24, 2006, at 7:15 AM, David Farber wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: EEkid@xxxxxxx
Date: April 24, 2006 2:16:53 AM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] Mid-level military officers on responsibility for
Iraq
Mr. Farber,
Unfortunately, I think the writer of this article doesn't really
understand the problem. Prior to the Iraq war, many of our
nation's military officers were clueless to the realities of the
battle field. Sure, some of the most senior officers knew, but
they became senior officers because at some point in time, they
became politicians in uniform. This article brings to mind a day I
had a couple years before 9/11. I was attending a Marine Static
Display, which is a display of military hardware. I stood there
shooting the breeze with an officer and we were talking about how
great the Humvee's were. I asked if the composite body panels
where bullet proof and he said no. I was a bit surprised that they
didn't take such a rugged design to the next level with some light
Kevlar armor. He added, that Humvee's aren't used in areas where
fighting occurs. He made some comment about the only time "jeeps"
are on a battle field is in the movies. Immediately my thoughts
traveled back in time to a family friend who was severely wounded
in Vietnam while driving a jeep down a dirt road. He was shot with
an AK-47. This wasn't on a battle field. We moved on to another
display which featured an M-16 with a third generation night vision
scope. He commented that the technology was new and only available
to the military.. I was a bit shocked that he didn't know this
exact same scope was available on the internet. In fact, I later
printed out an ad from the internet and gave it to him later. The
display also had several confiscated AK-47's and he commented that
they were worthless at a hundred yards because they were so
inaccurate. Well, I've personally shot many types of AK-47's from
all over Europe and Asia and every single one was accurate enough
to put a bullet on a pie plate at 100 yards with ease. I walked
away wondering what would happen if we ever had to go to war.
In addition to this experience, I once had a conversation with an
officer regarding our reliance on very expensive, slow to produce,
high tech weaponry. I commented that we could never fight a large
scale protracted war with these weapons because we simply couldn't
build them fast enough. His response was we will never fight
another large scale war. I said, what happens if we were to go to
war with China? He said, we will never let that happen because we
know we can't win without using nuclear weapons. I walked away
stunned.
I'm not criticizing our military here. Let me make an analogy.
Suppose you have an engineer who graduated from a good engineering
school. He then hangs out with other engineers from other good
schools. Yet, none of them have ever designed anything. After a
decade or so, they're suddenly given a very complex, large scale
and taxing engineering project to do in a short amount of time.
They are going to make mistakes and miscalculations, we as humans
can learn from books but we learn the most about our environment by
doing. Sure, I know our military constantly trains, but I bet they
didn't train in an environment with real roadside IED's and car
bombs in public places on a regular basis.
Jerry
In a message dated 4/23/2006 7:09:40 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
dave@xxxxxxxxxx writes:
There is a fascinating article in this morning's New York Times,
based on interviews with mid-level officers and others, suggesting
widespread discontent and debate within the military over the
failure of senior officers to give candid advice to Rumseld and
the Adminsitration about the reasoins why the invasion of Iraq
would be a mistake.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/23/washington/23military.html?
hp&ex=1145851200&en=307b714052e595e5&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Officers making such comments as,
"This is about the moral bankruptcy of general officers who lived
through the Vietnam era yet refused to advise our civilian
leadership properly," said one Army major in the Special Forces who
has served two combat tours. "I can only hope that my generation
does better someday." and
"The history I will take away from this is that the current crop of
generals failed to stand up and say, 'We cannot do this mission.'
They confused the cultural can-do attitude with their
responsibilities as leaders to delay the start of the war until we
had an adequate force. I think the backlash against the general
officers will be seen in the resignation of officers" who might
otherwise have stayed in uniform."
There was also an interesting angle on Condoleeza Rice's famous
comment about "thousands of errors," casting it in a light I had
not considered, as a slap at the military and a deflection of
responsibility for the Administration's own failures:
The debates are fueled by the desire to mete out blame for the
situation in Iraq, a drawn-out war that has taken many military
lives and has no clear end in sight. A midgrade officer who has
served two tours in Iraq said a number of his cohorts were angered
last month when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that
"tactical errors, a thousand of them, I am sure," had been made in
Iraq.
"We have not lost a single tactical engagement on the ground in
Iraq," the officer said, noting that the definition of tactical
missions is specific movements against an enemy target. "The
mistakes have all been at the strategic and political levels."
Paul Alan Levy
Public Citizen Litigation Group
1600 - 20th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009
(202) 588-1000
http://www.citizen.org/litigation
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as jock@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-
people/
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/