Why We Haven’t Won In Iraq

Dedicated “Malkinista” that I am the first thing I do every morning (which begins around 12:30, I’m a Grad student) is make a cup of coffee and browse Hot Air and M.M.’s blog. One of the reasons I’m partial to Malkin is that she’s always on top of America’s fifth column, the dreaded M.S.M. lead by evil communists at The New York Times.

NYT’s latest atrocity against the freedom loving American people is yet another leak of a classified memo, this one by ex-Sec of defense Donald Rumsfeld detailing his dissatisfaction with Iraq policy, specifically our emphasis on “nation building” as opposed to defeating the enemy, though that reading of the leaked material is hardly universal.

The key here is that Rumsfeld was originally bought in to “modernize” the military, creating a slim, fast moving strike force that fought wars differently than the old WW2 model. Glamorous, yes. Rumsfeld’s envisioned military is the sexy spec-ops driven elite force that sells movie tickets, but can it perform? As of this point, we’d have to say no.

High tech toys and hearts and minds operations didn’t win in Vietnam, and they won’t win in Iraq. What we need is a large robust military that is tasked with the total annihilation of the enemy. Nation building should be left to politicians and the United Nations. Rumsfeld’s memo is trying to lay out a strategy to salvage Iraq with the forces we have now and in that light it’s hardly as outrageous as some would have us believe.

Hindsight is 20/20, and we can all see now that our military needs to be more robust, and shouldn’t give up it’s ability to overwhelm enemies in an effort to be more “agile” or modern. Rumsfeld has probably realized that now, but has to work with what he’s got, in the parameters set by a administration that increasingly seems more interested in P.R. then victory. Of course that’ not his problem any more. It’s ours.

The Queen of Righty Blogs has the best round-up.

R.W.V. is a little more forgiving then some people were.

National Review deals with the memo and the problems of leaking them.

Col. North as a little story in S.O.F. that illustrates the the dangers of “modernizing” the military, like the six year gap when marines will lack sea based fire support because we’re scrapping our battleships.

Speaking of Soldier of Fortune, last month they ran an article made up of letters they received from Snipers deployed in Iraq. The letters present a laundry list of complaints, and the Sniper eye view of why we’re not winning the war. Top problems: a) the officer core isn’t trained to employ Snipers effectively b) political decision making keeps Snipers from being allowed to engage hostiles aggressively c) Snipers aren’t being equiped with the right gear. The “streamlining” of the military is causing chaos and dysfunction.

No, I’m not ashamed to admit I read Soldier of Fortune.

2 thoughts on “Why We Haven’t Won In Iraq

  1. I am slightly divided on the war in Iraq. I am of the opinion, this may sound harsh, that America should conquer it and make a new nation. And no, i do not care about the culture there because as an idea, it will still exist even if we own it. I am not clear on why America is there though. Perhaps the reasons will be clearer in the future. At this point, I think it’s to rid the planet of diabolic madmen whose culture has instilled, not what I understand as anarchy, but a sadistic and treacherous mind set causing mayhem and suffering. Our political response, catalyzed by the 9/11 attacks, seems to have turned attention from Usama Bin Laden, to private interest groups. I have trouble understanding, because I think too much political dishonesty of the motivations behind Americas military presence in the region, is troubling the idea America is there for a greater good to many people. With all the technological advances available to us, why hasn’t Bin Laden been apprehended. And why is it obvious he is supported by powerful families intent on concealing him. Why are those families not a target for American troops? What are the complications? And why the fuzzy satellite images? If a Google satellite can spot a man picking his nose in great detail, then why? I am glad Saddam is gone, and his sons. I have no issues with that. Now, where is Bin Laden? This to me, is where rules of conduct become an obstacle, and not an avenue of success. If the Hubble can see million plus miles away, then it is also clear this idea has been used to see the earth and collect data as well. And how old is the Hubble, lol? Because of the amount of tyranny already in the region, I am not convinced it wouldn’t be better if America took control. Let the weak Americans protest! They aren’t the ones subject to the tortures of a diabolic national culture. I think context and intent give value to an act, such as conquering, so I am not convinced it would be a bad idea. Just that other nations may be jealous they did not cause of so called morality pfft! An act speaks for itself, so lets lose the words and kick some A**!

  2. I’ve always been confused by the American lack of empathy for people living under the crushing heel of totalitarianism myself. Baathism combines National Socialist policy with a thug-driven Islamism that allowed just enough modernity to make the people hate the more fundamentalist Iranians, Kurds and Marsh Arabs, all of whom were gassed by Saddam. Jews didn’t do well in Iraq either obviously.

    For the satellites remember that satellites can’t take live action shots. They must be in the right place at he right time and then wait to be there again to get a second shot. I’m no expert but I don’t think our spy satellites are in geo-synchronous orbit over other countries, but I could be wrong.

    Google images is update sporadically, so that nose picker is long gone by the time you and I see it. That’s the crux of my argument against the new high-tech military. Integrating technology into fluid battle plans doesn’t always work, and newer isn’t always better. I think the WW II military was the pinnacle of our military might and could still crush many armies around the world today with the old M1 Gerand which used aa 30-06 cartridge that could engage at much longer ranges than our modern version and much more stopping power (today the 30-06 is used to hunt large dangerous game) and no sub machine gun has matched the Tommy gun in versatility since. Our modern army gets more defeatable as it get more technology reliant.

Comments are closed.