Active Duty Army officer slams generals on IRAQ

Very strange to see an ACTIVE duty officer openly criticizing the upper echelon of the military chain of command. Lt. Col. Paul Yingling, deputy commander of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment [he has served two tours in Iraq, another in Bosnia and a fourth in Operation Desert Storm] wrote an article published today in the Armed Forces Journal, and this man is taking no prisoners.

Lt. Col. Paul Yingling is assigning responsibility for all the screw ups in IRAQ and the blame goes to all the generals. This act of open criticism [from a senior ACTIVE duty officer] shows the discontent among some of our military leaders with our mission in IRAQ.

In my opinion, this type of writing is what we call a "career killer" and I do expect to see Lt. Col. Paul Yingling in civilian attire in the not so distant future.

Check this quote.

Having spent a decade preparing to fight the wrong war, America's generals then miscalculated both the means and ways necessary to succeed in Iraq. The most fundamental military miscalculation in Iraq has been the failure to commit sufficient forces to provide security to Iraq's population. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) estimated in its 1998 war plan that 380,000 troops would be necessary for an invasion of Iraq. Using operations in Bosnia and Kosovo as a model for predicting troop requirements, one Army study estimated a need for 470,000 troops. Alone among America's generals, Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki publicly stated that "several hundred thousand soldiers" would be necessary to stabilize post-Saddam Iraq. Prior to the war, President Bush promised to give field commanders everything necessary for victory. Privately, many senior general officers both active and retired expressed serious misgivings about the insufficiency of forces for Iraq. These leaders would later express their concerns in tell-all books such as "Fiasco" and "Cobra II." However, when the U.S. went to war in Iraq with less than half the strength required to win, these leaders did not make their objections public.

And this one.

After failing to visualize the conditions of combat in Iraq, America's generals failed to adapt to the demands of counterinsurgency. Counterinsurgency theory prescribes providing continuous security to the population. However, for most of the war American forces in Iraq have been concentrated on large forward-operating bases, isolated from the Iraqi people and focused on capturing or killing insurgents. Counterinsurgency theory requires strengthening the capability of host-nation institutions to provide security and other essential services to the population. America's generals treated efforts to create transition teams to develop local security forces and provincial reconstruction teams to improve essential services as afterthoughts, never providing the quantity or quality of personnel necessary for success.

After going into Iraq with too few troops and no coherent plan for postwar stabilization, America's general officer corps did not accurately portray the intensity of the insurgency to the American public. The Iraq Study Group concluded that "there is significant underreporting of the violence in Iraq." The ISG noted that "on one day in July 2006 there were 93 attacks or significant acts of violence reported. Yet a careful review of the reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence. Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals." Population security is the most important measure of effectiveness in counterinsurgency. For more than three years, America's generals continued to insist that the U.S. was making progress in Iraq. However, for Iraqi civilians, each year from 2003 onward was more deadly than the one preceding it. For reasons that are not yet clear, America's general officer corps underestimated the strength of the enemy, overestimated the capabilities of Iraq's government and security forces and failed to provide Congress with an accurate assessment of security conditions in Iraq. Moreover, America's generals have not explained clearly the larger strategic risks of committing so large a portion of the nation's deployable land power to a single theater of operations.

One more quote.

Iraq is America's Valmy. America's generals have been checked by a form of war that they did not prepare for and do not understand. They spent the years following the 1991 Gulf War mastering a system of war without thinking deeply about the ever changing nature of war. They marched into Iraq having assumed without much reflection that the wars of the future would look much like the wars of the past. Those few who saw clearly our vulnerability to insurgent tactics said and did little to prepare for these dangers. As at Valmy, this one debacle, however humiliating, will not in itself signal national disaster. The hour is late, but not too late to prepare for the challenges of the Long War. We still have time to select as our generals those who possess the intelligence to visualize future conflicts and the moral courage to advise civilian policymakers on the preparations needed for our security. The power and the responsibility to identify such generals lie with the U.S. Congress. If Congress does not act, our Jena awaits us.

Click here for the complete article from the Armed Forces Journal

cfs

Buying the war

"Buying the War" - from the Bill Moyers Journal. This was a good program [aired on the evening of April 25th - Bill Moyer is back after taking break for a couple of years].

On "Buying the War" you will see interviews with Dan Rather; Tim Russert [moderator of MEET THE PRESS]; Bob Simon [of 60 MINUTES]; Walter Isaacson [former president of CNN]; and John Walcott, Jonathan Landay and Warren Strobel [of the Knight Ridder newspapers].

Bob Simon and the Knight Ridder team were very credible. Tim Russert did not do a good job defending his position. Plus, you will see a long list of journalists who refused to be interviewed for the program.

Check this out:

How did the mainstream press get it so wrong? How did the evidence disputing the existence of weapons of mass destruction and the link between Saddam Hussein to 9-11 continue to go largely unreported? "What the conservative media did was easy to fathom; they had been cheerleaders for the White House from the beginning and were simply continuing to rally the public behind the President — no questions asked. How mainstream journalists suspended skepticism and scrutiny remains an issue of significance that the media has not satisfactorily explored," says Moyers. "How the administration marketed the war to the American people has been well covered, but critical questions remain: How and why did the press buy it, and what does it say about the role of journalists in helping the public sort out fact from propaganda?"

And check this from Bob Simon:

In the run-up to war, skepticism was a rarity among journalists inside the Beltway. Journalist Bob Simon of 60 Minutes, who was based in the Middle East, questioned the reporting he was seeing and reading. "I mean we knew things or suspected things that perhaps the Washington press corps could not suspect. For example, the absurdity of putting up a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda," he tells Moyers. "Saddam…was a total control freak. To introduce a wild card like Al Qaeda in any sense was just something he would not do. So I just didn't believe it for an instant."

Click here [two links] for the rest of the story.

Buying The War

List of Reporters and Commentators

cfs

Tuff times ahead of us in IRAQ

As we have said before, we do support the SAMO [search, accelerate, and move out] one hundred percent [we have no other option, we are talking about victory or else].

Today the man running the show on the ground in IRAQ [General David Petraeus] gave us a warning, telling us that the situation on the ground is not a cake-walk, that our effort could become tuffer before it gets easier.

The general talked about some improvements in Baghdad and in Anbar [but we have suffered a large number of casualties since the start of the SAMO].

One note here, the month of April is our worst month in IRAQ during 2007, and I see a trend which I do not like [on the number of fatalities].

We have a LONG WAY TO GO in IRAQ.

Regardless of what you think about this war, packing and leaving NOW is NOT an option.

I do NOT concur with the leader of the Senate, THIS WAR IS NOT LOST.

cfs

DEM team TRAPPED on IRAQ

Democrats must figure next step on Iraq. Good title. And the question is, what is NEXT for the DEM team on IRAQ.

To the DEM leadership I say, welcome to the club, YOU TOO have become a hostage of this war [and there is nothing you can do about it].

The only thing YOU [the DEM] team can do [to TRY to stop the IRAQ war Juggernaut] is to CUT the funding.

But doing so is political suicide.

What to expect:

At the end of the day the DEM team will get together with The Decider for a photo-op, supporting the Decider's request for money "without any attachments."

And The Decider will continue with his motto of "we must to continue fighting them over there so that we don't have to fight them over here."

So, it is SNAFU in Washington for the DEM team.

Check this article from the Associated Press.

DEM team is clueless on what to do now.

cfs

Saying NO to the War Czar position

Good op-ed here by retired USMC general John J Sheehan. The general was asked about considering the War Czar position for the current administration. He just said NO.

Here is a quote.

When asked whether I would like to be considered for the position of White House implementation manager for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I knew that it would be a difficult assignment, but also an honor, and that this was a serious task that needed to be done. I served as the military assistant to the deputy secretary of defense in the mid-1980s and more recently as commander in chief of the Atlantic Command during the Cuban and Haitian migrant operation and the reconstruction of Haiti. Based on my experience, I knew that a White House position of this nature would require interagency acceptance. Cabinet-level agencies, organizations and their leadership must buy in to the position's roles and responsibilities. Most important, Cabinet-level personalities must develop and accept a clear definition of the strategic approach to policy.

Now, check this out, this is good stuff!

It would have been a great honor to serve this nation again. But after thoughtful discussions with people both in and outside of this administration, I concluded that the current Washington decision-making process lacks a linkage to a broader view of the region and how the parts fit together strategically. We got it right during the early days of Afghanistan -- and then lost focus. We have never gotten it right in Iraq. For these reasons, I asked not to be considered for this important White House position. These huge shortcomings are not going to be resolved by the assignment of an additional individual to the White House staff. They need to be addressed before an implementation manager is brought on board.

Click on the link for the rest of the story. Why I Declined To Serve.

If for some reason you can't open the link, do a google search under "Why I Declined To Serve" and you should be able to find it in several news web sites.

cfs

No SIGNIFICANT progress made [SAMO]

Well shipmates, as some of you are aware, I made some projections some time ago about the SAMO [surge, accelerate, and move out].

I was expecting to see what I have called "MEASURABLE PROGRESS" in IRAQ by the end of March 2007 or by mid April 2007.

I first wrote about this issue on another internet site. Check the link, see note number 5244 [I support the Surge and Accelerate Plan] for more info.

I continue to support the SAMO, however, we have NOT made SIGNIFICANT progress [at least NOT as expected by this writer].

I have to make some minor adjustments to my expectations here.

As of NOW, I do expect to see some "Measurable Progress" in IRAQ by the end of this summer [by the end of JULY 2007].

cfs

Face of the wounded

Very interesting article from the Air Force Times. A total of 1617 service members medevaced from the war zone during February and March of this year. But one thing here, this includes combat and non combat wounded.

"Air Force planes and medical crews airlifted more than 850 wounded and injured servicemen out of war zones during March, according to the Air Force. In February, the Air Force flew out 767 patients.

The planes delivered 143 critically injured patients and 712 less seriously hurt patients, the report said.

The number of critical patients was down from February when 158 were airlifted and still below the fall when 285 critical patients were flown in September.

Since the start of Operation Enduring Freedom, the Air Force has flown 40,902 patients from combat zones.

Air Force C-17 Globemasters fly regular missions from Iraq and Afghanistan to Ramstein Air Base, Germany, where patients are driven a short distance to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center. In high-priority cases, the C-17s will fly nonstop to bases in the U.S."

Here is the article.

cfs

Tour extensions for our troops

Well, this is no longer a secret. We can no longer support fighting two wars with normal troops rotation. I do feel sorry for some of my friends currently in country fighting the war in IRAQ and in JIHADISTAN.

Effective TODAY all active-duty Army soldiers in IRAQ and JIHADISTAN will serve FIFTEEN month tours [three months longer than usual], as per Secretary Robert Gates.

NOT affected by the new policy are the Marines [with a standard tour of seven months], Army NG, or Army Reserve [with standard tours of twelve months].

Our military leaders are FINALLY recognizing that the war in IRAQ and JIHADISTAN are making life VERY DIFFICULT for many in the military [and for their families].

Our forces are stretched too thin, so, for now, IRAN will have to wait.

Check this link for more on the troops extensions.

cfs

Have you jumped on the Don Imus bandwagon?

Everyone is jumping on the Don Imus bandwagon. His critics can smell the blood in the water and are going for the kill. After Don Imus is dumped, who are they going to go after - Rush Limbaugh, Michael Wiener Savage, Shawn Hannity, and the rest of the Right Wing or Left Wing Wackos?

The best weapon against "the Imus types" is NOT to listen to their radio show and NOT to watch their television show. I do NOT listen to Imus, Rusho, Savage, Hannity, and the rest of the wackos.

I do NOT find those shows funny, I do not like their so-called humor at others' expense, and I just say NO to their personal attacks.

And I do NOT watch any television shows glamorizing the use of the type of language used by those mentioned above [plus, I do not listen to the music or go to the movies using the same type of language].

But as far as Don Imus, we can say "Huston We Have A Problem." And here is this one from Gwen Iffil

cfs

The Rise And Fall Of A President

Congratulations! Today marks the 4th anniversary of the fall of BAGHDAD, the day when free IRAQIS slapped the statue of Saddam with their shoes [not a good thing to be hit with shoes in IRAQ].

How have things changed in the good ole USofA in the past four years.

Remember when GWB was getting some R E S P E C T during the first weeks of the LIBERATION?

The only president we have is no longer respected overseas and no longer respected here at home. GWB's presidency has sunk so low, the man is basically irrelevant [and ignored by a LARGE segment of our society] - but he remains the commander in chief and can order your son or daughter to war [not his daughters, of course!!!].

If you don't believe it, just take a look at the video of 60 minutes [program aired on April 8th], and watch Andy Rooney's final comments.

Don't have time to watch it? Then here is this for you:

"It would be interesting to have another presidential election now. Four years is a long time between elections.

The Constitution says that a president's term in office shall be four years. Two or three might have been better but we don't use three much for anything.

No one can say how many votes President Bush would get if we did have another election tomorrow. For all we know he might win in a landslide. I don't think so but he might."

And check this out:

"President Bush always looks well-dressed. We called someone in The White House and they told us that the president pays for all his clothes himself.

Now, that doesn't seem fair really. He wouldn't have to have so many suits if he weren't president. I think we should buy the president's clothes for him. He'll probably call and thank me for that.

The president dresses a lot more casually at his ranch in Texas. Always looks like a cowboy. Of course a lot of people wish President Bush would go to Texas, put on his cowboy clothes, and stay there."

But of course, Andy Rooney is just having fun. I don't believe the man dislikes our president [but I could be wrong big time on this one!!!].

Click here for the rest of Andy Rooney's story.

cfs

After FOUR YEARS, where are the flowers and kisses?

Tomorrow we celebrate the FOURTH year of the fall of BAGHDAD, and the war continues. This war was supposed to be like a walk in the park [not Jurassic Park].

Four years in BAGHDAD, and those kisses and flowers are nowhere to be found.

We have made SOME progress during the security crackdown in the city of BAGHDAD, but what about the rest of the country? Our military officials believe a large number of IFWs have left BAGHDAD to join IFW teams in areas outside of the capital.

Things are not looking good for the home team in several hot points in IRAQ. Let's take the holy city of NAJAF for example. That city is own and operated by the IFW followers of senior IFW cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

This senior IFW is now urging IRAQI forces to stop working with the United States and have ordered his IFW followers on the Mahdi Army to direct their attacks at our GIs rather than attacking the fellow IRAQIS.

Things are about to get interesting in the holy city of NAJAF as the senior IFW have called for a huge anti American demonstration on Monday, to mark the 4th anniversary of the fall of BAGHDAD.

The best thing our GIs could do is to STAY AWAY from the holy city of NAJAF until all the "celebration" is over.

What to expect - I do expect to see a SIGNIFICANT number of troops out of IRAQ by this time next year. As a matter of facts, I do expect a LARGE number of US troops out of IRAQ by Christmas of this year. And I do expect to see MEASURABLE progress in IRAQ by the end of this month.

NO, I do NOT see a light at the end of the tunnel [yet].

cfs

Our Broken-Down Army

Of course we are facing some challenges in IRAQ, but please do NOT blame our GIs, as they are doing everything they can under a really BAD situation. Our Army is broken and the civilians running our military are asking our GIs to do more with less. Here is a good report from Times magazine on this subject.

Check this out.

For most Americans, the Iraq war is both distant and never ending. For Private Matthew Zeimer, it was neither. Shortly after midnight on Feb. 2, Zeimer had his first taste of combat as he scrambled to the roof of the 3rd Infantry Division's Combat Outpost Grant in central Ramadi. Under cover of darkness, Sunni insurgents were attacking his new post from nearby buildings. Amid the smoke, noise and confusion, a blast suddenly ripped through the 3-ft. concrete wall shielding Zeimer and a fellow soldier, killing them both. Zeimer had been in Iraq for a week. He had been at his first combat post for two hours.

If Zeimer's combat career was brief, so was his training. He enlisted last June at age 17, three weeks after graduating from Dawson County High School in eastern Montana. After finishing nine weeks of basic training and additional preparation in infantry tactics in Oklahoma, he arrived at Fort Stewart, Ga., in early December. But Zeimer had missed the intense four-week pre-Iraq training—a taste of what troops will face in combat—that his 1st Brigade comrades got at their home post in October. Instead, Zeimer and about 140 other members of the 4,000-strong brigade got a cut-rate, 10-day course on weapon use, first aid and Iraqi culture. That's the same length as the course that teaches soldiers assigned to generals' household staffs the finer points of table service.

And here is more for you.

The truncated training—the rush to get underprepared troops to the war zone—"is absolutely unacceptable," says Representative John Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat and opponent of the war who chairs the House Appropriations defense subcommittee. A decorated Marine veteran of Vietnam, Murtha is experiencing a sense of déjà vu. "The readiness of the Army's ground forces is as bad as it was right after Vietnam," Murtha tells TIME. Even Colin Powell—a retired Army general, onetime Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and Bush's first Secretary of State—acknowledges that after spending nearly six years fighting a small war in Afghanistan and four years waging a medium-size war in Iraq, the service whose uniform he wore for 35 years is on the ropes. "The active Army," Powell said in December, "is about broken."

Good reading, click on the link for the rest of the story

cfs

Hostage crisis - the mother of all blunders?

Good op-ed by Kathleen Parker from the Washington Post on the British Fiasco with IRAN. This is about the hostage crisis involving 15 British service members, including one female. As we know by now the IRANIANS did an outstanding job exploiting the situation for propaganda purposes by using female British sailor [Faye Turney] as their best anti West weapon.

Check this out.

On any given day, one isn't likely to find common cause with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He's a dangerous, lying, Holocaust- denying, Jew-hating cutthroat thug -- not to put too fine a point on it.

But he was dead-on when he wondered why a once-great power such as Britain sends mothers of toddlers to fight its battles.

Ahmadinejad characterized as a gift to Britain the release of 15 British sailors and marines, including one woman, seized at sea last month. In reality, the hostages were the West's gift to Ahmadinejad.

When a pretender to sanity such as Ahmadinejad gets to lecture the West about how it treats its women, we've effectively handed him a free pass to the end zone and made the world his cheerleaders.

Not only does the Iranian president get to look magnanimous in releasing the hostages, but he gets to look wise. And we in the West get to look humiliated, foolish and weak.

Just because we may not "feel" humiliated doesn't mean we're not. In the eyes of Iran and other Muslim nations, we're wimps. While the West puts mothers in boats with rough men, Muslim men "rescue" women and drape them in floral hijabs.

We can debate whether they're right until all our boys wear aprons, but it won't change the way we're perceived. The propaganda value Iran gained from its lone female hostage, the mother of a 3-year-old, was incalculable.

Read on ...

Iran wasted no time dressing up Turney in Muslim garb and parading her before television cameras. More than her fellow male captives, Turney was required to confess repeatedly, to apologize for trespassing in Iranian waters and to write letters of contrition.

This was not, needless to say, Churchill's navy.

Check the link for "The Rest Of The Story ....."

cfs

Monica Resigns [AG Gonzales' Aide]

Another MONICA causing trouble to a US President !!!

It is FRIDAY and as expected there are always GOOD political news reported on Friday when America is too busy to take notice.

Check this out.

A top aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales abruptly quit Friday, almost two weeks after telling Congress she would not testify about her role in the firings of federal prosecutors.

Monica M. Goodling, the Justice Department's liaison to the White House, gave no reason for her resignation. Since she was at the center of the firings, Goodling's refusal to testify has intensified questions about whether the U.S. attorney dismissals were proper and heightened the furor that threatens Gonzales' own job.

"It has been an honor to have served at the Justice Department for the past five years," Goodling wrote Gonzales, advising him of her resignation effective Saturday.

"May God bless you richly as you continue your service to America," Goodling added.

The Justice Department confirmed the resignation in a letter to two Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee investigating the firings. Gonzales and Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty had removed themselves from any personnel decisions related to Goodling, according to the letter from Acting Assistant Attorney General Richard A. Hertling.

Their recusals were designed to "ensure that no actual or apparent conflict of interest would arise with respect to Ms. Goodling or related matters," Hertling wrote.

Goodling's resignation came less than two weeks before Gonzales' own planned testimony to the Senate, which may determine his fate as attorney general. Several Republican lawmakers have joined Democrats in calling for his resignation or dismissal over the firings and other blunders at the Justice Department.

And we just wonder, how long will AG Gonzales last in office [some were expecting the AG to resign a couple of weeks ago]. AG Gonzales just says NO to quitting.

Click here for the rest of the story.

cfs

NO Confidence in Military or Press Depictions of the war

I find this report from The Pew Research Center interesting.

Four years into the Iraq war, most Americans say they have little or no confidence in the information they receive - from either the military or the media - about how things are going on the ground. Fewer than half (46%) say they have a great deal or fair amount of confidence that the U.S. military is giving the public an accurate picture of the situation, and even fewer (38%) are confident in the press's portrayal of the war.

Public confidence in both institutions is much lower now than at the outset of the war. In March 2003 - in the first week of U.S. troop deployment in Iraq - fully 85% said they had at least a fair amount of confidence in military information, and nearly as many, 81%, were confident that the press was giving an accurate picture of the war. The public's response to both military and press coverage of the first Gulf War in 1991 was similarly favorable.

On the negative side, 21% now say they have no confidence in military reports, while 27% have no confidence in press reports on the war. At the start of the war, virtually nobody expressed such views.

And what I find fascinating is the fact that the vast majority of GOP followers [over 70 percent] "remain at least somewhat confident in the military's portrayal of how the war is going" [compare that number to only 32 percent of the DEM followers]. But, the GOP followers are NOT happy with media reports on the war [they still believe that there is a LEFT media bias].

Click on this link for "the rest of the story."

cfs

Stripped and blindfolded in IRAN

The British sailors are home and they are talking. The 15 British sailors and marines held by the IFWs running IRAN are now saying that they were "stripped, blindfolded and handcuffed" as part of psychological intimidation during the two weeks of detention.

This is not the first time they talk, there was a lot of talking done during their captivity [in front of IRANIAN television cameras].

Some are now questioning the British sailors' military honor because they became part of the IRANIAN propaganda. But the question to be asked is, what would YOU do in the same situation?

Here is a very interesting quote:

"Throughout our ordeal we faced constant psychological pressure," he said. "Later we were stripped and then dressed in pyjamas. The next few nights were spent in stone cells, approximately 8 feet by six feet, sleeping on piles of blankets. All of us were kept in isolation."

Now, why is this sailor talking in "feet" and not in "meters" [I heard the conference on the radio and the man did use the word "feet" and now I just wonder who prepared the speech for this man?]

Anyway, check the link attached for the rest of the story.

The rest of the story

Now that this hostage crisis is over, these questions must be asked:

What are WE going to do IF/WHEN some of our American Sailors and Marines are captured in the Persian Gulf and held hostages by the IFWs running IRAN? Do we have a PLAN in place, or are we just going to talk, talk, and talk?

cfs

We have made SOME progress in IRAQ

So, it is safe to take a walk around the city in Baghdad [so said Senator John S McCain]. But here is a good report from someone in the know. Check what Retired General McCaffrey wrote about after his last trip to IRAQ.

General McCaffrey Report

As I have said before, I expect to see some MEASURABLE progress in IRAQ by this month [actually I wrote about measurable progress by the end of March or during the month of April]. Some are measuring progress by the number of US fatalities [we are NOT making ANY progress in the area of fatalities, IRAQ remains a very dangerous place].

cfs