Army brass hint at more Stryker brigades

[dan/california]

Clavicula:

Both the story, and your service are appreciated. Thanks

[Battlefront.com]

Clavicula_Nox,

Yeah Steve, I agree, but alot of people did question The Big Dumb Plan.

Yup, but unfortunately a lot kept their traps shut until after they got out of uniform. If you read some of the stuff that the top generals wrote in 2006 or 2008 you would think someone held a gun to their heads to carry out such a flawed plan.

Gen. Shinseki, chief of staff, went public with his objections and soon found himself out of a job. No more questioning after that.

Sorta correct. Shinseki bravely went before Congress and, very politely, told everybody that the civilian leadership was smoking crack when it came up with the "plan" for invading Iraq. That's been proven true on so many levels it's painful (remember Wolfowitz saying we'd be out within 8 months and the Iraqi oil revenue would 100% pay us back? I wonder if that bridge in Brooklyn he had for sale is doing as well?). Here's some interesting declassified documents that shows how utterly wrong the "plan" was. Note that in 2006 we were supposed to have only 5000 troops in Iraq. It's 2009 and we're still at 25 times that level!

The thing that was so scary about that was although civilians in charge (who to a man avoided military service with gusto) bashed Shinseki publically, both disrespectful and unprecedented, they did increase the size of the invasion force by something like 50% IIRC as a direct result. The original size at the time was 80,000 as I remember it, but after that it was boosted to 120,000. Now we all know how badly things went after the initial invasion with what we had, but can you imagine how horrible things would have been with a significantly smaller force? Egads!

Now, although history showed that the head Army general was correct and the ideologically driven civilians were way off, Shinseki wasn't canned due to his Congressional testimony. He was slated to retire from that position before then. However, he was personally attacked for giving his professional opinion. I'm pretty sure all of those clueless idiots have not said "sorry we were such blind jerks".

End of rant

But back to my point... even though Shinseki called it right with the volume of boots on the ground needed for a country of Iraq's size, population, and urbanized centers... nobody appeared to be ready for an immediate counter-insurgency environment. Even if there was a Gulf War 1 sized force on the ground, there still would have been problems. Not nearly as many or potentially as strong, but unarmored logistics vehicles would have been the primary targets.

I've been reading about how Obama and Gates want to re-work the acquisitions process, and if it turns out to be better, then that's fine by me. I just haven't read any details on what they're trying to do.

The general gist is to kill off programs which do not offer good bang for the buck and then redirect the funds to things which do. FCS is the biggest single R&D program within the DoD, so it's the obvious place to look.

Steve

[Clavicula_Nox]

Yup, but unfortunately a lot kept their traps shut until after they got out of uniform. If you read some of the stuff that the top generals wrote in 2006 or 2008 you would think someone held a gun to their heads to carry out such a flawed plan.

Yeah, but a lot of them have been completely demonized as a result. Many of the division commanders for OIF have come out saying they were in opposition; I don't fault them, because they aren't at the level to really affect the operational stance, particularly when Tommy Franks was their boss. Now, when Sanchez came out with his book, I just rolled my eyes. The single worst man who could have held his post, Sanchez did everything wrong, on his own, and would have ****ed up regardless of what was going on with CPA.

I'm back and forth on what the division commanders did, but I think that they were attempting to maintain a certain level of professionalism, but the resultant backlash against them (and any other retired/prior-service dissenters) has been bizarre and merely discourages reasonable disagreement. Should they have raised more concern then? Possibly, but I'm not sure what effect it would have had. Franks was not known as an intellectually apt commander, nor was he known to be strategically accomplished; could he have been able to grasp the objections raised by his officers? I'm not so sure.

I forgot Shinseki was already set to retire, it was before my time, so my recollection isn't perfect. Certainly, though, he was relegated to a position of irrelevance. I do like how Obama has made him the head of the VA, hopefully that isn't a worthless decision.

Skimming over the link you gave just reinforces my opinion that the yes-men were told to create a perfect scenario and they delivered.

[BlackMoria]

I find it unphantomable that the higher ups in the Bush Administration and the DoD were blindsided with the actual outcome when I predicted what would happen EXACTLY when I had conversations with people during the build up to war.

I am not gifted with clairoyance or greater insight than most people so if I could foresee this coming, why didn't others?

The number 1 unwritten rule for military planning is always plan for the worst case scenario and yet there didn't appear to be due diligence done in that regard.

The civilian authority over the military is a mainstay of democracies but still, the military leadership needs to tell their political masters what they NEED to hear, not what they WANT to hear. Even if it means getting canned for their 'presumption'.

[MikeyD]

Simple explanation, the Iraq war was never 'about' Iraq. Iraq was supposed to get its own house in order following the invasion.

After the end of the Cold War I recall a flurry of neocon 'thinktank' pundits chatting-up the concept of "Pax Americana". Their theory was that a robust U.S. force sitting in Iraq would allow them to dominate the region Roman legion-style. Iraq basses would provide easy cross-border access to Syria, Jordan and Iran. They'd be able to impose their will with impunity. Well... that was the theory, anyway. To put it simply, they grossly overestimated their ability to overawe any potential opposition. Remember, we had just 'won' the cold War and hubris was running pretty high at the time.

[Battlefront.com]

Clavicula_Nox,

I "forgive" the Division commanders for not having more of an effect on strategic issues, such as going to war without a long term plan, lack of resources, inadequate equipment, etc. In my eyes they lose points for prosecuting uninspired and often counter productive conventional warfare tactics when clearly unconventional tactics were needed. They were in a position to switch emphasis and to be able to do that within the crappy framework surrounding them.

BlackMoria,

I find it unphantomable that the higher ups in the Bush Administration and the DoD were blindsided with the actual outcome when I predicted what would happen EXACTLY when I had conversations with people during the build up to war.

And so did I In fact, many of those conversations were had here on this very Forum. IIRC my exact quote was we were definitely going to win the war and likely to lose the peace. The US has an extremely bad track record of post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction. Germany and Japan are the exceptions, and they are also exceptions that are from 60 years ago.

Anyway, I do completely believe that the higher up civilians were blindsided. That's what happens when you don't know what you're talking about, refuse to listen to those who do know what they are talking about, and deliberately discourage others from coming forward to sound alarm bells. If you look back at the record, it's clear that a LOT of extremely smart and experienced people, who knew what they were talking about (Powell and Zinni for example), were sounding alarm bells. But certain individuals wanted a war in Iraq for their own selfish reasons and so that is what we got, despite the military professionals counseling against it. "Support our troops" has a bit of a hollow ring to it from certain mouths. Especially the ones that keep flapping about how they did no wrong.

Steve

[Sgt Joch]

Of course, part of the reason they went in with such a small force was political. The Bush administration wanted to do the war on the cheap to make it easier to sell to the american people.

They also really seemed to have believed that they could just kick the door in, hand the keys to some pro-american government and drive right back out.........unfortunately Iran (and a few others) had other ideas.

[Clavicula_Nox]

Steve,

I "forgive" the Division commanders for not having more of an effect on strategic issues, such as going to war without a long term plan, lack of resources, inadequate equipment, etc. In my eyes they lose points for prosecuting uninspired and often counter productive conventional warfare tactics when clearly unconventional tactics were needed. They were in a position to switch emphasis and to be able to do that within the crappy framework surrounding them.

Yeah, I agree with you there; but I think it's asking a bit much to de-institutionalize someone who's been career military for that long while in theatre, while the line between conventional and unconventional was extremely blurred, and while facing mounting attacks on your subordinate units. Especially when many of these attacks were carried out by foreigners: Syrians, Palestinians, Iranians, Jordanians, etc. Certainly, 4th Infantry's Odierno stands out as a real piece of **** (who got promoted for it).

101st's Petraeus is cited with leaving Mosul in great shape, the problem is that as soon as they left, it went to **** right away; so I'm not sure what exactly is going on there. I think we expect too much between two radically different cultures, and, while violence has steadily gone down, I don't think Petraeus' work has been completely successful, nor do I think it will end up being a long-term solution. I would love to be proven wrong, but there are too many Iranian-backed dudes in Iraq's govt to have any hope of..well, anything.

Simple explanation, the Iraq war was never 'about' Iraq. Iraq was supposed to get its own house in order following the invasion.

I was just a kid at the time, but I think this idea has a lot of merit to it. I don't think it began as a Bush plan, but I think he whole-heartedly embraced it once it was presented to him Post 9/11.

I don't see the big deal though, I mean, Rome didn't last; Charlemagne's Empire didn't last; the Holy Roman Empire didn't last; Imperial France; Great Britain; etc. I just don't see the desire for a big empire that is going to implode on its own self-importance, but hey, I'm just a regular guy, what do I know?

Of course, part of the reason they went in with such a small force was political. The Bush administration wanted to do the war on the cheap to make it easier to sell to the american people.

On another forum I talked about "Effects Based Operations" and how it has changed war, and not in the way that its proponents think. EBO has made it so Presidents and Congressmen can say "we can win the war with air assets only; all we need to do is drop some 'smart bombs' on vital assets, and they will surrender en masse." It sells the idea that war can be bloodless (for us), and it has an air of arrogance and pseudo-Prussian precision.

EBO was behind the Allied bombing campaign in Germany, and while they bombed factories and railroads, the Reichswehr always recovered, and the Wehrmacht was defeated by boots (and treads) on the ground.

Remember "Shock and Awe"? Yeah, same thing.

Remember the air campaign in Bosnia? We bombed mock up vehicles over and over again; but hey, that's EBO!

They also really seemed to have believed that they could just kick the door in, hand the keys to some pro-american government and drive right back out.........unfortunately Iran (and a few others) had other ideas.

When I was over the first time, we were encouraged to distribute packets from MREs. Psyop kept pushing the idea that "MREs and bottles of Gatorade were winning the war" The **** was bizarre, to say the least. I have never seen such a contradiction of reality; the utter lack of reason, sanity, and common-sense is indescribable.

I don't know if it has all been worth it. Iraq is effectively in the hands of Iran. 4,000+ Soldiers,Marines, Airmen killed; 20,000+wounded. An uncountable number of dead and wounded Iraqis. Just the human cost doesn't seem worth it, let alone monetary.