Losing its wars, U.S. needs to regroup

[struggle4progress]

By EUGENE MIHALY
The Providence Journal
May 29, 2006

.. we need to look again at the central military doctrines of our time: The Powell Doctrine, which shaped the first Gulf War, is in eclipse. That called for exhaustive diplomacy and then, only as a last resort, the use of overwhelming conventional force. Now we have what could be called the Rumsfeld Doctrine: an impatience with diplomacy and a readiness to deploy U.S. power solo and often, but with light, highly mobile, often unconventional forces that move in fast and then withdraw, leaving others to rebuild.

Today, we see these issues playing out in three conflicts. The United States is fighting two wars, in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a third conflict, which President Bush terms a war but is in fact an amalgam of warfare, diplomacy, intelligence, police action, and economic effort: the struggle against Muslim extremists. The United States is losing in all three cases.

At the same time, the administration has instructed the Defense Department to develop plans for air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities. This report is not denied by the administration; the plans are detailed. They are not, as claimed, the usual contingency plans that end up filed in Pentagon desk drawers.

The parallels with 2002-03 and the run-up to the Iraq war are deeply disturbing. And the silence in Congress and among the political chattering classes is deafening ..

http://www.knoxstudio.com/shns/story.cfm?pk=IRAQWAR-REGROUP-05-29-06&cat=AN

[Erika]

1. W doesn't have the support to go to war anywhere

He's a total failure. He might not know when to cut the losses, but we do

[AndyTiedye]

3. He's The "Decider". He Doesn't Need Any Support From Anyone.

:scared:

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. " move in fast and then withdraw, leaving others to rebuild."

Did I miss this?

They never withdrew as far as I can see. They have stayed to slaughter/get slaughtered for god knows what.

[struggle4progress]

4. I think the point is Rummy concentrated on developing blitzkrieg troops

for shock-n-awe tactics, with the idea that such troops would blast their way to "mission accomplished" -- without making any plans or developing any organizational structure for the "post-victory" stage. Thus, in Rummyworld, it was assumed halcyon days would follow withdrawal of blitzkrieg berserkers ...

[cliss]

5. A very good article,

except that I disagree with his reasons for going in. Here's what I have:

1) We went in to open up a police station in Iraq. The plan was to control the entire Middle East. We couldn't stay in Saudi Arabia, because it was a huge Al Qaida recruiting tool. So we moved to Iraq. Whoever controls the Middle East controls the world.

2) We went in to secure the oil. Not necessarily to start pumping it. It's better to sit on it, while the rest of the world runs out of oil and becomes desperate. Whoever controls the oil rules the world.

3) We were pissed because Saddam had started trading in Euros instead of US Petrodollars. In 2001, he made about $420 million in the currency conversion = that was the last straw.

4) We invaded to show our invincibility, our massive strength. We've proven just the opposite: that the US is a failure, and can be defeated. We're losing against a country with no military.

That's the problem with using a conventional army against guerrilla warfare. In Rumsfeld's mind, you can bomb a country to the Stone Age and hopefully win. He doesn't understand that when you have no army to fight against, the rules have changed. He just doesn't get it. In Afghanistan, he said, "We've run out of targets".

[bemildred]

6. How about not having so many stupid wars?

I mean we do have other things to do with the money.

[Deja Q]

7. Like, amongst other things, pay back the debt Bush has added to.

Bush's lot talks of consumers getting into debt.

Guess what? Government is by, of, and for the people. Or, worst case scenario, no different from any other entity that uses money.

[katty]

8. the Loser keeps losing-needs to STOP starting wars