Larry.org

I often wonder where people get the idea that high ranking military are automatically hawks, and conservatives. My father sent out a very thoughtful and insightful e-mail summarizing his reactions to the speech President Bush gave last night, and the coming 'war' with Iraq.

"We are on the eve of war and the President will address the nation this evening. I would like to share with you some final thoughts on this conflict that I have come to on my own or have read from others over the last several months. ...



In talking to other officers who served in combat, the universal response I receive when I ask them for their thoughts on Iraq is one of ambivalence and uncertainty. I guess you could summarize their attitude as one of hope that we are doing the wise thing but not very certain about it. Here are my brief thoughts. ...



- When I served in the Joint Staff at the Pentagon, we had an expression. It was "the train has left the station." This was meant to convey the situation was moving so fast that the last idea surfaced was no longer relevant. In terms of our strategy for dealing with Iraq, the train definitely has left the station. I have a nagging thought that it may be headed down the wrong track. Hopefully, I will be proven wrong.



- I do not buy the argument that we have exhausted all other measures before resorting to military force. I say that since I can fill our cars with gasoline fueled from Iraqi imports. Therefore, I do not believe we have seriously tried economic sanctions. However, I understand why the US Government has not pursued this course of action. Uncooperative third countries can circumvent economic sanctions. In addition, economic pressure imposes humanitarian hardships on the Iraqi people. Nevertheless, we could have tried to make that form of pressure much more intense than we did.



- There has been a lot fuzzing up of our objectives toward Iraq. Three objectives have been cited and emphasized by various officials at varying times, namely, regime change, disarmament, and supporting democracy. In my view, the disarmament objective was only a fig leaf since the US Government knew it would never get broad coalition support for a regime change. In fairness to Bush the 43rd, Bush the 41st would never have obtained the broad coalition support he did had Desert Storm been aimed at a regime change in Baghdad. The reason Bush the 41st President obtained such broad international support was that it sought a defensive objective only, namely to restore the territorial integrity of Kuwait.



- One of the reasons Congress has been fairly mute in the public debate over Iraq is that it overwhelmingly approved the policy of a regime change. It did this in 1998, when Clinton occupied the White House. The legislation was the "Iraq Liberation Act" ( Public Law 105-338 ). The legislation reads: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." Unfortunately, the rhetorical resolve of this legislation was never backed up with a firm commitment for action that would realize the stated objective.



- I do not agree with the military strategy of using conventional forces to march/roll on Baghdad followed by the installation of an American Caesar. Mind you I'm not against using the military option. I just think there is a better military strategy. I would advocate an unconventional warfare (UW) approach much like the Afghan model where Special Forces and other US forces helped local freedom fighters win back their country. The way we are going into Iraq just Americanizes the problem. A UW strategy may even have gained more coalition support than our current approach. Finally, UW is essentially an economy of force measure. It is far less expensive than a conventional war. I realize that UW has its' downsides. For one thing, it takes considerable longer to wage. Perhaps, time is not on our side. Moreover, the outcome of an UW style war is less predictable and harder to control. [Note: I have to admit a slight bias towards UW since I served in Special Forces.]



- When we attack Iraq in the next few days, it will not really be a "war." Of course, it will look like a war. The TV images will definitely show vivid images of what seems to be a war in the making. And for those servicemen fighting in and over Iraq, it will smell like a war. But, it will not really be one. I believe the term "war" should be reserved for armed conflict against another country or threats wherein we mobilize the full resources of the country and fully commit to it. What we have here is a sub-contracted offensive campaign affecting a slimmed down military, with one third of the forces perched on the borders of Iraq consisting of US reserves and National Guard elements. Notice that the US Government has not reinstated the draft nor created an obligatory national service requirement for military and non-military duty. Now I have no doubt that this sub-contracted military force will make quick mincemeat of Saddam‰Ûss forces and topple his regime. I have no doubt that they will serve with honor. The problem of course will be the cost in human and financial terms of sustaining that commitment as we plod along in our tenth year of nation building in the post-Hussein Iraq.



- I could be wrong on this but I have this sense that Bush is a one-term president no matter how this comes out. If he blinks and does not go to war, he will have lost all credibility. If he goes to war and it does not go as well as expected, there will be a lot of finger pointing. If the war goes as expected with a quick regime change and minimal casualties, then the aftermath of the war sets in more quickly. This allows more time for the cost, chaos, and complexity of nation building to sink in on the voting American taxpayer before the next presidential elections. One wild card here could save Bush. If it turns out that US Forces in Iraq discover vast amounts of chemical, biological, and even the early stages of developing nuclear arms; and definite links to Al Qaeda, then the American people would probably come to the conclusion that the cost of the war and its aftermath was worth the price. They will side with Bush that it was better to be safe than sorry. Because of this factor, I believe that one of the most politically sensitive issues to deal with following a US victory in Iraq is to obtain true and accurate information of the threat Saddam actually posed at the outset of hostilities. This will be a difficult task. It will be difficult for our intelligence services to produce an accurate picture due to the fog of war and partisan political pressures placed on them.



- Hopefully, my concerns are wrong. I have many hopes about this looming war, for which I pray. My hopes at this point are that:



— the war does go swimmingly and that there are few casualties on either side, and they play all the tunes of glory,



— the nation building of Iraq in the "wars" aftermath is reasonably well thought out and executed, leading to the restoration of law and order in short order and timely humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people,



— the subcontracted military forces deployed from the subcontracting culture of America can redeploy home and reunite with its subcontracted family and friends as quickly as possible,



— at some point in the not too distant future, America will enable future generations to share in the burden of preserving and building a free land through national service. President Dwight Eisenhower once said all he hoped for was that the land he took care of was "left better off than when he found it." That is a good hope for all of us. But, it should be noted that Ike realized his aspiration of leaving this free land better off because he was a selfless public servant. Maybe that is why America liked Ike so much.

I wrote back:



I share many of your concerns. It's also interesting to hear your take because of your incredible background in all matters military.



I think about 5 months ago I came to the conclusion that it was going to happen no matter what.. 'the train had left the station'.



My thoughts are pretty firm with regards to:



1) Saddam Hussein has got to go



2) We're going to be the ones to get him gone



Where I get into some serious misgivings is:



A) How quickly we need to do it



B) What it will cost us in terms of good will / cooperation internationally



C) What the specific objective is



D) Whether it's worth the price we will pay based on the present course.



I hope that it's over quickly. I hope that the propaganda that the Iraqi people are 'secretly' with us will mean that they will not fight and we can do this with minimum loss of life.



I think my most serious problem with all this is the transition in American foreign policy is still 'up in the air'.



Are we doing this because:



i) Saddam specifically has violated 12 years of UN Resolutions, and we're the UN's "muscle" even if they can't agree on when or why.



ii) We see a possible threat and can in 'self defense' act militarily to neutralize that percieved threat.



If we're doing this because of i) then that's not so much a big change for us Foreign Policy wise and it's easy to communicate to our (former?) allies



If we're doing this because of ii) then it's really easy for any other country to be gravely concerned about when, where or why we may act in a similar matter. Obviously this is where the War on Terrorism as a reason to act in this matter becomes a seriously scary foreign policy for us in the eyes of our allies.



I suppose if the UN had gotten itself behind military action then reason i) above would be why we are doing this. Our inability to convince the UN of the need for military intervention does not mean though that we are not doing it because of i) above...



I just wish that the Bush administration had a more specific message to the world with regards to this.



At this point I hope your feeling that the Bush Administration is going to be a one term run proves correct.



I can't imagine at this point how we're going to look back on these last two years, even as early as the end of the summer and think we've done the right things to secure the blessings of liberty, protect the peace at home and abroad and acted in a way that respects the human rights and dignity of people the world over.