Letters from Baghdad

[regular.joe]

You, um, missed the point.

[tw]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

You, um, missed the point.

If the 'point' was missed, then define what that point was. You asked about "Mission Accomplished". Defined was why it is named as George Jr defined it. What point was missed? Defined is why ten more years in Iraq traditionally only means defeat and is directly traceable to George Jr (actually Cheney).

[regular.joe]

No, you asked about "mission accomplished". I told you that I really don't care. I know what the situation is on the ground, and I'll go back, we will deal with what ever the politicians get us into.

It sounds to me like you know what the answers are, but are unwilling to earn a commission, or some stripes in the military, to go and put that solution into action. Civil Affairs is a wide open carreer field in the military right now. As far as the Army goes, they only recruit Civil Affairs on active duty from soldiers who have been in a while. Captains and above, Staff Sergeants and above. You really need to get busy. The reserve side of the house might take you into the Civil Affairs field if you have some expertise that lends to the civil military operations ongoing around the globe. City management, law, construction etc... Call a recruiter and ask about it.

Perhaps a position in the State Department. Something.

My point is: I don't care about the politics, and rhetoric and general hot air here in the states. I'm going to be out working on the solution on the ground. Long after President Bush is gone, and long after the next President is gone. I'd love for you to join me.

[tw]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

No, you asked about "mission accomplished". I told you that I really don't care. I know what the situation is on the ground, and I'll go back, we will deal with what ever the politicians get us into. ...

My point is: I don't care about the politics, and rhetoric and general hot air here in the states. I'm going to be out working on the solution on the ground.

What is the purpose of war? To move the conflict back to the negotiation table. Boots on the ground (ie civil affairs officers) are how that can be accomplished only if a viable strategic objective exists with all necessary planning (including Phase Four).

Some in the military never understand that. For example, Air Force officers have claimed they alone can win a war. They don't understand their principle function - to support the army. After victory, the army has six months to achieve the actual victory. A strategic objective is won (accomplished) at the negotiation table, making possible execution of the Phase Four planning. Phase Four planning can complete the victory. Politicians must not throw away all that good work performed by the military and make possible that six months consolidation.

Shameful is how much was lost after Schwarzkopf's stunning victory in Desert Storm. Again, the purpose of a war. When he went to accept the Iraqi defeat, he asked Washington for surrender terms. Well, those politicians were too busy 'drinking champaign' to bother. George Sr noted that something did not appear right. But he never grasped mistakes being made by his subordinates.

Schwarzkopf had to invent those surrender conditions on the fly. Protected was the only thing that kept Saddam in power. Eventually the US Army watched Saddam massacre maybe 10,000 insurgents in Basra from five miles away and could do nothing to stop it.

Why did Saddam stay in power? Why were Iraqis - encouraged by Americans to rebel - massacred by Saddam? Because that good work in Desert Storm was subverted by who must finish a war - the politicians. Purpose of war is always to move that conflict to a negotiation table. A victory so stunning in Desert Storm was tarnished by politicians who did not do their job - did not plan for the peace.

Same in Iraq. There is no military solution because same politicians (including Bremer, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Feith, Wolfovich, etc) so screwed up the political settlement. Success now lies somewhere between Maliki, Sistani, Sadr, a Kurdish leadership, etc. The Iraq Study Group also noted other necessary parties including Iran, Syria, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Worse, none appears interested or capable yet of that solution. Like it or not, the only "Mission Accomplished" solution lies with the politicians - as Petraeus noted.