Army War College article says invasion of Iraq was 'strategic error'

[SuperTool]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/01/12/national2022EST0762.DTL

A report published by the Army War College calls the Bush administration's war on terrorism unfocused and says the invasion of Iraq was "a strategic error."

The research paper by Jeffrey Record, a professor at the Air War College at Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, said the president's strategy "promises much more than it can deliver" and threatens to spread U.S. military resources too thin. Record also wrote that Saddam Hussein's Iraq did not present a threat to the United States and was a distraction from the war on terrorism.

Link to Document:
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/2003/bounding/bounding.pdf
Might want to make a local copy before Bush's sensors get to it.

 

[Dari]

Either that professor is an idiot or he didn't do his homework regarding Al Qaeda. It seems he forgot that Al Qaeda has terror cells around the globe. Furthermore, these terror cells work closely with local/independent terror cells or state-sponsored terror cells, or they might just outsource the whole operation to the latter two. The president is doing the right thing: working with our friends and allies to tackle these cells. Al Qaeda morphs depending on region and nation, the United States has to respond to that. We have no choice but to fight the non-Al Qaeda cells.

As for Iraq, her unwillingness to cooperate over her WMDs made her a threat in the post-9/11 world, where the marriage of outlawed regimes and stateless and myopic terror organizations proves to be much more dangerous than the M.A.D. system we had against the Soviets.

By the way, was his assessment for short-term or long-term? Do military professors look at the long-term picture and the diplomatic consequences (reactions of similar enemies to attack on one of their own) of military action or do they leave that to lawyers and historians? Just a question.

 

[glenn1]

I realize you're simply quoting the article as it's titled, but in all clarity IMHO it would be preferable to put words to the affect that it's an "article published by the Army War College" in the title so it doesn't imply the opinions in the paper are the official position of the War College rather than one of its professors.

 

[etech]

Assertive U.S. foreign policy produces diplomatic payoff

"...

Fast forward to this week. While the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has not changed its 57-year-old clock officially, the world is breathing easier. India and Pakistan are beginning to talk peace. North Korea (news - web sites) hints it may follow fellow rogue states Libya and Iran in allowing nuclear inspections. And both of those shifts have ignited an intriguing debate over whether Bush's strategy has been, in fact, provocative or a positive catalyst for the promising new developments.

Though time will be the ultimate judge, certainly a case can be made that these tentative peace overtures were spurred by the threat of Bush's 2002 pre-emptive strike doctrine. It warns those who might use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons that they are vulnerable to a first strike from the U.S. A similar argument is made by many historians who credit President Reagan's military buildup and "Evil Empire" rhetoric for pushing the Soviet Union toward collapse.

..."

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: etech
Assertive U.S. foreign policy produces diplomatic payoff

"...

Fast forward to this week. While the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has not changed its 57-year-old clock officially, the world is breathing easier. India and Pakistan are beginning to talk peace. North Korea (news - web sites) hints it may follow fellow rogue states Libya and Iran in allowing nuclear inspections. And both of those shifts have ignited an intriguing debate over whether Bush's strategy has been, in fact, provocative or a positive catalyst for the promising new developments.

Though time will be the ultimate judge, certainly a case can be made that these tentative peace overtures were spurred by the threat of Bush's 2002 pre-emptive strike doctrine. It warns those who might use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons that they are vulnerable to a first strike from the U.S. A similar argument is made by many historians who credit President Reagan's military buildup and "Evil Empire" rhetoric for pushing the Soviet Union toward collapse.

..."

Thanks Etech, I think you were reading my mind (your article answered all my questions in the third paragraph).

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Dari
Either that professor is an idiot or he didn't do his homework regarding Al Qaeda. It seems he forgot that Al Qaeda has terror cells around the globe. Furthermore, these terror cells work closely with local/independent terror cells or state-sponsored terror cells, or they might just outsource the whole operation to the latter two. The president is doing the right thing: working with our friends and allies to tackle these cells. Al Qaeda morphs depending on region and nation, the United States has to respond to that. We have no choice but to fight the non-Al Qaeda cells.

As for Iraq, her unwillingness to cooperate over her WMDs made her a threat in the post-9/11 world, where the marriage of outlawed regimes and stateless and myopic terror organizations proves to be much more dangerous than the M.A.D. system we had against the Soviets.

By the way, was his assessment for short-term or long-term? Do military professors look at the long-term picture and the diplomatic consequences (reactions of similar enemies to attack on one of their own) of military action or do they leave that to lawyers and historians? Just a question.

Did you read the report? Have you heard an interview with this professor? Do you know what he thinks about pursuing Al Queda?

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Dari
Either that professor is an idiot or he didn't do his homework regarding Al Qaeda. It seems he forgot that Al Qaeda has terror cells around the globe. Furthermore, these terror cells work closely with local/independent terror cells or state-sponsored terror cells, or they might just outsource the whole operation to the latter two. The president is doing the right thing: working with our friends and allies to tackle these cells. Al Qaeda morphs depending on region and nation, the United States has to respond to that. We have no choice but to fight the non-Al Qaeda cells.

yet Iraq was not a terrorist cell, alqaeda or otherwise, so your argument here is completely off base.

Originally posted by: Dari
As for Iraq, her unwillingness to cooperate over her WMDs made her a threat in the post-9/11 world, where the marriage of outlawed regimes and stateless and myopic terror organizations proves to be much more dangerous than the M.A.D. system we had against the Soviets.

they can't rightly cooperate over something they didn't have, and seeing as how we have yet to come up with any proof that they did have wmd your argument is again completely off base.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Dari
Either that professor is an idiot or he didn't do his homework regarding Al Qaeda. It seems he forgot that Al Qaeda has terror cells around the globe. Furthermore, these terror cells work closely with local/independent terror cells or state-sponsored terror cells, or they might just outsource the whole operation to the latter two. The president is doing the right thing: working with our friends and allies to tackle these cells. Al Qaeda morphs depending on region and nation, the United States has to respond to that. We have no choice but to fight the non-Al Qaeda cells.

As for Iraq, her unwillingness to cooperate over her WMDs made her a threat in the post-9/11 world, where the marriage of outlawed regimes and stateless and myopic terror organizations proves to be much more dangerous than the M.A.D. system we had against the Soviets.

By the way, was his assessment for short-term or long-term? Do military professors look at the long-term picture and the diplomatic consequences (reactions of similar enemies to attack on one of their own) of military action or do they leave that to lawyers and historians? Just a question.

It's a bummer this guy isn't as informed as the rightwingers on this board.

JEFFREY RECORD joined the Strategic Studies Institute in
August 2003 as Visiting Research Professor. He is a professor in
the Department of Strategy and International Security at the US
Air Force?s Air War College in Montgomery, Alabama. He is the
author of six books and a dozen monographs, including: Making
War, Thinking History: Munich, Vietnam, and Presidential Uses of Force
from Korea to Kosovo; Revising US Military Strategy: Tailoring Means
to Ends; Beyond Military Reform; Hollow Victory, A Contrary View of
the Gulf War; War The Wrong War, Why We Lost in Vietnam; and Failed
States and Casualty Phobia, Implications for U.S. Force Structure and
Technology Choices. Dr. Record has served as Assistant Province
Advisor in the Mekong Delta during the Vietnam War, Rockefeller
Younger Scholar on the Brookings Institution?s Defense Analysis
Staff, and Senior Fellow at the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis,
the Hudson Institute, and the BDM International Corporation. He
also has extensive Capitol Hill experience, serving as Legislative
Assistant for National Security Affairs to Senators Sam Nunn and
Lloyd Bentsen, and later as a Professional Staff Member of the Senate
Armed Services Committee. Dr. Record received his Doctorate at the
Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Dari
Either that professor is an idiot or he didn't do his homework regarding Al Qaeda. It seems he forgot that Al Qaeda has terror cells around the globe. Furthermore, these terror cells work closely with local/independent terror cells or state-sponsored terror cells, or they might just outsource the whole operation to the latter two. The president is doing the right thing: working with our friends and allies to tackle these cells. Al Qaeda morphs depending on region and nation, the United States has to respond to that. We have no choice but to fight the non-Al Qaeda cells.

As for Iraq, her unwillingness to cooperate over her WMDs made her a threat in the post-9/11 world, where the marriage of outlawed regimes and stateless and myopic terror organizations proves to be much more dangerous than the M.A.D. system we had against the Soviets.

By the way, was his assessment for short-term or long-term? Do military professors look at the long-term picture and the diplomatic consequences (reactions of similar enemies to attack on one of their own) of military action or do they leave that to lawyers and historians? Just a question.

It's a bummer this guy isn't as informed as the rightwingers on this board.

JEFFREY RECORD joined the Strategic Studies Institute in
August 2003 as Visiting Research Professor. He is a professor in
the Department of Strategy and International Security at the US
Air Force?s Air War College in Montgomery, Alabama. He is the
author of six books and a dozen monographs, including: Making
War, Thinking History: Munich, Vietnam, and Presidential Uses of Force
from Korea to Kosovo; Revising US Military Strategy: Tailoring Means
to Ends; Beyond Military Reform; Hollow Victory, A Contrary View of
the Gulf War; War The Wrong War, Why We Lost in Vietnam; and Failed
States and Casualty Phobia, Implications for U.S. Force Structure and
Technology Choices. Dr. Record has served as Assistant Province
Advisor in the Mekong Delta during the Vietnam War, Rockefeller
Younger Scholar on the Brookings Institution?s Defense Analysis
Staff, and Senior Fellow at the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis,
the Hudson Institute, and the BDM International Corporation. He
also has extensive Capitol Hill experience, serving as Legislative
Assistant for National Security Affairs to Senators Sam Nunn and
Lloyd Bentsen, and later as a Professional Staff Member of the Senate
Armed Services Committee. Dr. Record received his Doctorate at the
Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.

Yep, doesnt know anything. Not in Dari's league

 

[Jhhnn]

And the mad rush to proclaim the bush policy a success overlooks the fact that the DPRK was in compliance with the IAEA mandate, had shut down its reactors and known reprocessing plants prior to Dubya breaking their balls, cutting off their oil supply... threatening greater trade restrictions, invasion...

First create a crisis, then let it ease a little, make yourself a hero... The DPRK "threat" is no less a contrivance than Iraqi WMD's.... well, except that they may well have nukes at this point, in response to US attempts at bullying... The DPRK is an empty shell, a boogeyman, something used to scare children... and suck money out of American taxpayers...

I do applaud efforts to reconcile Pakistan and India, although I seriously doubt they'll come to much- we don't have the leverage to convince India to give up Kashmir and Jammu, something they should have done over 50 years ago... according to the Pakistanis, anyway...