• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

New Pentagon Report Calls Iraq "A Major Debacle"

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Color me very surprised that this report even saw the light of day during an election year. This is fresh, highly critical ammunition that will be aimed at the GOP this fall, and the source is beyond question: former Pentagon, senior defense and intelligence officials. This report also confirms what we already knew: that operations for a war against Iraq began shortly after 9/11, with Bush using the terrorist attack as catalyst to attack a sovereign nation.

Text

By Jonathan S. Landay and John Walcott

WASHINGTON ? The war in Iraq has become "a major debacle" and the outcome "is in doubt" despite improvements in security from the buildup in U.S. forces, according to a highly critical study published Thursday by the Pentagon's premier military educational institute.

The report released by the National Defense University raises fresh doubts about President Bush's projections of a U.S. victory in Iraq just a week after Bush announced that he was suspending U.S. troop reductions.

The report carries considerable weight because it was written by Joseph Collins, a former senior Pentagon official, and was based in part on interviews with other former senior defense and intelligence officials who played roles in prewar preparations.

It was published by the university's National Institute for Strategic Studies, a Defense Department research center.

"Measured in blood and treasure, the war in Iraq has achieved the status of a major war and a major debacle," says the report's opening line.

At the time the report was written last fall, more than 4,000 U.S. and foreign troops, more than 7,500 Iraqi security forces and as many as 82,000 Iraqi civilians had been killed and tens of thousands of others wounded, while the cost of the war since March 2003 was estimated at $450 billion.

"No one as yet has calculated the costs of long-term veterans' benefits or the total impact on service personnel and material," wrote Collins, who was involved in planning post-invasion humanitarian operations.

The report said that the United States has suffered serious political costs, with its standing in the world seriously diminished. Moreover, operations in Iraq have diverted "manpower, material and the attention of decision-makers" from "all other efforts in the war on terror" and severely strained the U.S. armed forces.

"Compounding all of these problems, our efforts there (in Iraq ) were designed to enhance U.S. national security, but they have become, at least temporarily, an incubator for terrorism and have emboldened Iran to expand its influence throughout the Middle East ," the report continued.

The addition of 30,000 U.S. troops to Iraq last year to halt the country's descent into all-out civil war has improved security, but not enough to ensure that the country emerges as a stable democracy at peace with its neighbors, the report said.

"Despite impressive progress in security, the outcome of the war is in doubt," said the report. "Strong majorities of both Iraqis and Americans favor some sort of U.S. withdrawal. Intelligence analysts, however, remind us that the only thing worse than an Iraq with an American army may be an Iraq after a rapid withdrawal of that army."

"For many analysts (including this one), Iraq remains a 'must win,' but for many others, despite obvious progress under General David Petraeus and the surge, it now looks like a 'can't win.'"

The report lays much of the blame for what went wrong in Iraq after the initial U.S. victory at the feet of then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. It says that in November 2001, before the war in Afghanistan was over, President Bush asked Rumsfeld "to begin planning in secret for potential military operations against Iraq."

Rumsfeld, who was closely allied with Vice President Dick Cheney, bypassed the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the report says, and became "the direct supervisor of the combatant commanders."

" . . . the aggressive, hands-on Rumsfeld," it continues, "cajoled and pushed his way toward a small force and a lightning fast operation." Later, he shut down the military's computerized deployment system, "questioning, delaying or deleting units on the numerous deployment orders that came across his desk."

In part because "long, costly, manpower-intensive post-combat operations were anathema to Rumsfeld," the report says, the U.S. was unprepared to fight what Collins calls "War B," the battle against insurgents and sectarian violence that began in mid-2003, shortly after "War A," the fight against Saddam Hussein's forces, ended.

Compounding the problem was a series of faulty assumptions made by Bush's top aides, among them an expectation fed by Iraqi exiles that Iraqis would be grateful to America for liberating them from Saddam's dictatorship. The administration also expected that "Iraq without Saddam could manage and fund its own reconstruction."

The report also singles out the Bush administration's national security apparatus and implicitly President Bush and both of his national security advisers, Condoleezza Rice and Stephen Hadley, saying that "senior national security officials exhibited in many instances an imperious attitude, exerting power and pressure where diplomacy and bargaining might have had a better effect."

Collins ends his report by quoting Winston Churchill , who said: "Let us learn our lessons. Never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. . . . Always remember, however sure you are that you can easily win, that there would not be a war if the other man did not think that he also had a chance."

To read the report:

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Occasional_Papers/OP5.pdf
 
It is time for a new surge.

A surge of voters who tell McCain and his 100 years in Iraq to go to hell. We don't need it.
 
Originally posted by: jpeyton


Collins ends his report by quoting Winston Churchill , who said: "Let us learn our lessons. Never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. . . . Always remember, however sure you are that you can easily win, that there would not be a war if the other man did not think that he also had a chance."

To read the report:

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Occasional_Papers/OP5.pdf
[/quote]

Heh, Churchill learnt that the hard way, in Iraq of all places, he created Iraq after all when he was Colonial Minister. The British tried to revive their empire after WWI and rule the remains of the Ottoman empire and secure cheap oil.

Iraq, and Palestine, is also where the British squandered a vast amount of the money they borrowed from the US after WWI, this eventually contributed to the Great Depression. Churchill came to call the British ME debacle the "hell-disaster".




 
It shall be interesting because, even as I post this, Rummy is writing his memoirs for sale at a bookstore near you. I think the time frame is into 2009 or longer. If there is any justice in the world, Rummy will find himself telling it to the judges at the Hague, before his book ever sees the light of day.

After many years of fending off critics screaming for Rummy's scalp and just days after GWB expressed full faith in Rumsfeld, Donald got the ax on the very night the GOP lost
congress in the election of 11/06. And since then we have hardly heard a peep from Rumsfeld while I have been somewhat surprised congress has not called him to testify.

Maybe the Joseph Collins report will smoke out Rumsfeld just in time for the election of 08. If nothing else, Rumsfeld knows where all the bodies are buried. Making him a treasure for historians and criminal prosecutors alike.
 
I'm glad we liberated Iraq. If i wasn't just a conservative strawman i'd be glad to go fight another ruthless dictator myself.
 
Originally posted by: Duwelon
I'm glad we liberated Iraq. If i wasn't just a conservative strawman i'd be glad to go fight another ruthless dictator myself.
It must be exciting for you...in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger.
 
If, on September 12, 2001, someone had asked Osama bin Laden if there was any way he could cost the US trillions of dollars, wear out our military readiness to where we had pretty much no troops to spare for any war, and create great animosity to the US throughout the Middle East while destroying a lot of the goodwill around the world, he would have to say he had no way to do such things with his puny forces.

But the US could do those things - and did.

The USSR shot itself in the foot invading Afghanistan. Saddam shot himself in the foor invading Kuwait. Milosevich shot himself in the foot repressing Bosnian Muslims.

Who does the US have to blame for its shooting itself in the foot, at a time we can use the money to reduce our deficit, to compete with the rising economies of larger nations?
 
i find it interesting to note that in these strained times of huge deficits, tanking economy, price of gas skyrocketing, the bottomless pit that we keep shoveling billions of $ and thousands of lives into that's more commonly known as iraq, etc. etc. there are a few US corporations that are presently raking in profits of epic proportions. and what a coincidence that these few corporations heavily rely on us being "at war" in iraq and afghanistan to sustain the level of profits they've been enjoying. and what an even larger coincidence that bush and cheney had/have close ties to these corporations before they got the supreme court to name them as potus and vpotus.

so it's small wonder that the chronic clusterphuck that's going on in iraq has still got legs, and those legs just keep on pumping out huge profits for the select few that had everything to do with getting us to invade that nation in the first place.

capitalism and corporate treachery at it's finest.
 
Originally posted by: tweaker2

capitalism and corporate treachery at it's finest.

If it was capitalistic the companys that had a vested interest would be footing the bill, not the American tax-payers.
 
Originally posted by: Brigandier
Originally posted by: tweaker2

capitalism and corporate treachery at it's finest.

If it was capitalistic the companys that had a vested interest would be footing the bill, not the American tax-payers.

You're wrong, in 'real' capitalism, where having others pay your costs is a very good approach to profit. If you're making some theoretical point, well, ok, but be clear.

Classic examples of this are companies that pollute and the government pays for the cleanup, or when Wal-Mart cuts medical benefits to have its people get government care.

The tendency for capitalism to have corruption is, I think, the point that tweaker2 was making, sarcasm about it purportedly being 'capitalism'.
 
Originally posted by: Craig234
Who does the US have to blame for its shooting itself in the foot, at a time we can use the money to reduce our deficit, to compete with the rising economies of larger nations?

Bush and all republicans of course!
 
I wonder when that Churchill quote was made, if I had to guess it would have to be after Galipoli, which was his show 100% and the Brits and colonial forces got their assess handed to them by the "inferior" Turks.
 
Originally posted by: dahunan
Did they really have to make a "NEW" report to tell us all what we already knew?

Who is 'we'? There are and probably always will be defenders of the Iraq war despite what we know 5 years later.
 
Originally posted by: ayabe
I wonder when that Churchill quote was made, if I had to guess it would have to be after Galipoli, which was his show 100% and the Brits and colonial forces got their assess handed to them by the "inferior" Turks.

You need to brush up a bit, no offense 🙂

I'm a huge Churchill buff, sort of by accident, my dad gets me a new Churchill biography/historical book every birthday. I have like 12 of them now.

Anyway, Galipoli campaign was Churchill's idea, yes. But the planning/execution/delay/bungling was a result of many hands on the same steering wheel pulling in different directions. Anyway :

(1)- Churchill's initial plans relied on an improper assessment of Turkish Troop strength, which was prepared by T.E. Lawrence (yes, Lawrence of Arabia gave Churchill FUD, lol)

(2)- Initial plans based upon those assessments called for a fast, heavy naval bombardment, and small force for occupation of the Dardanelles.

(3)- Lord Kitchener, and various other officials here and there, caused such delay and argument over what, where, when, and how, that the final much delayed invasion attempt was NO surprise at all, and ended in disaster obviously. Churchill had much misgivings about even continuing to support the Dardenelles campaign, but he still must bear the brunt of the responsibility, having put the initial support for such an action into play.

I also like to point to the Galipoli campaign as evidence that Muslims aren't all barbaric nutjobs, as many here would like you to believe. It is a monument that Mustafa Ataturk dedicated to the Allies at ANZAC cove, where his men had retrieved the bodies left behind, and they buried them properly.

"Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives... You are now lying in a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where, they lie side by side here in this country of ours... You, the mothers, who sent their sons, from far away countries, wipe away your tears, your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land they have become our Sons as well."
 
Originally posted by: dahunan
Did they really have to make a "NEW" report to tell us all what we already knew?
A lot of people STILL refuse to admit the debacle and that it was seeable as a debacle before, not just after. They talk about retrospect, ignoring the deceit perpetuated by the Bush admin and its cherry picking of rubbish intelligence.
 
This was published by the "Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University", whatever that is. It is not a pentagon report. It was written by some professor who has probably never been in the military and never served overseas, and never fought in a war. I suggest you take it with a grain of salt.

This is not the pentagon. It was written by some puke professor.

It is very easy for an armchair quarterback who has never led troops to evaluate this war after the fact. I dont support the war in Iraq and I thought it was folley to try to get muslims to bend to our will or even understand people from the west. With all the terrorists they have, I thought it would turn out to be a lesson in stupidity. Some would say that it has.
 
Originally posted by: piasabird
This was published by the "Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University", whatever that is. It is not a pentagon report. It was written by some professor who has probably never been in the military and never served overseas, and never fought in a war. I suggest you take it with a grain of salt.

This is not the pentagon. It was written by some puke professor.

It is very easy for an armchair quarterback who has never led troops to evaluate this war after the fact. I dont support the war in Iraq and I thought it was folley to try to get muslims to bend to our will or even understand people from the west. With all the terrorists they have, I thought it would turn out to be a lesson in stupidity. Some would say that it has.

Poor bitter you

The National Defense University is the premier center for Joint Professional Military Education (JPME) and is under the direction of the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff.

June 2002 - Dr. Condoleezza Rice

In June 2002, National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice received an honorary degree of Doctor of National Security Affairs. Dr. Rice previously had earned a Ph.D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981. Prior to her White House assignment, she taught as a professor of political science on the Stanford faculty where she won two of the highest teaching honors - the 1984 Walter J. Gores Award for Excellence in Teaching and the 1993 School of Humanities and Sciences Dean's Award for Distinguished Teaching. She also served as Provost at Stanford University. Throughout her career, Dr. Rice has been active in the national security community and has published books and articles on foreign affairs. Upon conferral of the degree, Dr. Rice expressed her thanks and praised the contributions of NDU to the national security community.
http://www.ndu.edu/info/honorary_degrees.cfm
 
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: ayabe
I wonder when that Churchill quote was made, if I had to guess it would have to be after Galipoli, which was his show 100% and the Brits and colonial forces got their assess handed to them by the "inferior" Turks.

You need to brush up a bit, no offense 🙂

I'm a huge Churchill buff, sort of by accident, my dad gets me a new Churchill biography/historical book every birthday. I have like 12 of them now.

Anyway, Galipoli campaign was Churchill's idea, yes. But the planning/execution/delay/bungling was a result of many hands on the same steering wheel pulling in different directions. Anyway :

(1)- Churchill's initial plans relied on an improper assessment of Turkish Troop strength, which was prepared by T.E. Lawrence (yes, Lawrence of Arabia gave Churchill FUD, lol)

(2)- Initial plans based upon those assessments called for a fast, heavy naval bombardment, and small force for occupation of the Dardanelles.

(3)- Lord Kitchener, and various other officials here and there, caused such delay and argument over what, where, when, and how, that the final much delayed invasion attempt was NO surprise at all, and ended in disaster obviously. Churchill had much misgivings about even continuing to support the Dardenelles campaign, but he still must bear the brunt of the responsibility, having put the initial support for such an action into play.

I also like to point to the Galipoli campaign as evidence that Muslims aren't all barbaric nutjobs, as many here would like you to believe. It is a monument that Mustafa Ataturk dedicated to the Allies at ANZAC cove, where his men had retrieved the bodies left behind, and they buried them properly.

"Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives... You are now lying in a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where, they lie side by side here in this country of ours... You, the mothers, who sent their sons, from far away countries, wipe away your tears, your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land they have become our Sons as well."

I believe after the fact he accepted full responsibility as lord of the admiralty, and it was his idea. That was why I made that comment.

There were a lot of mistakes made, they landed in a bad spot, didn't have enough fresh water, had poor and inaccurate maps, underestimated the Turkish troops' strength as well as their resolve to defend their own land.

I certainly can't claim to be as well read on Churchill as yourself but I do hold him in very high regard.

There is an excellent series that plays from time to time on the Military Channel about WWI, I think it's called the First World War or something like that, British production, very highly recommended.
 
Originally posted by: piasabird
This was published by the "Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University", whatever that is. It is not a pentagon report. It was written by some professor who has probably never been in the military and never served overseas, and never fought in a war. I suggest you take it with a grain of salt.

This is not the pentagon. It was written by some puke professor.

It is very easy for an armchair quarterback who has never led troops to evaluate this war after the fact. I dont support the war in Iraq and I thought it was folley to try to get muslims to bend to our will or even understand people from the west. With all the terrorists they have, I thought it would turn out to be a lesson in stupidity. Some would say that it has.

"HURRRR, HE'S A PROFESSOR, THAT MEANS HE'S A LIE-BERAL WHO LIVES IN AN IVORY TOWER, NO WAY THE PENTAGON HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THEM BOOK READING COMMIES!"
 
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: piasabird
This was published by the "Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University", whatever that is. It is not a pentagon report. It was written by some professor who has probably never been in the military and never served overseas, and never fought in a war. I suggest you take it with a grain of salt.

This is not the pentagon. It was written by some puke professor.

It is very easy for an armchair quarterback who has never led troops to evaluate this war after the fact. I dont support the war in Iraq and I thought it was folley to try to get muslims to bend to our will or even understand people from the west. With all the terrorists they have, I thought it would turn out to be a lesson in stupidity. Some would say that it has.

"HURRRR, HE'S A PROFESSOR, THAT MEANS HE'S A LIE-BERAL WHO LIVES IN AN IVORY TOWER, NO WAY THE PENTAGON HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THEM BOOK READING COMMIES!"

Seriously ... The Surge is working. That is what all the good ole boys say when they come back from their 15th tour. Yeah, that is exactly what they say.
 
Originally posted by: piasabird
This was published by the "Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University", whatever that is. It is not a pentagon report. It was written by some professor who has probably never been in the military and never served overseas, and never fought in a war. I suggest you take it with a grain of salt.

This is not the pentagon. It was written by some puke professor.

It is very easy for an armchair quarterback who has never led troops to evaluate this war after the fact. I dont support the war in Iraq and I thought it was folley to try to get muslims to bend to our will or even understand people from the west. With all the terrorists they have, I thought it would turn out to be a lesson in stupidity. Some would say that it has.

You can never write about US overarching strategic policy unless you've stabbed a commie with your bayonet and seen the light go out of his eyes.

When you sit on that rock eating that MRE, silently mourning the loss of Chuck the platoon's funny man... a kid too young to die...that's when a real man realizes that war is hell, and civilian control of the military can be problematic when bypassing the Joint Chiefs of Staff to implement an ideology based military strategy.

I still remember looking down on a field in Da Nang scorched by napalm, the stench of gasoline and burning flesh in my nostrils. That's the day I knew that the removal of problematic dictators in the Middle East, though designed to enhance US national security, could in fact lead to a state which acted as an incubator for terrorism and would allow Iran to expand its influence throughout the region.
 
Back
Top