Operation Iraqi Freedom: Mission Accomplished

This week marked the ten year anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq that toppled Saddam Hussein's brutal regime.  Gideon Rose wrote an article for Foreign Affairs arguing that OIF is, "..the most egregious American foreign policy failure since Vietnam."  People opposed to the invasion invoked Vietnam even before the first coalition troops crossed into Iraq, and the WMD were not found. The comparisons became almost a cliche as the days of the invasion gave way to the years of reconstruction, IED attacks and street fighting.

Mr. Rose could not be more wrong about Iraq because even though it was frustrating, brutal and expensive in both treasure and precious blood it succeeded in wrecking Saddam's regime and in helping an elected, sovereign government be born. Mr. Gideon should review his history if he believes this shares any similarities with the decision to leave South Vietnam to be conquered by the Communist North.

In 2007 President Bush ignore the cries to pullout of Iraq as we did in Vietnam and instead ordered the surge of forces and counter insurgency strategy led by General Petraeus.  This final push, along with the improving Iraqi forces and the Sunni Awakening were enough to break al-Qaeda and the other enemy forces.  Ironically, Mr. Rose would have had his Vietnam in Iraq if President Bush had listened to the experts who counseled precipitous withdrawal and defeat. It is time the naysayers accepted yes for an answer: yes, mission accomplished. The Obama administration and future administrations have the responsibility to see that it stays that way.

Benghazi: Shame on the President

It has been more than six months since the terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11th, but it seems there are still as many questions as answers.  The reason for this is that President Obama has successfully deflected questions and convinced many reporters in the months before the 2012 Presidential election that there was no there - there.  However, at least 2 questions remain: Why did the White House immediately blame the attack on protests that escalated into an attack. Also, why did the White House send U.N. Ambassador Rice on numerous Sunday talk shows to repeat the claim even after intelligence officials had told the White House information pointed to a coordinated terrorist attack?

The latest revelation is that as many as 33 survivors of the attack that killed the ambassador and 3 others are being pressured not to talk to Congress and the media.  Republican senator Lindsey Graham has stated he managed to speak to several survivors and that they wanted to talk, but were seeking assurances they would be protected from repercussions.  The House of Representatives should immediately call for public hearings and a renewed investigation along the lines of the work that was done that produced the 9/11 Commission Report. Shame on the President for dishonoring the dead and the survivors by trying to let the issue die away without his administration taking responsibility.

Camouflaging Common Sense

When I was in elementary school in the 1980's and decided i wanted to be a Green Beret the four services were preparing to fight the massive Soviet military machine known as the Red Army.  Somehow however, the four services were able to function using one primary camouflage pattern for their uniforms.  it was a woodland pattern suited for Europe, parts of Asia and the Americas.  When Desert Storm hit the pentagon pulled the now somewhat infamous "chocolate chip" desert pattern fatigues.

While new patterns were tested and a new desert pattern emerged around the time of OEF, the explosion of new camouflage patterns would soon begin.  The Marine Corps kicked it off with a nod to the Canadians who had developed a digital camouflage pattern.  After OIF the Marines began issuing two digital patterns: a green and brown woodland pattern and a brownish desert pattern.  Soon after the Army jumped in with its Universal Camouflage Pattern that was designed to be suitable for many different environments, but remained unpopular.  The Army began issuing a different pattern called Multicam in 2010 that has proven to be popular.

This near fetish continued continued in the midst of the GWOT as the Navy introduced 3 new digital patterns: a strange sci-fi blue/green pattern as well as 2 patterns similar to the Marine Corps patterns.  The Air Force got into the game with a retro tiger stripe pattern updated with the digital format.

A September 2012 Government Accountability Office report described this debacle as a fragmented approach as putting troops at risk and wasting millions of dollars on what are essentially fashion decisions.  No matter how much more effective research and testing can make camouflage patterns, they are still limited in how much any camouflage clothing can conceal the troops on the battlefield.  Going forward, all the services should be compelled to accept the Multicam pattern so everyone can get on the same page and then get back to focusing on more important issues like trying to make do with serious budget cuts.

What Would Ethan Allen Do?

The proud history of the Army Rangers goes back to before the Revolutionary War with Ethan Allen's Green Mountain Boys of Vermont.  Reaching legendary status with its exploits during World War II the Rangers continue to be one of the Army's most elite combat units.  The Obama administration's drive to transform the military by pushing females closer to combat jobs may be a boon to their careers, but is it a boon for combat effectiveness?  (What does this change say about the effectiveness/rigor of Ranger school?)

General Odierno believes failing to allow women to enroll in Ranger school and earn their tabs would hinder their infantry careers. Was there a time when this kind of politically correct drivel would have gotten you retired?  What infantry careers?Just because they are being assigned to units below Brigade level does not mean they are infantrymen, excuse me infantrypeople. Women will be allowed to serve in support capacities such as personnel, logistics chaplaincy and intelligence.

The Pentagon needs to check itself before it lets itself get carried away by an administration that seems to have more invested in gender politics than it does in the long-term effectiveness of the military and American national security.  If women are just as qualified to go to Ranger School, serve as Marine Corps infantry officers are become Navy SEALs than they can be put in all female units just as there have always been all male units.  Where would this fall in the politically correct triangulation the administration is so busy calculating?

Penny Wise, Pound Foolish

Much has been made of the Obama administration's stepped up drone strikes in the wild regions of Pakistan.  There is no doubt that killing al-Qaeda, Taliban and other enemy forces where ever they are found is a good thing.  Similarly the spectacular death of Osama Bin Laden was, well - spectacular, but his death nor the small scale bombing program carried out by drones represent strategic moves.  Over the long term they are effective on the tactical level only.  A strategic breakthrough will not come through commando raids or at discussions in Kabul and Islamabad.  Ground zero has always been the wild tribal regions where the enemy is allowed to hide, train and rearm before crossing the border back into Afghanistan.  Everyone tends to focus on COINs idea about protecting the population while forgetting another one - eliminate the enemy's safe havens.

The case of Iraq is more disturbing because President Obama may have made a tactical calculation that it was better for his reelection chances to not negotiate a new SOFA with Iragi leaders when the original one expired at the end of 2011.  The administration cannot argue it was a smart strategic move to pull U.S. forces out of an unstable country that we hope to have as a stable ally, but is coveted by our greatest enemy, Iran. The hard, expensive and bloody work was accomplished under the Bush administration and all that was required of the Obama administration was to maintain the successes - in other words to not let the nearly trillion dollars and more than 4,000 American lives be in vain.

No Massacre at Gun Ri?

I have written a number of articles on military history and military affairs for Listosaur.com, but none of them caused the kind of reaction my last one did.  I wrote about 5 massacres perpetrated by American troops stretching from the Spanish American War/Filipino Insurrection to the Vietnam War.  "Massacre" is a very loaded word and I resisted the use of the word for some of the incidents in conversations with my editor, but he gets the final word.

Many people have hear of the My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War or the Massacre at wounded Knee at the end of the Indian Wars.  While the My Lai case is a pretty clear-cut case of atrocities, the others are a lot less clear.  A little research shows there are several versions of events with different sets of facts and motives.  The No Gun Ri incident during the Korean War is one example: A number of South Korean civilians were killed in the midst of some heavy fighting in July 1950, but it gets complicated after that.

One reader contacted me to say I was basically white-washing the cold=blooded murder of innocent civilians by U.S. troops.  He did not provide any good evidence, but he was passionate that Americans were at fault.  He seemed to completely discount the idea that the troops accidently killed civilians in the chaos and confusion of war and as the Communists were infiltrating the ranks of the civilian refugees to advance the American lines.  The deaths of civilians in war is always a tragedy, but a massacre?

What Time is it in Washington?

After writing several installments of "What Time is it in Kandahar and Afghanistan?" recent events in Afghanistan seem to be bringing matters to a real crisis point. Unfortunately in D.C. it is time for another Presidential election.  But this has been a problem several years in the making.  Ever since President Obama ordered more troops to Afghanistan in the same speech that he set a timetable for withdrawal Operation Enduring Freedom began to unravel.

 I am under no illusions that Afghanistan was not a near impossible proposition on a good day, but that is the point.  The mission was tough enough before Obama, despite arguing during the 2008 campaign that OEF was the good war and would get his full attention. His change of course, no matter how it was sold by the administration, was the beginning of a withdrawal and it was recognized as such by U.S. allies and enemies alike.

The Obama administration like to tout the fact that it killed Bin Laden and has made generous use of drone strikes in Pakistan and I give it credit for these.  However, the administration very likely has sacrificed strategic victory in Iraq and Afghanistan for a string of tactical successes.  Leaving is not winning, but the Obama administration has not wanted to confront the true nature of the Global War on Terror.  In an election year, it will be too tempting to declare victory and try to wash their hands of it.