I saw this post in the BOTB and had to come back to your site after voting to finish it. It is great. I agree 100% with your statements here.
It is great to find someone else who thinks along the same lines as I do.
Keep up the good fight!
Mad Admin,
Nice to know I'm not the only angry radical on BE 
Regards
Tom
If memory serves, the Total Army concept relied on Reserve and Guard forces for the very reason that it would provide a disincentive to adventurism. Nobody counted on GWB's being so adventurous that he would blithely squander these forces.
vache,
There were a lot of lies told, but I think the planners of this war really believed that it would be a short, sharp shock, after which minimal troop levels would be sufficient to "win the peace." They were disastrously wrong, of course, and refused to cut their losses, but I don't think this was one of the premeditated lies.
In Panama, the Guard and reserve filled the gap well (especially military police units), using short-term deployments and going down for their annual training and such.
In the first Gulf War, the reserve and Guard performed magnificiently, but after six months or so the cracks were beginning to show. I think old man Bush probably considered that in his decision to not go "on to Baghdad."
Short-term deployments of Guard and reserve worked okay in the Balkans.
But 2+ years, and multiple tours ... short of the national survival being at stake, the Guard and reserve are no longer structured for that kind of thing.
Regards,
Kn@ppster
Our (gradually reduced) presence in Iraq will be required for the next five to ten years. There is a philosophy that militaries in democracies must adopt. A military force must understand itself to be a tool of the state, subjected to civilian power. The Iraqi military cannot be abandoned until we ensure that they have the necessary institutional ethos of protecting civilian power. An alternative to anarchy could also be a military coup by a self-perceived independent actor.
On the other hand, it seems the media is getting bored with Bush’s resolve. The topic of a troop withdrawal may be just that - a way to stir the pot.
I hope this isn’t just wishful thinking on my part. I hope there are people that understand the consequences of an early withdrawal, and will withstand the mounting pressure of shortsightedness.
Whether the U.S. has already lost, depends upon the aims of the war.
For example, suppose the aim was simply to push Saddam Hussein from power. That aim has been accomplished.
While it might be a bit disconcerting to be entirely unconcerned about what happens in Iraq after Saddam is gone, that doesn't make "getting Saddam" an incoherent aim. It makes threats against other despots credible.
If the purpose of the war was to defeat an evil despot and allow his people to have elections to select whatever they want...well, there is a good chance that goal will be achieved. If the Baathists (or Sunni theocrats) defeat them in short order, then it would count as a defeat for the U.S. But just because the Iraqis elect an incompetent government that cannot protect itself from the insurgents--we can't be responsible forever. And I think there is a chance that a coaltion of Kurds and Shia will be able to survive and even defeat the Sunnis.
From that perspective, if Iraq becomes an ally of Iran or imposes sharia--so what? That's what the Iraqi people choose. (Who says we have to be enemies with Iran?)
Of course, if the goal was to create a great shining example of a liberal democratic and capitalist Iraq whose foreign policy is firmly aligned with the U.S. and which welcomes permanent U.S. bases which would both protect Iraq and threaten Syia, Iran, and maybe even Saudi Arabia... well, a war to achieve that goal has been long lost. What a fantasy!
That is what Bush said we were trying to do. And there are a lot of neo-cons who claim that was the goal. But, it could all be lies. You know, propaganda to make American liberals feel good. To keep the Europeans from hating us too much.
If the goal were the more realistic one of an Iraq ruled by a pro-western police state (like Egypt,) that would allow U.S. bases both to protect the regime and threaten neighbors like Syria, Iran, and maybe even Saudi Arabia, that war has been lost.
But I don't agree that everyone in the Bush administration agrees. You know, that U.S. trained army might just do a coup and be like the Turkish military--impose secularism. Maybe the incompetency of the current govenrnment will so discredit Sistani that Allawi will win the next election.
Of course, any such government would probably start having to fight Iranian backed Shia rebels too and go down the tubes.
I think the U.S. should declare victory on the grounds that Saddam Hussein was defeated and the Iraqi people held an election. We don't approve of the people they elected, but its their affair. And the government they elected is responsible for taking care of Iraq's security.
One minor correction. Shinseki was not the chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
Tony,
Oops. I knew better. Correction and credit coming!
Syncronicity strikes ... we should go on Art Bell (he would probably be less nuts than Bonnie Bell) ... see mine today at http://curbstonecritic.blogspot.com/
Tom,
Excellent blog! Unfortunately, too few politicians in power have ever spent time actually LIVING in a foreign culture. They automatically assume that every place in the world has the same approximate mind-set that they do, and nothing could be further from the truth. They have no comprehension of what people in other parts of the world consider important or desirable, other than basic living needs. These are important, but not a be-all and end-all by any means. NO ONE who has ever seen any type of violent conflict WANTS to live though it again, unless the alternative, in that person's view, is worse. So, yes, there are things worth fighting for, but the imperial ambitions and global power ploys of the neo-cons are not on that list!
Ron
The Romans had their setbacks too. They never held Mesopotamia securely. IIRC Crassus was defeated and killed in what is now Iraq, retreating from a failed invasion of Iran.
The elites may have overplayed their hand, trying to parlay 9/11 into public support for war in Iraq. But there will be other opportunities. American resistance to overseas adventures, and to conscription, may still be gradually eroded.
Commenting by HaloScan
