Sic Semper Tyrannis

Robert H. Scales- Yet Another "Convert."

"Bean counters in the Pentagon tell us that Army recruitment and retention are in good shape. Problem is, our cumbersome readiness reporting system only informs leaders in Washington of conditions on the ground many months after the force begins to break. Today, anecdotal evidence of collapse is all around. Past history makes some of us sensitive to anecdotes and distrustful of Pentagon statistics. The Army's collapse after Vietnam was presaged by a desertion of mid-grade officers (captains) and non-commissioned officers. Many were killed or wounded. Most left because they and their families were tired and didn't want to serve in units unprepared for war.
    If we lose our sergeants and captains, the Army breaks again. It's just that simple. That's why these soldiers are still the canaries in the readiness coal-mine. And, again, if you look closely, you will see that these canaries are fleeing their cages in frightening numbers.
    The lesson from this sad story is simple: When you fight a long war with a long-service professional Army, the force you begin with will not get any larger or better over the duration of the conflict. For that reason, today's conditions are pretty much irreversible. There's not much that money, goodwill or professed support for the troops can do. Another strange consequence is that the current political catfight over withdrawal dates is made moot by the above facts. We're running out of soldiers faster than we're running out of warfighting missions. The troops will be coming home soon. There simply are too few to sustain the surge for very much longer. "  Scales

--------------------------------------------------------

MG Robert Scales has been a military analyst for Fox News, and was a counselor to Rumsfeld.  He helped create the situation that he complains of now.  He should go and hide somewhere and not walk abroad among the living.  pl

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20070329-084334-9363r.htm

Just to see what this fellow has been like in the past read this book review by him.

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20060501-100012-6202r.htm

Late in the Game...

"...his bottom line is that the U.S. military is in "strategic peril" -- a sharp contrast to his previous views. In 2005, he concluded in a similar report that "momentum is now clearly with the Iraqi government and coalition security forces." In a 2006 assessment, he wrote: "It was very encouraging for me to see the progress achieved in the past year."

The retired general, who on his latest visit also interviewed a U.S. intelligence official and some Iraqi officers, is especially critical of the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. It is "despised" by the Sunnis, he writes, is seen as "untrustworthy and incompetent" by the Kurds, and now enjoys "little credibility among the Shia populations from which it emerged."

The government lacks dominance in every province, he added. One result is that "no Iraqi government official, coalition soldier, diplomat, reporter, foreign NGO [nongovernmental organization], nor contractor can walk the streets of Baghdad, nor Mosul, nor Kirkuk, nor Basra, nor Tikrit, nor Najaf, nor Ramadi, without heavily armed protection."

Militias and armed bands are "in some ways more capable of independent operations" than the Iraqi army, he added."  McCaffery

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

It is late in "the game" for Mccaffery to "get religion" but it is welcome news that this well respected (if not liked) soldier has finally gotten past the psychological barrier that causes so many senior officers to insult the public's intelligence by indulging themselves in the boosterism and "rah!-rah!" talk that evidently makes them feel that they are still "on the team." (and likely to continue to be "consulted")  This man is highly intelligent and skilled.  It took him all this time to figure out the god-awful mess that US policy has made of Iraq and the Middle East?  I hope his students at USMA will take note of both the accuracy of his present analysis and the egregious crap that he has been shoveling until now.  Perhaps a few more officers need to "examine their conscience" about this matter.  pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/27/AR2007032701923.html

"Must Love Dogs"

On a lighter note..  pl

Download HornyDoggie.wm

PS  What is the language?  Flemish?

Reading the Omens

"The bomber bypassed tight security to get within 25 yards of the station by blending in with other trucks coming and going as part of a construction project, detonating his explosives after reaching the main gate. Police said half of those killed were policemen; 28 people were wounded.

"We did not suspect the suicide truck, and he easily reached the main gate where he detonated his truck. Suddenly there was a big explosion and part of the building collapsed," said police Cpl. Hussam Ali, who saw the blast from a nearby guard post. "We were very cautious, but this time we were taken by surprise. The insurgents are inventing new methods to hurt us."

The thunderous explosion caused part of the two-story station to collapse and sent a plume of black smoke drifting across the Baghdad skyline.

U.S. and Iraqi force set up checkpoints at the scene and helped carry the wounded to hospitals, while military helicopters rumbled overhead.

In all, at least 74 people were killed or found dead in  Iraq on Saturday, making it the seventh deadliest day since U.S. and Iraqi forces launched the security operation on Feb. 14, according to an Associated Press tally. That included at least 25 bullet-riddled bodies — 11 found in Baghdad, six pulled from the Tigris River south of the capital and eight in the Anbar city of Fallujah."  Yahoo News

-----------------------------------------------------------

I will be asked tomorrow "The Week at War" (CNN-taped) if I thought it was possible as yet to judge if the Kagan/Keene plan that Petraeus is implementing to secure large parts of Baghdad is going to work.

This police station bombing, others like it and events such as; the well timed rocket attack on the Green Zone during the UN visit, and the attempt on the life of the Sunni deputy PM, are early indicators that the insurgents are regaining their "balance," and are trying to recapture the initiative from the Iraqi-American forces arrayed against them.

The coalition is now engaged in what can only be thought to be a "maximum effort" within the restraints of what is politically possible.  This is our best shot.  the Shia militia "armies" of the Sadrists, SCIRI and Da'wa are all standing back to watch and see what the outcome of that "maximum effort might be."  They are waiting to see and to judge how close they are to a time in which they will have to make their own "maximum effort" to attempt to control what will be called Iraq in the future.

The early "portents" are unfavorable.  There is every reason to think that the insurgents will try to expand their offensive activities to include the many little posts that we are building all over Baghdad.

Be very careful gentlemen, very careful.  pl

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070324/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

Not like Vietnam?

People want to say that Iraq is not Vietnam.  I guess that is understandable.  We lost in Vietnam, not on the battlefield, not there, but as the NVA colonel said, that was irrelevant.  The politicians don't want to say the two wars are similar.  That would make them losers.  Today's soldiers don't want to say the two wars are alike for the same reason.  Actually, most people today have no idea what Vietnam was like.  No idea.

I think there are a lot of similarities.  These two articles make those similarities eerily clear to one who served in that other lost struggle.

Stu Herrington is a friend.  I talked to him a few days ago.  His opinions, quoted in the Kaplan piece are something that should be listened to...

For me, the two big differences in these wars, are;

1- The absence of unity among our adversaries in Iraq.  In Vietnam the communists ran everything on the other side.  There was no doubt whatever in what you were facing.  Their chain of command ran downhill in a straight line from Hanoi to some little village militia unit in the Mekong Delta with whom you might be contesting control of the local population.

2-  There is no real army on the other side in the Iraq War.  So far, there are no regiments and divisions equipped with solid equipment (sometimes tanks and artillery) There is nothing like the 308th NVA Division.  I remember talking to captured members of that division.  Some of the "old timers" had fought the French at Dien Bien Phu.  So far we have not seen the kind of fighting in which whole US rifle companies disappeared in a day of fighting, melted like snow, melted away while attacking. 

What is overwhelmingly the same is the war against the guerrillas.  That is the war that Petraeus intends to prosecute to the end.

Lurking in the background is the ineptitude of the Bush Administration and America as a whole in trying to cope with the reality of the foreignness of Iraq.  We were better at this 30 years ago, some of us.  Imagine the foolishness of having a group of American policy wonks and wonkettes with no knowledge of the Middle East draft a constitution for a place as foreign as Iraq.  That is what Bremer's "government" did.  Read it and weep.  pl

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/26/070326fa_fact_packer?printable=true

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070319&s=kaplan032007

"Late Edition" 18 March, 2007

"BLITZER: Welcome back. Year five of the war in Iraq is beginning with a new U.S. commander on the ground and a new security crackdown that will eventually be backed up by nearly 30,000 additional U.S. combat and support troops. But is it enough to pull Iraq from the brink of civil war?

I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. Joining us now to discuss this and a lot more are three guests: the former NATO supreme allied commander, retired U.S. Army General George Joulwan; Pat Lang, a retired U.S. Army colonel, former intelligence analyst at the DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency; and Michael Gordon, chief military correspondent for the New York Times and the co-author of the book "Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq."

Lecture on Islam - Lang

I have posted a video of a university lecture I gave over on "Athenaeum."  pl

"Mugged by Reality"

"After four years of hostility, Sadr and the Americans are cooperating uneasily as the United States and Iraq attempt to tame Baghdad's sectarian violence. American officials, who in recent months described Sadr's Mahdi Army and other Shiite militias as the biggest threat to Iraq's stability, now praise the Shiite cleric.

The collaboration represents a remarkable shift for two adversaries who control the largest armies in Iraq and who fought some of the fiercest battles since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

For Sadr, it is the latest stage in an evolution from populist cleric to guerrilla fighter to political kingmaker and now to power broker. In the early months of the occupation, U.S. officials dismissed Sadr as irrelevant to Iraq's future. Today, they view him as a political catalyst who can help keep Iraq together -- or implode it." WAPO

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/15/AR2007031502447.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Mugged by Reality."  I forget to whom that bon mot is attributed, but I think it is a good description of where the US now finds itself in Iraq.

About a month ago I remarked to a senior officer that I thought that the US would eventually have to acknowledge the sad truth that Moqtada al-Sadr and his political and militia forces are the most useful faction (from the American point of view) among the "big three" Shia groups in Iraq.  It was clear that my interlocutor was doubtful about that idea, but now it seems that the "high command" understands Moqtada al-Sadr's potential.  Does this mean that I "like" Moqtada al-Sadr? Hardly, but as a member of the "reality based community," I need to note that:

- Moqtada al-Sadr controls a virtual "army" of descamisados, an assemblage of the poor and the powerless brought together in the typically Shia spirit of grievance and oppression, in the hope of the coming of the Mahdi (whose army they think themselves) who will bring justice to the world.  Many of them think that the coalition presence in Iraq is a portent of his coming and that they have organized to support his cause.  In the world of Islam there is no separation of "church and state."  For the Mahdi Army Moqtada al-Sadr is both a religious leader and the leader of their political party.

-Moqtada al-Sadr is a very ambitious young man intent upon achieving great power in Iraq and someone who has shown a willingness to reach beyond the Shia Arab community to the Sunni communities and to the unfortunately shrinking Christian element in the Iraqi population.  The US needs to find a Shia politico who can develop into a unifying factor across communal "boundaries."  His self interest and ambition may indicate that Moqtada al-Sadr might be such a man.

-Moqtada al-Sadr is an Iraqi nationalist.  He is a Shia Iraqi nationalist, but nevertheless an Iraqi nationalist.  his connections to Iran are substantial but they do not seem to be as close as those of his rivals in the Dawa' and SCIRI parties and their associated militias.  Those groups are virtual tools of Tehran.  It is in the interest of the United States to find a leader of the majority Shia population of Iraq who is not covertly acting on behalf of the Iranians.

-Moqtada al-Sadr is "cooperating" with us at the moment and seems to be passive in the matter of our "purge" of the excessively "hotheaded" in his group.  Is this a signal?  It could be.

In any event, the auguries look good.  One of our correspondents has "accused" me of "reading the entrails."  She is correct.  That is what analysis about.  Right now the chicken's guts look interesting.

*********************************************************

Then there is the matter of General Petraeus' ever growing requests for more troops for his "quadrillage."  I assume that he has developed a belief in the need for these additional forces since he arrived in Iraq.  If I did not believe that, then I would have to think that he had not been completely frank in the tenor of his statements before he left to take up his command.

It should have been obvious that the forces needed to execute the administration's plan for a last throw of the iron dice (now labeled "The Petraeus Plan") would greatly exceed the number announced as reinforcements around the time of Petraeus' confirmation hearing.

I guess that he has been "mugged by reality" as well.  pl

Democrats? Republicans? Same -Same

Read the article below and think about it.  AIPAC cracked the whip over the Democrats and they sat up and wagged their tails for the boss.

Democrats?  Republicans? No difference.  They are all scum.  pl

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/121828

The Constituency That Counts

"Turns out that challenging President George W. Bush's military policy is a lot trickier than the Democrats thought. For reasons they knew in advance: Congress has no say over the management of the war, which is constitutionally the president's prerogative, and his alone. And for reasons they didn't anticipate: their own internal divisions.

The party may have a majority, albeit a razor-thin one in the Senate, but it doesn't have unanimity on how to exploit it to end the war. Far from it.

Today, 140,000 U.S. troops are still in Iraq, with at least another 21,500 starting to trickle in as part of Bush's troop "surge." Nobody knows how long they'll be there, or how many more will join them.

Democrats in the House and Senate have been scrambling to find ways of putting restrictions on Bush's handling of the war – ways they can all agree on – before this week's debate on his latest military budget request.

Should the troops be pulled out immediately or a timeline set for withdrawal? Should the original 2002 resolution authorizing the war be rescinded or ignored? Should funding, which Congress controls, be curtailed or left in place?"

Toronto Daily Star

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The  Democrats should be careful about their congressional actions concerning the War in Iraq.  They need to distinguish between:

- a national debate over foreign policy to include; expression of their beliefs by resolutions over responsibility for the war, the desirability of continuing to occupy Iraq, perhaps a binding resolution concerning combat operations against Iran and

- legislation which seeks to direct and limit the president and commander in chief of the armed forces as to how he should employ US forces.  To attempt to do that, is, I think, of dubious constitutionality.  In addition, to do so is to assume responsibility for the future of our engagement in Iraq. It is quite possible that there could be a marked deterioration in the situation of US combat forces in Iraq.  The recent apparent "improvement" in the security situation in Iraq is probably a passing thing.  Certainly, the massacres of Shia pilgrims this last week must not seem like an improvement in security to the Shia Arabs. If the Congress and the Democratic majority limit the funding, logistics or strength of American forces in Iraq, then they should expect that history will hold them at least partially responsible for whatever might happen there. 

Finally, it seems to me that there is a constituency that must be heeded with regard to judgments over success or failure in Iraq.  That constituency is made up of the men and women who have fought the war, are fighting the war or will fight the war.  So far as I can determine, that constituency is still overwhelmingly of the opinion that they are fighting the good fight, that they will prevail and that their comrades' blood cries out for vindication through victory.

I think that the Congress and the Democrats should be very careful about the opinion of that constituency.  pl

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/190523

The Advisor - 10 March 2007

Download the_advisor_10_march_2007v.2.pdf

Who will rid us of these men?

Why are these two men still employed by the US Government?  Nicholson, the VA  Secretary is dismissive of veterans problems in spite of being a veteran himself.  Is that what he thinks he learned as a cadet at West Point?  I think not.

LTG Kevin Kiley is clearly a self-obsessed careerist who stopped being a real doctor a long time ago.  Why is he still Surgeon General of the Army as well as commanding general of the Army Medical Command.  Kiley's insensitivity to soldiers and their families is now well established.  "I don't do barracks inspections" he snarled at a House committee.  "I am trying not to say that I am not accountable" he said to the same committee.  At the very least he should be placed on the retired list in his permanent grade.  This would retire him as a two star.  Another retired soldier told me today that "a case can be made for an Article 134 Charge against Kiley for Neglect of Duty."  I agree.  pl

http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_5374777

Feltman as Dealbreaker?

"BEIRUT: Politicians and diplomats in Lebanon denied any deal had been reached to resolve the prevailing political crisis here on Tuesday, one day after reports flooded Lebanon that a three-month-old political deadlock would be resolved by the end of the week. Speaking to the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation on Tuesday, Amal MP Ali Bazzi said there was "neither cause for optimism nor pessimism."

Bazzi said "certain indications" showed that the shape of a national unity government had been agreed, adding that the opposition had consistently called for a 19+11 formula and rejected the idea of a "neutral minister" as unconstitutional.

Speaker Nabih Berri, the head of Amal, met Tuesday with US Ambassador Jeffrey Feltman and French Ambassador Bernard Emie, both of whom left without speaking to reporters.

But in separate comments to LBC, Lebanese Forces MP Georges Adwan denied that the ruling majority had agreed to the 19+11 formula, but said that the current atmosphere was conducive to a solution.

Adwan said the 19+11 formula would mean a return to Syrian tutelage and vowed that pro-government forces will continue to oppose the idea."  Beirut Daily Star 

------------------------------------------------------------------

There was a deal struck in Riyadh over the rapidly deteriorating Sunni-Shia situation in the Middle East.  The Iranian president came to Saudi Arabia to talk to King Abdullah.  A deal was struck over Shia "cooperation" in Iraq.  This would have the effect of making current US efforts seem productive in that there would be less apparent Shia/US conflict in the short term.  Another deal was struck over Palestine, a deal that suited Arab and Muslim needs in avoiding a civil war among the Palestinians.  A third deal was struck over Lebanon, one in which the Lebanese would accommodate each other in the matter of allocation of cabinet posts and in an acceptance by the "opposition" of the credentials of a UN tribunal to try the case of Rafik Hariri's murder.  This deal over Lebanon was clearly at the expense of Syria in that a conviction might occur that would require party or parties unknown to be sacrificed" in Damascus as well as Beirut.  This worked for the negotiators.  After all, it was a zero sum solution at the expense of the Syrians.  This is comprehensible for them and for the Bush primitives.  This should have "worked."

An American envoy waited "in the wings" while the talks were held.  This envoy was briefed by the king when the deals were made and returned to the White House to explain.

The result?  The Palestinian deal is unacceptable to the Bush Administration.  The Lebanon deal is unacceptable to the Bush Administration.  (It gives something to the "opposition." Evidently, anything would be too much.)  That is Ambassador Feltman in the picture with Patriarch Sfeir.  Yesterday the atmosphere was completely different.  Everyone was happy, even giddy about the prospect of a typically muddled but non-violent solution to the impasse in Lebanon.  Today the leaders say "not so fast."  What happened overnight?  Was it Feltman that happened?  Was it Rice?  Was it our unending malicious meddling in other people's business?  pl

"Command is a sacred trust."

  "Command is a sacred trust, that's the nugget of it. Regardless of any other considerations or challenges he may have faced Walter Reed's commander had a duty to serve those placed in his care. No excuses. You don't get to blow that off because it's hard work. You don't get to blow it off because actions in the furtherance of that duty might upset someone above you in the chain of command or damage your career. You don't get to blow it off because some decision made by some yo-ho in the executive branch or congress has made the job more challenging. Those people who have been entrusted to you come first. Period.
The failure at Walter Reed was a failure to grasp and act on this fundamental-as-breathing concept.
That we are not hearing similar stories out of Bethesda is telling.

I'd also like to add that personally, I've had just about enough of "accepting responsibility." Those are weasel words, nothing more and they screech in my ears like nails on a blackboard. If things have reached the point where you are forced to accept responsibility you no longer should be allowed the privilege of holding it. At that point the only thing you ought to be allowed to accept is the consequences.

But having said all that, I do think that a concern about privatization is not wholly fueled by the dreaded Bush Derangement Syndrome. I'm trying wicked hard, Col. Lang, to be objective in this. To me the issue is one of exacerbation. Privatization appears to have been, from the information generally available, a multiplier. It may have made the results of failed leadership worse even as failed leadership may have worsened the results of privatization. Each fed on the other to the detriment of vulnerable people. Proper leadership would have prevented or swiftly corrected the situation. That's what should have happened, ideally that's what should happen in the future. But in the event that it may not, I can't help but to want to look closely and carefully at all the factors which may have led to the mess at Walter Reed.
I hope that's reasonable. I hope that's fair.

Cornfed

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amen brother.  pl

"Rediscovering Islam" by Brigadier FB Ali

on "The Athenaeum."  Button is on the right here.  pl

Harvey leaves in disgrace.

Gates said Harvey had resigned, but senior defense officials speaking on condition of anonymity said Gates had privately demanded that Harvey leave. Gates was displeased that the officer Harvey had chosen as interim commander of Walter Reed — Lt. Gen. Kevin Kiley, the current Army surgeon general and a former commander of Walter Reed — has been accused by critics of long knowing about the problems there and not improving outpatient care.

"I am disappointed that some in the Army have not adequately appreciated the seriousness of the situation pertaining to outpatient care at Walter Reed," Gates said in the  briefing room. He took no questions from reporters."  Yahoo

-----------------------------------------------------------

I met Harvey a few years ago at a dinner in the "big city."  He was smug, arrogant, complacent and unwilling to listen to anyone who was not there to kiss his ---.

The Regular Army colonel sitting next to me who was his military assistant looked like he was about to throw up behind the mask of soldierly submission to constitutional authority.  He had been a cadet at West Point when I was a professor there.

Harvey has paid the appropriate price for neglect of duty.

There are more people to be held accountable.  Obviously, the self obsessed LTG Kiley, the Surgeon General of the Army should be next, after that, I suggest that General Cody, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army should be given a hard look.  The Vice Chief is reponsible for watching over the internal functioning of the Army while the Chief takes care of the Army's external business and long term issues.   Cody failed.  pl

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070302/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/walter_reed

MG Weightman Relieved at WRAMC

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070301/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/walter_reed

OK.  That's one!  Now what about this man's boss, the egregious and pompous LTG Kevin Kiley, MC?  He was CG of WRAMC before Weightman and during the war.  It was his job to make sure that Weightman did his duty properly.  Kiley is the man who implied to reporters that convalescent soldiers were responsible for the rodent problem in their billets because they had food in their rooms.  Well?  Why did he and Weightman not get them refrigerators for their rooms?

Then there is Francis Harvey, the civilian Secretary of the Army.  He fired Weightman.  Ah, the search for scapegoats continues.  Harvey should follow Kiley right out the door and out of the government so that he can go back to doing some thing useful, something...  pl