Mark Adams has called me "a voice of reason" while commenting on my "Fog of War Part 2" post. As I said to him earlier, I hope he will resist the temptation to crow "you see, Bush was wrong!! Bush had no plan!!," and so on, since he is very much not a fan of the man.
This is one of the basic facts of warfare that I hope to eventually make clear to non-military folks: you don't just expect things to blow up in your face in a war: sooner or later you can guarantee it.
Here's an excellent example: in 1944 military intelligence (uh-oh, the dreaded "Who knew what, and when?" effect!) indicated that several eight inch (203mm) guns were sited on the Pointe du Hoc, located on a 100-meter high cliff that provided excellent coverage of the Normandy beaches. Those guns would wreak havoc among the thin-skinned transports and assault craft during the invasion.
They handed that choice assignment to the Rangers. The morning of June 6, the Rangers climbed ropes, rope ladders, and in some cases cut hand-holds into the face of the cliff to reach the top. The Germans gunned them down mercilessly, but in the end the Rangers took Pointe du Hoc.
They also took nearly 200 casualties, both dead and wounded.
The guns weren't even there. They were several miles inland. The Germans hadn't gotten around to moving them yet.
My point here is that if today's atmosphere prevailed in 1944, at least some of the Republican Party opposition would have immediately accused the Rooseveldt administration of incompetance, poor planning, and so on.
We don't need that. That won't win this war. And -unless the reader is someone who is adamant about troops in Iraq at all, and just doesn't care what happens to the Iraqis after we leave- that sort of sniping does not help at all.
----
I'm sure at least some of the readers are wondering what I would call an "acceptable" criticism of the Bush administration. Here's one:
While the number of active-duty divisions on hand did not originally seem critical, it is becoming apparent that we need to devote at least two of them to Iraq for the forseeable future; call it 5-10 years. Even rotating brigades in and out on a regular basis won't address the fact that a minimum number of troops will be required in Iraq for a while. This puts a noticable crimp in our strategic reserve. If things go wahooni-shaped in Syria, Iran, or North Korea in the next (say) five years, our current forces would be stretched thin, to say the very least.
As far as anyone knows, the Bush administration has given no indication that they have even considered a significant increase in our active-duty forces, with "significant" being defined as at least two new divisions
It is our belief that this, combined with (other enumerated sane criticisms) shows that the current administration does not take this threat of medieval kleptocratic islamofacism seriously. That they, in fact, have assumed that an American victory is some sort of 21st-century Manifest Destiny, without serious forethought as to how our victory is, in fact, manifest.
Vote for XXX in November.
At the risk of sounding egocentric, Bush should be glad I'm not on the other side this fall... :)
Posted by Casey at April 17, 2004 1:47 AM | TrackBackThat's alright Casey, Kerry has some succinctly persuasive help, almost as eloquent as you.:-)
Posted by: Mark Adams at April 17, 2004 7:39 AMOT- Speaking of the Fog of War, how about the Fog of Middle Age? I just got your email today (Sat) and hadn't the faintest idea what I said. I even had to Google to find your blog. As you can see, I found you and re-read my comment, and am forced to agree with your compliment.
Iraq Fog of War: You are absolutely correct, but I'm sure you also know the reason. The Left/Dems will stop at nothing to beat Prez Bush. This election in 2004 will be a watershed event in the future history of the US. If Bush gets another four years, we (and the West/democratic values/capitalism) stand a good chance of winning. If Kerry and his bunch gets in (even if the Republicans maintain control of the House & Senate) IMHO the battle for dominance between Islam and the West is very much in doubt, and will probably result in many more deaths (I'm talking 100 million plus, a la den Beste).
Thanks for the opportunity to comment, keep your powder dry and don't shoot until you see the whites of their eyes!!
Long Live the Liberty Alliance!!
Posted by: Phil Winsor at April 17, 2004 9:45 AMCasey, for once I concur with Mark Adams! ;-) Your pieces on the "fog of war" do show you to be a voice of reason. "Reason" in the sense of rationality, not "reason" in the sense of rationalism— to modify a distinction made by G.K. Chesterton, the rational man seeks to open his mind to the world around him; while the rationalistic man tries to fit the whole wide world inside his head, and it is his head that splits open.
BTW, I've been trying to respond to your emails, and my response keeps getting bounced back to me as "undeliverable"— temporary glitch, I hope?
This is what I like about Paul: he always manages to cast a new light on an idea, like the difference between rationality and rationalism.
Mark: Ara cheats. He tells the truth with a straight face. It just isn't fair. :)
Phil: please note that part of the major emphasis of my "fog" series is that both sides have gotten, well, excited at different times, and have smacked the opposition at opportune moments.
War is a serious business. We should, therefore, approach it in a serious manner.
In this case, I would say that includes an honest dialog between parties. Our young men and women shouldn't die because one politician or another is trying to score points. It follows that one should at least pretend to listen to the other side.
Kerry is now campaigning that we need to stay in Iraq, and finish what we started. As I mentioned in the other comment thread, I find this ironic, as Lieberman was lambasted for saying the same thing three months ago.
I, personally, would feel more comfortable with a Lieberman win than with Kerry. However, either one is preferable to Howard Dean. While I intend to vote for Bush, I'm not going pull a Baldwin and move out of the country if Kerry wins. Our country will make it through whether Bush or Kerry is elected, so let's all kick back and enjoy the show.
In any case, we should try to listen to the other side (any other side) instead of automatically rejecting everything they have to say as bigoted, or partisan.
Speaking of irony, both Mark and I live in Ohio, which seems to be shaping up as the key state in this election. I live in Southwest Ohio (just a bit south of Hamilton), and if I recall Mark lives in the North/Northeast area. Interesting reflection of our disagreements. :)
Kerry is now campaigning that we need to stay in Iraq, and finish what we started. As I mentioned in the other comment thread, I find this ironic, as Lieberman was lambaste for saying the same thing three months ago.
If Kerry wins, his agenda will be governed by things that probably haven't even happened yet.
Ara cheats. He tells the truth with a straight face. It just isn't fair. :)
You mean you can't see that twinkle in my eye?
Good.
Shut up and deal the damn cards.
:^)
Posted by: Ara Rubyan at April 18, 2004 3:51 AMAra:
My point about Kerry is that, until recently, many leading liberal/Democrats took it as a given that a Democratic president would pull out of Iraq in unseemly haste.
Kerry's more recent comments shows that he advocates staying, and winning, in Iraq. Yes, I know, there will be conservatives who claim that this is either more "waffling," or mere posturing on Kerry's part.
Not only am I willing to give the man the benefit of the doubt, I think that he's been listening to America, and most of us think we need to stay, and win. I don't doubt that he will lost some of the fringe-left vote with this ("US out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palistine, NOW!" Spare me), I think he will gain more ground with the center than he'll lose at the extreme.
In other words, it's not just the right thing to do, it's the smart play.
My other point was that other Democratic candidates have been drilled for holding Kerry's current position. My, how times do change!
"You mean you can't see that twinkle in my eye?
Good.
Shut up and deal the damn cards.
:^)"
Not with your deck, amigo! Heh.
Casey, a couple of things:
1) Kerry has never advocated a retreat from Iraq. He voted to authorize Bush to use force to evict Saddam, he voted to fund the war (although also to pay for it out of current revenue) even after Bush’s initial failure on garnering international support and the political use of the war to win Republican seats in the Congress.
2) Kerry (and others) complaint has been pretty consistent; you need foreign support to keep this war from being an American occupation with the lack of legitimacy and appearance of imperialism and corporate corruption, “blood for Haliburton profits” that we face now. We also needed foreign troops and money to keep US taxpayers from shouldering the entire burden for what is really an international problem.
There are other issues as well, but this single enormous failure by the Bush administration goes directly to many of the problems that you describe as part of unpredictable “fog of war” realities. The reality is that many people predicted exactly this situation if we didn’t go in with certain essential elements. Zinni and other senior military commanders were among those who saw the risks. The best proof they were right all along is that Bush is now reluctantly forced into adopting Kerry's longstanding position vis-a-vis the U.N. It seems that most of the fog in this “war” is the fog of stubborn ideology that seems to live in the minds of Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle and Rumsfeld and Bush.