SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Dayuhan who wrote (217031)2/8/2007 9:32:16 PM
From: geode00  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Nope, don't buy it. The US Military is tasked with this war. If it can't do it then it needs to let the American Public know why.

It's nonsense to say that it isn't equipped because it has incredible resources including 100K private contractors and hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars. If it can't do the job then it should find out someone who can or tell the CIC it's a fool's errand.

"The US military was asked to defeat Saddam's armed forces and remove him from power."

Then it should have beat a hasty retreat in 2003 and, by now, should be screaming to get the hell home, not supporting the CIC and the urge to surge. From what I hear, many in the US military are upset at the American Public because they want to stay in Iraq indefinitely, until they 'do' the job.

I don't know how widespread that sentiment is, but that tells me that the US Military has either failed to do what it set out to do or is not being realistic about what it can do.



To: Dayuhan who wrote (217031)2/8/2007 10:12:15 PM
From: Ilaine  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
The subsequent objective - establishing a functional and generally accepted government in Iraq - was not appropriate to an armed force, and may not have been achievable by any means available to the US. Naturally, it was not accomplished.

I wonder if you are familiar with Thomas P.M. Barnett, who used to work for the Navy, and now writes about exactly the issues you raise.

Before 9/11 he was meeting with the excellent bond company, Canto Fitzgerald, regularly at Windows on the World, at the top of the World Trade Center. (If you recall, they lost the vast majority of their greatest thinkers on 9/11.)

The results of the work he did is a book, The Pentagon's New Map. (I have an autographed copy obtained directly from him after a speech on Capitol Hill.)
amazon.com;

He agrees with you that the military in Iraq easily accomplished goals consistent within the competence of the military but hasn't been able to accomplish goals they simply are not designed for.

His solution is something he calls "SysAdmin."
thomaspmbarnett.com

Interestingly, he's also a Democrat and a Clinton supporter (which I am not). Nevertheless, I think he's grasped the rule sets necessary to sustain a globalized economy, which is something that the world has achieved and lost several times, with chaos and global economic depression resulting from the loss.



To: Dayuhan who wrote (217031)2/8/2007 10:28:36 PM
From: Ilaine  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
>>Military Wants More Civilians to Help in Iraq
By THOM SHANKER and DAVID S. CLOUD

WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 — Senior military officers, including members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have told President Bush and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates that the new Iraq strategy could fail unless more civilian agencies step forward quickly to carry out plans for reconstruction and political development.

The complaints reflect fresh tensions between the Pentagon and the State Department over personnel demands that have fallen most heavily on the military. But they also draw on a deeper reservoir of concerns among officers who have warned that a military buildup alone cannot solve Iraq’s problems, and who now fear that the military will bear a disproportionate burden if Mr. Bush’s strategy falls short.

Among particular complaints, the officers cited a request from the office of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that military personnel temporarily fill more than one-third of 350 new State Department jobs in Iraq that are to be created under the new strategy.

At a Senate hearing on Tuesday, Mr. Gates made clear that he shared the officers’ concerns, telling senators, “If you were troubled by the memo, that was mild compared to my reaction when I saw it.”

To back up his point, Mr. Gates also told senators that Mr. Bush himself had addressed his cabinet at the White House on Monday about the need for civilian agencies to “step up to the task.”

At one level, the conflict is a cultural clash between a military that has ordered hundreds of thousands of troops to Iraq in the last four years, and a Foreign Service that offers incentives for civilians to work in war zones but cannot compel diplomats to accept hardship assignments to places like Iraq.

Under Mr. Bush’s strategy, the military is pushing more than 20,000 fresh troops to Baghdad to augment the American military force of about 132,000 already in Iraq.

The State Department, leading an interagency effort, has been ordered to expand the provincial reconstruction teams in Baghdad and western Anbar Province to accelerate political and economic development at the local level.

Small teams of American personnel are to be placed inside Iraqi ministries to make sure that $10 billion in Iraqi funds committed to the effort are spent, and spent correctly.

The entire United States Foreign Service numbers only 6,000 people, about the size of a military brigade.

In defense of the diplomats’ role, David M. Satterfield, the State Department’s Iraq coordinator, told Congress in January that the department’s task in Iraq amounted to “the largest presence of the foreign service in any country in the world,” including more than 140 Foreign Service officers in Baghdad and over 50 more in the existing provincial reconstruction teams.

Last month, after Mr. Bush announced his new strategy, Ms. Rice told Congress that the department was “ready to strengthen, indeed to ‘surge,’ our civilian efforts.”

But Mr. Gates said Tuesday that Ms. Rice had told him that her department needed six months to locate and prepare civil servants and contractors to send abroad. “It is illustrative of the difficulty of getting other agencies to provide people on a timely basis,” Mr. Gates said.

Members of the Joint Chiefs and commanders in Iraq have been delivering the same message recently to the president and defense secretary about the necessity for other parts of government to join the effort, according to administration and military officials.

“The chiefs have made that point, and repeatedly,” said one senior Bush administration official who, like others interviewed for this article, spoke on condition of anonymity to describe internal discussions among the president, defense secretary, commanders in Iraq and members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The officials said the commanders had also been expressing broader frustrations, including that the additional $1 billion in new money for reconstruction requested by the president may not be sufficient.

They also fear that additional contractors may not be readily available to assist, and that a large number of jobs that could be performed by civilians — like engineers, lawyers, veterinarians and accountants — are still conducted by military personnel at a time when the armed services are stretched thin.

The mounting tensions between the Pentagon and other departments are in some ways the mirror image of those that roiled the government before the 2003 invasion. Then, State Department officials grumbled that the Pentagon was usurping its role in planning the postwar civilian occupation; today, the military is eager to see others step in.

State Department officials say they are using both incentives and subtler pressures to induce employees to go to Iraq.

But from the standpoint of personal security, taking those jobs — many of them, by definition, outside the relative safety of the Green Zone — is widely seen as an unattractive career option.

Some Foreign Service officers and other civilians in the national security field spoke privately of their frustration at coming under pressure to serve in Iraq, a mission they view as bungled as the Pentagon rebuffed the involvement of experts in other government agencies.

“This is not at all a finger-pointing exercise,” said Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, during his Senate testimony on Tuesday. “This is about the current status of our government to be able to respond, and it goes to the expeditionary nature or a lack thereof of most other departments in the government, understandably, based on the kind of wars we’ve faced in the past.”

General Pace argued that the United States government needed “to be able to get folks over to be able to help with judiciary systems, be able to help with engineering, be able to help with electricity and the like before a country devolves into a state where the terrorists can find a home.”

Tasia Scolinos, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, said in a statement that the agency “has devoted substantial resources” to training the Iraqi police and creating a justice system. She provided a fact sheet that showed that the Justice Department had 200 employees and contractors in Iraq as of last August.

“We are committed to working closely with the Defense Department and our law enforcement counterparts in Iraq to assess how we can best continue to support the reconstruction efforts in Iraq,” she said.

As evidence of the importance of civilian reconstruction, military officers involved in the internal debate are citing a recent classified study, conducted by the Joint Warfare Analysis Center of the Defense Department, based in Dahlgren, Va., that suggests violence in Baghdad drops significantly when the quality of life improves for Iraqi citizens.

Relying on surveys and other data on those wounded and killed in the violence as compiled by the military, the study found that a 2 percent increase in job satisfaction among Iraqis in Baghdad correlated to a 30 percent decline in attacks on allied forces and a 17 percent decrease in civilian deaths from sectarian violence.

The study did not examine the security benefits of adding troops to Iraq or compare it to the nonmilitary portions of the new strategy, according to those who have been briefed on the classified document.

But its emphasis on the importance of reconstruction is being cited by senior military officers and Pentagon officials as more evidence that Congress and the government’s other civilian departments must devote more money and personnel to nonmilitary efforts at improving the economy, industry, agriculture, financial oversight of government spending and the rule of law.
nytimes.com



To: Dayuhan who wrote (217031)2/8/2007 10:57:52 PM
From: Sam  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 281500
 
The subsequent objective - establishing a functional and generally accepted government in Iraq - was not appropriate to an armed force, and may not have been achievable by any means available to the US.

Not just "may" not have been achievable; it could not be achieved.

There was a long debate in the US after the French Revolution in 1789 about whether it would succeed or not. Jefferson and many Democrat-Republicans (as his party was called in the 1790s) said yes, and welcomed it. Adams, Hamilton and virtually all Federalists said no, it will never work, the aren't suited for a democratic govt. Eventually, around 1815 or so, Jefferson conceded to Adams in a letter that he had been wrong about the Revolution, Adams had been right all along.

BTW, hope you start posting more often.

To think that all that had to be done was get rid of Saddam was the height of idiocy and ignorance of history. Anyone who goes back to when Iraq was founded should have known this. Even before the Baathists came to power, there was no stable govt in Iraq. The country was basically made to fail by the British, and it hasn't improved much since. There were something like 57 different govts formed in Iraq between 1921 and 1958. Certainly not all of them failed through violence, but a number of them did. The place is and has been a tinderbox for a long time.