Jude

The Best Kept Secret of Last Week
February 20, 2006
http://www.democracycellproject.net/blog/archives/2006/02/the_best_ke...

[Editor's Note: Ladytechie, madame defarge and dwahzon collaborated on
putting this item together in the IRC.]

With a hat-tip and thanks to Martin in MD at dailykos for bringing this
to our attention. We think it's far too important to allow it to remain
buried.

  West Point to Bush: Your War Is A Failure [Was This the Best-Kept
Secret of the Week?]

  What could have been a bombshell story this past week seems to have
been snowed under by all the newsprint given over to Mr. Cheney's
"accident". The entire rationale for the on-going carnage in Iraq was
seriously called into question on Tuesday ... and despite this very
large tree falling in the forest, it apparently made no sound. I've seen
virtually no coverage of this story at all, despite the fact that the
people pointing the finger are not Quakers or members of Greenpeace or
even of the Democratic Party, but rather spokesmen for the United States
Army.

    The current [U.S.] military strategy [in Iraq] is only helping
radical Muslims, according to a West Point critique of U.S. terrorism
policy," begins a story by John Diamond that was published in USA TODAY
on Tuesday, and re-printed in the Detroit Free Press* on Wednesday.
Quoting directly from the report by the Combatting Terrorism Center at
the U.S. military academy. Mr. Diamond writes, "Direct engagement with
the United States has been good for the jihad movement." The report goes
on to say that the U.S. needs to emphasize indirect action -- propaganda
and the use of allies in the Middle East -- more skillfully and
extensively."
* http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060215/NEWS07/60215...

  The report also declares that military action "rallies the locals
behind the [jihad] movement, drains the United States of resources, and
puts pressure" on U.S.-backed regimes. And what is the report's title?
"Stealing Al Qaeda's Playbook".

  In other words, here is the U.S. Army -- again, not some "peace
outfit" -- declaring that the "war in Iraq" is a failure when it comes
to dealing with the threat of terrorism. And not only a failure, it is
actually contributing to the success of the terrorism movement.

  This report effectively cuts the legs out from under George W. Bush's
repeated claims that "the war in Iraq is a central front of the War on
Terror." Actually, Mr. President, your war is doing more harm than good.
And all of those "brave young men and women" who are dying and losing
limbs in Iraq? Painful as it is to confront it, the truth is that they
are not "sacrificing for freedom" but instead losing their lives and
legs and sanity in the service of an operation that is helping to fuel
the very menace they are supposedly fighting.

  Again, this to me is a blockbuster story. And yet, where was it this
past week? I saw no mention of it in the Washington Post, which is my
daily read. I saw no mention of it here on DK, nor on any of the other
blogs I frequent. Did I miss it? Or was it conveniently covered up by
L'Affaire Cheney?

And here's a link to the West Point report.* It's a pdf titled CTC Report
"Stealing Al-Qa'ida's Playbook". CTC stands for the Combatting Terrorism
Center at West Point.
* http://ctc.usma.edu/Stealing%20Al-Qai%27da%27s%20Playbook%20--%20CTC.pdf

We think that this needs some attention and wider distribution. Our
brainstorming in the IRC: Letters to the editors, calls to your local
news stations, emails to your congresspersons, media representatives,
and whatever creative possibilities you can come up with.

And do ask: Why isn't the administration listening to this? This isn't
just another peace group. A good leader seeks advice from experts to
solve problems and one should certainly consider the staff at West Point
experts in this area.

In the end, it appears that this administration feels that it knows
better because after all this war is just a business to them. Which
brings to mind one of Calvin Coolidge's remark, "What's good for
business is good for America".

Only this time -- it isn't.  ++

Army stretched to breaking
Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune
20-FEB-06
http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=EDARMY-02-20-06

The Marines may be the most celebrated of the American armed forces,
but it's the Army that does most of the heavy lifting, as it is doing
in Afghanistan and Iraq. In the process, the Army is being battered
and shattered in the same way that it was in Vietnam.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld says that isn't the case;
everything's fine. But a recent authoritative study says he is wrong.
Commissioned by the Pentagon, the study was done by Andrew Krepinevich
of the independent Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
He's a West Point graduate who served in a variety of Army roles,
including a stint on the strategic plans and policy division, before
retiring. He holds a doctorate from Harvard University.

Krepinevich says that coming out of Vietnam, military leaders were
determined never again to get bogged down in prolonged small-unit
combat. If the Army must fight, it would hit with overwhelming force,
achieve its objectives and get out. The need to behave that way was
reinforced by the end of the draft late in the Vietnam War. U.S.
military forces now needed to focus on their ability to attract new
recruits and retain experienced personnel.

That doctrine dictated how the Army was organized for Afghanistan and
Iraq. It was totally unprepared to cope with extended battles against
insurgencies; the Bush administration's strategy didn't take them into
account.

Krepinevich says the Army can deploy no more than 13 brigades to
hardship tours at one time. It now has 19 brigades deployed. To fill
the gap, two Marine brigades have been sent to Iraq. "Stop loss" and
"stop move" orders have been implemented. The reserves have been well
tapped out. Active duty personnel now are commonly on their third
rotation into Iraq.

The effects of this flawed strategy have been dramatic. The Army has
no strategic reserve to call on if another threat were to develop.
Divorce rates, domestic abuse and all kinds of mental and physical
problems are on the rise among active duty soldiers. In sum, the Army
is headed for a "catastrophic decline in recruitment and retention"
unless something is done. The "thin green line," Krepinevich says,
will break. And don't look to NATO, the United Nations or private
contractors for more help, or expect Iraqi forces to develop without
many years of effort.

Adding an additional 30,000 to 40,000 personnel, "if aggressively
executed, could create a force sufficient to sustain current force
levels indefinitely, while maintaining a modest strategic reserve,"
Krepinevich writes. But even that wouldn't help unless the Pentagon's
strategy is changed. From a force organized "to compete as a
world-class sprinter," Krepinevich says, the Army must recast itself
to run marathons - to put a "greater priority on stability
operations." That, he says, will take years, and there are no good
options for getting through the transition, even if nothing else
happens in the world requiring the Army's attention.

Thus the Army finds itself just where it was in Vietnam, and without a
draft. Its near-term future looks bleak, thanks to the flawed vision
of Rumsfeld and Bush. ++

It is not enough to be compassionate; you must act.
-- The Dalai Lama