Army War College Study Blasts U.S. War on Terrorism
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml...toryID=4113609
Mon January 12, 2004 04:06 PM ET
(Page 1 of 2)
By Will Dunham
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Iraq invasion was "an unnecessary preventive war of choice" that has robbed resources and attention from the more critical fight against al Qaeda in a hopeless U.S. quest for absolute security, according to a study recently published by the U.S. Army War College.
The 56-page document written by Jeffrey Record, a veteran defense expert who serves as a visiting research professor at the Strategic Studies Institute of the Army War College, represents a blistering assessment of what President Bush calls the U.S. global war on terrorism.
Pentagon officials on Monday said Record was entitled to his opinion, but reiterated Bush's view that Iraq is the "central front" in the war on terrorism.
Record urged U.S. leaders to refocus Bush's broad war to target Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network, blamed for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America, and its allies. Record said the Iraq war was a detour from real anti-terrorism efforts.
Record criticized the Bush administration for lumping together al Qaeda and President Saddam Hussein's Iraq "as a single, undifferentiated terrorist threat."
"This was a strategic error of the first order because it ignored critical differences between the two in character, threat level and susceptibility to U.S. deterrence and military action," Record wrote.
"The result has been an unnecessary preventive war of choice against a deterred Iraq that has created a new front in the Middle East for Islamic terrorism and diverted attention and resources away from securing the American homeland against further assault by an undeterrable al Qaeda," Record wrote.
Faculty at the Army War College, an academic institute run by the Army since 1901, produce analyzes of military and national security issues, with scholars encouraged to take a critical look a existing policies.
Lawrence Di Rita, the top Pentagon spokesman, said, "There's no question he's entitled to his views."
"People are publishing stuff all the time. That's the value of kind of having people throw analysis out there. You learn even from analysis you don't agree with. I don't even want to characterize it as something I don't agree with because I just haven't read it," said Di Rita, adding that he does not know if Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld plans to read the document.
GRATUITOUS CONFLICT ÊÊÊContinued ...
Well it seems the ARMY (the war college anyway) disagrees with Bush and his assertion that Iraq is the center of the war on terrorism.
THE LIBERAL ARMY WAR COLLEGE?
They certainly don't feel safer.
Try and spin this one.
Mon January 12, 2004 04:06 PM ET
(Page 1 of 2)
By Will Dunham
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Iraq invasion was "an unnecessary preventive war of choice" that has robbed resources and attention from the more critical fight against al Qaeda in a hopeless U.S. quest for absolute security, according to a study recently published by the U.S. Army War College.
The 56-page document written by Jeffrey Record, a veteran defense expert who serves as a visiting research professor at the Strategic Studies Institute of the Army War College, represents a blistering assessment of what President Bush calls the U.S. global war on terrorism.
Pentagon officials on Monday said Record was entitled to his opinion, but reiterated Bush's view that Iraq is the "central front" in the war on terrorism.
Record urged U.S. leaders to refocus Bush's broad war to target Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network, blamed for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America, and its allies. Record said the Iraq war was a detour from real anti-terrorism efforts.
Record criticized the Bush administration for lumping together al Qaeda and President Saddam Hussein's Iraq "as a single, undifferentiated terrorist threat."
"This was a strategic error of the first order because it ignored critical differences between the two in character, threat level and susceptibility to U.S. deterrence and military action," Record wrote.
"The result has been an unnecessary preventive war of choice against a deterred Iraq that has created a new front in the Middle East for Islamic terrorism and diverted attention and resources away from securing the American homeland against further assault by an undeterrable al Qaeda," Record wrote.
Faculty at the Army War College, an academic institute run by the Army since 1901, produce analyzes of military and national security issues, with scholars encouraged to take a critical look a existing policies.
Lawrence Di Rita, the top Pentagon spokesman, said, "There's no question he's entitled to his views."
"People are publishing stuff all the time. That's the value of kind of having people throw analysis out there. You learn even from analysis you don't agree with. I don't even want to characterize it as something I don't agree with because I just haven't read it," said Di Rita, adding that he does not know if Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld plans to read the document.
GRATUITOUS CONFLICT ÊÊÊContinued ...
Well it seems the ARMY (the war college anyway) disagrees with Bush and his assertion that Iraq is the center of the war on terrorism.
THE LIBERAL ARMY WAR COLLEGE?
They certainly don't feel safer.
Try and spin this one.
Comments
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
.
.
Well it seems the ARMY (the war college anyway) disagrees with Bush and his assertion that Iraq is the center of the war on terrorism.
.
.
.
Try and spin this one.
Originally posted by AirSluf
One visiting professor does not an institutions policy statement make.
I have seen a "Make Love not War" bumper sticker on a tenured faculty vehicle at another military learning institution. He thought he could inculcate some better views to young officers while working from the inside. He is well respected by everyone, contrary to what one would initially expect.
It's likely the paper has some valid points, that doesn't mean everyone has to agree with the final opinion though.
I completely agree with AirSluf. One professor's opinion doesn't constitute policy. It's just one side of an argument. The same argument Colin Powell has been having with Donald Rumsfeld for some time now.
Sorry, but I agree with Rumsfeld. And that's a female Democrat speaking! I think taking out Saddam was NOT a waste of resources, though it has indeed proven costly. In a war, you take out potential threats that could come up on your flank when you least expect it. That's how I think they saw Saddam - a man perfectly willing to develop lethal WMD and supply them to terrorists. I completely agree with taking him out as a first step. And Libya has buckled - a collateral bonus, so to speak.
I think the WMD are sitting in warehouses in Syria, and are buried in 60-80 foot deep bunkers Saddam had designed/built by German engineers before the first gulf war. They're there, you can bet your bottom dollar.
Carol
Originally posted by Carol A
I think the WMD are sitting in warehouses in Syria, and are buried in 60-80 foot deep bunkers Saddam had designed/built by German engineers before the first gulf war. They're there, you can bet your bottom dollar.
Carol
LOL...this is almost word for word what a friend of mine, a self-admitted far right Republican, is always saying. Maybe you should call the CIA and tell them where they should look. Don't forget to include the specifications of said bunkers ok?
I won't bet my "bottom dollar" following your advice, but I will bet that you're hooked to the same radio shows my friend listens to.
Originally posted by Gilsch
LOL...this is almost word for word what a friend of mine, a self-admitted far right Republican, is always saying. Maybe you should call the CIA and tell them where they should look. Don't forget to include the specifications of said bunkers ok?
I won't bet my "bottom dollar" following your advice, but I will bet that you're hooked to the same radio shows my friend listens to.
Hi Gilsch - I listen to alt. rock on the radio, or NPR (liberal National Public Radio). I saw the bunkers in drawings in Newsweek years ago. I probably still have the magazine, because I save them and use them in my classroom. I can't understand why they can't use geological technology of some kind to detect underground variations in the sub-surface...kind of like sonar can detect stuff under the water. My dad used to run seismological observatories for the US govt. - in the Aleutian Islands and other places. There just has to be a way to find those bunkers in the vast desert of Iraq. Seismological techniques are used to find pockets of potential oil deposits underground, from what I understand (my dad also used to be in the oil exploration business). There just has to be a way to find those bunkers. I feel that a lack of imagination hampers our efforts.
Well, I did email the FBI during the sniper shootings, so they probably have a file on me. And I did email John Ashcroft about something - I think it was about the homeland security threat posed by uncontrolled borders, since most of the 19 hijackers looked like virtually thousands of people in my state.
I would register as an Independent, but then I wouldn't be able to vote in primaries. I don't like the Republicans because their business interests would sell out the environment once a day and twice on Sundays. I don't like the Democrats because I think people need to get up off their a$$es and support themselves. Also, I'm sick of illegal immigration and the bleeding heart liberals who want to strew flowers in their paths up from the border.
I used to spend three weeks every summer on the Oregon coast. Because of the mountains, the only radio station I could get had Rush Limbaugh on it. I found him infuriating, because to me people should be able to have varying views, not just have to stick to one way of seeing things, as he did.
I have opinions that fall on both sides of the political spectrum. I spent five years reading 150 Vietnam war books, so am pro-military. But I have never voted for a Republican for president. I will support endangered wildlife, the environment, and the fragility of our planet in pretty much any contest.
This place (AO) is amazing. On some threads, some people refuse to believe I'm a female. Here I appear most assuredly to be a right-wing fascist. Ah well.....never a dull moment. Sigh.
Originally posted by Carol A
In a war, you take out potential threats that could come up on your flank when you least expect it. That's how I think they saw Saddam - a man perfectly willing to develop lethal WMD and supply them to terrorists.
I suppose it shouldn't surprise me when anymore when people swallow this line, but it still does. Saddam Hussein represented a threat to the US only because long term US military dominance is dependant on mid eastern oil reserves. That's it. Paul Wolfowitz admitted as much back in 1992. Of course, this would have been a hard sell to those Americans who are less concerned with living in the world's sole superpower than they are with living in a world that does not hate and fear them.
Since in my opinion Saddam Hussein should have been dislodged from power back in 1991, I found myself supporting the US' initiative, independently from my general political approach being often different from the current US administration's and despite some criticism I had over this or that detail of the initiative; particularly since no acceptable alternate initiative had been put forth (and the only initiative I'd have considered acceptable is one which ended with the end of Saddam Hussein's rule).
So despite the learned expert's interesting argument, I still contend that a January 2004 with Saddam Hussein in US custody is better than a January 2004 with Iraq in Saddam Hussein's custody.
I was expecting much worse at his inauguration.
(1) Quwait's dynastic rulers, not to be confused with one of this board's contributors.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
(1) Quwait's dynastic rulers, not to be confused with one of this board's contributors.
On the contrary, Immanuel, I am one of Quwait's dynastic rulers.
I have a lot of free time.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
I still contend that a January 2004 with Saddam Hussein in US custody is better than a January 2004 with Iraq in Saddam Hussein's custody.
Unarguably so, but is the US safer as a result? Probably not...and that appears to be Record's point.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
And I must add I am rather surprised (and positively so) with the current president abandon of his father's doctrine which deemed it preferrable not to oust Saddam Hussein at the time and to have the US act as the hired bodyguard of houses Sa?ud and Al-Sabba?h(1).
To be honest, I think they were deemed to be more trouble then they were worth. A friendly regime in Iraq will provide similar access to oil.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
On the contrary, Immanuel, I am one of Quwait's dynastic rulers.
And it's so kind of you to admit it.
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
I still contend that a January 2004 with Saddam Hussein in US custody is better than a January 2004 with Iraq in Saddam Hussein's custody.
Unarguably so, but is the US safer as a result? Probably not...and that appears to be Record's point.
On the long-term Saddam Hussein's not being Iraq's president is safer for all, including the United States.
Of course, that in itself does not provide an immediate solution to the main causes for the current lack of safety in the world, nor should it be expected to.
And I must add I am rather surprised (and positively so) with the current president abandon of his father's doctrine which deemed it preferrable not to oust Saddam Hussein at the time and to have the US act as the hired bodyguard of houses Sa?ud and Al-Sabba?h.
To be honest, I think they were deemed to be more trouble then they were worth.
I fully agree with you on that.
A friendly regime in Iraq will provide similar access to oil.
Whatever regime in Iraq would still have to sell its main produce to costumers able to pay (the US being one of those), oil being often the only commodity that oil countries can profitably sell (which is the case for Iraq), and so they are even more eager to sell it than the costumers are to buy it. And oil from Iraq was flowing to the US at a reasonable price throughout the nineteen-nineties, so access to said oil was not a problem for the US, despite the official state of war between those two countries at the time.
The previous arrangement (paying a reasonable price for the oil) was certainly less costly for the US than the expense of maintaining a military occupation in Iraq.
Originally posted by BRussell
I don't see any evidence that we're not still Saudi Arabia's bodyguards.
While the US has not completely disengaged itself from the Saudi regime, the latter is now much more vulnerable (perhaps as much as the Shah shortly prior to his fall) than before.
Should the situation in the kingdom suddenly go sour for the royals, the US military, having many other pressing matters to attend to in the vicinity, may not be as swift in its response as it would have been a few years ago.
And in the event a particularly unfriendly regime replaced the current one, a subsequent US intervention for its suppression might not necessarily lead to a re-instatement of the Sa?uds.
If the US military presence in Saudi was more similar to close bodyguard protection and deterrence for the monarchy, the US military presence in Iraq and Qatar is more along the line of ?in case of emergency call this number, if you wish to be answered in Spanish press 1??.
Any talk to the contrary now is pride, pure and simple. Not being able to admit one's mistake / oversight (an important sign of a real leader / leadership IMO) is a sure sign these people simply *don't care* if they were right or wrong. If you cannot admit your own shortcomings in the face of obvious evidence of the same, what good are your words regarding everything else?
Own up, make corrections as needed and move on. That's a what a real leader / group of leaders would do.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
oil from Iraq was flowing to the US at a reasonable price throughout the nineteen-nineties, so access to said oil was not a problem
The US did have access to the oil, but access and price were (and are) not the only issues. A steady supply of oil in sufficient volume is what is most important, both for the global economy and to maintain US military supremacy. Prior to the Gulf War Iraq was putting out about 3.5 million barrels of oil per day. Under Oil-for-Food they were putting out 2 to 2.5 million barrels per day...plans are now being discussed to bring production up to 6 million barrels per day by 2010 (supply-side economics writ large?).
I wonder how long it will be before it is proposed that Iraq leaves OPEC to escape the quotas...
Originally posted by BRussell
In Saudi Arabia don't you think it's likely that any overthrow would be worse than what's currently there? Unlike Iran, for example, which is getting pressure from the liberal direction.
Should the royal family lose its grip on the country, it could splinter into several entities (as it used to be before ?Abd Al-?Aziz Ibn-Sa?ud founded the current kingdom). Would we see an independent Hidjaz emerge in the east, relying on Hajj tourism? An oil/trade Shi?a republic in the Eastern domain of Al-Hasa? A return-to-slavery tribal federation in the Rub? al-Khali?
A new Arabia Felix gambling and whoring wonderland in the Asir (if ones dabbled in a little optimism)?
Or a joint venture of the Indonesians, Bangladeshis, and Filipinos who currently fill so many menial as well as professional jobs.
Except for some possible really hardline ultra Taliban-like outfit (but such wouldn't be able to govern anything without the presence and contribution of millions of foreign workers), I have difficulty thinking what could be worse than the present crop of inbred parasites who currently run the show.
Originally posted by Carol A
I spent five years reading 150 Vietnam war books, so am pro-military.
Which military? The Viet-Cong?
Is it just me or was that the oddest non-sequitur in a post absolutely filled to the gunnels with them?
(Or maybe emailing Ashcroft because you have dark skinned people living in your state wins, I'm not sure.)