Logistics
Someone once said that armchair generals discuss strategy, professionals discuss logistics. The New York Times today has an article that talks about this issue - and why troop level reductions in an election year are problematic.
Discussions of when, how fast and how far to draw down American troops in Iraq will no doubt be influenced by the domestic political mood, with Congressional elections approaching in November. Yet those pushing for significant withdrawals will run into an undeniable law of military operations: the American combat troops who remain in Iraq, and the growing number of Iraqi security forces, will still require substantial numbers of supporting American forces to remain, too, to supply food, fuel and ammunition and otherwise support combat operations.
As the Bush administration considers how and when to draw down the nearly 133,000 American troops still in Iraq, those logistical factors, among many other pressures and counterpressures, will weigh heavily toward keeping a sizable force there, delivering supplies, gathering and analyzing intelligence and providing air support to Iraqi security forces.
People need to remember that while troop reductions might be a nice goal, if even one American soldier is put at risk because of a politically motivated withdrawal, that is an unacceptable situation. Almost daily there are some people saying we went in without enough troops and, at the same time, someone else saying we are over stressing the army and can't maintain these levels.
"General Casey is feeling the pressure. He knows how hard this is on the Army, but he's getting pulled in two directions," said a general who recently served in Iraq. Like some other officers and officials interviewed for this article, he was granted anonymity because he said he had been ordered not to discuss troop levels. Lt. Gen. Robert Fry, a British Royal Marine and the deputy ground commander in Iraq, said that insurgents have increased their attacks in an attempt to disrupt formation of a permanent Iraqi government for fear it could attract widespread support among Iraqis.
"We are about to enter a phase here which is likely to be decisive in terms of the political transformation of this country," he told Pentagon reporters in a video briefing from Iraq on Friday. "The opposition knows this just as well as we do."
Our media is not helping at the moment, either. The way they are presenting the news from Iraq is painting a picture for the terrorists. It isn't a pretty picture. Just like the media did in Vietnam, they are helping snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. By presenting an image of a nation that is in disarray, one that is not willing to support the troops, they endanger the troops. The terrorists are waiting for that last helicopter.
Let's not give it to them this time, please.
By Gaius, Sunday, 14 May , 2006 @ 10:38 am
< ?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> < !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
Let's get this one straight - I am not arguing for any suppression of the press, and you're insulting to even hint at that. I am saying the media is misrepresenting what is going on over there. They are. I am about fed up with you at this point, either tone it down or take it elsewhere.
UPDATE: After thinking about Tano's comment some more, I have deleted it. I realized I had issued a final warning. If you want to hurl personal insults - get your own blog.
By Bradley J. Fikes, Sunday, 14 May , 2006 @ 4:54 pm
Gaius,
By stating: “Just like the media did in Vietnam, they are helping snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.” you are virtually conceding defeat.
War supporters used to heatedly deny the Vietnam comparison. Now they’re embracing it, if only to make sure they’re not blamed. This is not the rhetoric of victory.
By Gaius, Sunday, 14 May , 2006 @ 5:24 pm
Bradley - I have maintained this position since the Vietnam war. It is not new and I am not everyone else.
The war is not like Vietnam. The war ON the war is the same old crap.
By Bradley J. Fikes, Sunday, 14 May , 2006 @ 5:29 pm
Well, perhaps the lesson you should learn that in a democracy, there’s always going to be dissent, and that applies to the media as well. Expecting the media to fight the military’s battles is a sign of weakness.
By Gaius, Sunday, 14 May , 2006 @ 5:51 pm
Bradley, I don’t expect them to fight the battles for the military. I also don’t expect them to actively try to defeat the military.
Sorry, Bradley, I happen to believe this nation is the worlds best - if not last - hope. I do not - and will not - apologize for that.
By Bradley J. Fikes, Sunday, 14 May , 2006 @ 6:00 pm
Gaius,
The media is not trying to “actively defeat” the military. That’s out of the tin-foil hat brigade.
The media provides a source of information to the public independent of the military. They are not going to play down the problems. Some in the military (or other government agencies)don’t like that. Yes, the media has made its errors in reporting, and so has the military. Ask the family of Pat Tillman.
Blaming the media for the problems in Iraq is just silly.
By Gaius, Sunday, 14 May , 2006 @ 6:04 pm
Presenting only a one sided story is trying to defeat the mission. There is an enormous amount going right as well as things going wrong. It is not perfect, it is not all roses. But it sure as hell isn’t all bac, either.
But that is damn near all we hear, isn’t it?
See “A Letter From Kuwait” for a take on it from one who is there.
By Bradley J. Fikes, Sunday, 14 May , 2006 @ 6:12 pm
“Presenting only a one sided story is trying to defeat the mission. ”
Regardless of whether the story is accurate? How about a story about Pat Tillman?
“There is an enormous amount going right as well as things going wrong. It is not perfect, it is not all roses. But it sure as hell isn’t all bac, either.”
Nor is the media saying it’s all bad, although stories about repainting schools don’t really match up against civilians being killed in death squads. And more than three years after the invasion, Iraq is still without a stable government, and much of the country remains out of the control of what government does exist. The Pentagon’s plans for drawing down troops have been repeatedly delayed. The insurgency continue, from more than once source. That isn’t good news, and that’s why the attempts at promoting “good news” are not changing the public’s mind.
Sometimes the news is just bad.
By Gaius, Sunday, 14 May , 2006 @ 6:44 pm
And what happened to the imminent civil war of a few months back? The universal chorus of Iraq descending into civil war?
Now it’s “inability to form a government” that measures success. The goalposts move every day.
But the bad news is constant.
Again, I am not trying to say it’s all good. It’s not all bad either. The last time I talked to my son he told me it has ups and downs, but he and his fellow troops are confident. Wary, but confident.
They must not be treated as lepers when they come back - like too many were once before. The press (majority of it) is not helping right now.
By Bradley J. Fikes, Sunday, 14 May , 2006 @ 6:59 pm
Depending on how you define it, Iraq is already in a low-level civil war, and has been for months. “Ethnic cleansing” of towns is one sign of that.
Of course, the troops who come back should not be treated as lepers. They did their part. Would that those who have ultimate authority over them be as responsible.
By Gaius, Sunday, 14 May , 2006 @ 7:03 pm
Not by any realistic definition is it a civil war.
And the reality is that the more negative the focus, the more likly it is that the returning troops will be blamed as a visible symbol. Look what happened, Bradley. Did one of the people who served in Vietnam make the decisions that sent them? Did they deserve what was done to them for all these years?
By Bradley J. Fikes, Sunday, 14 May , 2006 @ 7:14 pm
P.S. — Hope your son gets back safely and soon!
By Gaius, Sunday, 14 May , 2006 @ 7:22 pm
Thank you for that, Bradley. Remember, I have more stake in this than many pundits (am I a pundit? I have no idea). So I tend to be very passionate about this subject.
By Bradley J. Fikes, Sunday, 14 May , 2006 @ 7:41 pm
To paraphrase Descartes, you are punditizing, therefore you are a pundit.
And JournalSpace is still not up. The Seipp gang are still talking away on a thread at Haloscan.
By Gaius, Sunday, 14 May , 2006 @ 7:57 pm
I pundit, therefore I pundit?
Sounds weird. Hey, did you read the post about seeing the elephant?
By Juggler, Sunday, 14 May , 2006 @ 8:19 pm
“Not by any realistic definition is it a civil war.”
According to an AP story posted on AirForceTimes.com, it already is in a civil war:
” Iraq is embroiled in a ‘low-level civil war’ that is forcing the United States to react to events on the ground rather than shape them, according to a former U.S. military adviser who spent two years there studying the insurgency.
“’Once you start reacting to events, you cannot impose a solution,’ said Ahmed Hashim, a professor at the Naval War College who worked with U.S. troops in Iraq from November 2003 to September 2005 in an effort to understand the emotions and loyalties driving Iraq’s insurgents. ‘You go along with the flow.’â€
It seems as though even people connected to the U.S. Military are calling it a civil war.
And Gaius, what gives with my posts being deleted?
By Gaius, Sunday, 14 May , 2006 @ 8:55 pm
It is an AP story. That does not make it a fact graven in stone. And it is not given more credibility where it is published, it is a wire service story. The Stars and Stripes also runs AP and others.
That said, civil wars have certain characteristics - the most important being consolidation of territory. That is not present. Is there violence - yes. Is there also a manifesto (for want of a better term) from some elements in al Qaeda that they are trying to start sectarian violence? Yes.
Doesn’t fit. Does not at all match what I am hearing from a very reliable source.
On comments - Commenting here is not a right and there is no Constitutional provision for doing so. I got fed up with a few people and nuked a bunch of comments. I have been very tolerant of people who disagree with me - I am sure you’ll agree on that - but I reached a point where I got ticked off. Some people are banned right now, you aren’t one, so don’t take it personally.
By Juggler, Sunday, 14 May , 2006 @ 9:13 pm
Gaius,
You nuked a bunch of my comments. I’d like to know what you found disrespectful.
Of course it’s not “a fact graven in stone”, but at the same time when military people are coming back and saying Iraq is in a civil war, I think that lends credibility to the idea.
And it sounds like you’re basing your view on what you might call “a single data point”–one person’s view. Is that your son?
I’m sure his view is valid, but at the same time, what he’s experiencing may be different from other areas of the country.
By Gaius, Sunday, 14 May , 2006 @ 9:43 pm
Juggler,
You usually have a reasonable disagreement, which I can live with. The “Pravda” comment got a few more nuked - it got my goat.
I just - literally - got off the phone with my son. It is NOT at all accurate what you are hearing in the press right now. What you are NOT hearng is that it is well known to the troops in the field that Iran is shipping arms and ammunition in - and the troops can tell when a shipment has arrived.
With all respect to Professor Hashim, I rather doubt he ever went into the field. That’s not trying to make light of his opinon. But he has likely (my opinion here) seen reports and not the field itself.
By Juggler, Sunday, 14 May , 2006 @ 10:15 pm
Sorry about that. I think I was POd about the other person’s post being deleted. It just didn’t strike me as being abusive or offensive.
By Gaius, Sunday, 14 May , 2006 @ 10:32 pm
It’s been a long history there, too. You may not have read all of it.
By Juggler, Sunday, 14 May , 2006 @ 10:39 pm
Okay. I was sorry to see that particular post go, though, as I thought there were some good points.
A question, though, and I ask this seriously–have you ever deleted posts or banned a poster for posts you essentially agreed with, but contained abusive language?
By Gaius, Sunday, 14 May , 2006 @ 10:49 pm
I actually have not had to delete any, but have had to email someone who came very close to crossing a line - which has never happened again.
Snarky I can deal with, abusive gets old - real fast - trust me.
By Juggler, Sunday, 14 May , 2006 @ 11:17 pm
Oh, I agree with you there. There was one site where nearly single (there may have been exceptions, which is why I put the “nearly”, but I don’t remember any) response to me was to call me names and speculate about my grooming habits or lack thereof.
I try really hard to be able to back up what I post–I’m sure I fall short at times, but IMHO it’s rare that I pull something out of my rear end.
By ahmed hashim, Saturday, 3 June , 2006 @ 8:43 am
Gaius
would u like pictures of me in the field as a reserve officer, u smug armchair strategist??
By Gaius, Saturday, 3 June , 2006 @ 8:59 am
I have no idea what you find smug about the above article.
By ahmed hashim, Saturday, 3 June , 2006 @ 3:58 pm
u saying with all due respect, i doubt whether professor hashim has been to the field, how else would i have conducted my research, not to mention that i was actually deployed with a unit in combat,
By Gaius, Saturday, 3 June , 2006 @ 4:43 pm
My apologies, then. It is difficult to guage from a wire service story.