From The San Francisco Chronicle, 5/9/04:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/05/09/MNGOU6IJN71.DTL
Inside war room, a battle is raging
Some generals fear Iraq war becoming unwinnable despite superior
firepower
Thomas E. Ricks, Washington Post
Washington --
Deep divisions are emerging at the top of the U.S. military over the
course of the occupation of Iraq, with some senior officers beginning
to say that the United States is facing the prospect of casualties for
years without achieving its stated goal of establishing a free and
democratic Iraq.
Their major worry is that the United States is prevailing militarily,
yet failing to win the support of the Iraqi people.
That view is far from universal -- but it is spreading, and being
voiced publicly for the first time.
Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack, the commander of the 82nd Airborne
Division, who spent much of the year in western Iraq, said he believes
that at the tactical level at which fighting occurs, the U.S. military
is still winning.
But when asked whether he believes the United States is losing, he
said, "I think strategically, we are."
Army Col. Paul Hughes, who last year was the first director of
strategic planning for the U.S. occupation authority in Baghdad, said
he agrees with that view.
He noted that a pattern of winning battles while losing a war
characterized the U.S. failure in Vietnam.
"Unless we ensure that we have coherency in our policy, we will lose
strategically," he said in an interview Friday.
"I lost my brother in Vietnam," added Hughes, a veteran Army
strategist who is still involved in formulating Iraq policy.
"I promised myself, when I came on active duty, that I would do
everything in my power to prevent that from happening again. Here I
am, 30 years later, thinking we will win every fight and lose the war,
because we don't understand the war we're in."
The emergence of sharp differences over U.S. strategy has set off a
debate, a year after the United States ostensibly won the war in Iraq,
about how to preserve that victory.
The core question is how to end a festering insurrection that has
stymied some reconstruction efforts, made many Iraqis feel less safe
and created uncertainty about who actually will run the country after
the scheduled turnover of political sovereignty on June 30.
Both inside and outside the armed forces, experts generally are
arguing that the U.S. military should remain there but should change
its approach.
Some argue for more troops, others for fewer, but they generally agree
on revising the Bush administration's stated goals to make them less
ambitious.
They are worried by evidence that the United States is losing ground
with the Iraqi public.
Some officers say the place to begin overhauling U.S. policy is by
ousting Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, whom they see as
responsible for a series of strategic and tactical blunders over the
past year.
Several of those interviewed said a profound anger is building within
the Army at Rumsfeld and those around him.
A senior general at the Pentagon said he believes the United States is
already on the road to defeat.
"It is doubtful we can go on much longer like this," he said.
"The American people may not stand for it -- and they should not."
Asked who was to blame, the general pointed directly at Rumsfeld and
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.
"I do not believe we had a clearly defined war strategy, end state and
exit strategy before we commenced our invasion," he said.
"Had someone like Colin Powell been the chairman (of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff), he would not have agreed to send troops without a clear
exit strategy. The current OSD (Office of the Secretary of Defense)
refused to listen or adhere to military advice."
Like several other officers interviewed for this story, the general
spoke only on the condition that his name not be used.
One reason for this is that some of these officers deal frequently
with the senior Pentagon civilian officials they are criticizing, and
some remain dependent on top officials to approve their current
efforts and future promotions.
Some say they believe that Rumsfeld and other top civilians punish
public dissent.
Senior officers frequently cite what they believe was the vindictive
treatment of then-Army chief of staff Gen. Eric Shinseki after he said
early last year that the administration was underestimating the number
of U.S. troops that would be required in postwar Iraq.
Wolfowitz, the Pentagon's No. 2 official, said he doesn't think the
United States is losing in Iraq, and he said no senior officer has
expressed that thought to him, either.
"I am sure that there are some out there" who think that, he said in
an interview Saturday.
"There's no question that we're facing some difficulties," Wolfowitz
said.
"I don't mean to sound Pollyanna-ish -- we all know that we're facing
a tough problem."
But, he added, "I think the course we've set is the right one, which
is moving as rapidly as possible to Iraqi self-government and Iraqi
self- defense."
Wolfowitz, who is widely seen as the intellectual architect of the
Bush administration's desire to create a free and democratic Iraq that
will begin the transformation of the politics of the Middle East, also
strongly rejected the idea of scaling back on that aim.
"The goal has never been to win the Olympic high jump in democracy,"
he said. Moving toward democratization in Iraq will take time, he
said.
Yet, he continued, "I don't think the answer is to find some old
Republican Guard generals and have them impose yet another
dictatorship in an Arab country."
The top U.S. commander in the war also said he strongly disagrees with
the view that the United States is heading toward defeat.
"We are not losing, militarily," Army Gen. John Abizaid said in an
interview Friday.
He said the U. S. military is winning tactically.
But he stopped short of being as positive about the overall trend.
Rather, he said, "Strategically, I think there are opportunities."
The prisoner abuse scandal and the continuing car bombings and U.S.
casualties "create the image of a military that's not being effective
in the counterinsurgency," he said, but in reality, "The truth of the
matter is ... there are some good signals out there."
Commanders on the ground in Iraq seconded that cautiously optimistic
view.
"I am sure that the view from Washington is much worse than it appears
on the ground here in Baquba," said Col. Dana J.H. Pittard, commander
of a 1st Infantry Division brigade based in that city about 40 miles
north of Baghdad.
"I do not think that we are losing, but we will lose if we are not
careful."
Lt. Col. John Kem, a battalion commander in Baghdad, said the events
of the last two months -- first the eruption of a Shiite insurgency,
followed by the detainee abuse scandal -- "certainly made things
harder," but he said he doubted they would have much effect on the
long-term future of Iraq.
But some say that behind those official positions lies deep concern.
One Pentagon consultant said officials with whom he works on Iraq
policy continue to put a happy face publicly, but privately are grim
about the situation in Baghdad.
When it comes to discussions of the administration's Iraq policy, he
said, "It's 'Dead Man Walking.' "
A senior U.S. military intelligence officer experienced in Middle
Eastern affairs said he thinks the Bush administration needs to
rethink its approach to Iraq and to the region.
"The idea that Iraq can be miraculously and quickly turned into a
shining example of democracy that will 'transform' the Middle East
requires way too much fairy dust and cultural arrogance to believe,"
he said.
Even if adjustments in troop presence and goals help the United States
prevail, it will not happen anytime soon, several of those interviewed
said.
The United States is likely to be fighting in Iraq for "at least"
another five years, said an Army officer who served there.
"We'll be taking casualties" during that entire time, he warned.
A long-term problem for any administration is that it may be difficult
for the American public to tell whether the United States is winning
or losing, and the prospect of continued casualties raises the
question of how long the public will tolerate the fighting.
"Iraq might have been worth doing at some price," said defense
consultant Michael Vickers.
"But it isn't worth doing at any price. And the price has gone very
high."
Tolerance of the situation in Iraq also appears to be declining within
the U.S. military.
Especially among career Army officers, an extraordinary anger is
building at Rumsfeld and his top advisers.
"Like a lot of senior Army guys, I'm quite angry" with Rumsfeld and
the rest of the Bush administration, said the young general.
He listed two reasons.
"One is, I think they are going to break the Army."
But what really incites him, he said, is, "I don't think they care."
____________________________________________________________
What now, Bush lovers?
Harry
.
|
