Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Scaling Back War of Global Terrorism

  1. #1
    God/dess threlayer's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    5,921
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 419 Times in 290 Posts
    My Mood
    Fine

    Default Scaling Back War of Global Terrorism

    Study Published by Army Criticizes War on Terror's Scope




    By Thomas E. Ricks
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Monday, January 12, 2004; Page A12


    A scathing new report published by the Army War College broadly criticizes the Bush administration's handling of the war on terrorism, accusing it of taking a detour into an "unnecessary" war in Iraq and pursuing an "unrealistic" quest against terrorism that may lead to U.S. wars with states that pose no serious threat.

    The report, by Jeffrey Record, a visiting professor at the Air War College at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama, warns that as a result of those mistakes, the Army is "near the breaking point."

    It recommends, among other things, scaling back the scope of the "global war on terrorism" and instead focusing on the narrower threat posed by the al Qaeda terrorist network.

    "[T]he global war on terrorism as currently defined and waged is dangerously indiscriminate and ambitious, and accordingly . . . its parameters should be readjusted," Record writes. Currently, he adds, the anti-terrorism campaign "is strategically unfocused, promises more than it can deliver, and threatens to dissipate U.S. military resources in an endless and hopeless search for absolute security."

    Record, a veteran defense specialist and author of six books on military strategy and related issues, was an aide to then-Sen. Sam Nunn when the Georgia Democrat was chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

    In discussing his political background, Record also noted that in 1999 while on the staff of the Air War College, he published work critical of the Clinton administration.

    His essay, published by the Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute, carries the standard disclaimer that its views are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Army, the Pentagon or the U.S. government.

    But retired Army Col. Douglas C. Lovelace Jr., director of the Strategic Studies Institute, whose Web site carries Record's 56-page monograph, hardly distanced himself from it. "I think that the substance that Jeff brings out in the article really, really needs to be considered," he said.

    Publication of the essay was approved by the Army War College's commandant, Maj. Gen. David H. Huntoon Jr., Lovelace said. He said he and Huntoon expected the study to be controversial, but added, "He considers it to be under the umbrella of academic freedom."

    Larry DiRita, the top Pentagon spokesman, said he had not read the Record study. He added: "If the conclusion is that we need to be scaling back in the global war on terrorism, it's not likely to be on my reading list anytime soon."

    Many of Record's arguments, such as the contention that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was deterred and did not present a threat, have been made by critics of the administration. Iraq, he concludes, "was a war-of-choice distraction from the war of necessity against al Qaeda." But it is unusual to have such views published by the War College, the Army's premier academic institution.

    In addition, the essay goes further than many critics in examining the Bush administration's handling of the war on terrorism.

    Record's core criticism is that the administration is biting off more than it can chew. He likens the scale of U.S. ambitions in the war on terrorism to Adolf Hitler's overreach in World War II. "A cardinal rule of strategy is to keep your enemies to a manageable number," he writes. "The Germans were defeated in two world wars . . . because their strategic ends outran their available means."

    He also scoffs at the administration's policy, laid out by Bush in a November speech, of seeking to transform and democratize the Middle East. "The potential policy payoff of a democratic and prosperous Middle East, if there is one, almost certainly lies in the very distant future," he writes. "The basis on which this democratic domino theory rests has never been explicated."

    He also casts doubt on whether the U.S. government will maintain its commitment to the war. "The political, fiscal, and military sustainability of the GWOT [global war on terrorism] remains to be seen," he states.

    The essay concludes with several recommendations. Some are fairly noncontroversial, such as increasing the size of the Army and Marine Corps, a position that appears to be gathering support in Congress. But he also says the United States should scale back its ambitions in Iraq, and be prepared to settle for a "friendly autocracy" there rather than a genuine democracy.

    To read the full report, go to washingtonpost.com/nation

    link - http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer
    I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.

    Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.

    NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.

  2. #2
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Scaling Back War of Global Terrorism

    He also casts doubt on whether the U.S. government will maintain its commitment to the war. "The political, fiscal, and military sustainability of the GWOT [global war on terrorism] remains to be seen," he states.

    The essay concludes with several recommendations. Some are fairly noncontroversial, such as increasing the size of the Army and Marine Corps, a position that appears to be gathering support in Congress. But he also says the United States should scale back its ambitions in Iraq, and be prepared to settle for a "friendly autocracy" there rather than a genuine democracy.

    Record, a veteran defense specialist and author of six books on military strategy and related issues, was an aide to then-Sen. Sam Nunn when the Georgia Democrat was chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

    I can understand where this guy is coming from (personal opinions).

    A. he is concerned that US troops in Iraq could have the 'plug pulled' on them by a political climate change in Washington at any point in time, which would undermine the sacrifices which US troops have already made, and which would guarantee that GWB's objective of allowing a truly secular, truly democratic Middle Eastern country to form itself will not be achieved.

    B. he is concerned that the existing caps limiting the size of the US military, versus the actual number of troops committed to Afghanistan and Iraq already, does not leave a very large 'safety margin' should another trouble spot develop elsewhere in the world.

    The solution to B. has just garnered the support of Hilary Clinton and is likely to be implemented in the very near future. The solution to A. can't happen until the 2006 election results are in (i.e. republicans capturing 60 senate seats).

    There's also the fact that the report's author is a 'less than objective source', given his strong previous ties to Sen. Nunn and democratic Washington politics.

  3. #3
    Featured Member Wwanderer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    Most of the time in N. America, Asia, Europe or Australia
    Posts
    1,337
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts

    Default Re: Scaling Back War of Global Terrorism

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    A. he is concerned that US troops in Iraq could have the 'plug pulled' on them by a political climate change in Washington at any point in time, which would undermine the sacrifices which US troops have already made, and which would guarantee that GWB's objective of allowing a truly secular, truly democratic Middle Eastern country to form itself will not be achieved.
    In my opinion, this is a very serious worry. Not only is it just about the only way we could lose the War in Iraq, but it would also devastate US military morale and, to some extent, effectiveness for years to come.

    B. he is concerned that the existing caps limiting the size of the US military, versus the actual number of troops committed to Afghanistan and Iraq already, does not leave a very large 'safety margin' should another trouble spot develop elsewhere in the world.

    The solution to B. has just garnered the support of Hilary Clinton and is likely to be implemented in the very near future. The solution to A. can't happen until the 2006 election results are in (i.e. republicans capturing 60 senate seats).
    Congress can only authorize a larger Army, but unless they want to start drafting people, they can't actually make the Army larger. Doing so depends on recruiting yields and thus, indirectly, on the public's support for the war. At present, those yields are failing to maintain the Army at its current, perhaps too small, size.

    There's also the fact that the report's author is a 'less than objective source', given his strong previous ties to Sen. Nunn and democratic Washington politics.
    See

    http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pub...g/bounding.htm

    for the full text of the report described in the piece from the Washington Post. As noted in the Post piece, the publication of this article by the Army War College is at least as significant as what it says. In "the trade", it is well known that this is a mechanism by which "the brass" sometimes makes its views known when expressing them directly is unacceptable to its political/civilian bosses. In other words, even though Record wrote it, one can reasonably presume that it at least represents the views of some senior US military officers, though not necessarily their consensus opinion.

    -Ww
    "At this moment what more need we seek?
    As the Truth eternally reveals itself,
    This very place is the Lotus Land of Purity,
    This very body is the Body of the Buddha."
    - Zazen Wasan

  4. #4
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Scaling Back War of Global Terrorism

    Congress can only authorize a larger Army, but unless they want to start drafting people, they can't actually make the Army larger. Doing so depends on recruiting yields and thus, indirectly, on the public's support for the war. At present, those yields are failing to maintain the Army at its current, perhaps too small, size.
    Absolutely true ! Public support for the US military, as opposed to public disdain for the US military, plays a large part an any young person's decisions in this regard. There is also a disproportionate effect by teachers on military recruiting yields, as many high school seniors who will shortly be making career decisions are subjected to politically slanted commentary by liberal teachers on a regular basis.

  5. #5
    Featured Member Wwanderer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    Most of the time in N. America, Asia, Europe or Australia
    Posts
    1,337
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts

    Default Re: Scaling Back War of Global Terrorism

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    many high school seniors who will shortly be making career decisions are subjected to politically slanted commentary by liberal teachers on a regular basis.
    As one having relatives teaching in more than one US high school, I can say that this is definitely correct in at least those schools (and many others, I don't doubt). Moreover, it is not merely a matter of "politically slanted commentary" in general; in the cases of which I am aware, high school teachers are specifically hostile to recruiters/recruiting and actively discourage their students from signing up. They see this as saving them from an evil and predatory institutions (the US military).

    However, aside from blaming the teachers for expressing and acting on their political beliefs, I see this as one of the many ways in which it is dangerously unwise for a democracy to try to fight a war that does not command strong and broad bipartisan support unless it is absolutely unavoidable. It invites disaster. In other words, you'd better think twice if you can't convince the liberals as well as the conservatives that it is an essential fight.

    As an aside, although teachers may have a lot of influence, parents have more (probably appropriately). I have seen (but cannot quote) a study which showed that the support or opposition of a candidate recruit's parents, and most importantly his/her mother, is the single most important factor influencing his/her ultimate decision. This makes sense to me. Eighteen year olds definitely like to see themselves as independent adults, but in reality most want parental approval for at least their most important life decisions. And those who are so rebellious that they do not care what their parents think are perhaps not the best material for military service anyway. (I am sure that there are very numerous exception to my generalizations above.)

    -Ww
    "At this moment what more need we seek?
    As the Truth eternally reveals itself,
    This very place is the Lotus Land of Purity,
    This very body is the Body of the Buddha."
    - Zazen Wasan

Similar Threads

  1. KKK terrorism plot exposed
    By Fan_Dancer in forum Member Boards
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-30-2006, 01:14 PM
  2. Christian Terrorism Attack!!!
    By Deogol in forum Member Boards
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-30-2006, 02:07 PM
  3. Christian Terrorism Attack!!!
    By Deogol in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-30-2006, 06:08 AM
  4. Fight Terrorism!!!
    By madison_leigh in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-26-2004, 01:39 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •