Army War College report blasts war on terrorism - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-13-2004, 08:19 AM   #1
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 11:36 AM
Army War College report blasts war on terrorism

Interesting article.

Army War College report blasts war on terrorism

By Thomas E. Ricks

01/12/04 (Contra Costa Times) WASHINGTON - 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 visiting professor Jeffrey Record, who is on the faculty of the Air War College at Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala., 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-Qaida 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 former Sen. Sam Nunn when the Georgia Democrat was chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

In discussing his political background, however, Record noted that in 1999 while on the staff of the Air War College, that 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 don't necessarily represent those of the Army, the Pentagon, or the U.S. government.

But retired Army Col. Douglas C. Lovelace Jr., the director of the Army War College's 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 before by critics of the administration.

Iraq, he concludes, "was a war-of-choice distraction from the war of necessity against" al-Qaida.

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 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 scoffs at the administration's policy, laid out by Bush in a November speech, of seeking to transform and democratize the Middle East.

"(T)he 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."

The essay concludes with several recommendations. Some are fairly noncontroversial, such as increasing the size of the Army and Marines Corps, a position that appears to be gathering support in Congress.

But Record 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.

Copyright: Knight Ridder.
__________________

__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 01-13-2004, 08:58 AM   #2
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 05:36 PM

Some more on this from Reuters

Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
__________________

__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 01-13-2004, 11:19 AM   #3
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 04:36 PM
Thanks for this post Scarletwine. I like it. We need to nab bin Laden, no question. He gave the green light to the Istanbul bombings. This has to be stopped.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 01-13-2004, 08:33 PM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:36 PM
This is a report by Thomas E. Ricks and not representive of the views of the US Army War College.

As for his views, he should realize that most Army divisions in Iraq, heavy Armored and Mechanized divisions, would never be engaged in some international hunt for Al Quada personal anyways. So the either Al Quada or Iraq idea is a false one. One does not detract from the other. The targets are different and require different means to combat each.

Al Quada at this point is primarily an intelligence problem as their base of operations in Afghanistan has been destroyed. An Intelligence problem primarily to be worked on by the CIA and other intelligence agencies, Not US Tankers currently in Iraq or training back in Texas and California.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-14-2004, 07:10 PM   #5
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 11:36 AM
It is still a source of a drain on resources that could be employed in the hunt for Al Quada. Especially money.

And you didn't adress the recruting tool Iraq is for extremists.

It was published by them, so they must see some merit in his ideas.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 01-14-2004, 09:12 PM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:36 PM
Scarletwine,

"It was published by them, so they must see some merit in his ideas."

That is incorrect! It was published by them in the name of academic and journalistic freedom. Its not the first time reports have come out of the War College than run against Military policy or government policy.

"It is still a source of a drain on resources that could be employed in the hunt for Al Quada. Especially money."

Please tell me which resources in Iraq could be deployed against Al Quada right now and where? Be specific! Which Army divisions would you like to withdraw from Iraq and where would you put them and what would be their mission there?

Yes a lot of money is being spent in Iraq, but precisely how much money do you think is required for what are primarily counterintelligence operations? Can you show me any evidence that the current operations against Al Quada by the CIA, DIA, National Security Agency, and 9,000 light infantry US troops in Afghanistan and else where is being underfunded?

"And you didn't adress the recruting tool Iraq is for extremists."

This was much publized prior to the war and has turned out to be a untrue. No Arab or Middle Eastern countries were overthrown. There were no mass demonstrations after the war started and ended in the Middle East. Al Quada has not been very successful in 2003 in launching attacks. There are many questions about its abilities and structure.

But if you have a recruiment list that proves your point, please post it here.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-15-2004, 12:13 PM   #7
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 11:36 AM
The was a study by the Pew Center on recruitment, but I haven't found it. Here are some other thoughts on the paper.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0114/d...te.html?s=mets

Strategic Studies Institute of The US Army War College says the administration's doctrinaire view of the war on terror, which lumps together Saddam Hussein's regime and Al Qaeda as a single undifferentiated threat, led the US on a dangerous "detour" into an unnecessary war.
"The global war on terrorism as presently defined and conducted is strategically unfocused, promises much more than it can deliver, and threatens to dissipate US military and other resources in an endless and hopeless search for absolute security," says the study by Jeffrey Record, a visiting scholar at the Strategic Studies Institute [and a former staff member of the Senate Armed Services Committee].
Although Mr. Record's paper, "Bounding the global war on terrorism," carries a standard disclaimer that its views do not represent those of the Pentagon, the study was endorsed by several other academics at the institute. "This piece of work, like many others, certainly should be considered in the debate being taken place on national security policy," the institute's director, retired army colonel Douglas Lovelace, said.
The BBC reports that while the study has been dismissed by US defense officials, it could prove to be an embarrassment to the Pentagon, which is already struggling to deal with the fall out from other critiques. Last week the Carnegie Endowment for International for Peace issued a report that said the White House had "systematically misrepresented" the dangers posed by WMD in Iraq. Earlier this week former Treasure Secretary Paul O'Neil said the White House had been planning for an invasion of Iraq from the start of the Bush administration, and not after 9/11 as had been previously suggested by administration officials.

The Voice of America reports that senior officials at the Pentagon "do not appear to be pleased" with the Army War College report.

Bryan Whitman, a top Defense Department spokesman, admits he has not seen the study but suggests its conclusions are irresponsible. "Any study that concludes that we should not aggressively pursue the global war on terror would be irresponsible. In fact, it is inconceivable to me that any responsible government would not do everything possible to protect its citizens," he said.
An editorial in Montana's Billings Gazette says the report should be "required reading at the Pentagon and the White House." The Christian Science Monitor asks how much difference will all these revelations really make (particularly those of Mr. O'Neill)? The Monitor points out that the administration has shifted the reason it says it went to war from the existence of WMD to the the threat posed by a vicious and megalomaniacal dictator. While it may or may not make much difference to the American people, experts say it will make a huge difference to "the future exercise of American foreign policy."
"It's a classic example of the little boy who cries wolf," says James Lindsay, a foreign-policy expert at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. "The next time [the US] insists we have to act because the threat is imminent, we will have that much harder a time making the case."
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 01-15-2004, 07:20 PM   #8
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:36 PM
Scarletwine,

That articled you linked to was about some of the views expressed in a new report by Pollack that we already have another thread going with.

The article on the paper for this thread restates the fact that this is not the view of the US Army or the US Army war college. It is the views of Jeffery and Jeffery alone.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-16-2004, 09:35 AM   #9
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 11:36 AM
Obviously you didn't read this part in answer to your previous post.

Although Mr. Record's paper, "Bounding the global war on terrorism," carries a standard disclaimer that its views do not represent those of the Pentagon, the study was ENDORSED by several other academics at the institute. "This piece of work, like many others, certainly should be considered in the debate being taken place on national security policy," the institute's director, retired army colonel Douglas Lovelace, said.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 01-16-2004, 09:43 AM   #10
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:36 PM
Endorsed and considered are far different from Agreeing and supporting. They endorse the study not the conclustions. Several academics? 2 or 3?

Sorry, I did read this and the fact remains that this Mr. Record's views which are in stark contrast to the majority of the Army and the War College Staff.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-16-2004, 04:19 PM   #11
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 11:36 AM
And where did you get your information to support that the majority don't support it.

edited - cause I was rude
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 01-16-2004, 05:10 PM   #12
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 04:36 PM
OK, Sting, it's just one person's opinion or whatever. I still don't think it should be deposited in the nearest trash receptacle. It's interesting that even one person in this institution came up with these opinions.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 01-16-2004, 09:04 PM   #13
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:36 PM
The Military Times recently did a poll on a large number of issues to determine how members of the armed forces felt about a variety of things. The Majority did not hold views that Jeffery had. Do to the large number of Military personal at the college and on the staff, I would presume the same thing holds for the college itself. Definitely not the leap you make if you infer that the College and the Military hold the same view as Mr. Record.



Can you name anyone else from the college that has issued a report saying the same things that Mr. Record did?

It is Jeffery's opinion and yes it is interesting, although I disagree with it. It is Jeffery's opinion and not the opinion of the War College or the Military.

One more thing about the report, it is interesting that he talks of the military being spread thin, when he was one of the advocates in the 1990s of deep cuts in force structure.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com