Update no.271

Update from the Heartland

No.271

12.2.07 – 18.2.07

Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,
The surprises of contemporary business travel never cease. No need for the boring details, but one item of experience popped up – a first ever occurrence in any country at any time. I had to spend a short night in Phoenix enroute from Ontario, California, to Tucson, Arizona. The company’s preferred hotel was the Airport Embassy Suites. As most modern hotels do these days, they provide broadband Internet access (in this case, a plug-in wireless port) for a nominal fee (again, in this instance, US$9.95 for 24 hours of access). Some hotels offer no-charge access; others can go as high as nearly $20. The surprise came in the form of a simple dialogue box that essentially stated access denied. That was quite unusual, so I spent a few minutes trying to find the access or parental controls, figuring the block was an automatic setting to prevent children from accessing some of the nasty sites. No joy! When I checked out the following morning, I asked what the block was intended for and whether there was a procedure to remove the block. The answer: the block was just the block. It seems the owner/manager or perhaps the service provider decided their censorship standards are best for everyone. Now, I would not object quite so much if they were providing access at no charge, but they are not. I paid for the access, and no one should be telling me what I can see, hear or visit. I will not be staying at that hotel again.

The Kansas House of Representatives passed Alexa's Law [House Bill no.2006], intended to allow double homicide charges against a perpetrator of a murder of a pregnant woman. At face value, the objective sounds worthy and just; I could support this action. Unfortunately, in today's volatile world of moral projectionist, social conservatives, this law will be extended to deny women their freedom of choice, to impose the State into the most private of affairs. The bill still must pass the Senate and the Governor to become law. The current language of this bill does not protect a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy. I do not trust this legislature or the executive given our experience with bad boy Phill Kline.

Various news sources reported this week that Iraqi Mahdi Army leader Mullah Muqtada al-Sadr fled to Iran. Al-Sadr is a bad man and a hunted man . . . even if not too earnestly. [141, 145, 148, 240] So, al-Sadr fleeing to the protective wings of Tehran . . . what a surprise! I guess he saw the train a-comin' . . . at least that is an attractive supposition. Perhaps, this is allied misinformation for political purposes; contrarian news bits surfaced in the following days. Who knows? Certainly not us. In another positive sign, the Iraqis have closed their borders with Iran and Syria – an action that should have been taken during the invasion phase and only gradually loosened under strict control. Better late than never, as the old adage goes.

Then, we have the U.S. House of Representatives passing its Iraq War Policy resolution [H.Con.Res.63], that states:
(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the U.S. Armed Forces who are serving or who have served honorably in Iraq; and
(2) Congress disapproves of President George W. Bush's January 10, 2007, decision to deploy more than 20,000 additional U.S. combat troops to Iraq.
The House passed the resolution by a vote of 246-182-7. The bill was delivered to the Senate and joined the handful of Senate resolution seeking to condemn the President’s initiative in the Battle for Iraq. In an unusual Saturday session, the Senate again failed to achieve the votes necessary to invoke cloture (56-34-10). The Senate debate continues.

A week ago, the Washington Post published an article by Lieutenant General William E. Odom, USA (Ret.).
“Victory Is Not an Option
The Mission Can't Be Accomplished -- It's Time for a New Strategy”
by William E. Odom
Sunday, February 11, 2007; Page B01
I urge everyone, for or against, to read Odom’s words. He makes numerous valid points, but in the main, I do not agree. As that great general of yesteryear said all those two millennia ago, “Alea iacta est.” I think we owe it to David Petraeus his moment, to see if he can pull the rabbit out of the hat. So far, I like the signs.
For me to claim I do not have doubts about our persistence in Iraq would be an untruth. And yet, I do not doubt Iraq being the correct battleground. I also do not doubt the ability of the military to do what must be done. My doubts in the political leadership are substantial. And, as a result, I also have doubts in the will of the People. We have discussed the extraordinary risks given the sectarian rifts in Iraq. As I have said before, I would like to give Petraeus six months to demonstrate progress – well actually, the Iraqis must demonstrate their ability to overcome their differences . . . or at least control them.

In somewhat of a departure from the establish format, I offer the following summary digest of an exchange regarding selective aspects of the Battle for Iraq. Before we begin, I strongly urge everyone to read Tom Ricks’ latest book, “Fiasco” – a must-read for any citizen who wants to understand how we became engaged in Iraq.
1.) Human Intelligence (HumInt) –
[“Fiasco” offers] a compelling indictment of the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) and especially the government's selective use of that data. Yet, what I see in the indictment is the tragedy of the Church Committee and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. While the American drift toward reliance on technical means began well before Senator Frank Church's chairmanship of the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, the fallout of the Committee's efforts virtually ensured the neglect of HumInt [I use the word 'neglect' intentionally; I'm not entirely sure there was a purposeful drive away from HumInt, but the result is apparent] -- too messy and unclean. When we do not understand what is in the head's of our adversaries, other bits of information fill the void.
The problem for all intelligence analysts is collecting sufficient, accurate, reliable information to connect the dots and produce a clear image of the enemy’s intentions. The more dis- or misinformation, the more good data are necessary to overcome the bad. Perhaps, Chalabi was just a convenient source for wishful thinking. If more reliable, contradictory HumInt had been available, the IC might have been more confident and more willing to debunk the administration’s cherry-picking pseudo-analysis. The paucity of HumInt made the ‘he-said-she-said’ argument much easier. As Ricks so eloquently notes, the IC was cowed by the high-level insistence and unwavering commitment to their story, i.e., they have access to more compartmented information; the Director of Central Intelligence should have carried the message. Good HumInt would have given us a better picture of Iraqi WMD, and thus made the government’s rationale less compelling. Yes, the IC had doubts, but the impression I am left with was those doubts were not strong enough to overcome the leadership inertia.
While I admit to being one of those who bought the administration’s argument, I thought then and continue to hold the opinion that the President and the administration failed to make the most compelling argument to clarify the threat. While Saddam’s Iraq was never to the level of the Iran’s sponsorship of world-wide terrorism, they were consistently in the top five. We could have picked any of them; Saddam was just the easiest target. Saddam had proven time and again to be the most volatile of the terrorist states. We needed a worthy battleground. I remain convinced that we could not have picked a better one to fight a stateless, largely faceless enemy. Unfortunately, due to ineptitude, complacency and political myopia, we allowed the sectarian tender to be ignited. We would have had a different situation if we had been able to keep the focus on the regime remnants, jihadistanis, and al-Qaeda agents. Now, we’ve got those bad men plus good people fighting good people based on a millennium of religious hatred.
2.) Intelligence Analysis –
I make no claim to being an intelligence professional, and yet, I spent enough time on the dark side to learn the time-proven processes for analyzing information. Two key factors guide the analysis -- corroboration and veracity. The process broke down, again, largely due to a paucity of corroborated, reliable HumInt. The aspect of this particular sequence I had not seen or considered was the insidious dominance of a willful leadership. History shall not judge them well.
3.) Trigger Pull as Demarcation –
As I have stated numerous times, the time for debate is prior to pulling the trigger, and in this case the trigger has been pulled -- right or wrong. Our choices now are win or lose. If we are not prepared to win or incapable of winning as General Odom suggests, then let us protect our troops. If we choose the latter, I am still left with the question, where? Where do we fight the next battle against a stateless enemy?
The argument remains, as a friend stated, we must not “follow a failed policy down the rathole.” The difficulty in any volatile situation is knowing when a strategy has failed. The available evidence suggest that time is near, if not already long past.
The skill of any commander sometimes is best illuminated when he makes the tough decision to withdraw. The situation in Iraq may not be recoverable, but I am still inclined to give Petraeus his moment. If we do not see sufficient improvement by summer, then we should declare our failure, withdraw, rest, re-equip, retrain and prepare our troops for the next fight. However, I continue to look for the next battleground, to answer my “where?” question. These bad men are not going away. The news regarding al-Sadr and the border closings is encouraging but certainly not the cusp.
4.) Pay Me Now or Pay Me Much More Later –
I am reminded by a time-proven axiom of aircraft design; the cost of any change increases exponentially during the life cycle of an aircraft, i.e., cost = 1x during preliminary design, 10x during certification, and 100x in service. The principle seems appropriate and applicable to situations with bad men, e.g., 1930's fascism, 1990's fascism. Perhaps the current method has no chance for success; if so, that reality does not alter the problem. The current, wishful-thinking, trickle approach was destined to failure. Who will have the courage to do what must be done?
5.) People –
Democracy cannot be imposed, and some folks are not intellectually capable of handling the responsibility & accountability. However, my experience tells me that all people as individual citizens are essentially the same. That said, freedom without the rule of law is usually anarchy.
A knowledgeable friend offered this counter-argument.
“All people are not the same. Our core problem, I think, is that Iraqis don't want what we want. We are essentially a society of individuals. They are a society of clans and tribes. (Indeed, I fear that the individualists in their society are the religious extremists who have broken away from their tribe and clan.) There is a good short story by Kipling about this, and how to use tribal structure against religious fanatics, called "The Head of the District." It deals with many of the problems we face in Iraq -- weak local governance, terrorism, decapitation, and most of all, religious extremism and tribal loyalties.”
It is available at http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/K/KiplingRudyard/prose/LifesHandicap/headofdistrict.html or
http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/2422/
When I suggest all people are the same, I am referring to the most basic aspects. My experience has shown me that all people want to live in peace, to prosper, and to raise their children and allow them to have a better life than they did. People don’t start wars; governments and madmen start wars. Unfortunately, people fight wars. Societies and cultures are created to help people achieve a comfortable, stable state of being. The notion that our way is correct, or the ideal, or the best for all people, is wrong in the extreme. Freedom is a relative term. Some folks, perhaps even most, do NOT want the freedoms we enjoy, and yet oppression and abuse are hardly attractive states for anyone. To me, democracy means the people choose their form of government. If the South Vietnamese had freely chosen communism, I would have been happy with their choice. Likewise, if the Iraqis freely chose a loose confederation of tribal entities, I would be happy with that. I think we can all see that the imposition of a Shia theocracy on what is now Iraq would be a recipe for disaster. And yet, those decisions belong to the Iraqis.
6.) The Battle of Iraq –
Lastly, I sought the opinion of a knowledgeable friend regarding several key questions. Do you see the Battle of Iraq as a stand alone episode? The President failed to make the case, but is there a larger context? Am I wrong to call this thing the War on Islamic Fascism?
He answered:
“Yes, I think we are wrong to conflate the war in Iraq with the war against Islamic extremism. First, it makes no sense -- the most powerful figure in the government we have created is Moqtadr al Sadr, a religious extremist who supports Hezbollah -- so which side are we on? Second, Iraq is essentially a sectarian and tribal conflict, not really related to anything bin Laden is peddling. Third, we should obey the law of conservation of enemies -- don't have any more than you need to have at a given point. So don't bundle them up, split them apart. Finally, even if everything I posit here is wrong, the American people still aren't buying the war in Iraq, so the construct isn't working.”
Iraq has certainly descended into sectarian violence that most folks would call civil war, in a form. And, yes, perhaps the American People have lost their will to win; if you are correct, then I do not want another soldier or Marine placed in harm’s way in this endeavor. The possibility that we are the catalyst is palpable. That said, I still believe our intentions were noble . . . our execution abysmal.
A worthy political solution is not possible without security and safety on the ground. Thus, if we are unwilling or unable to provide that security, then we are abandoning our contribution to a political solution. And, if so, then Iraq will either irreparably fracture or a Saddam-like strongman will eventually rise up to impose his will on all Iraqis. Neither prospect is attractive.

Comments and contributions from Update no.270:
A thread with a contributor surrounded Tom Ricks’ book “Fiasco” offered some relevant thoughts:
“I have Tom Ricks' book and have read parts of it (chapter 14 was recommended to me, where Ricks is very complimentary of LtGen Mattis). It's on my list of books to finish.
“I like Tom Ricks and respect his judgment and journalistic skills. It's still hard to read a book about people you know that's called “Fiasco.” I know LtGen Greg Neubold and Gen Tony Zinni very well. Neubold was the MEU commander when we landed in Mogadishu Dec 9, 1992, and Zinni became our J-3 when the JTF took over. I think highly of both of them. Neubold’s resignation was a courageous act, but it didn’t accomplish anything. So much for those who wonder why the generals don’t throw their stars on the table more often. If you do, there’s a new guy in your chair before the seat gets cold and nothing changes.
“The battle plan and its execution in Iraq were both brilliant, but what to do next hadn't been thought out. There was a lot of misplaced optimism about what would have after Saddam and his forces were defeated. I heard someone say on the radio yesterday it was like after Iwo Jima and Okinawa, we landed 140,000 men near Tokyo, seized the city, created a Green Zone and then tried to set up a democracy in Japan.
“Even after Japan had suffered a crushing defeat, it took years to establish a democracy there with a compliant population and cooperative Emperor. Why did people think it was going to be so easy in Iraq? MacArthur called upon experts in Japanese culture to help him develop his plan. Where were the experts on Iraq? Surely the Joint Staff knew that getting the Kurd, Sunni and Shia factions to work together wouldn't be easy and now it's hard to see it even being feasible in the short term.
“All I know is:
(1) Leaving precipitously would be a disaster of major proportion; and
(2) No matter what our stalwart legislators have been saying, a resolution condemning the President's surge policy discourages our troops and emboldens our enemies. If Nancy Pelosi wants us to surrender, let her draft the surrender document and deliver it to.....? Then what happens? Everyone will be happy, right?”
My reply:
I know what you mean about Tom’s book title. I’m nearly halfway through his tome. I think you will be surprised. He treats Neubold & Zinni with considerable respect. He is not so kind to Peter Pace . . . at least so far. He hammers Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith and Tommy Franks. While we know most of the facts and events, it is Tom’s access and insight into the contributors behind the facts that is so illuminating. I’ve always had a hot & cold opinion of Rummy, but he was just another McNamara with the same devastating consequences. From the clarity of hindsight, I wish the President had fired his ass three years earlier.
Tom goes into more of the political detail behind the failure of the occupation plan. “Misplaced optimism” is perhaps an understatement, especially with regard to the assumptions underlying the occupation plan. I always wondered about the Gardner-Bremer episode; Tom’s representation is quite incisive.
I’m with you on the myopic view of the American People, so often colored by the left-leaning portion of the Press. Such a large portion of the public seeks instant results and seems unwilling to keep their eye on the horizon. That is one of the reasons I try to keep the flame at a low boil. We simply must look beyond the failures and difficulties; we must take the long view. I think we have known this was going to be a long endeavor, perhaps even generational, but we must not loose sight of the objective or our will to prevail.
We are in absolute, 100% agreement on the fiasco playing out in Congress. The reminders of 40 years ago are all too evident. I just hope the People are strong enough to bypass our spineless legislators. We shall see. So far, the signs are not good, and we have begun the punishment we shall endure for at least the next two years.

Another contribution:
“I'm to the point where I'm starting to tune out the global warming debate. One big reason is the mainstream media seems to not want to acknowledge anyone who has an opposing view to this issue. Despite the fact scores of scientists disagree with the main ‘principles’ of global warming, the mainstream media treats is as an absolute fact. It is unfortunately to the point where people who oppose the science behind global warming are labeled as uncaring human beings. Plus, I seem to remember that during the 1970s scientists were panicking that the Earth was headed toward another ice age. Then a decade later we're heating up? Huh? Also, the planet has gone through heating and cooling trends in its history, long before the automobile was invented.
“What's happening in Congress I find disgusting. Too many of these representatives are ready to do a Spain and quit the fight. Problem is, if we quit, the terrorists won't. Then what happens? Times like this I think of Winston Churchill in the 1930s trying to warn an ostrich world about the threat posed by Hitler. No one listened, and the result was a war that cost the lives of 50-60 million people.
“BTW, enough of the Anna Nicole Smith coverage! Please, news media, I'm begging you!”
My response:
Your reflection on Churchill’s ostracism in the 1930’s is quite appropriate. I am convinced that the majority of the American People do not perceive the Islamofascists as a serious threat to the United States. I suppose they see these madmen as misguided, impressionable youth confined to a regional area. One of the worst and most destructive mistakes in wartime is to underestimate your enemy. The same consequences the 1930’s world faced lay ahead. Will we be wise enough to heed the warning signs?
I’m afraid we are destined to hear more gory details of the sad life of a woman who was famous for being famous. Oh well, the world continues to turn.

Another contribution:
“My son [a serving Marine] called and asked about it. He sounded concerned about not having what he needs to fight and survive. He's headed "over the pond" by fall most likely. I explained carefully what ‘nonbinding’ means. So, the morale drain begins again...”
My reply:
It is sad that our children’s generation must endure a similar offense as our generation did 40 years ago. I hope [xxxxxx] and his brothers in arms will be able to focus on the task at hand. May God protect them and bless them.
. . . with this follow-up:
“I suspect our troops in harms way will stay focused for now, given we don't treat them like pond scum as we were back then. But, time will take its toll without the will to do what it takes to get the job done.”
. . . and my follow-up:
Yes, indeedie; we do know about being treated like pond scum. And, to think, there are journalists, talking-heads, and pundits speculating that Vietnam vets being spit on or having blood and other fluids thrown on us was a figment of our imaginations. Hopefully, today's soldiers don't experience that abuse. Yes, time and the continued shenanigans of Congress will certainly take its toll on our warriors.

A contributor sent this article:
“The Ethical Warrior”
by Jack Hoban
Posted: 02/08/2007
My opinion:
In the main, Hoban appears to be advocating the warrior's version of compassionate conservatism. What I fear in such hypotheses is American warriors stepping back from the practice of efficient killing. Whether we like it or not, war is killing. Our object is to kill many more of them than they can injure us. The more the equation is forced to balance or parity, the less successful we shall be in protecting this Grand Republic. While I am not advocating indiscriminate taking of innocent lives, our adversaries hold no compunction to using a child to kill us. So, any threatening actions deserve violent action. And, the sad reality of war has been, is, and shall remain collateral damage is inevitable. The cost of war.
Another contribution in this thread from a new contributor:
“I sure as hell agree with you. From the government's position, before one American fighting man's life is at risk, all the gloves should be taken off. I'm still so pissed at what we endured in Viet Nam by the ‘restrictions’ that I flare up whenever someone talks about how ‘brutal’ we are. I broke a lot of the limitations placed on us carrier pilots over there and feel real good about doing so. I didn't go crazy. I just became upset when somebody fired on us from a Johnson- imposed no retaliation area.”
. . . my follow-up:
Most of us who lived those years hold the same opinions. The President was slow to overcome Rummy’s “McNamara-esque” mismanagement of the war, but at least he is trying. Congress on the other hand appears destined to repeat the horrendous mistakes of 40 years ago. Just as we survived the Vietnam debacle, we shall overcome this travesty as well. The principal difference and problem: today’s enemy has no compunction whatsoever projecting their violence well beyond their region. Withdrawing from Iraq seems comparable to withdrawing from France after we got a bloody nose in 1944.

My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)