[Marxism] Dissension grows in senior ranks on war strategy

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This article is part of the pressure on Bush to dump Rumsfeld and Bush,
and rely more on Powell et al to save the war and perhaps the Bush
presidency.  At this point, Arlen Specter may have a shot at the vice
presidency, simply because he is a liberal Republican whom Bush doesn't
personally hate, as he must hate Powell by now.

One of the things likely to be tried is the de facto division of the
country into three -- and leaving the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds more to
run their own LOCAL affairs.  The hope is that the Sunni and Shiite
parts will settle down more the way the Kurds have in the north, where
there are only 300 coalition troops.  They hope the resulting quiet will
enable the US to go forward with building permanent bases and

However this is a misreading of the situation.  The Kurds are a
different non-Arab nation who have been oppressed within Iraq from its
foundation and who fought for independence for many decades. (Yes,
Virginia, there is a Kurdistan.) Their relief at being out of the
control of Baghdad, and having few US troops is the source of the
relative quiet there. The Iraqs and Shia represent divisions in a single
nation.  All parties in both groups aspire to lead a unified Iraq. They
will regard the division as an attempt to permanently weaken Iraq, and
reducing the numbers of troops (as some hope to do) with simply increase
the vulnerability of the remaining occupiers.

And attempts to build permanent bases and take over oil resources will
become explosive issues.

Very striking is the lack of real optimism in the comments by Abizaid
and Wolfowitz.

If this is the state of mind in the high command, what is going on in
the ranks today?
Fred Feldman




Washington Post.Com


Dissension Grows In Senior Ranks On War Strategy
U.S. May Be Winning Battles in Iraq, Losing the War, Some Officers Say
By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, May 9, 2004; Page A01
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 faces the prospect of casualties for years
without achieving its goal of establishing a free and democratic Iraq.

Their major worry is that the United States is prevailing militarily but
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.

Army Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., 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 and 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 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 [sort of strategic loss] 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 a 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
sovereignty June 30.

Inside and outside the armed forces, experts generally argue that the
U.S. military should remain there but should change its approach. Some
argue for more troops, others for less, but they generally agree on
revising the stated U.S. 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 restructuring U.S. policy is by
ousting Defense Secretary Donald H. 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, this general pointed directly at Rumsfeld and
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. 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 report, this 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. Also, 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 K. Shinseki after he said early in 2003 that the
administration was underestimating the number of U.S. troops that would
be required to occupy postwar Iraq.
Wolfowitz, the Pentagon's No. 2 official, said that he does not think
the United States is losing in Iraq, and 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 yesterday afternoon.

"There's no question that we're facing some difficulties," Wolfowitz
said. "I don't mean to sound Pollyannaish -- we all know that we're
facing a tough problem." But, he said, "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 in Iraq. "We
are not losing, militarily," Army Gen. John P. Abizaid said in an
interview Friday. He said that 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."

Abizaid cited the resumption of economic reconstruction and the
political progress made with Sunni Muslims in resolving the standoff
around Fallujah, and increasing cooperation from Shiite Muslims in
isolating radical Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr. "I'm looking at the
situation, and I told the secretary of defense the other day, I feel
pretty comfortable with where we are," he said.

Even so, he said, "There's liable to be a lot of fighting in May and
June," as the June 30 date for turning over sovereignty to an Iraqi
government approaches.

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 Baqubah," said Army 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." He said he is especially worried about
maintaining political and economic progress in the provinces after the
turnover of power.

Army Lt. Col. John Kem, a battalion commander in Baghdad, said that the
events of the past 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 that officials with whom he works on Iraq
policy continue to put on 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.' "

The worried generals and colonels are simply beginning to say what
experts outside the military have been saying for weeks.

Full article:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11227-2004May8.html


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism