Why Iraq Was a Mistake A military insider sounds off against the war and the "zealots" who pushed it By LIEUT. GENERAL GREG NEWBOLD (RET.) (From the Apr. 17, 2006 issue of TIME magazine) Two senior military officers are known to have challenged Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the planning of the Iraq war. Army General Eric Shinseki publicly dissented and found himself marginalized. Marine Lieut. General Greg Newbold, the Pentagon's top operations officer, voiced his objections internally and then retired, in part out of opposition to the war. Here, for the first time, Newbold goes public with a full-throated critique: In 1971, the rock group The Who released the antiwar anthem Won't Get Fooled Again. To most in my generation, the song conveyed a sense of betrayal by the nation's leaders, who had led our country into a costly and unnecessary war in Vietnam. To those of us who were truly counterculture--who became career members of the military during those rough times--the song conveyed a very different message. To us, its lyrics evoked a feeling that we must never again stand by quietly while those ignorant of and casual about war lead us into another one and then mismanage the conduct of it. Never again, we thought, would our military's senior leaders remain silent as American troops were marched off to an ill-considered engagement. It's 35 years later, and the judgment is in: the Who had it wrong. We have been fooled again. From 2000 until October 2002, I was a Marine Corps lieutenant general and director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. After 9/11, I was a witness and therefore a party to the actions that led us to the invasion of Iraq--an unnecessary war. Inside the military family, I made no secret of my view that the zealots' rationale for war made no sense. And I think I was outspoken enough to make those senior to me uncomfortable. But I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat--al-Qaeda. I retired from the military four months before the invasion, in part because of my opposition to those who had used 9/11's tragedy to hijack our security policy. Until now, I have resisted speaking out in public. I've been silent long enough. I am driven to action now by the missteps and misjudgments of the White House and the Pentagon, and by my many painful visits to our military hospitals. In those places, I have been both inspired and shaken by the broken bodies but unbroken spirits of soldiers, Marines and corpsmen returning from this war. The cost of flawed leadership continues to be paid in blood. The willingness of our forces to shoulder such a load should make it a sacred obligation for civilian and military leaders to get our defense policy right. They must be absolutely sure that the commitment is for a cause as honorable as the sacrifice. With the encouragement of some still in positions of military leadership, I offer a challenge to those still in uniform: a leader's responsibility is to give voice to those who can't--or don't have the opportunity to--speak. Enlisted members of the armed forces swear their oath to those appointed over them; an officer swears an oath not to a person but to the Constitution. The distinction is important. Before the antiwar banners start to unfurl, however, let me make clear--I am not opposed to war. I would gladly have traded my general's stars for a captain's bars to lead our troops into Afghanistan to destroy the Taliban and al-Qaeda. And while I don't accept the stated rationale for invading Iraq, my view--at the moment--is that a precipitous withdrawal would be a mistake. It would send a signal, heard around the world, that would reinforce the jihadists' message that America can be defeated, and thus increase the chances of future conflicts. If, however, the Iraqis prove unable to govern, and there is open civil war, then I am prepared to change my position. I will admit my own prejudice: my deep affection and respect are for those who volunteer to serve our nation and therefore shoulder, in those thin ranks, the nation's most sacred obligation of citizenship. To those of you who don't know, our country has never been served by a more competent and professional military. For that reason, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's recent statement that "we" made the "right strategic decisions" but made thousands of "tactical errors" is an outrage. It reflects an effort to obscure gross errors in strategy by shifting the blame for failure to those who have been resolute in fighting. The truth is, our forces are successful in spite of the strategic guidance they receive, not because of it. What we are living with now is the consequences of successive policy failures. Some of the missteps include: the distortion of intelligence in the buildup to the war, McNamara-like micromanagement that kept our forces from having enough resources to do the job, the failure to retain and reconstitute the Iraqi military in time to help quell civil disorder, the initial denial that an insurgency was the heart of the opposition to occupation, alienation of allies who could have helped in a more robust way to rebuild Iraq, and the continuing failure of the other agencies of our government to commit assets to the same degree as the Defense Department. My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions--or bury the results. Flaws in our civilians are one thing; the failure of the Pentagon's military leaders is quite another. Those are men who know the hard consequences of war but, with few exceptions, acted timidly when their voices urgently needed to be heard. When they knew the plan was flawed, saw intelligence distorted to justify a rationale for war, or witnessed arrogant micromanagement that at times crippled the military's effectiveness, many leaders who wore the uniform chose inaction. A few of the most senior officers actually supported the logic for war. Others were simply intimidated, while still others must have believed that the principle of obedience does not allow for respectful dissent. The consequence of the military's quiescence was that a fundamentally flawed plan was executed for an invented war, while pursuing the real enemy, al-Qaeda, became a secondary effort. There have been exceptions, albeit uncommon, to the rule of silence among military leaders. Former Army Chief of Staff General Shinseki, when challenged to offer his professional opinion during prewar congressional testimony, suggested that more troops might be needed for the invasion's aftermath. The Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense castigated him in public and marginalized him in his remaining months in his post. Army General John Abizaid, head of Central Command, has been forceful in his views with appointed officials on strategy and micromanagement of the fight in Iraq--often with success. Marine Commandant General Mike Hagee steadfastly challenged plans to underfund, understaff and underequip his service as the Corps has struggled to sustain its fighting capability. To be sure, the Bush Administration and senior military officials are not alone in their culpability. Members of Congress--from both parties--defaulted in fulfilling their constitutional responsibility for oversight. Many in the media saw the warning signs and heard cautionary tales before the invasion from wise observers like former Central Command chiefs Joe Hoar and Tony Zinni but gave insufficient weight to their views. These are the same news organizations that now downplay both the heroic and the constructive in Iraq. So what is to be done? We need fresh ideas and fresh faces. That means, as a first step, replacing Rumsfeld and many others unwilling to fundamentally change their approach. The troops in the Middle East have performed their duty. Now we need people in Washington who can construct a unified strategy worthy of them. It is time to send a signal to our nation, our forces and the world that we are uncompromising on our security but are prepared to rethink how we achieve it. It is time for senior military leaders to discard caution in expressing their views and ensure that the President hears them clearly. And that we won't be fooled again.
Iraq will become a mistake if the troops are withdrawed too early. Iran and Syria will be next, I hope.
Iraq is a mistake because it's going to make it hard for us to gain support to attack Iran. Iran is a place we actually DO need to attack. Iraq was just something to keep bush busy, now it's going to effect how we are supported when we attack Iran. Because afterall, we are going to attack Iran, dont you think?
The only thing I fault Bush with in the Iraq conflict... Actually the only thing I question is why he did not have his oil buddys build a pipline (called there Jer Crude Central - "shameless plug") built to pipe all that oil directly to the US so I would not have to spend $40 filling my tank up (on an economy car). That bastard. And to think if I had only voted for Kerry, that Gas would have been a measly $50 (with the 50cent per gal tax). Man, was I dumb. Next time I am voting for even higher gas prices!
America has enough nukes to destroy the whole planet, just like Russia. A WWIII is not possible, my friend
I wonder why gworld wants the US to pull out of Iraq so terrorists can take over? I've asked him dozens of times, but he refuses to answer. Perhaps jose padilla has advised him not to answer Maybe it's because the worst thing he's ever said about them was this scolding and shocking revelation (after being repeatedly hounded) that they are a piece of .... http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?p=740753 Oh my, such vehement words, after two thousand plus posts, to finally say a bad word about a terrorist
The above post is the views of Army General Eric Shinseki and Marine Lieut. General Greg Newbold, are you saying that these 2 generals are also terrorist supporters and want the terrorist win? May be these 2 generals just don't have enough knowledge about the war since they were absent the day corporal Gtech was teaching military strategy in the west point?
Gtech is a war monger. Judging by his views on war and politics he approves of war and people dying because of war, no matter the topic he will be the first one to contradict everything just for the sake of starting a pointless argument. For the record, I too have been a believer that the Iraqi war was an unethical, un-necessary war, started by Bush and his crooked comrades for their own personal agenda and gains. One one need to look at who benefits from this pointless war. Is it the innocent US soldiers dying every day, the innocent bystanders that get blown to pieces on a daily basis? Or the big businesses getting huge contracts and the oil companies? As far as I am concerned this war in no way shape or form benefits anybody. It is wrong and it is wrong to justify it and be hard headed about the fact that we are in the wrong on this one, again. It's not like we have not been before, but that's what happens when you have crooked politicians and greedy bastards running the country. Shamefull.
Nope, not in the least bit. I respect their service to my country and I respect their right to dissenting views. They served, you have never served anything more than yourself. I'd shake their hand and offer them a salute and thank them for serving my (not your) country. I also didn't see where they openly support terrorists as you have with jose padilla, or by making excuses for the actions of terrorists, or choosing to deliberately start hundreds of posts attacking America, calling for support for terrorists (jose padilla), while silently ignoring any action terrorists make around the world. The difference between them, and you - gworld - is, that you don't care about my country and you don't care about either General. You have made hundreds of posts on this forum attacking America and attacking the military by calling them torturers, rapists and many other terms. Pretending now, that you suddenly care, is humorous. It's not their service to my (not your) country that you honor. No, it's their dissenting points of view that serve nothing more than a tool for you to continue attacking America, that you place value on. Your own self-serving needs. You see, the difference between us gworld, is, that while you attack the military at every opportunity and we can almost always count on you (or yo-yo) to be the first when something happens, to post about it attacking them, I'll respect them whether they share my views or not. I respect their service to my country. You offer a knife in their back one day while offering a handshake the next, IF, they serve as a political tool for you. And for at least the 50th time, you quietly pass over the opportunity to explain why you want the US to pull out of Iraq so terrorists can take over. I wonder why? [/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE] Man snap out of it. There were no terrorists in Iraq. And there were no WMDs. There is more terrorists now in Iraq than during the Sadam regime. And there was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Don't you believe that?
The real military men do not support rape, torture or massacre of women and children as I have shown by quoting different high ranking officers in U.S Army. It is only a corporal like you who don't understand the difference between WAR and WAR CRIMES.
You've not shown anything, you simply use their words as your own tool. You could care less about them or their service to my (not your) country. You continued comments about my service to my country should be indicative enough to make that point very clear.
So what is your opinion about their words? Do you agree with the general when he states: "I was a witness and therefore a party to the actions that led us to the invasion of Iraq--an unnecessary war." Or do you think corporals know better than generals?
Man snap out of it. There were no terrorists in Iraq. And there were no WMDs. There is more terrorists now in Iraq than during the Sadam regime. And there was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Don't you believe that?[/QUOTE] Evidence exists to the contrary of everything you've stated, but that's not unusual. For example, zarqawi was in Iraq prior to the invasion. I've posted much information wmd and equipment and materials used to make WMD. There were connections between Iraq and 9/11, though that's not why we went. There were connections between saddam and bin laden, which many have known and recent declassified documents confirm. That there were no terrorists in Iraq (which is not correct) has no bearing on the question I asked about why gworld wants the US to pull out so terrorists can win. Perhaps you share his same vision.
Hey gworld, why don't you post some news articles about Canadian politics for us? You post so much stuff about The United States, people might accidentally mistake you for an American. Err... well.... probably not.
Gtech It seems you live in your own world when you can close your eye to the reality and make up an alternative reality. Even the administration has given up on these fantasies and tries damage control instead but you still live in this fantasy land.