Iraq: Political Posturing on a Grand Scale

The President's State of the Union Address has come and gone amid much fanfare. Unfortunately, those in opposition to our efforts in Iraq didn't really listen to the speech. The events which transpired after the speech followed the current action templates for both political parties. Aspiring presidential candidates postured for politically viable positions on the war. Now, the Senate Foreign Affairs committee has passed a non binding resolution which opposes the current surge of troop strength into Iraq. Minds have been made up, paradigms constructed, and the entrance of new data obstructed. How small we all are at times. The most obvious example of political expedience is the current visit to Iraq by Speaker Pelosi and her entourage. If I'm not mistaken, prior to even getting their feet dirty in Iraq, both she and her brethren have already made up their minds. My guess is that they believe photo opportunities in the combat zone will provide a requisite authenticity to their argument.

No matter how you feel about Iraq, we can all agree on two basic principles. First, the war has not followed the template envisioned by the President's national security team, the Pentagon, nor the theater commander. Secondly, those of us residing outside of the combat zone formulate opinions about the current state of affairs in Iraq with limited data.

Warfare never follows a predictable pattern of events. The initial operations plan is only accurate until the first shots are fired. All operations plans are implemented in order to achieve the commander's objectives and mission end state. All commander's objectives support the end state of the Commander in Chief. In Iraq, President Bush's end state is quite clear. Mission success is defined as a self sustaining fledgling democracy in Iraq. Commander's in theater rely on an information gathering process known as IPB or, the intelligence preparation of the battlefield. Once operations have commenced, they rely on daily intelligence estimates. These estimates provide the raw data they require to complete their objectives or, serve as warnings when operations need to be adjusted to realities on the ground. In order to provide for force protection, none of us back here in the States are privy to this data. Neither is the Congress. In reality, we all formulate our opinions based on second hand information. Select congressional committees get briefed but only on a post operative basis. If I'm not mistaken, our Constitution is quite specific. We are a representative democracy in which, the President leads our forces and Congress funds them. If Congress no longer supports operations in Iraq, then they need to grow a set of cajones and stop the funding. Of course, we all know that they lack the backbone to do this since their end state is the White House and should the President's surge lead to success in Iraq, they do not want to be seen by the American public as stumbling blocks to progress in the Middle East.

Wars are never fought with popularity polls as a guideline for success. Real people get injured or perish. The possibility for calamity exists in both camps. Military will is never an issue when well trained, well equipped forces are led by a unified chain of command with a common objective. The weak link in the chain on a national scale is political will. When the political will falters, our foundation weakens and the whole structure will soon come tumbling down around us. As a former soldier, I have no problem admitting that I have insufficient data with which to aggressively support or oppose the President's new Iraq policy. Most assuredly, I have an opinion however, as a member of a representative democracy, I will provide him with the latitude to conduct this war in a manner that he believes will lead to success. Wars are never fought and won by committee. One would think our congressional delegates knew this already.

De Oppresso Liber

Iraq: Warfare on Two Fronts

The battle lines have been drawn, 2008 is in sight and politicians from both parties have eagerly launched a new offensive on Iraq thereby creating a new front in this ongoing war. Washington is in an uproar. We now have Speaker Pelosi and President Bush as polar opposites of one another. Meanwhile, the boot prints of American GIs still dot the landscape of Iraq. So, who do we blame for the turmoil in Iraq? There is plenty of blame to go around however, what do we gain by indulging in the blame game? What we should of done has now become irrelevant. What we will do is the question which begs to be answered.

Politicians would do well to study their history books and learn from the mistakes of other countries and their governments. When the political will lags behind military efforts in theater, the troops will suffer. No matter how vigorously politicians may deny this, the end result is the same. Dysfunction in Washington, instills a modicum of doubt in the combat zone. As a former soldier, I find it ironic that those opposing the war actually believe that they can support the soldier in harm's way while opposing every strategic battle initiative of the Commander in Chief. Am I saying that Congress should blindly follow the President's objectives? No. The real issue is that no alternative solution is provided by the opposition to Iraq. Of course, in their defense, they will state that withdrawal is the solution. Any solution developed for Iraq must be analyzed through the prism of reality on the ground in Iraq and the surrounding geographical region.

As citizens of the United States we need to play a more active roll in holding our politicians feet to the fire. It is not sufficient to be a member of the opposition and offer no viable alternative plan. A complainer is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Politicians would do well to adopt the military's five step problem solving process. First, we must identify the problem. Secondly, we need to develop several courses of action and their mitigating consequences for the region as a whole. Thirdly, we must select the most viable course of action. Implementation of this course of action will constitute step four. Lastly, we must follow up on the implementation process and adjust our direction as required in order to achieve success. My only hope is that politicians on both sides will tackle the turbid issue of Iraq with a clear far sighted vision for our nation and the Persian Gulf rather than the short sighted consequences of 2008. Am I naive? For my sake, I hope not.

Winter Wonderland: Perseverance Wins the Day

It has been a snowy and blustery couple of weeks in the high country of the West. I spent the first week after Christmas in the midst of another Colorado Front Range blizzard. The Pacific Northwest has been my wintry playground for this week. Massive amounts of snow have hit the Colorado region. It took almost five hours to complete a little over 150 miles. I-25 and I-80 across Wyoming presented an icy obstacle at almost every turn. Mount Sherman lies just to the east of Laramie, Wyoming. Blowing snow obscured my path as I eased over the mountain at approximately 30 MPH while slowly driving around snow drifts in a rather serpentine line of travel. The same conditions have presented themselves in the Cascades. A couple of nights ago, I crossed over Mount Hood by traveling between the snow poles lining the sides of the road. The mountain was practically deserted with the exception of another trucker traveling in the opposite direction. The mountain spoke rather harshly that night and made sure that I paid close attention to her as she tried to bury my truck under a pristine blanket of white.

Battling Mother Nature brings another issue to mind. Perseverance. With the sea change in Washington, what is to become of us and our involvement in Iraq? Are we doomed to repeat history? Have we learned nothing in the past 30 plus years? Have we simply not developed beyond the social myopia of the 60's and 70's and removed the name of Saigon, only to replace it with Baghdad? Will we allow a political party, which is desperately seeking to reacquire the White House, to dominate the social agenda and affect foreign policy? Can we really affect change in the Middle East? Speaking for myself, I am fully aware that I cannot concretely answer any of the above questions. I can only present views anchored on the bedrock of fact.

In the post World War II era, I've always wondered why we as a country always cut and run when the going gets tough? Do we no longer have the internal vicissitude to handle difficulty? This weakness is even more provocative with an all volunteer military. A volunteer force is more efficient than a force of conscripts however, what is to become of a nation where succeeding generations of her young never have to serve her? Will such a nation be eventually consumed by the passage of time? The vast majority of our soldiers speak positively when questioned about their efforts in Iraq. Unfortunately, they represent only 1% of their generation. How are we to avoid the very issue which Jefferson and Madison feared the most? Will the tyranny of the majority drown out the significance of our military operations in Iraq?

Whatever occurs, we all can agree on the fact that maintaining the status quo in Iraq is no longer an option. Things must change however, the degree and direction of change must be efficiently controlled. Arbitrary dates of withdrawal will not work. Any withdrawal, no matter how good it makes us feel at home, will be seen as our defeat in the Middle East. That said, we can also no longer allow the youth of our nation to be used as fodder for Iraqi inaction. They must assume control. Do we partition the country? The vast majority of Iraq is peaceful. Do we cordon off Baghdad and let the opposing factions eliminate each other?

At the very least, the year to come will be interesting. Nobody can know for sure who will win the day. We all must admit that the battlefield in Iraq has changed. Politics has now entered the fray. My only hope is that our soldiers will not pay with their lives as Washington becomes consumed by a tidal pool of constant bickering. Opposing factions of our efforts in Iraq would do well to read Sun Tzu's "Art of War" and come to the realization that when civil authorities lose focus on national objectives, both the military and nation are doomed for defeat.

De Oppresso Liber