J,
Glad to see you are not immune to the formatting problems on your site that plague the rest of us! Can you reformat please? Thanks.

Cranky

> t is now clear that we have failed at
> post-lightning war stabilization and
> society-building--political society, civil
> society, and commercial society--efforts in
> Iraq,

Well, it would be clear if anyone in the Bush Administration would admit it. Which is a bit in conflict with some of the posts I found on Barnett's web site.

> but that this is going to be the last such
> failure. The U.S. Army knows that it has failed,
> and doesn't like to fail in the same way twice.

And it will get another opportunity when? Iran? Ha ha ha... well, not funny.

I personally agree that the United States did fail (and fail the Iraqi people whom we claimed to be liberating) in the post-war phase of the invasion. But I don't agree that it was necessarily the fault of the "Army". The uniformed services, particularly the Marines but also the Army, had the capability to develop a postwar plan. The State Departement _did_ develop such a plan. Hell, the NYPD, LAPD, and Istanbul Police Depts together coudl have developed a workable plan.

Why weren't these plans developed and/or implemented? I don't know the answer to that, but I DO know who is responsible: Rumsfeld, Cheney, and W Bush. Until they are held accountable there will be NO lessons learned.

Cranky

We are forgetting that the reason the post-blitz portion of the Iraq occupation went badly is that the blitz went so well. Rummy said so. If we had just failed a little more at the blitz, we could have done better with the occupation. That is clear as clear can be. This stuff from Wilson is, therefore, pure revisionism. (Funny how people named "Wilson" keep getting things about the Iraq war so badly wrong.) The lack of a post-blitz plan is a trivial matter, a matter of opinion, a red herring...treasonous humbug...democracy...a free people...Saddam was a threat...must destroy the UN to save it...

kharris-

Why does Wilson hate freedom?

My reaction was the same as Cranky's -- the Army and State Dept did have a plan, and Rumsfeld threw it out the window, because conservative anti-intellectualism decreed that a plan meticulously devised by experts over a period of years couldn't possibly be better than what Rummy et al. could pull out of their collective asses. While I imagine the Army will do their best to use these lessons to tinker with that plan, since it was never tested, it'll be more difficult than usual, and they'll probably go into the next war without a lot of lessons learned in this area. ("Don't do the stupid-ass things we already knew not to do" doesn't really count as a lesson learned.)

Just for the record, the actual quote from the film goes:

Kurtz: Are my methods unsound?

Willard: I don't see any methods at all, sir.

http://www.filmsite.org/apoc4.html

> ("Don't do the stupid-ass things we already knew
> not to do" doesn't really count as a lesson
> learned.)

My understanding was that lesson was learned in Vietnam. Unfortunately, as Redshift points out, Rumsfeld and Cheney did not agree.

My guess is that the US military has been damaged for at least 20 years, worse than post-Vietnam. After Vietnam they thought they couldn't trust the politicians but could still trust themselves. Now they know that when the master cracks the whip they will jump like everyone else...

Cranky

Well-stated, Cranky.

Part of the damage is that some ass kissers moved up a notch when Shinseki was booted out for stating the obvious truth.

And these weren't run-of-the-mill ass kissers. This bunch maintained lip lock knowing that no plan and too few troops would most likely mean more deaths and a longer stay in Iraq.

I threw away Barnett's 'New Map' book before I even finished it.

I don't even remember why, and I'm afraid I can't even check anymore.

This whole mess seems like a bad dream. I still do not know the real reason(s) we invaded Iraq. Can anybody tell me? Does anybody know?

Actually, Kaplan generalizes from West Africa (The Coming Anarchy), the Balkans (Balkan's Ghosts), the Middle East and the Caucasus (Eastward to Tartary), Afghanistan and Pakistan (Soldiers of God), and the Western United States (Empire Wilderness).

I don't agree that we learn from history. I know Iraq is not Vietnam, but some of the parallels are eerie. We had the Powell doctrine, which is from the lessons of Vietnam and then threw it out the window when we went into Iraq. The problems are more a problem with the administration than with the armed forces. What will the Army do when Bush wants to invade Iran, will they refuse if they don't get more troops?

A part of learning from your mistakes is admitting you made them. Until Bush and crew start coming clean about what went wrong they'll continue to fail.

>>> Actually, Kaplan generalizes [...]

I get the impression from Kaplan's /Atlantic/ pieces that he is preparing the intelligesia to accept the reality of a military coup in the United States.

it's amazing how after people see barnett's lecture they start to talk like him, or in this case, write. It's fun that the strategist that will have the most effect on our generation - our AT Mahan, our Angell, has a weblog, a website, and a presentation that you can see on C-Span. How cool is that?

At the end of the US Civil War, after Lee had surrendered to Grant at Appomatix, it was up to Sherman to negotiate with armies still in the field. Sherman was scared shitless that the Confederate Army would dissolve and break up into bands of partisans. A surrender of uniformed forces is by the book. Partisan warfare is to be avoided at all costs.

Sherman originally negotiated a deal with Joe Johnson that brought the wrath of the Administration (this was just after LIncoln was shot). Sherman then had to re-negotiate, but fortunately, it worked. There were a few small groups like Jesse James, but partisan activity was limited.

Any military, never ever wants to fight partisans. Partisans made the British miserable in America. Partisan warfare could have doubled the US Civil War casualties (the war with casualties greater than all other US wars combined).

Sherman learned his lesson first hand in the Seminole War. Shinseki talked about this. There is not one West Point grad that has not studied Sherman. The entire ARMY knows this. Partisans in Iraq will eventually drive the US out.

The military understands the dynamics. Our naive neo-confederate politicians must learn this. There is a reason why revisionist neo-confederate history is no substitute for real history. For the same reason, supply-side, Voodoo economics is no substitute for the real thing.