Iraq exit strategy

#26
#26
BigPapaVol said:
That's funny. Implying that he wasn't there because he was the XO should be beneath you, but apparently it's not. One need not command to understand it and help write doctrine regarding command. I would say he was executing in Desert Storm as much as anyone else and certainly moreso than you. By your standard, you are unqualified to discuss anything other than frickin' platoon leader duties in an infantry unit. That's an awfully limited scope.
Click to expand...
I am not sure where I implied that he was not there. The authoritative figures on Desert Storm are the commanders on the ground, not the CJCS.
 
#27
#27
BigPapaVol said:
What does that have to do with your retarded notion of entering into a war without an exit strategy in mind?
Click to expand...
I am more concerned with where you were instructed in this ill conceived notion that every operation needs to have an exit strategy. I never found anything of the sort in Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, Jomini, etc.
 
#28
#28
I would guess after Vietnam, every politician knows it's an essential part of the warplan if you expect a long term political career. Folks nowadays make it crystal clear they don't want nor will support a war of slow results and high cost. Therefore a exit stategy seems to be a pretty darn important component of a warplan. So again how will we get out of Iraq quickly before a republican has to run with a unpopular action going on and America still saves face?
 
#29
#29
The mistake the U.S. made was trying to conduct a ground war in Iraq. Air strikes like Reagan did in Libya, was all Bush needed to do to get his point across to Saddam.


A frontline special covered the reason the U.S. went in. In the Persian Gulf War Iraq was 3 months away from having a nuclear weapon and the CIA didn't have a clue. This time when the CIA told Cheney they didn't think Iraq had nuclear weapons Cheney didn't believe the CIA and convinced Bush of the same. Huge mistake, and now we are paying the consequences.
 
#30
#30
therealUT said:
I am more concerned with where you were instructed in this ill conceived notion that every operation needs to have an exit strategy. I never found anything of the sort in Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, Jomini, etc.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about an operation. I'm talking about a war, just like everyone else in this thread. But if you're involved in operations that don't somehow define an end game and how to get home, you might consider getting the hell out.

Spouting names of people you've read doesn't make your opinions appear any brighter. One cannot set forth the plan without some kind of plan in mind, for it drives all of the interim objectives, decision points and alternatives. I suspect Clausewitz would think you're a complete idiot.
 
#31
#31
therealUT said:
I am not sure where I implied that he was not there. The authoritative figures on Desert Storm are the commanders on the ground, not the CJCS.
Click to expand...
Again parsing words. You implied that his doctrine is invalid because he was staff rather than the commander and I'm saying that is absurd. He was mighty senior and I would imagine involved in most conversations between SecDef and CINC.
 
#32
#32
BigPapaVol said:
Again parsing words. You implied that his doctrine is invalid because he was staff rather than the commander and I'm saying that is absurd. He was mighty senior and I would imagine involved in most conversations between SecDef and CINC.
Click to expand...
No. I believe the "Powell Doctrine" is invalid due to its lack of merit. Basically, according to Powell, you could have a situation in which "vital national security interests are threatened" yet you should fail to act because you have no "exit strategy" and lack the support of the American people. That is absolutely ridiculous.

On the other hand, you have people who praise the "Powell Doctrine" simply because they esteem Colin Powell to be such a great man.
 
#33
#33
therealUT said:
No. I believe the "Powell Doctrine" is invalid due to its lack of merit. Basically, according to Powell, you could have a situation in which "vital national security interests are threatened" yet you should fail to act because you have no "exit strategy" and lack the support of the American people. That is absolutely ridiculous.

On the other hand, you have people who praise the "Powell Doctrine" simply because they esteem Colin Powell to be such a great man.
Click to expand...
I happen not to give a rat's rear about Powell, but I do agree with overwhelming force and a clearly defined end game. Which part is without merit.

If that end game is unpalatable to the public and will drag on to the extent that the public will have a voice in the proceedings, then the exit must be rethought / reworked. I certainly hope our military leadership hasn't degenerated to act first, think later. I believe, given your opinions here, that you are destined to be a company grade officer and we'll actually leave real decision making in the hands of those capable of making them.

4 year olds enter without thought as to consequence(s). Reasonable adults do not.
 
#34
#34
BigPapaVol said:
I happen not to give a rat's rear about Powell, but I do agree with overwhelming force and a clearly defined end game. Which part is without merit.

If that end game is unpalatable to the public and will drag on to the extent that the public will have a voice in the proceedings, then the exit must be rethought / reworked. I certainly hope our military leadership hasn't degenerated to act first, think later. I believe, given your opinions here, that you are destined to be a company grade officer and we'll actually leave real decision making in the hands of those capable of making them.

4 year olds enter without thought as to consequence(s). Reasonable adults do not.
Click to expand...
Foregoing an exit strategy is not entering without thought to consequences.

Also, you can have a clearly defined end game without having an exit strategy.

Thanks for your analysis on the Powell Doctrine. It is obvious that you have not read into it any more than that it is also referred to as the Powel Doctrine of Overwhelming Force.
 
#36
#36
therealUT said:
Foregoing an exit strategy is not entering without thought to consequences.

Also, you can have a clearly defined end game without having an exit strategy.

Thanks for your analysis on the Powell Doctrine. It is obvious that you have not read into it any more than that it is also referred to as the Powel Doctrine of Overwhelming Force.
Click to expand...
To your first point, thinking of consequences without adequately preparing to address them is folly.

In a strategic sense, a clearly defined end game that does not include exit (which is the only thing agreeable given our politics) is stupid. Our lack of a clear exit strategy or defined acceptable end game is why the debate to bring us home now from Iraq has substantial legs.

Man. You busted me. I know absolutely nothing more of the Powell Doctrine than what I've listed here. Good retort.
 
#37
#37
therealUT said:
This about sums up my thoughts:
Click to expand...
That's talking about the tactical level you idjit. We're talking about strategic decision making. Please try your best to keep up.

I'm going to offer up Abe Lincoln as an unqualified success in being a strategic level commander without any field combat time.
 
#38
#38
Stop with this inane exit strategy BS. There was no exit strategy for the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, WWII, Korea, or Vietnam. The popular backlash to the Vietnam experience is what brought on this whole belief that we need an exit strategy. I am going to put my trust in the first 6,000 years of human history and warfare over the past 30 and your ridiculous assumption that every war strategy needs a detailed exit strategy. You have yet to cite me anywhere in the annals of military history, text, etc. that this "exit strategy" is addressed. In fact, you stated that apparently book learning on the subject is null. Yet, you have no actual experience in combat...

I am going to be obliged to come to the conclusion that you are simply trying rest on your "I was schooled at USMA" laurels. Although, I doubt you were ever given "exit strategy" instruction there either.
 
#39
#39
therealUT said:
Stop with this inane exit strategy BS. There was no exit strategy for the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, WWII, Korea, or Vietnam. The popular backlash to the Vietnam experience is what brought on this whole belief that we need an exit strategy. I am going to put my trust in the first 6,000 years of human history and warfare over the past 30 and your ridiculous assumption that every war strategy needs a detailed exit strategy. You have yet to cite me anywhere in the annals of military history, text, etc. that this "exit strategy" is addressed. In fact, you stated that apparently book learning on the subject is null. Yet, you have no actual experience in combat...

I am going to be obliged to come to the conclusion that you are simply trying rest on your "I was schooled at USMA" laurels. Although, I doubt you were ever given "exit strategy" instruction there either.
Click to expand...
You continue to prove your an imbecile. The Revolutionary War, we were defending ourselves and British lost partly because of a lack of exit opportunity / ill perceived end game. The Civil War was total war and exit is defined by that (capitulation by the enemy). WWII, total war (two of 'em capitulated). Korea, an abomination today because we had no end game when we started. Vietnam - same. Think 'em through. It's real simple, which should work really well for you: total war is about destruction of the enemy and his will to fight. Limited war is another thing altogether and relatively new in our history. We've repeatedly proven that we're not very good at it and your beating your chest because we've approached the other failures without a clear end in mind. That doesn't validate your genius. It simply shows that you haven't thought about it. Seriously, why was there no solution in Korea? Why defeat in VN? Why mired in Iraq today, yet weren't the first time?

I'm resting on no laurels and could not care less about USMA or my combat experience. I'm using sense in approaching this, you are relying on text books written by people who have yet to see limited war conducted well.
 
#40
#40
BigPapaVol said:
You continue to prove your an imbecile. The Revolutionary War, we were defending ourselves and British lost partly because of a lack of exit opportunity / ill perceived end game. The Civil War was total war and exit is defined by that (capitulation by the enemy). WWII, total war (two of 'em capitulated). Korea, an abomination today because we had no end game when we started. Vietnam - same. Think 'em through. It's real simple, which should work really well for you: total war is about destruction of the enemy and his will to fight. Limited war is another thing altogether and relatively new in our history. We've repeatedly proven that we're not very good at it and your beating your chest because we've approached the other failures without a clear end in mind. That doesn't validate your genius. It simply shows that you haven't thought about it. Seriously, why was there no solution in Korea? Why defeat in VN? Why mired in Iraq today, yet weren't the first time?

I'm resting on no laurels and could not care less about USMA or my combat experience. I'm using sense in approaching this, you are relying on text books written by people who have yet to see limited war conducted well.
Click to expand...
There was no solution in Korea because Truman did not want to push the fight into Manchuria. When the NKPA decided to come to the table, the UN forces decided to simply hold the line, in order not to upset the balance. That "balance" was not upset for 2 years...while our forces died in a "stalemate." Seriously, read into it.
 
#41
#41
BigPapaVol said:
You continue to prove your an imbecile. The Revolutionary War, we were defending ourselves and British lost partly because of a lack of exit opportunity / ill perceived end game. The Civil War was total war and exit is defined by that (capitulation by the enemy). WWII, total war (two of 'em capitulated). Korea, an abomination today because we had no end game when we started. Vietnam - same. Think 'em through. It's real simple, which should work really well for you: total war is about destruction of the enemy and his will to fight. Limited war is another thing altogether and relatively new in our history. We've repeatedly proven that we're not very good at it and your beating your chest because we've approached the other failures without a clear end in mind. That doesn't validate your genius. It simply shows that you haven't thought about it. Seriously, why was there no solution in Korea? Why defeat in VN? Why mired in Iraq today, yet weren't the first time?

I'm resting on no laurels and could not care less about USMA or my combat experience. I'm using sense in approaching this, you are relying on text books written by people who have yet to see limited war conducted well.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

I forget which general made the quote and I am paraphrasing, but war should be made so brutal and terrible that men should never want to engage in it again.
 
#42
#42
therealUT said:
There was no solution in Korea because Truman did not want to push the fight into Manchuria. When the NKPA decided to come to the table, the UN forces decided to simply hold the line, in order not to upset the balance. That "balance" was not upset for 2 years...while our forces died in a "stalemate." Seriously, read into it.
Click to expand...
I've done a lot of reading into it. In fact, took a class from a General who had been a PL in Korea and Bn CO in Viet Nam. Strangely enough, the class was called The US in Korea and Viet Nam and spent a glorious year in Seoul getting to understand up close.

We went there knowing full well that we did not want to provoke China while simultaneously believing that the Chinese would not sit idly by with us actively fighting for a foothold on their doorstep. Were we not doomed to an ugly stalemate from day 1? Had we defined our goals from day one in the context of something acceptable to the regional power, we could have avoided much of the fight and would have known beforehand that we didn't have the stomach to really solidify and act upon the gains at Inchon. Our lack of a plan or any unity of senior most command, was evident in MacArthur's ouster and was unnecessary. He deserved what he got, but prior thought toward consequences and our own reactions could have precluded the entire debacle.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top