A Look Back

The debate is hot on a timeline to withdraw our troops from Iraq. On one hand, setting a definitive date for withdrawal would play into the hands of the enemy. The insurgents could sit back, stockpile weapons and recruit the next generation of so called freedom fighters and suicide bombers. On the other hand, no solid exit strategy leaves us up to our necks in a pool of military and political quicksand.

The one certain problem with history is that if we don’t learn from it, it will definitely repeat itself. The rhetoric of today is similar to that of the past. One side is touted as acting like Communists or Nazis, while the other side is likened to namby pambbies sleeping with the enemy. Apologies are demanded and the shuffle to mince the proper words is on. The enemy has sustained “significant losses” replaces the “body count” of a previous war. Minimal casualties has a definition of its own which actually is indefinable. “Mission accomplished” (Iraq), “We’ll be out of there in six months” (Bosnia) . In Vietnam, one administration kept us there because of a promise to defend and not be defeated. That was 1965. Another administration alleged we would leave when the So. Vietnamese were trained and enemy activity lessened. That was in 1969 and not only did we leave prior to accomplishing what we had promised, but we departed only after suffering thousand upon thousands of casualties.

Yes, the military might of the United States is second to none when it comes to conventional battlefield warfare. But when faced with a resilient enemy forging a guerilla attack, unsympathetic to its victims whether they be young or old, women or children, we are faced with a problem of enormous proportion. Iraq has had its elections and a formation of government. Security forces have been recruited. Yet, day after day, the insurgent forces prevail in their scheme of death and destruction. Prior to the genesis of this war, I voiced my opinion on the issue. Our military is ill equipped and ill trained to fight in an urban environment. Not because they are second rate, but because our finest are hogtied by the suits sitting in their little Washington cubicles.

One General had the gonads to voice his opinion , somewhat contrary to the stance of the Administration, while testifying before Congress. Perhaps the General should seek other employment. Might this be another case of a military man, knowledgeable of his profession, second guessing his civilian superior? One somewhat cloaked in scandal as to his business aspects of the war?