Book Review: State of Denial, "You Can Retire"

True forya!

Sorry you are having such problems with the anecdotes and misplaced quotes of a has been auther.

And for God's sake, why haven't we seen more resignations from the generals? This will befuddle me until my dying day.

Because it's fiction?

So you two think Rumsfeld had done a good job in Iraq? Yes or no?

It's not a yes or no answer. I think it should have gone better but I don't know who had the right combination of strategies. Plenty of generals had different plans, how do we know they would have worked better?

Great circumlocutions John, you'll make a great politician.

John Elder ,
I think the first input they got, from the former chief of staff, that told them they needed a bunch more boots on the ground would have worked better, but they forced him to retire, and went in on the cheap. How do we know it would of worked better, because it did, before. His plan was the Powell Doctrine, go in with overwhelming force, etc. Nothing good seems to happen when politicians run our wars.

John sorry I can't argue with anything in Woodward's book. It's all suspect. I also don't pretend to know enough about military and national securitie to discuss the military aspects of your article.

OOPS that was to Sean Not John.

John, have you read Cobra II? Is there any particular animus you have against the general who wrote that book? Is he suspect? Because he says the exact same thing Woodward says. So does Thomas Ricks in Fiasco as do many others authors who have written about Iraq, other than Tommy Franks and Jerry Bremer, who can hardly be considered objective sources what serious author has come out and said Iraq was a success from the start?

No serious person would say Iraq was a success from the start. The plan had to be redrawn before the invasion, when Turkey wouldn't let us invade through their border. Some of the obstacles were of our own making, but more of them are from outside influences (Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, the UN, France, Russia, etc...) than are widely acknowledged. I haven't read any excerpts from Woodward's book that speak to this.

Sean:

Have you noticed the righties who are criticizing you aren't pointing to "non-has been authors" who have written so eloquently about how we have done "mission accomplished" by bringing civil war and hundreds of thousands of deaths to Iraq?

Could it be because, well, gee willikers, THERE AREN'T ANY?

- John, have you read Cobra II?

No, but I read American Soldier by General Tommy Franks.

- Is there any particular animus you have against the general who wrote that book? Is he suspect?

Don't know anything about him except he retired in 1985 and is now an armchair General for NBC.

Sean-Paul, have you read American Soldier? Is there any particular animus you have against the general who wrote that book? Is he suspect?

- other than Tommy Franks and Jerry Bremer, who can hardly be considered objective sources

Why, because General Franks was actually there?

General Franks was asked to come up with a plan, as well as lots of other Generals. His plan was shock and awe with limited troops on the ground. His reasoning was we didn't want to look like occupiers. His part worked, we went in, crushed there military in weeks. The next part was where the major screw up occurred, firing the Iraqi military.
I'm sure it was a touch decision, maybe even emotional rather then logical. Meaning how can they be trusted, where is there loyalty, to the people or to the next dictator? My opinion is if we kept the soldiers we wouldn't have needed more US troops. Since we did get rid of them we should have increased troops to fill the void. But I'm not qualified and don't have enough info for my opinion to mean anything.

John, yes, I have read Gen. Franks book.

You might want to broaden your horizons, instead of just reading people who you agree with.

For starters, try the Iraqi Perspectives Report, put out by the Army War College and thus an official armed forces document. It's the study the military conducted after the war based on Iraqi documents and former regime generals to find out what they did right and what they did wrong in the invasion. It's a great work of intellectual integrity, trying to discern lessons learned, instead of making excuses all the time like Franks and Bremer and others.

- You might want to broaden your horizons, instead of just reading people who you agree with.

I have the MSM for that thank you.

- For starters, try the Iraqi Perspectives Report, put out by the Army War College and thus an official armed forces document.

I will read it, I did browse through it and I'm not sure you're talking about the right document.
This one claims the war was won before it even started.

Is this a sign that General Franks needs excuses?

Page 126
"The air attacks were the most effective message. The soldiers who did see the leaflets and then saw the air attacks knew the leaflets were true. They believed the message after that, if they were still alive. Overall they had a terrible effect on us. I started the war with 13,000 soldiers. By the time we had orders to pull back to Baghdad, I had less than 2,000; by the time we were in position inside Baghdad we had less than 1,000. Every day the desertions increased. We had no engagements with American forces. When my division pulled back across the Diyala Bridge, of the more than 500 armored vehicles assigned to me before the war, I was able to get fifty or so across the bridge. Most were destroyed or abandoned on the east side of the Diyala River."

We'll call this the "Elder Standard:"

he's selling a book. Wilson sold a book and for years the left thought it was all true. Finally they know it's all lies. Clarke was selling a book and he constantly contradicts what he wrote. Now Woodward. Seems a lot of people are disputing what he claims they said or the context it was used in.

Franks is just selling a book, based on your previous logic. So there's no reason to trust him. None at all. There are lots of contradictory claims by many people very qualified to make those claims. So, I guess everything ol' Tommy writes is just so much bunkum.

Bummer. I was really enjoying his self-serving bit about Phase IV not being his responsibility. It's obviously no one's responsibility and has never been. But that's the point. It's the Personal Responsibility Administration, I forgot.

- We'll call this the "Elder Standard:"

Are we bringing this down a notch?

- Franks is just selling a book, based on your previous logic. So there's no reason to trust him. None at all.

Yes and no. He is selling a book so be skeptical. He's explaining his firsthand experience, Woodward and Trainor weren't there so how far removed were they?

- There are lots of contradictory claims by many people very qualified to make those claims.

I haven't heard any of them. Are they claiming General Franks is lying? What proof do they offer?

- Bummer. I was really enjoying his self-serving bit about Phase IV not being his responsibility.

I don't remember reading that and never heard him say it.

- It's obviously no one's responsibility and has never been. But that's the point. It's the Personal Responsibility Administration, I forgot.

I'm not sure where you read that and how reliable the source was.
I found some interesting articles about Phase IV planning.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/milreview/benson.pdf
My experience in planning Operation Iraqi Freedom
began in July 2002. while assigned to third
U.S. Army/Combined Forces Land Component
Command (CFLCC) as the C/J5, I was privileged to
direct development of the range of plans for the Land
Command from before operations began in march
2003 until I left CFLCC in July 2003. Aylwin-Foster
is wrong in claiming that we did not plan for Phase
IV. the challenge was translating the plans into
action while dealing with guidance and assumptions
from higher echelons of command, the deployment
process, and evolving policy. As a result, our plans
never quite evolved to link ground operations to
logical lines of operation that would lead to setting
solid military conditions for policy objectives.

http://www.dod.mil/policy/sections/policy_offices/isa/nesa/postwar_iraq.html
Additional organizations were created to continue in-depth planning, interagency coordination, and implementation. For example, the Joint Staff directed CENTCOM to create Joint Task Force 4 (JTF-4) in order to conduct detailed interagency planning for Phase IV stabilization operations.

The most significant outcome was a CENTCOM produced 300-page Phase IV Operations Order. It was focused on seven lines of operation: unity of effort, security, rule of law, civil administration, governance, humanitarian assistance, and resettlement.

Then there's this:
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/parameters/05winter/schnaube.htm
It explains the disconnect between all the organizations involved, civilian and military, and complications in implementing the plans.

The point is it isn't black and white, you can't just lay the blame on one or two people.

That's the whole point:

it isn't black and white, you can't just lay the blame on one or two people.

When you have more than one person responsible for something there is no accountability. When there is no accountability there is no responsibility and when there is no responsibility things don't get done. No one has been held accountable for the failure to get Phase IV operations right within the first six months. No one. By your standard that means there is no one to blame.

Excellent review and good question about the generals (not to mention Colin Powell who, according to a forthcoming book about him, Soldier, did not resign but was fired).

We will all be long dead, I'm afraid, SP, before this world and the generals in it resign or retire.

Well said, Kathryn, well said.