On May 1, 2:29 pm, Bret <
[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 1, 2:22 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:9da6b02a-ad1a-4d65-aa91-37121a01f570@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> > On May 1, 8:50 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > If the potential commanders on the ground had been listened to(if we
> > > > are going in, go big), this mess would have been over with 5 years ago.
>
> > > And your expertise in strategic and/or operational war-planning is
> > > based on what experience?
>
> > He was an officer. What about you?
>
> Scott was an army officer. Peter was a pilot.
Dumbass -
The worst decisions in our natiion's conduct of this war weren't made
at a tactical level and they were not necessarily anything that a
lower to mid-level officer would be trained to recognize.
The big mistakes were the grand strategic/political decisions. The de-
Baathification of Iraq and the removal of the power structure that
kept the various factions in Iraq in check. The decision to abandon
containment.
Making the correct strategic decisions in this particular case
involves possessing a knowledge of the culture of the region, the
history of war in general, and a bit of side knowledge on general
sociology and governance. Being a lower to mid level officer doesn't
require any of that knowledge although it should be noted that it
should be a prerequisite for the highest generals and the Joint Chiefs
were against the war because they possessed the knowledge and knew
what was going to happen. Unfortunately, Bush was Bush, Cheney was
Cheney, Rumsfeld was Rumsfeld and the military did what good soldiers
do: they followed orders.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.