ISG - Military Perspective

The NY Times talked to some generals about the military component of the ISG pla, which means they went one step further than Messrs. Baker and Hamilton:

The group’s final military recommendations were not discussed with the retired officers who serve on the group’s Military Senior Adviser Panel before publication, several of those officers said.

The one-year timetable is not realistic:

“The new Iraqi Army will need years to become equal to the challenge posed by a persistent insurgency and terrorist threat,” Lt. Col. Carl D. Grunow, a former military adviser, wrote in a recent issue of Military Review, a journal published by the United States Army.

...The rapid withdrawal of American combat forces would also deprive the Iraqi military of the opportunity to work as partners with the Americans in combined operations. “There is no meaningful plan for creating a mix of effective Iraqi military forces, police forces, governance and criminal justice system at any point in the near future, much less by 2008,” noted Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, referring to the group’s study.

The method of implementation is tactically suspect:

Barry R. McCaffrey, a retired four-star general, said in an interview that the overall concept of withdrawing American forces as the Iraqis built up their military capability was sound. But he argued that the specific recommendations by the panel raised a second problem: if American combat brigades were withdrawn from Iraq, the thousands of American advisers who remained might find themselves dangerously exposed, particularly if the fighting in Iraq grew into a full-scale civil war. The advisers could be killed or taken hostage.

“They came up with a political thought but then got to tinkering with tactical ideas that in my view don’t make any sense,” General McCaffrey said. “This is a recipe for national humiliation.”

And the Times is not impressed:

The study contains all the ingredients of a Washington compromise. What is less apparent is a detailed and convincing military strategy that is likely to work in Iraq.

Comments

[Jim Hu]

The quotes from Jack Keane aren't too positive either.

[MayBee]

Wasn't the big complaint about Bush that he wasn't listening to the military leaders? That he was ignoring the guys on the ground and listening to political people instead?

[JorgXMcKie]

Good gosh! Wasn't the NYT in the forefront of claiming that the necessaary policy was easy if just Democrats were running things and listening to the generals? Like, just a little more than a month ago? What changed?

[maryrose]

We need a winning military strategy which I believe will be proposed very soon in light of a desire for all options on the table and a change in course.

[windansea]

saw this at Powerline:

T.F. Boggs is a 24-year-old sergeant in the Army Reserves, back home from his second deployment to Iraq. I yield the floor to Sergeant Boggs on the ISG report:

After watching the Iraq Survey Group press conference today I am a firm believer that all politicians are idiots. Okay well not all of them but they all have a problem understanding reality. If any politician is reading this now feel free to email me and we’ll go out for coffee and I’ll further explain. But I digress.

The Iraq Survey Group’s findings or rather, recommendations are a joke and could have only come from a group of old people who have been stuck in Washington for too long. The brainpower of the ISG has come up with a new direction for our country and that includes negotiating with countries whose people chant “Death to America” and whose leaders deny the Holocaust and call for Israel to be wiped from the face of the earth. Baker and Hamilton want us to get terrorists supporting countries involved in fighting terrorism! If I am the only one who finds something wrong with that then please let me know because right now I feel like I am the only person who feels this way.

Not only are the findings of the ISG a joke but the people who led the group (Baker and Hamilton) treat soldiers like they are a joke. One of the main recommendations of the ISG is to send more troops to Iraq in order to train Iraqis so they can secure their own country, but they don’t feel that we are doing a good job of that right now because training Iraqis isn’t an attractive job for soldiers to do because it isn’t a “career advancing” job. As someone who trained Iraqis from time to time I take personal offense to this remark. In my experience soldiers clamored for the chance to train Iraqis. Any soldier who doesn’t think training Iraqis is worth their time because it isn’t a “career advancing” job shouldn’t be part in the war on terror plain and simple.

***

I feel like all of my efforts (30 months of deployment time) and the efforts of all my brothers in arms are all for naught. I thought old people were supposed to be more patient than a 24 year old but
apparently I have more patience for our victory to unfold in Iraq than 99.9 percent of Americans. Iraq isn’t fast food--you can’t have what you want and have it now. To completely change a country for the first time in its entire history takes time, and when I say time I don’t mean 4 years.

Talking doesn’t solve anything with a crazed people, bullets do and we need to be given a chance to work our military magic. Like I told a reporter buddy of mine: War sucks but a world run by Islamofacists sucks more.

[ajacksonian]

Well, it seems the Diplomats have forgotten what it takes to actually create an Army, or indeed any military organization. And, outside of Israel, no one in the Middle East has attempted to create the type of Army that we have been asked to help to create. If you don't know the Middle East, you don't know how its military organizations reflect their societies and attitudes.

Getting a modern banking system, stock exchange, and central criminal court up and running were *easy* compared to creating a military organization... because the military needs depth, experience and this little thing known as 'tradition'. How long does it take to get a good, competent NCO Corps up and running? And if you don't know *why* that is important, then you do not know *why* it takes so long to get an Army up and running. For the US to *rebuild* one took long years after the military went Professional in the 70's. Why we expect more of Iraqis than we do of ourselves is beyond me...

[mariposa]

This is such a colossal mess. I miss Jeane Kirkpatrick already (Godspeed, good lady).

[usipi'lldrink]

Alot of people are missing that as Rumsfeld, Bolton and the director of military intelligence leave; the Iraq Study Group that was created by the Institute for Peace, that sent all those CIA operations officers overseas, has decided to cash in with a new building and Congress loves them for it as Iraq slowly is withdrawed under prior agreement with Bush, but, hey, he's having seconds thoughts now as they cash in, but that is only smart.