Do American politicians know how to fight wars in pursuit of national objectives?

This is a difficult article to write because I fear any criticism will be selectively used by my political opponents. My fear is of politicians and their employees who know how to complain, but not offer any solutions other than giving in to our enemies national and tribal objectives. I am from the school of thought that says complain all you want, but then offer up other courses of action for decision makers.

This article is also difficult to write because I can use hindsight, and who wouldn’t. I can also say hindsight for me is more an “I told you so” than “things turned out differently than I expected”.

This article is also difficult to write because it exposes a defect in our American culture and persona that I really don’t want my adversaries knowing about.

Last, this article is difficult to write about because we are in a shooting war, and the timing of criticisms is best postponed in most cases.

I hope this article does just the opposite and leads to achieving our national objectives.

I got the first hint of concern about our ability to prosecute a war when Congress and the President could not even declare war after 9/11. The alternative was a bill authorizing this and that, but it was not an old fashioned Declaration of War. The idea of wars being between states is historical, but we have also waged war against groups, as in the Barbary Pirates. Yet our leaders avoided the Declaration of War intimations by seeking the alternative legislation. The mistrust left over from the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was still there, even though New York City and the Pentagon and Pennsylvania were still smoldering. Hard to believe.

I got the first hint of hope in the prosecution of the Afghan campaign. It seemed the unity of effort between the Department of Defense, CIA, and the State Department implied one person was in charge, probably the President.

I got the second hint of concern right after the brilliant campaign to take Iraq in the three weeks it took to take Baghdad. It became obvious to me that while we had a plan to win the war, we did not have a plan to win the peace. I ate a lot of crow over this. Later even TV pundits were saying things like we have two months left in the window of opportunity to win the peace. Well the window closed, and look at the bag of worms we have today. I fault our President for not putting one person in charge for all to see, or stepping up and being that person who knocks heads to get unity of effort. Even today, I cannot find one person in charge of our Iraq effort below the President.

Along the way in Iraq, our Department of Defense started rebuilding the Iraqi military. What a monumental strategic mistake. Militaries are trained and equipped to defend borders. That’s where our time and money went in this area. What Iraq needed first was a trained and equipped constabulary to provide the normal police protections we expect. That got second shrift, and we are still paying for this mistake in winning the peace. If this seems confusing, just think about how our military is equipped and trained compared to our local police. In the case of Iraq, which force would you bring up first?

The third hint of concern I got was the apparent miasma and symbiosis of the media and the Democratic Party and left over anti-Vietnam types. Two things stuck out to me. One was the euphoria of the old 60’s in marching and protesting for all that is good in the world. The other thing was the use of old fashioned propaganda. Say one idea often enough, and it “must be true”, even if it isn’t. This was shameless work by those who thought differently about the war in Iraq. There are more responsible ways to proceed.

The fourth hint of concern was the inception of the “Green Zone”. If I were in charge, I would have done the same. After all, personal safety is a basic tenet of any government. Yet out of this good effort has come skewed perceptions and decisions and reporting that would come out of any protected bastion in any part of the world. Those who operate in a vacuum probably don’t know what is going on elsewhere. The best example today is the parachute type reporting of the horrible sectarian fighting in Baghdad. I suggest our reporters on TV most likely have no idea of anything else going on in Iraq. And if I were them, I probably would stay safely inside the Green Zone. Ditto for the State Department types.

If one gets out of the “Green Zone” in Baghdad, as in military people or engineers or NGO’s then much is happening to make an American and European proud. This is where the rubber meets the road. It has been a difficult process, and still is. We are good people, and without imperialistic ambitions.


The fifth, and last hint of concern is the blurring of the war against terror, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. To me it is as obvious as day and night. They are different, yes associated, but different. The Islamic fascist terrorists, yes I’ll say these words, are primarily Arabs, but the war is more cultural than locally tribal. I fear any Democratic Party opposition effort, if successful, may drag down another effort of our government to “fight terrorism”.

One of my heroes in life is Colin Powell. He has bridged the gap between national and party politics, the Department of Defense, and the State Department. His “Doctrine” is right on the mark to me. For those who may need a primer here is his doctrine:
The questions posed by the Powell Doctrine, which should be answered affirmatively before military action, are:
Is a vital national security interest threatened?
Do we have a clear attainable objective?
Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
Is the action supported by the American people?
Do we have genuine broad international support?

One thing his Doctrine lays out clearly is our American impatience. We are willing to get involved, and even fight, but we must get it over with and then get out. I agree. Most of our impatience is with do gooders, mostly with incompetence with these do gooders, be they Republicans or Democratics; civilian or military. This vulnerability is big enough for our enemies to drive a train through. All they have to do is drag things out while our do gooders stew.

During Vietnam, I thought all the ignorant, although well intentioned, appointed civilian leaders were Democrats. Now I know Republicans can suffer from the same, and have.

My father used to refer to educated fools. Now I think I understand him a little better.

I will digress to today and the problems in Iraq, most importantly Baghdad. As I read the news today, one option is a quick and short step up for more American troops in the capital city of Baghdad.

Back to the subject question: Do American politicians know how to fight wars in pursuit of national objectives?

Unless the elected leaders and their appointed civilian scribes dictate any “rules” change, no amount of extra military fighters will change things. Today’s rules proscribe a way of war that has failed. I am from the school that says “reinforce success” not “failure”.

Until our President and his minions change what they have been doing to date, then they have already ordained their losing to the dedicated opposition in Iraq, I think. And this will spill over to the entire war on terror if these same D.C. people have their way.

In the President’s defense, all of his predecessors in the Oval Office have passed the buck, starting with Carter in my calendar. Those in Congress are about as bad. At least this President is “not passing the buck”, be that good or bad. I just wish the decisions had been different.

It is my opinion that our politicians don’t know how to fight wars in pursuit of national objectives. They do know how to be American politicians that may reflect the public. More often they reflect themselves.

It is up to us voters to decide. Thank goodness.