Last night I watched the last two episodes of Band of Brothers. There is a scene (the series is very true to the facts) where a German colonel is surrendering to an American major. The colonel is clearly a junker, his father and grandfather were almost certainly also officers. And the German officers, army, and general staff were the best trained and most professional in the world at the start of the war.
He comments to the major "what happens to us soldiers now that the war is over". He was speaking to the fact that with no war, there was no role for the professional soldier anymore - for him or the American major.
The thing is, the American major 3 years earlier had zero military training and had never even thought that he might be in the army. In 3 years he, and millions of others, had gone from no training to the most powerful army on the face of the earth. And this was not just more material although that certainly helped - face to face in equal numbers the American army beat the German army on the offensive.
This was due to so many things from Marshall, McNair, and the other who trained them; to the soldiers who lead the troops from Eisenhower, to Bradley, Patton, et al, to the US economy that produced immense amounts of armament. And more than anything else, it was due to the citizen soldiers who under the training became the most effective fighting force on the planet.
How did this happen? Well there was a lot to it but lets look at some major reasons. And in each of these cases, in Iraq we appear to be doing the exact oppisate:
- When the Pearl Harbor attack occured Admiral Stark (CNO) was immediately retired. Admiral Kimmel and General Short were bounced out. Throughout the military deadwood was retired and promising officers were promoted. After 9/11 the number of people retired: 0. Even worse, there appears to be no rapid promotion of those who can win this fight.
- Soldiers were in the fight for the duration in WWII. Over time this meant the army became more and more experienced because the experience of individuals stayed there in the fight. In Iraq we are rotating troops out after 9 - 18 months. With an all volunteer force and a longer war we probably can't make this for the duration. But many times it seems the rotation is to give all troops, and especially officers, an equal time gaining combat experience. The goal should be winning, not equality of combat experience.
- Eisenhower understood how critical the civilian areas were. He considered DeGaulle and the French his single biggest pain (more than Montgomery). But he put in the effort because he also realized that if he didn't have their help and had to administer North Africa and France himself, it would require twice as many divisions. The same in Italy. Yet in Iraq the U.S. leadership, military and civilian, seem to view the post battle part as not their core job. Tommy Franks left as soon as it was over, there was no post battle plan in place, and all positions in Iraq were reduced a level in rank not only bringing in officers with less authority, but also replacing all the top ranks in country. Yet this is the most important job of the army today.
- General Shinseki testified that the army would need 250,000 troops on the ground to win the peace. He was retired early. Instead we have the leaders who hustled him out the door. I have yet to hear a single person in a leadership position, military or civilian discuss honestly the fact that more troops would make a significant difference.
- In WWII the U.S. military adapted brilliantly (not perfectly but brilliantly). The invention of amphibious landings was the most spectacular but the improvisations ran the gamut solving problem after problem. In Iraq the military seems to be focused on trying to implement the same approach, but do it better rather than coming up with a superior solution.
There's more but it would just be flogging a dead horse. The bottom line is that the troops are only as good as their leaders (see France, start of WWII). And our leaders have failed. They have failed the Iraqis, they have failed this country, and they have failed their troops.
A lot of this failure is hidden by the competence and power of our military to fight a conventional war. For that there is no equal on earth. But that is not what we are fighting. And until the leadership is replaced with competent leadership, both civilian and military, we will continue to fail in Iraq - with severe consequences for the world. (Anyone think Iran would be going for nukes if we had been successful in Iraq?)
Trackbacks: DailyKos, The Indepundit, Iraqi Bloggers Central, The Command T.O.C., Colorado Pols, Mudville Gazette
