Army Officer Accuses Generals of 'Intellectual and Moral Failures'

[RickSp]

In the thread "Reid: Someone Tell Bush the War in Iraq is Lost" the question was raised as to whether Reid's truth-telling was damaging to our troops in the field. Now an active duty officer is suggesting as much and more.

Army Officer Accuses Generals of 'Intellectual and Moral Failures'

An active-duty Army officer is publishing a blistering attack on U.S. generals, saying they have botched the war in Iraq and misled Congress about the situation there. "America's generals have repeated the mistakes of Vietnam in Iraq," charges Lt. Col. Paul Yingling, an Iraq veteran who is deputy commander of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment. "The intellectual and moral failures . . . constitute a crisis in American generals." Yingling's comments are especially striking because his unit's performance in securing the northwestern Iraqi city of Tall Afar was cited by President Bush in a March 2006 speech and provided the model for the new security plan underway in Baghdad. He also holds a high profile for a lieutenant colonel: He attended the Army's elite School for Advanced Military Studies and has written for one of the Army's top professional journals, Military Review. Until now, charges of incompetent leadership have not been made as publicly by an Army officer as Yingling does in his article. "After going into Iraq with too few troops and no coherent plan for postwar stabilization, America's general officer corps did not accurately portray the intensity of the insurgency to the American public," he writes. "For reasons that are not yet clear, America's general officer corps underestimated the strength of the enemy, overestimated the capabilities of Iraq's government and security forces and failed to provide Congress with an accurate assessment of security conditions in Iraq." Yingling said he decided to write the article after attending Purple Heart and deployment ceremonies for Army soldiers. "I find it hard to look them in the eye," he said in an interview. "Our generals are not worthy of their soldiers." He said he had made his superiors aware of the article but had not sought permission to publish it. He intends to stay in the Army, he said, noting that he is scheduled in two months to take command of a battalion at Fort Hood, Tex. The article has been read by about 30 of his peers, Yingling added. "At the level of lieutenant colonel and below, it received almost universal approval," he said. He also recommends that Congress review the performance of senior generals as they retire and exercise its power to retire them at a lower rank if it deems their performance inferior. The threat of such high-profile demotions would restore accountability among top officers, he contends. "As matters stand now, a private who loses a rifle suffers far greater consequences than a general who loses a war," he states.

His article in Armed Forces Journal - A failure in generalship

For the second time in a generation, the United States faces the prospect of defeat at the hands of an insurgency. In April 1975, the U.S. fled the Republic of Vietnam, abandoning our allies to their fate at the hands of North Vietnamese communists. In 2007, Iraq's grave and deteriorating condition offers diminishing hope for an American victory and portends risk of an even wider and more destructive regional war. The most fundamental military miscalculation in Iraq has been the failure to commit sufficient forces to provide security to Iraq's population. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) estimated in its 1998 war plan that 380,000 troops would be necessary for an invasion of Iraq. Using operations in Bosnia and Kosovo as a model for predicting troop requirements, one Army study estimated a need for 470,000 troops. Alone among America's generals, Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki publicly stated that "several hundred thousand soldiers" would be necessary to stabilize post-Saddam Iraq. Prior to the war, President Bush promised to give field commanders everything necessary for victory. Privately, many senior general officers both active and retired expressed serious misgivings about the insufficiency of forces for Iraq. These leaders would later express their concerns in tell-all books such as "Fiasco" and "Cobra II." However, when the U.S. went to war in Iraq with less than half the strength required to win, these leaders did not make their objections public. After going into Iraq with too few troops and no coherent plan for postwar stabilization, America's general officer corps did not accurately portray the intensity of the insurgency to the American public. The Iraq Study Group concluded that "there is significant underreporting of the violence in Iraq." The ISG noted that "on one day in July 2006 there were 93 attacks or significant acts of violence reported. Yet a careful review of the reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence. Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals." Population security is the most important measure of effectiveness in counterinsurgency. For more than three years, America's generals continued to insist that the U.S. was making progress in Iraq. However, for Iraqi civilians, each year from 2003 onward was more deadly than the one preceding it. For reasons that are not yet clear, America's general officer corps underestimated the strength of the enemy, overestimated the capabilities of Iraq's government and security forces and failed to provide Congress with an accurate assessment of security conditions in Iraq. Moreover, America's generals have not explained clearly the larger strategic risks of committing so large a portion of the nation's deployable land power to a single theater of operations.

[Jack]

I have to think the War College and the military academies share the blame. They didn't learn from the example of jungle warfare and kept training officers to lead units in conventional warfare as though we were still fighting WWII.

I'm glad to see someone have enough courage of their convictions to speak up and start the debate going. The military, and its civilian leadership, has lost their way. They have no strategy, no realistic goal and are fighting an enemy they've never been trained to deal with. The real sadness of the situation is how many young people are losing their lives over failed policies and the inability of the military to adapt to the 21st century.

[RickSp]

I agree. There is a lot of blame to go around.

Part of the problem was clear before the war. Those generals who stood up to speak honestly were shown the door. Obviously in a republic the military should take orders from the civilian government. This doesn't mean however that the senior staff should have devolved into yes-men and lackeys. This was disastrous before the war and equally bad during the occupation when the generals kept reporting "steady progress" as conditions on the ground were slipping into chaos.

The other issue of preparing to fight the last war is an old problem dating back to at least Agincourt.

Of course, the greatest problem is that we had no business starting this horrific war in the first place.

[Slevin57]

There is a lot of blame to go around, but I don't think a Lt. Colonel is a good judge of the overall state of the war. He certainly can speak for his unit, but I don't think he speaks for the entire Army.

If that's actually his real name, he is in a heap of trouble. The Military does not take these reports lightly.

I do not think the military has lost it's way. This war is no longer being conducted by military strategy alone.

The one thing civilian leaders don't want to their hands is casualties.

Military leaders wanted a huge force to go into Iraq, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld wanted a very very small mobile force.

If the military had their way we would be storming Iraq with troops to secure the country at the cost of casualty and liberty.

Supposedly it's our civilian leadership that's supposed to bring some of the political control to the military to ensure that its all not turned into a bloodbath.

[Jack]

This war is no longer being conducted by military strategy alone.

I fail to perceive any realistic strategy among any group who supposedly is prosecuting this war.

The one thing civilian leaders don't want to their hands is casualties.

Then they have a lot to answer for, perhaps in front of a war-crimes tribunal.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Interesting. A day doesn`t go by that more sheeet like this from the war doesn`t get me to lose more faith in the U.S.


-------------------------------------------------
Side note observation: Why haven`t all the relativists here at Volconvo come on this thread yet and take issue with the title of the thread and story, obfuscating what is "moral" and the whole point of the news. After all if we don`t know what moral is or have a common agreement on it, they should suggest we dismiss the whole report.

[Osborn F Enready]

I think this man is daring the President and his loyal staff to say or imply he is "un-American", "non-patriotic" or "aiding the enemy".

Maybe then it would clearly show the sheeple what is wrong, and who is really supporting the troops. (no one in Washington, and few in the consumer, since they sit and watch it happen on the news from their lounge chair as opposed to outside the white house in protest)

[Slevin57]

Would you like the military to posts it's strategic plans on their website?

How about a nice real time map where all the troops currently are.

The Military has answered questions about their over all plans over and over again. You can't blame the military for you not hearing them. You can blame the mass media that only covers 5 minutes of the press conferences.

Let me draw a little analogy here.

I work for the cruise services on the weekends here. The lines are usually very very long. We were literally in a tent last year on the docks.

Carnival is infamous for telling everyone to show up at the same time, and they do. 3000 people.

As I direct the crowds I take complaints and questions. The number one complaint is about the length of the lines.

So fast forward a year, brand new terminal. Air Conditioned, plenty of room and very short lines compared to last year. And what is the number one complaint, long lines.

So no matter what they tell you about this war, you are going to keep saying the same things.

The fact of the matter is that no result short of the one you want will satisfy you.

The problem is not disinformation, or lack of information, it's lack of your desired result. Whether that be an impeached president, a glass bottom middle east, or a democratic controlled war.

[RickSp]

You do go on Slevin. The military has no need to post its strategies on a web site. They display their strategies in the field for all to see. So it has been throughout history.

The strategies used in the occupation of Iraq have been obvious and dismal failures by any standards. Lt. Col. Yingling has shown the courage and integrity to discuss these strategic failures where others have stood by silent as the tragedy has progressed.

[Jack]

Personally I don't care what it takes to develop a coherent and do-able plan to get us out of Iraq and let the citizens of that country control their own future, and put an end to news stories like this:

A car bomb exploded Saturday in the Shiite holy city of Karbala as the streets were packed with people heading for evening prayers, killing at least 58 and wounding scores near some of the country's most sacred shrines. Separately, the U.S. military announced the deaths of nine American troops, including three killed Saturday in a single roadside bombing outside Baghdad.

U.S. announces 9 GI deaths; blast rocks Karbala - USATODAY.com

The current strategy is working? This is American strategy at its best? We are not just failing our troops, we're failing the citizens of Iraq.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Isherwood I have to think the War College and the military academies share the blame. They didn't learn from the example of jungle warfare and kept training officers to lead units in conventional warfare as though we were still fighting WWII. I'm glad to see someone have enough courage of their convictions to speak up and start the debate going. The military, and its civilian leadership, has lost their way. They have no strategy, no realistic goal and are fighting an enemy they've never been trained to deal with. The real sadness of the situation is how many young people are losing their lives over failed policies and the inability of the military to adapt to the 21st century.

Do you really think the Generals are running this war?


I thought that one of their major contentions was that this administration was made up off all civilians with no military record, and that Rumsnamara was clueless.

[Jack]

Do you really think the Generals are running this war?

No, the military executes the orders of the civilian administration. But they are trained to execute those orders, and obviously we aren't training our military leaders in how to wage a desert campaign.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Isherwood No, the military executes the orders of the civilian administration. But they are trained to execute those orders, and obviously we aren't training our military leaders in how to wage a desert campaign.

Our military knows quite well how to run a desert campaign. They train often for it.

What our military leaders don`t know much about is how to make their military work in a way that does not alienate a populace when they are battling an insurgent group that blends in with the populace. I don`t even know if that kind of war is winnable. Lots of catch 22 situations there that leads to foot soldiers being indecisive at times when a split second decision is important. And a lot of those decisions that are gun battles are often watched by those in the neighborhood -- not like in desert warfare where only the combatants are exposed to the gruesome realities.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Isherwood No, the military executes the orders of the civilian administration. But they are trained to execute those orders, and obviously we aren't training our military leaders in how to wage a desert campaign.

The Iraq occupation isn't in the desert. It is primarily urban. Our military is trained to fight wars, not manage occupations, or suppress local insurgencies. It's entire focus on bringing maximum force to bear is appropriate in battles against an opposing army but a disaster in urban guerrilla war fighting.

By invading with too few troops to stabilize the country the military left huge arms depots unguarded for months, providing the then nascent insurgency with all the arms and ammunition they would need. At the same time the civilian administration under Emir Bremer decided to disband the Iraqi army and police forces, setting literally an army of trained fighters free to fight against the occupiers.

Yingling's article focuses strictly on the military, but the entire occupation, military and civilian, has been an unmitigated disaster demonstrating mind-boggling incompetence from top to bottom