I consider myself a very amateur military historian and theoretician. I’ve picked up a few pieces of wisdom and lore here and there, and like to believe I’ve learned how to apply them on occasion.
One of the lessons I’ve learned is that “no plan ever survives first contact with the enemy.” There is no such thing as a perfect plan; the key to success is to come up with a good plan, one that has has a pretty good chance of succeeding, but leaving enough flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances.
The Bush administration’s plan for defeating Iraq was a good plan. It was designed to defeat Iraq’s military in a minimal time and with minimal Allied and civilian casualties. And even before it was started, it had problems.
That plan called for a pincer movement, with forces moving in from the north and south. But at the last minute Turkey said no, and on the day of the invasion roughly half our forces were on board ships sailing around Africa to get to the fighting.
It didn’t matter much. We compensated, we adjusted, we adapted, and Saddam Hussein’s government still fell.
Then came the occupation and rebuilding phase.
What many people overlook about this is that we are attempting something unique and unprecedented in world history. We are attempting to build a functional democracy in a nation and culture that has no history in such things. Moreover, we are attempting to do it after defeating that nation in war.
More amazingly, we are doing it not after utterly destroying the nation (as we did with Germany and Japan), but after a careful decapitation of the pre-existing tyranny. We did minimal damage to the infrastructure, the political systems, the social systems, all the mechanisms that were accustomed to propping up the dictatorship for decades. This is not only unprecedented, but until recently was virtually undreamed of.
Tremendous progress has been seen, as well as tremendous setbacks. Overall, I’d say things are going all right — but not great.
Critics of this observation would say that I am blinding myself to the staunch resistance to our plans. Not at all; it is that staunch resistance that has kept things from going better, and leave the final resolution in doubt.
Many of the critics of the Bush administration’s handling of the war decry the lack of a solid plan for victory. They want timetables, they want measurable, quantifiable progress, they want commitments.
That, in my consideration, is precisely the wrong thing.
Plans are transient things. They are fluid. They cannot become fixed in stone, or they will fail.
What are needed are clearly defined goals, accompanied by flexible plans towards achieving them. And the failure of a plan is not the failure towards the goal.
To use a sports metaphor, every team has the same goal: to win the game. The ways of achieving that goal is simple: to score points while preventing the opposing team from scoring. But a team that goes out with a rigid plan is begging to be defeated.
And that is another key point: there is another team out there. More accurately, several other teams, all looking to keep us from reaching our goal.
Should we then go out with our plans carefully spelled out? Should we tell them each step we intend to take towards our victory? Should we help them figure out just how we shall measure progress, and in doing so tell them how they can shape our perceptions of how the struggle goes?
There are many paths to our goal, and each path has its milestones. Our enemies’ resources are limited. If we outline the specific path we will take, which milestones we shall use to measure our progress, then they can focus their efforts on denying us those milestones.
Should we say we will leave by the end of, say, 2007? Then they know they only have to hang on until we leave, then they can claim victory. Should we say we will draw down our numbers on a certain schedule? Then they know they can focus on the Iraqi forces who will take up our duties, weakening them and diminishing their ability to stand on their own. Should we say that once a certain number of American soldiers are killed, we will withdraw? Then they simply have to ratchet up their attacks and watch CNN to measure their progress.
The temptation to demand solid plans, concrete commitments, and definite timelines is understandable. War is a hideous thing, and no one in their right mind wants it to continue an instant longer than necessary. But to insist on such things is to invite defeat.
That would be the point, Heralder. It appears that we have more than twenty-five hundred of our fellow citizens who have given their lives in a conflict that was initiated without “…actual hard facts…” using “…overblown numbers and handed down opinions…” Why did that happen? Why did the current equivalent of the Reganomics “trickle down effect” get the green light over internally creating works for revitalizing the economy? Are we in a revenge mode following 9-11 or a nation of sheep? Are we such violence minded folks that we can simply be lead by the hand into an undeclared war without muss, fuss, or bother?
Peter F. – It’s you that looks stupid. The definition you posted proves it. It says nothing about the insurgent being from another country.
You said this — “by definition, an “insurgent” comes from another country” but the definition you posted doesn’t back that up at all, no sir, not even a single tiny bit. Can you not read? Are you just another cut and paste conservative moron?
How can you post a reply that proves you’re wrong, then waltz around as if you’re right? It’s a uniquely conservative trait, this “look at me I’m stupid” approach you guys take to commenting.
waddayaknow:
It starts out good, then…
So just minding our own business would have solved the problem is that it?
Revenge would have been swift and terrible. I single bloody strike. This is not revenge, it’s reform. You chalk this war up to money, recouping financial losses from 9-11? In the richest country in the world we can’t find any other way to make money then to spend billions on two invasions? That makes sense.
Our society might be capitalistic, but that doesn’t mean everything we do is for money.
“The United States needs to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within the next six months, Sen. Chuck Hagel said Thursday, rather than ratcheting up its military commitment now.”
“Asked what the United States could do, Hagel said: “Ask the president. Ask Secretary (of Defense Donald) Rumsfeld. They’re the ones who got us into this.””
Let the SwiftMurtha of Hagel begin.
Its kinda interesting to see who doesn’t have anything better to do than Troll on Friday nights. Me, I am finally starting back to work on Monday and scraping the bottom of the money jar to take my wife out on the town.
Its been fun.
BTW, good post JT, and it brings out the worst in the fog brained too.
Hugh:
Loonies, loose from the loony bin.
Ah, alliteration: the last refuge of the illiterate.
Will you be writing your next useless screed in iambic pentameter?
When your toilet leaks I suppose that’s a liberal/left/commie plot/responibility also. Sheeeesh you wingnuts are truly nutss. About 30 years ago you’d all be lucked up in a state mental hoispital.
And…ah, hell with it…it’s too easy.
With you on board, mak44 won’t be missed at all…welcome to your new post as Wizbang!’s punching bag. Lee can show you the ropes…the one he hangs himself with everytime he posts off-topic.
Lefty:
You said this — “by definition, an “insurgent” comes from another country” but the definition you posted doesn’t back that up at all, no sir, not even a single tiny bit. Can you not read? Are you just another cut and paste conservative moron?
Yeah, sorry, Peter, Lefty is correct…”insurge” comes from the latin meaning “to rise up”, you are misreading the prefix “in-“.
However, they are not exactly “created” either. They, by definition, spring forth/rise up from a present condition, more as a reaction than as a purpose.
Lefty:
You said this — “by definition, an “insurgent” comes from another country” but the definition you posted doesn’t back that up at all, no sir, not even a single tiny bit. Can you not read? Are you just another cut and paste conservative moron?
Yeah, sorry, Peter, Lefty is correct…”insurge” comes from the latin meaning “to rise up”, you are misreading the prefix “in-“.
However, they are not exactly “created” either. They, by definition, spring forth/rise up from a present condition, more as a reaction than as a purpose.
However, your term “moron” isn’t exactly helpful, nor accurate, from an etymological standpoint.
In other words, while you are correct, you don’t bolster your standings by painting such broad strokes. (That goes for some of your right-aisle people as well.)
Lefty:
You said this — “by definition, an “insurgent” comes from another country” but the definition you posted doesn’t back that up at all, no sir, not even a single tiny bit. Can you not read? Are you just another cut and paste conservative moron?
Yeah, sorry, Peter, Lefty is correct…”insurge” comes from the latin meaning “to rise up”, you are misreading the prefix “in-“.
However, they are not exactly “created” either. They, by definition, spring forth/rise up from a present condition, more as a reaction than as a purpose.
However, your term “moron” isn’t exactly helpful, nor accurate, from an etymological standpoint.
In other words, while you are correct, you don’t bolster your standings by painting such broad strokes. (That goes for some of your right-aisle people as well.)
So, the new left led by MoveOn.org wants us to pull out at any cost and allow civil war until the most ruthless terrorist organization wins control of Iraq, home to one of the largest oil reserves on the planet, so that they can fund their global terror efforts from here to Timbuktu. Is that the Democrat’s plan? To put a halt to the Bush crony profiteering before they all get too rich? I dare any anti-war advocate here to offer up an original foward-thinking solution to the present situation that includes a way to stop the expansion of radical islamic terrorism.
Gosh. Do I hear crickets chirping?
I forgot to add another example of ridgeness of adhering to a plan. The Japanese had a detailed timetable at the battle of Midway and things were going to schedule until Operation K went by the wayside. Then it was an unmitigated disaster. What really knocked the pins out from under the Japanese, is when the scout plane from the Tone was launched a 1/2 behind the others. On the other hand, the Americans were under no illusion of that they could even beat he Japanese. As I said in my above post, if it was not for the flexibility of the American command, we still could have lost in spite of ourselves.
chirp chirp
I particularly like (NOT!) the occasional person who explains all the reasons why it’s quite all right to abandon the Iraqi people to horrific violence, like the moron up there who explained that the Iraqis have failed *us*.
GWB is alternately accused of being in bed with the Saudis and being a complete ignorant noob about Islam. Didn’t know there were different factions in Iraq? If he did ever actually say “I thought they were Muslim!” at a briefing it’s got to be yet another example of a liberal’s humor detector being broken. (As if *that* ever happens.)
If people could bring themselves to support efforts in Iraq in whatever way they felt able to contribute rather than undermine hopes for a good result we’d get there faster. A whole bunch of people are refusing to contribute to a good result because they don’t believe a good result is possible. Thing is… they’ve *always* thought that, most of them.
So what if they got on board, were supportive and pushed for ways to help even, or particularly, non-military ways? What if all that brain power and innovative power was brought to bear on the problem? What if the US showed a united front in favor of Iraq?
And what if it didn’t work?
Well, dang. Is it so terrible to *TRY* and fail that you’all have to work for the failure?
You know… I do that with dieting. Liberals are acting like neurotic middle aged women who’d like to lose weight but would rather stay fat and keep on believing that if they put their mind to it they’d be thin. Better fat on purpose than try only to fail.
The *worst* thing is that we fail *anyway*. Same result. The best thing is that we acheive a good result sooner.
In the end I think Iraq will work out a stable democracy. Even without help from the nay sayers. It’s their choice I guess, if they’d rather just stay fat and never have to say they failed.
James and Lefty:
I’ve never encountered two people who would argue with the consumate American dictionary, but apparently I have.
James, I have no idea where you’ve come across the word “insurge” at m-w.com because it does not appear under that search.
As for the “insurgent” definition not including the words “from another country”, fine, technically, you got me. Those words are not there. Hence, why I pointed out the word “belligerent” which is a key word in the definition of “insurgent”. Both of you of somehow ignore the very important definition of “a rebel not recognized as a belligerent”; a belligerent being someone recognized within or being a part of the present/occupying government or state.
Finally, the colloquial usage of the word “insurgent” in today’s present climate and media, is meant to define an outside influence or force. So you can try and wiggle your way around the actual definition, but the colloquial one will come back and bit you in the proverbial ass.
James, thank you for attempting to make a reasoned, rational and calm retort. However, you’ll need to show me the actual Latin definition of “insurgent”. (I”ve tried several sources and cannot find anything to back up your definition. So if you can provide one, that’d be great.)
As for Lefty, you’re still wrong. You know zip about language and the colloquial (popular conversation) usage of words. Cut and paste that, nitwit.
That’s funny, Peter. I labored under the exact opposite delusion — that “insurgent” had a native, rebellious connotation. Then I went and looked it up, too, and saw it had no connotation of domestic versus foreign. It’s “in” as in “inflammable” with “surgere,” “to rise up.” And “belligerent” doesn’t, either — it’s derived from the latin bellus, meaning “war.” “Bellicose” is related.
I was pretty pissed when I found that out. I had three-quarters of a posting written lambasting the media for calling the terrorists in Iraq “insurgents” when a good chunk of them are NOT Iraqi, and then the damned dictionary went and ruined it for me because they were technically correct. That one went straight into the trash.
J.
chirp, chirp …. chirp ….
James, I have no idea where you’ve come across the word “insurge” at m-w.com because it does not appear under that search.
Try “dictionary.com” for the etymology:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/insurgent
[Latin present participle of insurgere, to rise up : in-, intensive pref.; see in-2 + surgere, to rise; see surge.]
There is no word in english called “insurge”, however “surge” does exist.
By the way:
However, your term “moron” isn’t exactly helpful, nor accurate, from an etymological standpoint.
In other words, while you are correct, you don’t bolster your standings by painting such broad strokes. (That goes for some of your right-aisle people as well.)
Was meant for Lefty, not you Peter.
then the damned dictionary went and ruined it for me because they were technically correct.
I think we can still argue, Jay, that “insurgent”, like “militant”, “freedom fighter” are all euphemisms being used to avoid the word “terrorist”.
Stan25:
The japanese military was guilty of excrutiatingly detailed battle plans throughout the war. Time and again they would plan exceedingly complex thrust, couter-thrust, feint and decoy, all according to unbelievably comlex timetables. And each time, some simple problem or delay would ruin the effect of their plan and disaster would result.
25 years of active duty military service taught me one very important thing: The “KISS” Principle – Keep It Simple Stupid.
How does that play in this instance, as in Iraq? You want to put a detailed withdrawal timetable in place – be my guest. And lay in a huge quantity of white-out for all of the changes you are then going to have to make once you put the plan into effect. And watch while one thing after another throws the plan into disarray and you gotta go back to the drawing board. Anybody who has had any experience with the drafting and implementation of war-plans knows this.
J and James:
I’ve been served a healthy dose of humble pie, and I will gladly swallow my pride and say I was wrong. I think I was probably operating off the popular connotation or the colloquial use of the word. In the end, I was wrong. Thanks for the head’s up, gents.