Hard Power and Soft Power

[Spekkio]

The political objectives in Iraq were pretty clear. If we didn't pursue de Baathification to include disbanding Iraq's entire military and civil service, it's possible that we could've been able to withdraw before the 2008 election cycle.

Interestingly, even today no one in the former Bush administration will own that decision.

 

[Griz882]

The political objectives in Iraq were pretty clear. If we didn't pursue de Baathification to include disbanding Iraq's entire military and civil service, it's possible that we could've been able to withdraw before the 2008 election cycle.

Interestingly, even today no one in the former Bush administration will own that decision.

Since I was on the ground there, in Baghdad, during those days I’ll have to disagree.

1. We did not actually de-Bath the government, it did it to itself. I was one of the first to enter the big ziggurat building (their “capitol” building and the first thing we came across were piles of Ba’ath Party i.d. cards. Every worker ran away and only came back once the process was announced.

2. I covered the work of the mass graves/ war crimes team and it was critical to rid the country of Ba’athist leadership just as we did in Nazi Germany.

3. The actual effort was only focused on the top three tiers of Ba’athist leadership. Many Saddam era mid-level functionaries returned to work in their departments once cleared.

4. Iraqs rebuilding process is continuing well enough. ISIS has failed to gain an upper hand and coming elections look to be fair. The place is far from perfect, it in a geopolitically difficult place, but it is improving for now and the foreseeable future.

 

[Brett327]

So if you're a defense contractor who likes the steady stream of money coming in, your best option is to tie the military's hands behind their back so they can't finish the job quickly

That's awfully cynical... and while I'm not going to defend the bloat of the MIC, the services are the ones writing the requirements and testing to the KPPs for the weapons systems they're buying, so I'm going to have to push back a bit on this assertion. The military is more or less getting what they've asked for and agreed to buy.

 

[Ventus]

That's awfully cynical... and while I'm not going to defend the bloat of the MIC, the services are the ones writing the requirements and testing to the KPPs for the weapons systems they're buying, so I'm going to have to push back a bit on this assertion. The military is more or less getting what they've asked for and agreed to buy.

Yes but when you say that the military is getting what "they" asked for, my question is: Who is "they"?

The military has done an extremely poor job addressing the perception of politicization of flag level officers running acquisition programs in the swamp that is Washington D.C. only to accept positions at the very same defense contractors they helped secure a contract for. But it's not just the flag officers. The warhawks on acquisition committees in Congress share some of that blame as well. Go look at the publicly available campaign contributions of some of those lawmakers and see for yourself how much comes from defense contractors.

Kind of a sidebar but one of the reasons I'm extremely happy with the fact that we have a SECDEF who was military but wasn't a Flag-O.

-Edit-
To your point, the services are writing the requirements, but you could argue that some of these requirements come from self-created problems or problems that exist because they don't have the latitude needed to exercise a capability we might already have.

 

[WhiskeySierra6]

The military is more or less getting what they've asked for and agreed to buy.

Largely because of poorly written requirements that are not managed during the decade long (sometimes longer) acquisition process prior to IOC (or FOC or whatever anyone wants to use as their exit metric). This isn't just a major defense program issue either. It happens with programs/efforts of all sizes. I'm sure this board could probably come up with 3 or 4 for each category.

 

[Spekkio]

Since I was on the ground there, in Baghdad, during those days I’ll have to disagree.

1. We did not actually de-Bath the government, it did it to itself. I was one of the first to enter the big ziggurat building (their “capitol” building and the first thing we came across were piles of Ba’ath Party i.d. cards. Every worker ran away and only came back once the process was announced.

2. I covered the work of the mass graves/ war crimes team and it was critical to rid the country of Ba’athist leadership just as we did in Nazi Germany.

3. The actual effort was only focused on the top three tiers of Ba’athist leadership. Many Saddam era mid-level functionaries returned to work in their departments once cleared.

4. Iraqs rebuilding process is continuing well enough. ISIS has failed to gain an upper hand and coming elections look to be fair. The place is far from perfect, it in a geopolitically difficult place, but it is improving for now and the foreseeable future.

I appreciate the first-hand perspective.

I think the interesting thing is that what got recorded in history is that de Baathification was largely the brainchild of Mr. Bremer, and makes it sound like the people providing security and government services would have remained intact if not for the decisions he made. However, he says that the decision was made 'above his paygrade.' Rumsfeld also claims he didn't have the authority to make that decision, but Bush denies having made it... which leaves potentially Dick Cheney.

https://pfiffner.gmu.edu/files/pdfs/Articles/CPA%20Orders,%20Iraq%20PDF.pdf

I'm not challenging your experience, but as someone who was not in Baghdad at the time... the story being told is different.

As for the Baathists doing some heinous things... if the political objectives were to remove Saddam from power because he wasn't cooperating with UN WMD inspectors, installing a more liberal party into government was requirement creep. That's where the administration, particularly Donald Rumsfeld, should have listened to Gen Franks' force request.

 

[Spekkio]

The military is more or less getting what they've asked for and agreed to buy.

We have now had multiple CNOs who couldn't get their force-structuring vision through Congress. It's all fun and games until it requires turning off the taxpayer spigot to their constituents to pay for something else.

 

[sevenhelmet]

That's awfully cynical... and while I'm not going to defend the bloat of the MIC, the services are the ones writing the requirements and testing to the KPPs for the weapons systems they're buying, so I'm going to have to push back a bit on this assertion. The military is more or less getting what they've asked for and agreed to buy.

Thank you for this. I’m sick of the trope that defense contractors are all dirty money-grubbing frauds. While I am sure those exist, my current employer goes to great lengths to try to glean what the government might be interested in, so we can provide it in good faith. Government then invariably then changes their mind, and leaves us high and dry. When we do win a contract, we get jerked around with changes during execution and derided as a problem the whole way through. Uncle Sam absolutely sucks as a customer. Commercial and overseas direct sales are way easier. Unless you’re a big enough company to lobby in a significant way (and often even then), you’re in for a rough ride as a defense contractor.

The system is broken for us, too.

 

[Griz882]

I think the interesting thing is that what got recorded in history is that de Baathification was largely the brainchild of Mr. Bremer, although he says that the decision was made 'above his paygrade.' Rumsfeld also claims it was made above him, but Bush denies having made it... which leaves potentially Dick Cheney.

https://pfiffner.gmu.edu/files/pdfs/Articles/CPA%20Orders,%20Iraq%20PDF.pdf

I'm not challenging your experience, but as someone who was not in Baghdad at the time... unfortunately, your story isn't the one that is being told.

I know Pfiffner and he was never a fan of Bush, or the war for that matter. Taken as a whole, that’s fine and he isn’t a lazy scholar - he just never bothered to follow the events all the way through. His paper is dated (that happens) but he misses a few things primarily thinking there was “one” insurgency in Iraq when there were three or four different ones.

 

[Griz882]

Thank you for this. I’m sick of the trope that defense contractors are all dirty money-grubbing frauds

Well…since now of them offered me a high six-figure retirement gig…yeah they are all dirty money-grubbing frauds…or maybe I’m internalizing a bit. (Note…this is sarcasm…I’ve never applied for a MIC job).

 

[Spekkio]

I know Pfiffner and he was never a fan of Bush, or the war for that matter. Taken as a whole, that’s fine and he isn’t a lazy scholar - he just never bothered to follow the events all the way through. His paper is dated (that happens) but he misses a few things primarily thinking there was “one” insurgency in Iraq when there were three or four different ones.

I wonder how many people in my grandparents or parents generation said "yeah, that's not what actually happened in WWII / Vietnam."

Again, that's not to question your authority but to observe how history gets twisted, even by actors who attempt to remain objective.

 

[Griz882]

I wonder how many people in my grandparents or parents generation said "yeah, that's not what actually happened in WWII / Vietnam."

Again, that's not to question your authority but to observe how history gets twisted, even by actors who attempt to remain objective.

Well, consider Me Lai and the changes that came from that and how it is interpreted in history. For WWIi one need only read of the Ebola Gay “episode” where historical thinking shifted dramatically - only to shift back again. I still know several historians who say that Truman was fundamentally wrong to drop the bomb. Think also of the “soft underbelly of Europe,” was the Italian campaign (horrible and hard fought) worth it? There are those who say “no.” Of course the easiest to digest for Americans is the “Lost Cause” of the Confederacy - a blatant attempt to strip the stain of slavery and its place in the war from the record.

All history is subjective and all history will change. I was trained in the Annales School that seeks to watch history across long term structures over and above the short-term studies (like the one you cite) that are the domain of chroniclers and journalists who often only touch on surface issues. Today, it wouldn’t be hard for a good historian to write a book on the Vietnam War and accurately make it out as a U.S. success since the Vietnam of today is pretty close to where we hoped it would be back in the late ‘60’s.

 

[Spekkio]

Well, consider Me Lai and the changes that came from that and how it is interpreted in history. For WWIi one need only read of the Ebola Gay “episode” where historical thinking shifted dramatically - only to shift back again. I still know several historians who say that Truman was fundamentally wrong to drop the bomb. Think also of the “soft underbelly of Europe,” was the Italian campaign (horrible and hard fought) worth it? There are those who say “no.” Of course the easiest to digest for Americans is the “Lost Cause” of the Confederacy - a blatant attempt to strip the stain of slavery and its place in the war from the record.

All history is subjective and all history will change. I was trained in the Annales School that seeks to watch history across long term structures over and above the short-term studies (like the one you cite) that are the domain of chroniclers and journalists who often only touch on surface issues. Today, it wouldn’t be hard for a good historian to write a book on the Vietnam War and accurately make it out as a U.S. success since the Vietnam of today is pretty close to where we hoped it would be back in the late ‘60’s.

I'm a dirty STEM major, so this is where I take a knee.

 

[Griz882]

I'm a dirty STEM major, so this is where I take a knee.

Well, at least you can get a job.

 

[CommodoreMid]

Well, consider Me Lai and the changes that came from that and how it is interpreted in history. For WWIi one need only read of the Ebola Gay “episode” where historical thinking shifted dramatically - only to shift back again. I still know several historians who say that Truman was fundamentally wrong to drop the bomb. Think also of the “soft underbelly of Europe,” was the Italian campaign (horrible and hard fought) worth it? There are those who say “no.” Of course the easiest to digest for Americans is the “Lost Cause” of the Confederacy - a blatant attempt to strip the stain of slavery and its place in the war from the record.

All history is subjective and all history will change. I was trained in the Annales School that seeks to watch history across long term structures over and above the short-term studies (like the one you cite) that are the domain of chroniclers and journalists who often only touch on surface issues. Today, it wouldn’t be hard for a good historian to write a book on the Vietnam War and accurately make it out as a U.S. success since the Vietnam of today is pretty close to where we hoped it would be back in the late ‘60’s.

Historiography is unfortunately a much ignored discipline.