"The War Within": Woodward on the Surge

[Spekkio]

"Mission Accomplished," is a (the?) favorite of those against this war. Would they have been any kinder to a president who did not potray so "rosy" (their words, not mine) a picture when things started to get ugly over there? I don't know. People are pre-disposed to their chosen notions, fickle, and self-centered... I think.

That is why I said "ironically." Bush was attempting to portray the image of a strong, optimistic leader who would lead us to victory among a country who was greeting us with open arms as liberators, but his insistence on doing so when the situation was getting worse gave people a much less favorable impression.

As for public opinion, I think it is very important to have the public on your side in any war waged by a democracy with an all-volunteer military.

 

[Sinatra]

The Book

I'm about half way through the book.

The chapter on Colin Powell's visit to the Iraq Study Group (ch 4) and the chapter about Army Retired General Keane's visit with the SECDEF (ch 13) were by far the best so far. The way the latter was written made it seem as if General Keane organized the surge himself though.

When the author talks about Rumsfeld, it is never about anything good. It almost makes you think that he was solely responsible for anything that ever went wrong with Iraq. Of course he played a part in everything but I feel the author is hanging him out to dry, and lifting up the State Department too much. If you didn't know anything at all about Rumsfeld before reading this you'd probably hate the guy and think he didn't work with anybody in the government; instead he was on his own "agenda".

Colonel McMaster is brought up quite a bit; even before the "council of colonels" is established. From the quotes on him, and the author's own comments, I think I'll be buying his book some time in the near future. Anybody read it yet? It is Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, The Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Lead to Vietnam

Some of the book seems to lean left, but then again some leans right as well. Thus far I'd recommend it to anybody in a leadership position. Even if it leans one way or another, lessons in this book are excellent for discussions on the importance of communication trust.

 

[wink]

I wasn't thinking about it so much with regards to the public, but more internally: challenges of carrying out policy that isn't necessarily working.

I can see how you meant that. But when the president speaks about a war he is talking as commander in chief as much, or more so, then the president. While it is necessary to have public support in a democracy with a volunteer military during time of war, it is more necessary, in the short term, to lead your troops. That means being motivator in chief. Eternal optimist. I am not too sure how you can be totally straight with the public and still keep troops motivated for their mission. Because it is bad in Baghdad and warrants concern does that mean the Marine up north should be worried about it? He needs to know his CinC is confident in his abilities to prevail and appreciative of all he has accomplished. One of my biggest criticisms of the conduct of the war was not getting a bigger buy in from the public in the very beginning. If the president talked more public sacrifice we would not have had a nation at the mall and it's troops at war. It was when the public came home one Saturday afternoon from the mall and noticed that a real honest to goodness shooting war was killing people they lost their stomach. It was on that Saturday afternoon the public outcry should have been "quit fucking up","victory now", "lets win this thing", "do what you have to do, we will support it". But no. Instead, the mall weary public took off their shoes, sat down with a cold one and whimpered, "lets just get out." I think the president, and other political leaders including leading Democrats, could have prevented that.

 

[SkywardET]

When the author talks about Rumsfeld, it is never about anything good. It almost makes you think that he was solely responsible for anything that ever went wrong with Iraq. Of course he played a part in everything but I feel the author is hanging him out to dry, and lifting up the State Department too much. If you didn't know anything at all about Rumsfeld before reading this you'd probably hate the guy and think he didn't work with anybody in the government; instead he was on his own "agenda".

Fairness aside, that's probably a good thing, actually. There are too many characters in history to know all the nuances of all of them, so a simplified bad guy persona for the former SECDEF will probably be what sticks for him in history anyways, just as President Nixon is seen as a horrible president with his silver linings rarely looked into.

 

[FlyinSpy]

Colonel McMaster is brought up quite a bit; even before the "council of colonels" is established. From the quotes on him, and the author's own comments, I think I'll be buying his book some time in the near future. Anybody read it yet? It is Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, The Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Lead to Vietnam

McMaster's book is a mandatory read - a bit dry, but then again it was his doctoral thesis while he was at UNC. The parallels between then and now are striking - it makes me wonder how many of the current Service Chiefs have actually read it. It's one of those books that many know about, some may own, but few have actually read.

I was glad to see he was nominated for a star this past summer; he had been apparently passed over twice. I met him back when he was a major and the book had just come out; he struck me as the kind of guy who would either go far and fast, or get frustrated and quit. (Very much like Dick Cody, for those of you who know the Army.)

 

[Zissou]

Exactly. There are things in that book where the names are not right and the full capability is not explained but clearly there was access given or someone talked that shouldn't have. It's making some people pretty upset on my glass cube on the Patuxent.

Prepare for worse, the whole cttl program is going to be featured in Popular Science in two months.

 

[busdriver]

I don't think Woodward gave much away, the bad guys know they're being stalked by "ghosts." But a popular science article with real access is too much.

 

[Zissou]

I don't think Woodward gave much away, the bad guys know they're being stalked by "ghosts." But a popular science article with real access is too much.

He's coy like that.

He mentioned it, causing every journalist in America to ask every contact they know what it is. And here we are.

 

[mmx1]

I don't think Woodward gave much away, the bad guys know they're being stalked by "ghosts." But a popular science article with real access is too much.

Don't worry, they'll get everything egregiously wrong and spend way too much time oogling gizmos.

At least, that's what I hope happens.

Edit: on a quick web search, I see the tinfoil-hatters are already up in a furor over it.

 

[nittany03]

Crap. I have no clue what you're talking about (deliberately not Googling it) and I'm still pissed.

Do not fear the enemy, for your enemy can only take your life. It is far better that you fear the media, for they will steal your honor. That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoemaking and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poorhouse.

 

[raptor10]

Prepare for worse, the whole cttl program is going to be featured in Popular Science in two months.

After reading an apparently unclassified ppt on CTTL, I have to say "Holy F@#$% Shit, Batman!" It reads like something out of Gattica, insane if true.

And yes why would he release this incredible capability to our adversaries...

 

[nittany03]

And yes why would he release this incredible capability to our adversaries...

Because it sells more magazines. Really. Some people's world is really that small.

 

[Uncle Fester]

About a quarter of the way through "The War Within," and so far it's pretty damn fascinating. Some of Woodward's salient points thus far:

- The President was determined to both back his generals' plays in public and private, and to not micro-manage the war from DC (shades of Vietnam). But by mid-'06, it was becoming clear that things were going from bad to worse in IZ, yet the JCS and GEN Casey insisted on "stay the course".
- GWB comes off as very far from the puppet-buffoon caricature the Left wants us to believe.
- Col McMaster's actions in Tall Afar really were the blueprint for the rest of the war. The successes there gave those who'd been pushing for a surge or something like it a success story to point to when the rest of the country was going to hell.
- Woodward lays the vast majority of the blame for the mishandling of Iraq on Rumsfeld, to whit: the deterioration of Iraq contradicted his visions for the fast-lean Army of tomorrow. Thus, said deterioration was not to be pointed out.
- The JCS and MNF-I seemed to be convinced that there really was no military solution to Iraq and slowly slipped into focusing on force protection rather than fighting. We all want to bring all our guys home, but that's not how you win a war, and definitely not how you do a counter-insurgency.
- "Metrics" are this war's "body counts". The Pentagon and MNF-I could fill thousands of ppt slides with flow charts, tables, numbers and color-coded graphs that tracked "successes," but nobody could really tell you if we were winning or not. (note: I don't know about the rest of the book, but I totally buy this part; the Navy at least doesn't believe anything is real unless you can assign a number/code to it, preferably with buzzwords and colors)

Fascinating read. Highly reccommended.

 

[eddie]

And yes why would he release this incredible capability to our adversaries...

To instill despair and hopeslessness???