Tet 2006
No, I don’t think so, but my views may not reflect the “Waziristan cave assessment” of the US 2006 elections.
StrategyPage considers the issue:
One of the immediate things known in the wake of the American November elections is that the media strategy employed by al Qaeda has succeeded. Having failed to disrupt three elections in Iraq, al Qaeda and other terrorist groups fought to hang in there, and shifted their aim to American newsrooms.
It was a logical choice. In 1968, the Tet Offensive led many in the media to believe that the war in Vietnam was failing. The most famous pronouncement was Walter Cronkite’s declaration that the war was a stalemate. Lost in the media defeatism was the fact that American and South Vietnamese troops won the battle, and had delivered a crippling blow to the Viet Cong. Similarly, in 1993, American forces won a firefight with Somalian militias under warlord Mohammed Farrah Aidid – but CNN footage of American casualties being dragged through the street led to a perception of defeat.
Note StrategyPage emphasizes “media strategy.” Read the entire post.
Also, read Ralph Peters’ latest.
Excerpt:
THE Democratic dog just caught the Iraqi firetruck it’s been chas ing for almost four years. Now what?
Wetting the back tires won’t be enough. The victorious party’s hard-left wing is anxious for an American humiliation. But that’s not what the majority of Democrats want and it’s a scenario that Dems on Capitol Hill, eyes on 2008, know they need to avoid.
Most Dem leaders realize that, with just a few missteps, Iraq could become their debacle. Their problem is that they never formulated a serious plan for Iraq. All rhetoric and no specifics, they just ran against the administration’s bungling. And Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s long-overdue resignation yesterday robbed them of an obvious target. Now they have to deliver - or at least appear to be trying.
It’s going to be hard. The political aim of the Democrats will be to continue talking a good game while avoiding responsibility through ‘08.
A biting point by Peters:
In the bizarre political confusion of our times, with old party characterizations nearly meaningless, one crucial factor that shaped the Iraq effort went unnoticed: Neither party understands warfare, and neither party wants to.
Political correctness shaped the Bush administration’s approach to military operations as decisively as it did the Clinton administration’s pop-gun antics. The Bush bunch just did things on a larger scale - they wanted a war, but didn’t want to hurt anybody.
I think my assessment of the Bush Administration’s second and third tier defense appointments (on the latest Instapundit/PajamasMedia Glenn and Helen podcast) reinforce this point. The Bush Administration prepared to fight a Beltway war for Pentagon modernization, not a global, multi-dimensional war. Rumsfeld loaded up with sophisticated Beltway Clerks like Paul Wolfowitz, etc — excellent choices for fighting Congress. 9/11 blindsided these best laid plans. Rumsfeld needed to clean house of the clerks and bring in warfighters. (The podcast mentions this article, “Grunt Work.” Dated August 26, 2001.)
Peters concludes with this:
So what now?
Advice to the Dems: You’ve won. Congratulations. Now get your extremists under control and assess Iraq honestly. And don’t just mew about supporting our troops - do it.
Advice to the Bush administration: Don’t take desperate measures in Iraq without thinking them all the way through. Mr. President, sit down one-on-one with the two- stars who command or commanded in Iraq - the fighting generals - without any Defense Department apparatchiks manipulating what you hear. Listen to the unfiltered truth.
Advice to Sen. McCain: Ask the tough questions before either the administration or the Democrats on the Hill make a bad situation worse in Iraq. Our government needs adult supervision. You’re it.
Read the entire essay.
John McCain the adult?!? Give me a break. Ralph Peters lost all credibility with me some time ago and this assessment hasn’t changed my opinion at all. Peters himself hasn’t helped at all with his constant know-it-all, retired Military old-timer, constant campaigning for McCain opinions. I wish he would just shut up. There is plenty of room for criticism but his kind has been far more harmful than helpful.
Comment by Brownie — 11/9/2006 @ 10:41 am
Have to agree with Brownie’s comment above - McCain is hardly the person I’d want “refereeing” between the two parties, because he’s already demonstrated over and over again that he’s mainly about preening in front of the media more than anything else.
Comment by Taylor — 11/9/2006 @ 3:02 pm
I am unsure as to why people like Wolfowitz were not warfighters. Just who in the civilian side is a warfighter. I agree that Peters writing has has taken on the tone of the snarling leftist. McCain talks a good talk but in practice is not the same. He is to smart by far and eventually get caught out.
Comment by davod — 11/9/2006 @ 3:47 pm
In all of the discussion of what Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats will do about Iraq, there is a point that I haven’t seen anyone make. Joe Lieberman doesn’t want to abandon the war short of victory, and he has a lot of power. Because he can fire Nancy Pelosi and the entire Senate leadership at will, should he choose to do so, just by changing his mind and caucusing with the Republicans instead of the Democrats. He has said repeatedly that he doesn’t intend to do that, and it would no doubt cost him politically in Connecticut to do so, but if it really came down to a choice between fighting for victory or surrendering in Iraq, is Pelosi sure that he wouldn’t? Are you?
Comment by Dan — 11/9/2006 @ 6:21 pm
I sadly find myself agreeing with both side in this - McCain is it, and McCain is all about McCain. WIsh we had better choices.
Comment by andrewdb — 11/9/2006 @ 7:22 pm
andrewdb, the reason we don’t have better choices is because we don’t have term limits. Think about this - there is NO new blood on the Republican side of the Senate. So you can expect them to act EXACTLY like they have been acting - cowardly. Sucks, but that’s the truth.
Comment by antimedia — 11/9/2006 @ 8:54 pm
Here’s something troubling……. ….for you to chew on while you think about the Democrats being in charge of the prosecution of the war on terror.Another Al Qaeda Victory…
Trackback by Media Lies — 11/9/2006 @ 9:09 pm
Maybe instead of developing a new McCain Doctrine or Ralph Peters Doctrine on how to fight and win a war, we should revisit the Powell Doctrine. Use overwhelming force, minimize casualties on our side and get out as quickly as possible. We seem to have lost focus on that last one. Iraq has the resources (oil) to fund its own defense, (unlike say the south Vietnamese in 1975). While its history suggests more familiarity with offensive operations (war with Iran, invading Kuwait) maybe Iraq needs to start figuring out how its going to defend itself against hostile neighbors instead of spending so much time killing each other (and more than a few of our military).
Comment by Bennett — 11/9/2006 @ 11:42 pm
Benett: The Powell doctrine was all about non force. You put up a force requirement which is impossible to meet. Therefore you make it highly unlikely that any Admistration wil go to war. Hence, you maintain the fiction that tyhe US military is the best and most feared in the world because you keep them from having to fight a war. I would suggest that Powell was probably shocked that Bush1 continued with the war plan afetr he pronounced thed absurdley high figure required to attack Sadaam. You should also know that the “professional” soldiers, active and retired thought that goinbg inbto Afghanistan rtequired a huge number of troops. Based upon historical; perspective this seemed to be right. Their views would have killed any attempt to route the Taliban. The professionals forget that sometimes you have to fight regardless of the supposed oddsa against winning. I would suggest to you that after Pearl Harbour the US was in no position to effectively fight back against the Japanese or the Germans. Based upon today’s “professional” and diplomatic viewpoint we would not have retaliated, preferring instead to negotiate. The Brits should have sued for peace after Dunkirk. The Brits should never have gone to the Falklands after Argentina invaded, and yes they did invade, not take back what was theirs. I read the other day that we need a Statesman who push everyone to fight, yes fight, the war on terrorsimregardless of the effect on his fortunes. Bush took this pathe early on but he now foundering. Someone else needs to come to the forefront to continue the fight. This is a disjointed post which may have looked better had there been a preview option and a comment field which could be fully viewed while writing.
Comment by davod — 11/10/2006 @ 3:19 am
Could anyone imagine Patton, LeMay, Macarthur, or Eisenhower being even remotely concerned about Abu Ghraib? The last General to retire recently brought up Abu Ghraib as one of his criticisms of Rumsfeld. Peters supported this General. If the Abu Ghraib “atrocity†is too much to tolerate for our society, than all is lost. Peters supports aggressive action, but than criticizes any possible misconduct by our troops. You cannot have it both ways. Aggressive action will produce misconduct. War is messy and success is measured in small successes.
Comment by TomU — 11/10/2006 @ 6:54 am
I’ve read most of Mr. Peter’s fiction, including his superb civil-war novels written as Owen Parry (highly recomended). Mr. Peters has a much better understanding of the nature of war as well as the men who fight, than most. He is imaginative as well as articulate, and I believe he wants us to win against our terrorist enemies. Lately though, I’ve been a bit suprised by Mr. Peter’s opinions in the Post. And although I wouldn’t want to match my intellect against his, I must question the wisdom of sending more troops to Iraq. For what purpose? To engage whom? IMHO, Iran has always been a large part of the Iraq equation. I believe that one reason we didn’t send in loopy Powell’s recomended number of troops was that we didn’t want the Shia of Iraq to find comfort with the Shia of Iran against a “common”, (American), foe. Another ten or so combat divisions could easilly take Iraq, just as Rumsfeld’s reduced forces DID! But President Bush understood then that Iraq was a near-term threat, but Iran is a more dangerous, long-term threat. Iraq is a battle, but Iran is the war.
Comment by Craig Be. — 11/10/2006 @ 7:20 am
LeMay and Eisenhower might have worried a bit about Abu Ghraib. After all, look how they reacted to Patton’s slap of a shellshocked soldier.
Comment by C. Gray — 11/10/2006 @ 7:21 am
The statement on whether we should have sent in more troops begs the question. Were there more troops to send, after the cutbacks of the 1990’s, and could the facilities in Kuwait support more troops? I haven’t heard these questions answered yet (or I may have missed the answers). Also, remember that Fourth ID was to go in from the north, but Turkey blocked it. They had to thn ship around and come in from the south, late.
Comment by Mikey NTH — 11/10/2006 @ 8:10 am
Many military officers long ago figured out that Peters is full of it. The last straw for me was his fundamental misunderstanding of how to fight a counter-intersurgency.
Comment by cavsct94 — 11/10/2006 @ 8:11 am
One thing to remember about Ralph Peters: The only thing a writer really needs to know is how to get your stuff published. Knowing anything about your subject is secondary.
Comment by Tomb Z — 11/10/2006 @ 8:41 am
Peters has some good points, but sending more troops approach is frankly counterproductive is a couple of ways. First, you can build up a force to 300,000 or 400,000 over time, but you have nothing with which to follow on, even if we were to increase the Army by two divisions, which I think we ought to do anyway. That would even out or mitigate rotation problems, but the problem remains. The second problem is that committing so many troops would give the Iraqis NO incentive to shoulder their share of the load. They would be perfectly happy to let us do all the fighting. Peters does make a good point when he says that we have to be prepared for the prospect of the Iraqis themselves screwing this up. They may prefer, as he says, “to choose old hatreds rather than embrace new possibilites.” The idea of John McCain as the adult in charge is laughable. I regard him as an unprincipled opportunist whose only constituency is the MSM (also known as part of the enemy). On the other hand, Peters’ advice to the Dems is wise. The only trouble is that so far, what I have heard is NOT reassuring. When Nancy Pelosi described Iraq as “a situation to be solved, not a war to be won,” that is just another indication as to how deeply unserious a person she is. Also, the idea that she might appoint Alcee Hastings as Chair of the Intelligence Committee has even the NY al Times concerned. Egad.
Comment by Rich — 11/10/2006 @ 8:41 am
Au contraire . . . LeMay and Eisenhower never had to worry about people who think nothing of cutting off the heads of people who disagree with them. I want to see how Democrats deal with that reality. I want to see what they will do when they realize they cannot negotiate with those terrorists.
Comment by Lolajl — 11/10/2006 @ 8:57 am
[…] I’d like to commend Ralph Peters’s most recent column to your attention (hat tip: Austin Bay). In the column Peters gives a little unsolicited advice to the Democratic leaders who’ve taken control of the Congress after 12 years in the wilderness. […]
Pingback by The Glittering Eye » Blog Archive » You’ve caught the firetruck. Now what? — 11/10/2006 @ 9:15 am
It has been said that, if the dems are not careful, an Iraq debacle will be their debacle. The inglorious rout in Southeast Asia, including the Cambodian Killing Fields, was the dems’ debacle and I don’t see that it cost them anything. They must be pretty sure they can abandon the Iraqis to the slaughter and pay no political price at all.
Comment by Richard Aubrey — 11/10/2006 @ 9:38 am
Richard Aubrey- From 1976-2008 the Democrats will have held the presidency for only 12 out of 32 years, and if you remove Carter as an aberration due to Watergate, it’s 8 out of 32. The Democrats are still considered the “mushy on national security party” by people like myself, born after the US pulled out of Vietnam. They are credible in the eyes of the geenral public today only because the alternative seems less so, and as much as I want to argue against conventional wisdom on that point, it’s a thankless and now pointless exercise. The Dems today have an opportunity to exorcise the ghosts of Vietnam by helping see this through, or to renew their subscription to the can’t-be-trusted club.
Comment by The Snob — 11/10/2006 @ 9:58 am
antimedia And that Senate Zombie from West Virginia just got re-elected ? Who placed the “Secret Hold” on the Transparency for Earmarks bill ? Term limits would change alot, including old Patronage you owe me, politics.
Comment by Econ-Scott — 11/10/2006 @ 11:00 am
McCain an adult? Not in my book. I’d consider voting for Hillary in 2008 before I’d vote for the nutter, McCain.
Comment by Xixi — 11/10/2006 @ 11:19 am
The comments here are startling for a newcomer like me. I had perceived Bay (and Peters) as the left edge of the right wing, but the commenters here sound like actual conservatives. Repeating the theme of the day, it will be fascinating to see how a housewife (Pelosi) and her nancyboy gardeners (Durbin, Emanuel, Reid, Schumer) deal with terrorists who enjoy sawing off civilians’ heads. Criticizing Bush is too easy; doing better than Bush in this environment won’t be. ED NOTE: I’ll have to show this comment to my wife. Left edge of the right-wing, huh?
Comment by Jaibones — 11/10/2006 @ 11:55 am
Americans are like the crowd at the Circus, sitting and waiting to be entertained. While in front of them a bunch of people are chasing each other with foam bats, throwing foam bricks and buckets of confetti. Democarts, republicans, and Libertarians. Pretty much all of whom are “clowns” rest assured though the main event is due! But We ain’t gonna like it.
Comment by Barry 0351 — 11/10/2006 @ 12:43 pm
McCain isn’t the adult supervision. Lieberman is, as Dan pointed out. Funny, my biggest gripe against Lieberman is that he sold out most of his beliefs to get on the Dem’s presidential ticket. Fat lotta good it did him with his party, who dumped him, and now needs him back to keep the Senate. Bush should be meeting with Lieberman first, not Reid. Let Joe know that, although Bush expects he’ll support the Dems in the Senate, fate has made it Lieberman’s responsibility to make sure the Dems don’t cut and run and the the Executive Branch is willing to work with Lieberman to make that happen.
Comment by JMHawkins — 11/10/2006 @ 1:22 pm
Heh. And Peters believes the ‘unfiltered truth’ is… what? Anything that confirms his prejudices and nothing else? Anyone want to take a bet that if Peters heard about troops - especially regular, boots-in-the-mud Enlisted troops - thinking Rumsfeld should have stayed, he’d claim filtering and ‘apparachiks’ and ‘telling the boss what he wants to hear’? (Sucker bet, I know)
Comment by Dave — 11/10/2006 @ 3:09 pm
Adult Supervision: That’s going to be hard to find in a club of corrupt politicians. The troops may not re-inlist with Rumsfeld gone. With him back we would still have a volunteer military. Anyone one for talking Rumsfeld into running for prez in 2008? Plenty of time to re-access his strategy.
Comment by JimM — 11/10/2006 @ 5:21 pm
I wish I knew where the troops would come from that all these folks claiming we need more troops conjure up. Ten Active Duty Divisions. That is what we had at the start of the Iraq War. Ten. Nine Battalions in a Division. I think we had a couple stray Brigades here and there but not enough to change the basic equation. Ten Divisions in the whole entire US Army. So, Mr. Military Genius Peters, just where are all these troops going to come from? Is the Troop Fairy gonna flit down in her tutu sprinkling fairy dust and divisions all over everywhere? Feh.
Comment by Peter — 11/10/2006 @ 7:16 pm
Once again, I’ve linked to you, this time . http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2006/11/re-tet-2006-new-iraq-risks-what.html
Comment by Consul-At-Arms — 11/10/2006 @ 9:17 pm
When Nancy Pelosi described Iraq as “a situation to be solved, not a war to be won,†that is just another indication as to how deeply unserious a person she is On the contrary. She nailed it. The crucial problem in (Arab) Iraq is not that it contains some enemies of the U.S., but that it suffers from state failure. The U.S. might ‘defeat the insurgency’ again and again, but Arab Iraq would still be in chaos for lack of institutions and social trust.
Comment by David Tomlin — 11/10/2006 @ 9:20 pm
[…] —from the comments at Austin Bay’s blog […]
Pingback by laugh of the day at infotainment rules — 11/10/2006 @ 10:28 pm
[…] (via Austin Bay, who is always very sharp on the information war) […]
Pingback by Tet redux? at infotainment rules — 11/11/2006 @ 10:11 am
“The political aim of the Democrats will be to continue talking a good game while avoiding responsibility through ‘08.” Indeed, and this is where Webb’s defeat of Allen might be Pelosi’s worst nightmare. Had the Dem’s merely taken the House, Pelosi would have enjoyed a maximum of political cover from the fact that the Republicans still controlled the Senate. On impeachment, for example, Pelosi could have colorably claimed that impeachment proceedings in the House would be fruitless with a Republican Senate. Same with cutting off funding for the war. In exchange for a Democrat Senate majority in the person of a Senator who, in many ways, is to the right of Atilla the Hun, Pelosi and the Dems get control of both houses. With that control comes the perception, at least among the nutroots, that the Dems are free to have their way with the Bush administration. If the troops are not home by St. Patrick’s Day, all hell will break loose on the Kos front. If the troops are, in fact, home by St. Patrick’s Day, the Dems are done in ‘08. (There will be other, worse consequences if we pull out, but I’m writing only from Pelosi’s perspective.) So Bush might truly have Pelosi by the short hairs (which is a spectacularly uncomfortable thought) to the extent that executive/legislative stalemate is not further damaging to Bush given the election results, but could be catastrophic to Pelosi. If I were part of the Dem congressional leadership I’d be looking to horse trade nearly anything (Bolton, tax cuts, judicial appointments) for concessions on Iraq, and I’d be doing it fast. All of the above presupposes that Bush, in the spirit of bipartanship, won’t give the store away before the new Congress is even sworn in. It’s no time to go wobbly, you know.
Comment by Steve O'Brien — 11/11/2006 @ 10:44 pm
Mc Cain and the ‘Gang of 14′ badly damaged the work of the Senate. Only the Dims were helped by this sorry group of glory seekers. McCain seems to have psychological damage from his years in prision in the Hanoi Hilton. One serious mastake we made was to allow the Iraqi Prime Minister to remove US troops who were trying to control the al- Sadr group of terrorists in Baghdad. He saved al- Sadr three times and now he damages us again. Whose side is the Prime Minister on?
Comment by John K — 11/12/2006 @ 12:16 am
“On the contrary. She (Pelosi) nailed it.” On the contrary, she can’t even nail the fact that we are in a war. She has repeatedly given the impresson that the Global War on Terrosism (GWOT) is more of a law and order problem, and even that she undercuts with her caviling against the Partriot Act, the Terrorist surveillance progam, etc. This kind of attitude was understandable in the 1990s, but speaks of naivete today. Likewise her willingness to consider Alcee Hastings for Chair of the House Intelligence Committee speaks of a lack of seriousness. For all her faults, Jane Harman could at least be considered a responsible individual. Hatsings was impeached by a Democrat House (Pelosi voted for impeachment) and convicted and removed by a Democrat Senate. The kind of baggage he brings makes him eminently unsuitable for the position, the typical musings of Bob Graham notwithstanding. Were he not an elected official, Hastings would be inelligable for any kind of security clearance. The last part of the post strikes me as unintelligible. Defeating any insurgency requires action across the entire spectrum, from military measures to the development of civil institutions. That is what we are trying to do. If we cut and run now, as Pelosi and friends like, Iraq would be in far more chaos than now. If we want “Arab Iraq” to develop institutions and social trust, to a great degree much does depend on the Iraqis themselves. Our leaving, however, would mean that we would have absolutely no way in which to influence such a development in a positive direction.
Comment by Rich — 11/12/2006 @ 4:01 pm
Alsyee Hastings is likely to sell ALL of our itelligence secrets to Al Queda or the New York Times in the first six weeks of his chairmanship. Today on the “McLaughlin Group” Lawrence O’Donnell, a raging liberal, predicted that if Hastings is given that seat, the Democrats will be out of power by ‘08 after he had earlier on in discussing the results of the election stated that they had the potential to hold power for 20 years. If this is obvious to one so blinded as O’Donnell, there might be hope. But I doubt it.
Comment by AF Dad — 11/12/2006 @ 7:15 pm
AQ’s media strategy was aided by incompetent media Reps — where was Bush explaining that the war we won in 1973 Paris Peace Accords was lost by Dems winning in ‘74 and cutting funding in ‘75? Was Cronkite or other media ever asked about their support for the “out now” US strategy that allowed the Killing Fields? And the porking by Reps, hypocrisy by Reps, missed chances for real reform by the Reps — I held my nose an voted Rep (& some Lib) but now I’m glad the Dems won. They’re in power, they’re responsible. Or not. In the worst case, they cut and run and the majority Shia control and dominate the Sunnis, and ‘establish justice’ … death squad justice. Which those who miss Saddam sort of think is better than no justice. It’s this worst case possibility which has, I think, stopped the Iraqi gov’t from trying to disarm the Shia militia, so far. The Sunnis have, stupidly and against their own self interest, continued to bomb the Shia. How many terrorists have really been getting caught? It’s not clear to me that the numbers have been enough to reduce the excessive bombing. Shia group justice/ revenge agains the Sunnis is getting closer. But the new direction is likely to be hide the troops inside of training units, so it keeps being the Iraqis that do most of the work. And most of the dying.
Comment by Tom Grey - Liberty Dad — 11/13/2006 @ 3:14 pm
Hastings will be the Democrats’ designated concession to reason and honesty. They’ll put up his name, draw fire, take him down, and then push through the rest of their slate - who are just as extreme.
Comment by Rich Rostrom — 11/13/2006 @ 7:15 pm
Rich Rostrom said: “Hastings will be the Democrats’ designated concession to reason and honesty. They’ll put up his name, draw fire, take him down, and then push through the rest of their slate - who are just as extreme. ” Maybe just as extreme but not convicted, impeached felons. The idea of clowns such as Hastings, Murtha, Reid and Pelosi being in charge of a significant protion of our government makes me ill. Sadly, the MSM will fawn all over them and present them as saviors of the Republic to the idiots who voted them in in the first place.
Comment by AF Dad — 11/14/2006 @ 9:51 am