Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
April 24, 2006
The “Syndromes”

Groucho pointed to two papers by Anthony H. Cordesman. The first one was published December 31, 2002 and is titled:
Planning for a Self-Inflicted Wound: US Policy to Reshape a Post-Saddam Iraq (PDF).

The hardest part of war is often the peace, and this is particularly likely to be the case if the US goes to war with Iraq. It is not that the US is not planning for such contingencies; it is the quality of such planning that is at issue. Unless it sharply improves, it may well become a self-inflicted wound based on a series of “syndromes” that grow out of ignorance, indifference to Iraq’s real needs, and ethnocentricity.

The twenty some detailed "syndromes" include the:
* "We Know What We’re Doing Syndrome"
* "US as Liberator Syndrome" or "Best Case War Syndrome"
* "Democracy Solves Everything Syndrome"
* "Let’s All Ignore the State’s Present Role in the Economy Syndrome"
* …

He closes:

If we rely on miracles and good intentions, or act as occupiers rather than partners, we are almost certain to be far more unhappy on the tenth anniversary of the next war as we were on the tenth anniversary of the Gulf War.

Cordesman did look at the war planing and did forsee nearly all the mistakes that would happen during the War on Iraq. He missed a few though, like the contracter debacle and the pleight of the 35,000 foreign slaves they are using, so maybe even he was too optimistic.

In the second paper published on April 17, 2006, American Strategic, Tactical, and
Other Mistakes in Iraq: A Litany of Errors
(PDF) he details some of the errors that have been made and sums up:

The US cannot go back and change its behavior in Iraq, and in many cases it cannot now compensate for past errors. Its best hope is to pursue the strategy it is already pursuing in spite of risks that at best offer an even chance of limited success.

There are two lessons to learn from this he says:

National security challenges cannot be "spun" into victory. They must be honestly addressed, hard decisions must be taken, and the necessary resources must be provided.

and

If the US is ever to repeat an experience like Iraq, or successfully fight what it
now calls the "long war" against terrorism and extremism, it needs ruthless self honesty
and objectivity.

He now has the record to prove he has been right in his warnings before the War on Iraq. Are there enough people in power in the U.S. administration that do learn his lesson and will act to prevent the War on Iran that is about to start?

As fauxreal pointed out, there is some movement in this direction, but the bamboozlement is getting stronger.

The "syndromes" may "win" again.

Comments

As a child, I remember feeling distress when I would watch the Three Stooges wreak havoc on someone’s home or business. The show always ended with them escaping any serious repercussions, and I was left thinking “who’s going to clean up the mess?”

Posted by: catlady | Apr 24 2006 22:40 utc | 1

Funny how the bit by bit propaganda is inserted in the press.
WaPo: Shiite Militias Move Into Oil-Rich Kirkuk, Even as Kurds Dig In
The article is about what the title says but at the end this bullshit paragraph slips in:

U.S. officers here say a further cause for concern is that the arrival of the militias, who U.S. officials say receive training, arms and funding from Iran, has coincided with an influx of Iranian sniper rifles and roadside-bomb technology in the region. The latter includes highly lethal Iranian-designed “shape charges” that channel the blast to punch through armored vehicles.

1. Sniper rifles: Austrian Sniper Rifles for Iran

January 12, 2006: Iran just got itself, and Austrian rifle maker Steyr-Mannlicher, in trouble when the Austrians sold 800 HS50 12.7mm (.50 caliber) sniper rifles to Iran. The Austrians believe that the Iranians want the rifles for use against Afghan and Pakistani drug smugglers. The United States sees the weapons as eventually being used against U.S. troops.

Iran makes a lot of its own small arms, but does not have the technical expertise to produce high tech things like .50 caliber sniper rifles, electronic sights for rifles, and other military electronics…

2. Shaped charges

The “shaped charge” was introduced to warfare as an anti-tank device in World War II after its re-discovery in the late 1930s. In 1935, Henry Mohaupt, a chemical engineer [and a machine gunner in the Swiss Army] established a laboratory in Zurich to develop an effective anti-tank weapon that could be used by infantry soldiers. Henry Mohaupt was the inventor of the lined shaped charge. Other accounts mention earlier work by R.W. Wood of the John Hopkins University Physics Department as the discoverer of the metal liner principle. After the war started, Mohaupt came to the United States, and in October 1940 he took over direction of the bazooka project.

Iranian design, definitly. Anybody with access to a lathe can make these things.

Posted by: b | Apr 25 2006 6:19 utc | 2

b, I read the same things tonight — but you beat me to the punch — and got a little kick out of your Pat Lang encounter, seems you got him in the solar plexis — you know, how he resorts to the force protection thing over all other considerations, least of all the moral question, as outlined so well by your link to John Boyd. Failure to see this essential point inevitably sets into motion an entropy that erodes the military into self defeatism enternally, and eventually externally as well.

Posted by: anna missed | Apr 25 2006 7:35 utc | 3

And did you catch this one on the infiltration of the Sadr trend into Kirkuk? Curious development considering the Kurds can help team Shiite right now in forming the government, so why push the militia issue? Unless it is to put into stark contrast that the Kurds also are dependent on their militias, and cant see them disbanded either. Perhaps a bargining chip is being created.

Posted by: anna missed | Apr 25 2006 8:00 utc | 4