Pages

Sunday, November 05, 2006

Fiasco

I think that Fiasco might be the last Iraq book that I read for a couple of months. It is too depressing to think that even with all of this information, current policy makers do not think to reconsider strategy. The next two days might prove me wrong, but I do not think that the American people believe that there should be accountability for the level of errors made. It seems likely that control of the House will shift by a small margin and control of the Senate might even remain in Republican control.

The political reasons given for the war were a sham. The real reason was to transform the Middle East. The CPA was not there to rebuild. It was to change the politics, economy and culture of Iraq.

Much of the book is not about politics however. It is about military strategy and tactics and what defines the two. Strategy is understanding what kind of war you are fighting. Then there is movement of large units. Finally there is tactics. The most contentious point from this prospective is that the military plan was bad. What seemed obvious at the time that a light and quick strike was best for all occasions proved wrong. Afghanistan taught the wrong lesson. It is more important to secure the country with boots on the ground. Astonishingly there were only 247 tanks in the initial invasion.

Like many military books it is full of management advice. Part of the issue was psychological. W's feelings about his father will be analyzed forever. Less prominent are Rumsfeld's feelings about Powell. He was determined to discredit the "Powell Doctrine" of overwhelming force. Other management critics are throughout the book. Rumsfeld erred by giving a management job to a thinker.

But the story of Iraq is a summary of how not to win an insurgency. The hallmarks of failure:
- primacy of military direction of counter insurgency
- priority to kill-capture the enemy
- battalion size operations the norm
- military units concentrated on large bases for protection
- Special forces focused on raiding
- adviser effort a low priority

No comments: