Thread: Decade of War: Military Leaders Highly Critical of Wars' Errors

Senior officials in the U.S. military were extremely critical of their performance in Iraq and Afghanistan in a little-publicized report issued this spring.
If the finalized report is ever released to the public, might be an interesting read.

These conclusions were in the first volume of a draft report, "Decade of War," part of a multi-volume survey of "enduring lessons" from the past 10 years of conflict.
The May report is an internal document not available to the public, but a copy was posted on the Web site of "Inside the Pentagon," a trade publication

The senior officials' assessment said there was a "failure to recognize, acknowledge and accurately define" the situation in which the conflicts occurred that led to a "mismatch between forces, capabilities, missions and goals," the Center for Public Integrity reported Monday on its Web site.

The Pentagon's Joint Staff, which assists the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, said war efforts were marked by a "failure to adequately plan and resource strategic and operational" shifts from one phase to the next.

When completed, "Decade of War" will be used by senior leaders to develop U.S. military forces for the future, Joint Staff spokeswoman Navy Lt. Cmdr. Cindy Fields said.

While not naming those responsible, the assessment said the early dismantling of Iraq's security forces and firing of mid-level government officials -- decisions made during the George W. Bush administration -- hurt Iraq's ability to self-govern and fanned insurgency.

The report's toughest criticism was directed toward mishandling and undermanning by military commanders and political officials of key "transition" moments such as the end of major combat operations in Iraq in 2003, the renewal of Iraqi self-governance in 2004-05 and NATO's 2006 takeover of military operations in Afghanistan.

"Failure to adequately plan and resource strategic and operational transitions endangered accomplishment of the overall mission" in the first half of the decade, the report said. "Non-combat skills, to include civil affairs, had not been adequately rehearsed."

In Afghanistan, "the planning assumed that the chief duty" of international troops after 2006 would be reconstruction and humanitarian aid, which turned out to be wrong.

The reason for the error was that military planning was based on "U.S. expectations instead of those consistent with the host nation and mission," the report said.

"For example," the report noted, "the planned end-state for Afghanistan was envisioned to be a strong central government despite no record of such a government in its history and lack of broad popular support for that system of governance."
.

No comments?

Thought the article and synopsis of the draft report might garner a few responses.
Well, can't say I didn't try...

In the last 10 years, the Pentagon failed to understand the operational environment, learned the hard way that conventional military methods were ineffective and initially ignored the need to influence perceptions in order to achieve objectives, states the sweeping assessment prepared at the request of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey.

http://insidedefense.com/20120607240...nu-id-926.html

Sounds like a political failure as well as a military failure. I know that some might want to let the military off the hook but they should bear some responsibility. Having said that they can only do what they're tasked to do by their government so the failure of government must also be factored in. Gut feeling tells me that government is probably more blameworthy than the military.

It might not get many comments because it isn't very controversial, even among supporters of the military.

You show me about a ten year war fought on foreign soil without any mistakes and I'll show you a work of fiction.

Originally Posted by Herkdriver

No comments?

Thought the article and synopsis of the draft report might garner a few responses.
Well, can't say I didn't try...

http://insidedefense.com/20120607240...nu-id-926.html

To Herkdriver: The topic is a good one. I gave up on it a long time ago when I realized that Woodrow Wilson’s evil Peace Without Victory dictates war policy. That issue is never alluded to by knowledgeable talking heads let alone discussed by average Americans.

Peace Without Victory has been the military strategy in every war since the end of WWII when America was attacked. The problem is that most high-ranking military officers agree with it.

If I had been older in 2001, I would have probably been a lone voice that said: "You don't combat terrorism with conventional warfare." But our leaders already knew that by watching the British deal with the IRA.

Originally Posted by Jango

If I had been older in 2001, I would have probably been a lone voice that said: "You don't combat terrorism with conventional warfare." But our leaders already knew that by watching the British deal with the IRA.

Far too simple and cliche. The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was anything but conventional and was extremely successful. Other than the initial highly successful invasion of Iraq, the WOT has been all unconventional/counter-insurgency warfare. Your IRA references are also a little silly since the U.S. had a much larger "lesson" in counter-insurgency during the Vietnam war. There really isn't that much parallel between the Police action in Ireland and the full scale counter-insurgencies in Iraq/Afghanistan. The British were no more successful (and in fact were arguably less successful) in Iraq than the U.S.

There's no question that there were some large fundamental flaws in the initial stages of the Iraq war. Winning a counter-insurgency really comes down to a solid integrated plan that takes action at the lowest levels of government (Police, infrastructure, governance etc.). U.S. political leaders and high ranking Generals didn't get this lesson until it was flashed in their face by low level Marine/Army commanders operating in Al Anbar in 2006. From 2007 to the end of the war they implemented a very successful strategy that led to them defeating the insurgency. The fatal flaw was that it took them several years to figure this out.

Afghanistan is a very different and difficult situation. The country's incredibly diverse and divisive population makes it extremely difficult to integrate the government across the country at all levels. The place has been a lawless tribal battleground for centuries, it will take more than the U.S. military to change that.

Oh jeez. It was a conventional invasion and raping of sovereignty, which had MOUT. They combated terrorism with a standing military by going door-to-door in two countries. They created their own problems by improperly combating terrorism in the first place, not to mention, the completely false War in Iraq. They bungled this from the get-go.

People need to start putting their biases aside and see the root truth for the way it really is.

Originally Posted by Jango

Oh jeez. It was a conventional invasion and raping of sovereignty, which had MOUT. They combated terrorism with a standing military by going door-to-door in two countries. They created their own problems by improperly combating terrorism in the first place, not to mention, the completely false War in Iraq. They bungled this from the get-go.

People need to start putting their biases aside and see the root truth for the way it really is.

The initial invasion had relatively little in the way of MOUT. It was a fast moving mechanized fight. In Afghanistan they used Special Forces (unconventional troops), air support, and the Northern Alliance to topple the Afghan government. I think you need to check up on your history, you seem to have absolutely no idea what happened. If you want to see what a conventional invasion of Afghanistan would look like, read up on the Soviet invasion in 79.

Not the initial invasion no, you're right. Even though I misspoke, the fact remains: MOUT did happen in this War - in both countries. Furthermore, the policy of combating 'terrorism' with 'military force' is stupid. You combat terrorism by going after the financier. You don't rape two countries because you have the strongest military. But I guess the US government would rather drag its knuckles and breathe through its mouth than to actually investigate who finances terrorism. It wouldn't be the first time they've ignored that pertinent question: who funds al Qaeda.