Breakfast with Bwana

_____________________________________________________________________________

BWEST OF BWANA

AN OCCASIONAL BREAKFAST WITH BWANA FEATURE

November 18, 2006

THE GENERAL IDEA

Last Wednesday General John P. Abizaid, the chief wearer of brightly colored ribbons and stars bedecking a drab olive uniform testified before the Senate and House Armed Services Committees. You know instantly from looking at his freshly starched shirt and his perfect collar, that this man has his tie in a knot. Pretty soon, he ended up with his knickers in a knot. You also know instantly, that this guy, a General, described in the press as “the top American military commander for the Middle East” is not a fighting type. After all, you don’t go off to combat in a Windsor knot – you generalize (Popes pontificate, Generals generalize) about whether you need or don’t need more or less troops and whether it will or will not make any difference and whether or not you should stay in or get out or stay in partially or get out partially … or all of the above.

When I sat down to try to make sense of all this – yes, I did laugh at myself for even suggesting to myself that I might or might not make sense of all this, or part of it, or all of the above – I came away with a feeling of bewilderment suffused by dread. Pretty soon, I had my bewilderment and dread in a knot.

The General started by saying that he did not believe we needed more troops in Iraq and also that to begin a significant withdrawal of troops over the next six months would lead to an increase in sectarian killings and hamper efforts to persuade the Iraqi government to make the difficult decisions to secure the country.

The first part is easy enough. It is reflective of Administration policy and, led by the gently leading questioning of Senator Joseph Independent Lieberman, (I {nee D} Conn.) he restated what we have heard over and over again. I would expect nothing less … and indeed, nothing more … from the General. After all, President Bush says that troop levels are based on what the commanders have requested, so General Windsor-knot might have to give up a star if he said he did not ask for more even though he felt he needed more.

The second part, however, gave me a jolt. Does this mean that the Iraqi government is not already making decisions about securing the country? Does this mean that the Iraqi government has to be persuaded to make those decisions? Does this mean that somehow, if we begin pulling our troops out over the next six months, the Iraqi government will stop making such decisions as it has or may make?

How did this guy get to be the top American military commander for the Middle East?

General Multiribbon-Windsorknot Abizaid then said that we don’t need fewer troops in Iraq. Okay, I got that, we have enough troops. Then he said: “We can put in 20,000 more Americans tomorrow and achieve a temporary effect. But when you look at the overall American force pool that’s available out there, the ability to sustain that commitment is simply not something that we have right now with the size of the Army and the Marine Corps.” So, we need 20,000 more troops?

But then, our armed forces are so depleted that we cannot even commit to putting 20,000 more troops and sustaining that commitment.

That scares me. What scares me even more is that he has now confirmed to the entire world that America does not have a reserve of even 20,000 additional troops. How did this guy get to be the top American military commander for the Middle East?

Under questioning by other Senators, General knickers-in-a-knot Abizaid came up with a few more gems. He said that while more American troops are not needed, more Iraqi troops are necessary to quell the sectarian violence. Huh? Does it not follow, as the night the day, that American troops who are training Iraqi forces are perforce better trained themselves and more capable? Okay, okay, I’ll allow that one could argue that Iraqi forces are less likely to be viewed as targets by the Iraqis. But is that really true? If the Iraqi forces are not truly reflective of Iraqi society, i.e., Shia, Sunni, Kurd, then will not they too be viewed as allied with one sect? Indeed that is one of the problems now.

Senator Jack Reed, D-R.I., asked how much time the U.S. and Iraqi government have to reduce the violence in Baghdad before it spirals beyond control. General Knotted-knickers said, "Four to six months."

Hmmm… that sounds suspiciously like the four-to-six-month timetable suggested by Senator Carl Levin of Michigan.

How did this guy get to be the top American military commander for the Middle East?

Does all of this sound suspiciously familiar? Well, it should. Reproduced below is my Breakfast with Bwana piece from January 2005 (you can also find it in the archived posts on this blog). What have these guys been doing since January 2005? How did this guy get to be the top American military commander for the Middle East?

Scary, isn’t it? It sounds like the Democrats will now give the Administration 4-6 months since that’s what General Ribbons-in-a-knot asks, and it seems like the Administration will give the Democrats 4-6 months since that is what Senator Carl Levin and the leading Democrats ask. And, in the first slap at outgoing Secretary of Defense Donald “Strangelove” Rumsfeld, Abizaid also said that General Shinseki had been right in saying that a larger force was needed ab ovo but that egg came before the chicken that has laid the egg that is Iraq.

Whether Senators McCain and Levin are correct that more troops are needed, is moot since we don’t have more troops. The President’s continued posturing over military action against Iran may also be moot since we don’t have the forces to mount anything other than an aerial or technology war.

Cheerz…Bwana
_________________

Luck Is Out Of Iraq

Breakfast with Bwana

JANUARY 29, 2005

LUCK IS OUT OF IRAQ:

At the beginning of this month, we took note of the commission given to General Gary E. Luck ("Luck-E Gary") by our Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, to go to Iraq and assess what was needed vis-à-vis the training of Iraqi troops and security forces.

As I pointed out then, Luck-E's report was to be "CONFIDENTIAL" for Rummy's ears only. Of course, they've leaked his preliminary findings. So, what else is new?

Before we get there, it bears noting that the spinmeisters at the Pentagon haven't stopped having conversations with themselves. They claim that Luck-E "knows the operation in Iraq well, having been a senior advisor to Gen. [deaf, dumb and blind] Tommy R. Franks" the video pin-ball wizard, at his wartime HQ in Qatar during the Iraq campaign in 2003.

Whoa, Nellie! Back in 2003, when Pin-Ball Whiz Tommy was conducting his video game war by remote control, there were no US troops (other than isolated Special Ops forces) in Iraq. And Luck-E was NEVER actually in Iraq. Now, he went there to assess what was needed to train IRAQIS. How could he possibly have had any expertise in that subject sitting in Qatar while an aerial bombardment campaign was being conducted?

The Pentagon goes on talking to itself and suggesting that Luck-E has a "degree of independence as a retired general" to recommend adjustments in policy. Sure, an inattentive, casual observer might think that a retired general has no axe to grind and would call the shots as he saw them. However, if the Pentagon is trying to talk itself into believing that this is truly a no conflicts, independent, hard-headed assessment, why would they have picked a guy who is currently a senior advisor to the military's Joint Forces Command?"

Now, if you are attentive and focused, you might think that Luck-E doesn't want to get UN-Luck-E and have his "senior advisor" consulting contract canceled. But, if you think that way, you are just plain cynical and probably giving comfort to the enemy - the enemy of waste and nonsense, that is.

Of course, back in early January, I had the temerity to suggest that the whole exercise was a waste of time and unnecessary. But, I guess if I were to say that Luck-E got a lucrative additional contract, probably with a "combat conditions" booster, then I'd be called cynical and an aider and comforter of the enemies of waste and nonsense too.

So, what did Luck-E "tentatively" report?

1. American troops must speed up training of Iraqi security forces.

How? By assigning more American trainers to work directly with the Iraqis being trained.

2. Shift the US military's mission after the January 30 elections, from fighting the insurgents, to training the Iraq's military and security forces to take over those security and combat duties.

How? By a step-by-step approach that would take months, if not years, proceeding at different paces in different parts of the country, depending on performance of the Iraqi troops.

Oh, and Americans would work closely with Iraqis in the most dangerous parts of the country, but would still take the lead combat role there.

No kidding. You don't say.

I think I've figured out why things are not going well for our troops in Iraq. Look at the leadership and how they spend their time.

If you were making decisions up front to implement a program of training Iraqi troops and security forces, wouldn't you know that you needed an adequate number of trainers? And would you wait for almost a year and a half before trying to assess why the program was not working?

But, I do feel safer, knowing that Pin-Ball Whiz and Luck-E are retired generals so we don't have to depend on them. I wonder though, who replaced them. Come to think of it, the guys in charge now continue to look to Luck-E for advice. Suddenly, I don't feel safer. Luck is really out of Iraq.

Cheerz....Bwana

_______________________________________________________________