Thanks for the history lesson. Agree with you entirely (on the history, that is) but what’s the point of history apart from learning the lessons from – you can’t change it!

No doubt there are huge risks here. But risks properly managed can be turned into opportunities. The bigger the risks, the bigger the opportunities provided the requisite level of competent management is applied.

No doubt that is one of the things that has been missing, to date and we may all very well debate till the cows come home as why this has been the case. Wonder we very well may . . . .

However, like all things in history, these things in the past can’t be changed, no matter how much people want and try to do just that. But people should be able to learn from this history and this is what I think the LtGen is trying to get folks to do. However, he is going to need help and a lot of it from everyone, especially those who created and contributed to creating this mess of the mess that was there before …. and before …. and before!

Knowing full well that the naysayers are going to call this niave but …..

How about getting all those who have the wisdom of having been there before and earned their ‘elder statesman status’ in the political cauldrons of their own countries to come together as a non-partisan group to pursue and encourage the implementation of cure to this canker on the face of our world, once and for all. After all, they all got their status (and their elder statesman gold cards) on the back of the hard working masses in their respective countries who, at the end of the day, just want to live their lives in peace, raise the kids and be free of such tyrrany as we are seeing pervading the world today.

Who are these elder statesmen? To name but a few – Bill Clinton, George Bush Snr, Nelson Mandella, Maggie Thatcher, Paul Keating, Malcolm Fraser (sadly, my memory and my knowledge do not extend to recall the elder statesmen of the countries in the Middle East Region, but all of them too). Now I am not advocating these particular persons are the right ones for the job – just examples. In fact the ‘elder statesman’ world club should be cherry picked to form the best team for the task.

Sh*t, this could even be called ‘Elder Statesman Diplomacy Aid’ or ‘PEACE AID’.

If the music/entertainment industries can do something like this, why not those whose profession it was to manage such things as international diplomacy and relations in the first place? While the LtGen and his troops are building relationships in Baghdad to engender peace, these folks could be doing the same on behalf of their “peopleâ€? regionally.

Hey, if successful, it might even be worth looking at this as a way to bring the long war to an end. Clearly those with their hands on the levers today need all the help they can get. Just, mayhaps, those with the wisdom that comes from being there before may just have learnt something from their experiences and if appropriately empowered/resourced to do so, could put this ‘wisdom’ to good use. Hell, it’s at least worth some consideration rather than the present propensity to sit on the thistle and howl.

Horde

For an “adult” overview of Franks and Sanchez, read Seymour Hersh’s Chain of Command.

Thomas E. Ricks in Fiasco gives Petraeus credit for being one of the smarter US generals on the ground in Iraq. Petraeous has a PhD. His doctoral thesis was entitled “The American Military and the Lessons of Vietnam”.

A counterinsurgency expert who admired the Brit tactics in Malaya, his sensible idea for conducting the war/police action in Iraq was not to aggravate the population mindlessly with the midnight knock while operating high speed patrols out of armed forts. But that is what was done.

I am surprised that Petraeous even asked for extra troops or took the job. Maybe it’s the career thing. Who knows.

One soldier who comes out of Fiasco even smarter than Petraeous is a lowly colonel – Col. H.R. McMasters, the commander of 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment in Tal Afar. He also has a PhD.

He upset the bosses by saying that “more troops could not have helped defeat the insurgency because U.S. forces inevitably create more problems than they solve”. His PhD thesis was, according to Wiki: “on the mistakes of the Vietnam War [and] is detailed in the book Dereliction of Duty… [which] alleges that U.S. military leaders of that era did not fulfill their constitutional duty to adequately challenge Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and President Lyndon Johnson’s deeply flawed military strategy. The book was widely read in Pentagon circles, and was reportedly influential for a number of generals who later criticized Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the Bush Administration’s conduct of the Iraq War.”

So I reckon McMasters ought to know what he is talking about. And I do not think he would have taken on the role now taken by Petraeus. That’s because he knows that Petraeous is on a hiding to nothing.

Incidentally, what is it with those PhDs? The only military with more PhDs was the SS. I don’t mean to make parallels of course, just sayin…

Basically, IMHO, I believe the LtGen is on a potential winner. From what I have been able to glean, his approach which is tactical, not strategic (will get to this later), is a very considered and, might I say, very adult way of dealing with an extremely complex and complicated set of problems brought about, in the main, due to the lack of ‘adult supervision’ to date.

However (and, sadly, there is so often an ‘however’ in any such situation), his plans address only about one third of the situation with the political and diplomatic issues which are the main drivers of the problems with which he is being confronted being left flapping in the breeze.

Where are the Coalition Partners on all of this, apart from saying ‘we will not be sending anymore troops!’?

Where are the effected countries in the region on all of this?

Where is the world community on all of this?

Again IMHO, I suggest it is time for some adult supervision (and behaviour) to support that which Lieutenant-General David Petraeus is trying to engender on the ground. Without such support, his plan can only, at best, achieve short term tactical outcomes, not long term strategic gains.

Not about having a client state in a critical position on the Soviet flank? Not about preventing Iran, and its resources, from falling into the Soviet orbit? Don’t know very much about the details of that issue (maybe the right answer to those questions is ‘No’ after all), but a quick look at a map, or a chessboard, makes me say Hmmm… Somehow, too, given the global politics of the time, I have trouble believing that the democratically elected Mussadegh gov’t woulda stood on its own for long without falling into somebody’s sphere. Messy things, these cold wars. Things don’t always go virtuously, simply because of an absence of one party’s vice. But, hey, ya never know.

Christine Keeler: “The whole point of this fiasco was what happened AFTER the ‘mission accomplished’.”

Well, yes, there’s that. I’m starting to think the phrase “strictly on points” has no meaning as a qualifier in Aussie English. My bad. Ah, the vagaries of kulcha…

“(shakes head in weary condescension)”

Ya gotta love weary condescension! It’s the moral equivalent of comfort food. Try some today!

Mr Paulus. As the events are unfolding, it seems the US is not planning a frontal assault but as we say in rugger, going the niggle.

As far as “kitâ€? goes, Iran possesses a serious conventional military threat but not a nuclear one. It’s main threat lies in quite a range of locally made missiles, some of the older and smaller of which have found themselves in the hands of the Hizb’Allah.

In the 1980s war with Iraq, Iran imported from N Korea about a hundred Scud-b and then lined up for some 500 scud c missiles.

Neither scud b nor c would reach Israel so after greasing extensively the Dear Leader’s palm they bought Korean No Dong (a ballistic missile developed by the North Koreans with Soviet technical participation along with Chinese help and Iranian money). This eventually developed into the Iranian made series of Shahab missiles.

The current Shahab 3 and the yet to be deployed Shahab 4 missile can just reach Israel. The versions Iranians are working on now can easily reach not just Israel but Europe: the Shahab 5 or 6 (IRSL-X-4 ) has a Russian engine but the Russians won’t hand over the blueprints of it. It can carry a 750kg warhead. I think this is the “kitâ€? that worries Israel and the US the most. I do not think the patriots would worry these babies with their fancy triconic warhead design.

Again, I’m hearing “regime change”. The theory is that dealing with Iran would fix Iraq. Sounds like trying to punt your way out of trouble. Haig’s rationale for the Somme comes to mind.

Oh j_p_z, j_p_z, j_p_z (shakes head in weary condescension) . The whole point of this fiasco was what happened AFTER the ‘mission accomplished’. I give up.