Capitalism

[CFH]

Military success is measured by two things. Killing of the enemy and the ability to take and hold terrain. There is no terrain in Iraq that the US military couldn't take and hold at will and comparing the body count is absurd. Our military cannot help that there was no defined mission or end state. Nor is their fault that even though 400K + soldiers were asked for they got 150K for the invasion. You seem to confuse errors by the Bush administration as synonymous with military failure. More importantly as you already mentioned by echoing what I had already said body count does not equal winning in an asymmetric war. There is no military solution in Iraq or any country with an active insurgency. That being said considering the crappy card the military was dealt going into Iraq it has performed tremendously. Sunni Arabs turned from AQI in tremendous numbers b/c of the great counter-insurgent policies implemented by the Marines in the Anbar province. They drove a wedge between the populace and the terrorist as per doctrine. Seeing the number of its tribe being massacred by terrorist acts and the number dying from direct engagements with Americans as well as a self imposed political isolation I'd say they made a pretty good choice. The US footed the payroll b/c the process of getting the Maliki gov't to pay up would have taken forever(it just did in the past year). I really love how SOFA, elections not run by the US and Iraq controlling their own oil is a bad thing. Does it matter if Bush got his hand forced on these issues? Are they not what should have happened? Stick to finances Kirk..Your out of your element

Hey Van, I have a question for you. It has nothing to do with politics or anything like that and I will keep my feelings about your government etc. out of the equation.

One of my profs, a very well regarded military historian, stated (and from what I know, I agree with him completely) that prior to the Iraq invasion the United States Military was the best fighting force the world had ever seen, capable of engaging and defeating any army in the world, including that of the Chinese. However (and this part I'm less sure of), he proceeded to state that as a result of the Iraq insurgency, the American Army was exhausted and stretched to its limit and is now a shadow of what it once was. As someone inside of this apparatus, do you feel this opinion is justified? Or is it simply an overstatement as a result of the backlash and negativity surrounding the war? How capable do you feel the US Military is now in terms of where it was prior to the invasion of Iraq?

I also agree with your statement that the army, from a military standpoint performed admirably in Iraq, and that it was the political leadership which led to the situation in which they found themselves. In my opinion, it had nothing to do with the way the army functioned in combat.

I'd say his statement is incorrect. That being said I never knew a peace time Army so I can't differentiate. One issue we are having is re-setting of equipment i.e. tanks, helicopters etc. The rigors of combat operations in two theaters non-stop has put a big strain on the ability for the Army to keep essentials in place. A lot of this has been helped through replacement depots being built in Kuwait. Personnel wise the Army has seen its best months of not only recruitment but re-enlistment in a long time. I think the biggest issue is how we train. There simply isn't enough time in a units 12-24 month dwell period to train adequately on both conventional and asymmetric warfare. The Iraq/Afghanistan wars definitely showed some cracks and antiquated ideas that the Army had. Its unfortunate that it takes sending the countries young men and women to combat to realize you need to fix some things. If tomorrow the US faced a protracted conventional war there would be an adjustment period, but nothing like what you saw in Iraq. Teaching soldiers the multifaceted world of counter insurgency is a much more profound undertaking then the very straight forward skills needed in a conventional total war. I hope I answered that to your satisfaction.

So you do not believe that the army, its resources, or its capabilities have been exhausted by the Iraq War. Perhaps he meant that the American Army would be unable to fight any other, more conventional-type wars while being tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm pretty sure I understood him though. Anyways, thanks for answering.