An effective IED strategy - that the administration opposed
By Steve Benen Wednesday Dec 19, 2007 7:17amWhen it comes to U.S. casualties in Iraq, more damage has been done by improvised explosive devices (IEDs) than any other culprit. Thankfully, a more effective strategy in dealing with roadside bombs has saved countless American lives.
By early 2006, that strategy had begun to shift: Instead of hunting for the bombs, the soldiers hunted for bombmakers. [...] Today, that change has swept across Iraq, and attacks using improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, have declined steadily for eight months. Casualties from the bombs are at their lowest point since 2003, the first year of the war.
Obviously, this is great news. In the interest of accountability, though, it’s worth remembering that the IED strategy that’s working now was recommended years ago — but was rejected by the Bush administration.
That plan and others mirroring the counterinsurgency blueprint that the Pentagon now hails as a success were pitched repeatedly in memos and presentations during the following two years, at meetings that included then-Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff, Lewis “Scooter” Libby. [...]
Bush administration officials, however, remained wedded to the idea that training the Iraqi army and leaving the country would suffice. Officials, including Cheney, insisted the insurgency was dying. Those pronouncements delayed the Pentagon from embracing new plans to stop IEDs and investing in better armored vehicles that allow troops to patrol more freely, documents and interviews show. (emphasis added)
By all indications, this is yet another in a long line of examples in which the White House made decisions based on what it wanted to believe, rather than what the circumstances required.
Login or Register to post comments.
I recall when the conventional wisdom was that the GOP was better at military stuff and was more competent at governing.
Shrub sure proved that wrong.
Accountability? Bush administration? Never'll happen. But thanks for pointing it out.
Is this what they mean by leaving the military decisions to the generals?
What incompetent hypocrits!
I-M-P-E-A-C-H!!
So much for the claim that Bush listens to the generals...
Another example of utter incompetence.
What worries me is that this sort of report opens the door to "How could we have done better" conversations. I try to keep my focus on the illegality of the invasion itself - anything after that is legal "gravy." We all know that the thing the Bushies do best is sleight-of-hand distractions.
I feel like I've been on the Teacup ride for 7 years...
This new way seems to have started after Gates moved in. Maybe he has been able to slap some sense into the empty heads of the administration. Maybe he forced them to face reality.
Rumsfeld should be in jail.
pissed off patricia @ 6:
Rummy ain't the only one. Maybe Romney was on to something with "Double Guantanamo."
wedded to "...........training the Iraqi army and leaving the country would suffice." what!? i recall the army being disbanded and
permanent"enduring" bases being built..It would be nice (and serve notice to those in power) if the families who lost loved ones to IEDs during this time AND those who were wonded by an IED during this time could sue Dick, Rummy, Condi and Bushy.
Why not mention that a reduction in road side bombs just happen after USa provide thousands of guns and rocket lunchers to the Sunnies.But the Iraq killings mount. Go figure the madness/stupity for the short term?
just ask yourselves, who would halliburton rape if the war wasnt going on?
WWHR?
maybe someone who's running for the new job of president can... you know, enforce accountability on the former president. You know.. rally up congress and such to charge him for what seems to me as a crime of going agaisnt US law.
Just goes to show, if you're going to fight a war, let the military fight it. They are the experienced ones, not the chickenhawks on the sidelines that want to play war.
Fighting the insurgents effectively is counterproductive to the REAL mission...Which is to make as much money off the broke ass taxpayers for the defense contracters, private contracters, (Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater, etc.) as possible, before this country goes broke.
Thanks BushCo! Mission Accomplished! ASSHOLE!!!
Swashbuckler @ 4:
Of course he does! He has already fired the ones who say anything he doesn't want to hear.
A warning or a heads up. The chimp in chief will be speaking on tv at 10 (eastern time) I'm guessing it's his Happy Holidays speech to the press or something. Who the fu*k knows what's on his wee little mind?
But then, when has anybody in the Bush Junta ever given a flying fuck about our troops? As a vet, it is impossible for me to understand how any veteran or how anybody in uniform - except those who are counting on being players in the hoped-for emerging totalitarian state - could ever vote for or support any Republican. That support is insane and self-defeating.
"Bush administration officials, however, remained wedded to the idea that training the Iraqi army and leaving the country would suffice. Officials, including Cheney, insisted the insurgency was dying. Those pronouncements delayed the Pentagon from embracing new plans to stop IEDs and investing in better armored vehicles that allow troops to patrol more freely, documents and interviews show."
I believe this statement is flawed. I can't disagree that that Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush et al made stupid decisions regarding troop use, strategies and tactics, but they had no intention of training the Iraquis and leaving the country - ever.!
One of the main reasons for the invasion in the first place was to establish permanent, forward military bases in Iraq from which to run the takeover of the rest of the middel east in the near future. If one reads the PNAC documents, this is the purpose of their entire military strategy for the 21st century - conquer, steal resources, spread US hegemony, NWO. Mission accomplished.
It'll be interesting to observe how this incompetent administration reacts to the mutinous revolt of the 2nd platoon, Charlie company, I-26, refusing to go out on a search for IED's.
One of their prime reasons for the refusal, was the fear that they were so 'wound up', so psychologically fu*ked-up, that they would 'light things up' and kill everything they came across.
Nice war you lied us into, Bush, you #&*@#&& SOB!
How can you accomplish the goal of permanent occupation by having an effective strategy? At the expense of men and women? Yes! No problem with Bush and his cocksuckers.
I can't remember what company it is but it was reported here(I believe) about a device that can effectively detect IED's but Bushco will not buy them. Why? They are made by a democratic party supporting company.
reason is treason to the Bush junta
In a few days the Commander in Thief and maybe even the President of Vice Cheney will secretly fly to Irag for their annual photo op. What a site ,a turkey serving turkey!
MN USA @ 12:
Oh so bow down to the effin' military. Military crap over the top and don't support a bit of it. Go watch some jon wayne movies. More sympathy here for the countless Iraqis who've lost lives and family to satisfy the "wild west" mentality of bush and the trooopies.
pissed off patricia @ 6:
Rumsfield makes his fortune selling medical supplies to the military.
The more wounded soldiers there are, the more money he earns.
If the injury rate goes down, he takes a pay cut.
I have been arguing this one for over a year on the Milblogs. Hell, even Paetreaus' OWN manual on COIN (Counterinsurgency) states the same. But no, we are gonna wrap our guys up in million dollar MRAPS.
Boots on the ground. Boots on the ground. Infantry patrols, not vehicle patrols, natch. SPREAD "EM OUT!
Grandjester @ 25:
It seems in Iraq, we looked at every tactic that worked for the Romans, and did the opposite.
Weaseldog @ 24:
This is true of a large number of these Neo-Con war profiteers, not just Rumsfeld.
Furthermore, there is a 'philosophy' within the Neocon movement which believes that wars are useful for upgrading the military's equipment. Without wars, the public hates being taxed for all those new and improved killing machines. So, the Neocons argue, it is necessary to have wars if you want to keep the most up-to-date military on the planet.
That philosophy/argument has nothing to do with war-profiteering, necessarily...
Boosh's first suggestion about IEDs
"Don't step on 'em! Now watch this drive!"
I wonder how reliable this report actually is. A couple of months ago we were getting news that the Administration was trying to make the surge look good by disengaging on the ground and greatly increasing the number of air strikes, to reduce casualties and improve the war's image on the faltering home front.
What about "lettin' the commanders on th' ground make th' decisions"? Oh, right-- that was bullshit from the beginning.
Essentially, there was a palace coup and Cheney/Rumsfeld was replaced by SecDef Gates and his Bush 41 team.
The GOP has sane factions; those factions can govern well.
Excuse me Steve, but do you bother reading this drivel before you quote it. Maybe you can point to the trained Iraqi army or the one time any person in this administration suggested that we would EVER leave Iraq. We have never seriously tried to train the Iraqi's, nor have we ever thought there would be a day in the future when American troops wouldn't be on the ground in Iraq.
Terror is a tactic. Shock and Awe is a tactic. The Surge is a tactic. The inSurgency is a tactic. What kind of tactics would one expect from the most high tech richest Military in History, flowers and candy? The Iraqi People have every right to resistance since the U.S. Government, Republicans AND Democrats "LIED" to start a lost war of conquest in Iraq. There were no WMD, no ties to our former allies "Al Qaeda", no ties to the infamous unsolved 9/11 and anthrax "terrorist" attacks. There were no 'intel failures' we know from the Office of Special Plans, the Downing Street Memos, the Zionist Spies, that this Neo Conservative "Exercise" has been around since the 90's. It's hard to believe that most of the "War of Terror" supporters believe this earth was created only 6,000 years ago??? I have long since stopped supporting the troops since they are obeying illegal orders and have trashed the US Constitution. regards
Busholini must've misunderstood when presented with the IED policy. I've heard reports claiming he said "No IUD's. Abstinence only!"
An effective IED strategy is to end the occupation of a sovereign country and get out. Imagine if the tables were turned and Iraqis were occupying the United States.
McDuff @ 36:
That's dirty, liberal ,traitor talk! ;)
Them turrists will
follow us back here if we leave!
I can just see the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld trifecta in their little white house situation room playing with the mock-up of Iraq with the little toy tanks and the little toy soldiers and going "boom boom!" "Take that!" and all other manner of 10-year-old boy war fantasies. The more "boom boom" the better in their eyes.
396 days, 23 hours, 28 minutes, 37 seconds left...
rend @ 8:
Exactly...leaving was never part of the gameplan
all thats happened in iraq with the surge is one citys a little safer , bagdad!!!!!!! yet thiers still bombs killing our soldiers as thier are in falugia and other citys, the only thing thats changed is the news has shut up reporting it, think our battle deaths are as low as they reported? how would you know? for a long time the surplus battle dead were not shipped home in silver caskets with honor guards ,they were shipped home on freight carrying airplanes with no silver flag drapped coffins ,no the familys of the surplus iraq dead were told to go to the closest air port and recieve thier dead kids, when they got there the baggage handlers unloaded cardboard coffins with no flag and no honor guards , then they had to personaly escort thier dead kids to the funeral home, you think this was only done to save money? they were hideing the real battle casuality toll from the brain dead american people!i weep for the stupidity of americans!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"a long line of examples in which the White House made decisions based on what it wanted to believe"
It's called "faith-based" decision making and it FAILS.
"When it comes to U.S. casualties in Iraq, more damage has been done by improvised explosive devices (IEDs) than any other culprit."
I have to strongly disagree with that! The number ONE culprit is the illegal occupation!
A simple adjustment such as what is proposed here would go far in protecting US troops: http://www.combatreform.com/m113combat.htm
You gotta just keep the faith, if 'god' didn't like things the way they are, he could change them.
From 'god's' lips to Bush's ear to the empty space beyond.
As I write this I am sitting on a cot in Kuwait preparing to head into Iraq soon so I cant say too much. We do have other means for dealing with IED's but the problem is always the same; we develope counters, they change tactics, I almost wish I could tell you about the latest tactic being used, but I'm not getting an article 15 for violating Opsec.
watchdog @ 45:
Good luck!!!!
Get back home alive and in one piece!!!
Login or Register to post comments.