Originally Posted by
AtomKraft
Brig. Gen. Mattis sounds like a typical high ranking US officer.
Just invading countries you don't like, and then having your asses kicked, is not actually that impressive.
Capt. Dart. I liked your #10 Quote about the enemy getting a vote. GWB cooda used that one!
Atom, a couple of points:
In order to get to the rank of general, 4 star, one has to work one's way through the lower starred ranks to include Brigadier General. So General Mattis was once, a long time ago, a Brigadier, but by the time OIF happened in 2003 he was a Major General, and later was promoted to General as well as the commander of US Central Command. All of that information is easy to find.
The US led coalition invaded Iraq, kicked their ass, and removed the government in power. What happened next was the a significant number of people in Iraq, and some others from elsewhere, chose score settling and a civil war rather than trying what was offered. (So be it, that's culture and politics). That isn't getting one's ass kicked. Getting your ass kicked is what happened to the Brits during our Revolution. We eventually lost interest in participating in their civil war. So we left, but oddly enough a few of our people back in the area assisting the government that we helped to put into place continue in the serial to that civil war. Real life isn't a video game, Atom, and politics takes place each day in a slightly different way as each dawn sees something different.
Yes, the enemy gets a vote. That's military training 101. Whether or not the pols believe the military when they are told that is an interesting point. (Lincoln's back and forth with his generals is an interesting example, during our civil war). It's one thing to win a war, it's another thing to win the peace. That second part is more difficult unless one chooses to occupy the nation you defeated for a few generations. (See Germany, Japan). That's where the matter of policy, politics and military means overlaps. Given that the policy stated very clearly by the Sec Def (Rumsfeld) in 2003 -- that we were not embarked on an effort in nation building -- was reasonably well articulated, it is no surprise that the nation building element of any plan or operation was under resourced, even not resourced. (I personally agreed with Colin Powell circa 2004, speaking at the political level, about "if you break it you own it" but that point was not entirely agreed within our policy making circles). What made the decision to "surge" in 2008 interesting was how that demonstrated that, with a different conceptual approach and investing more resources, more progress can be made. What then happened was predictable from the politcal side: it was decided that it's not worth the effort. Beyond that, any follow through President Obama might have made in choosing not to bring the troops home in 2010 died when the Iraqi government chose not to accept the SOFA. That was a critical political decision, and its results understandable from the PoV of both sides in that dialogue. Blaming that on people like General Mattis shows some serious ignorance on your part.
Beyond that, this thread is degenerating in the usual fashion, with the usual case of those who wish that had both the ability and the capability griping about those who actually do.
EDIT: all that said, I agree with your hope that the geo strategic thinking in Washington will improve, given that I was in the camp that disagreed with invading Iraq since breaking Iraq was bound to tip the regional balance in the favor of Iran, who were the larger geo strategic problem for American policy and posture in the region. Better strategic thinking would be very refreshing to see.