previous post next post  

General Abizaid's thoughts... in note form.

Ladies and Gentlemen, The Army's senior leadership recommends that Soldiers read this summary of General Abizaid's comments to the Naval War College last week. General Abizaid, Commander in Chief, U. S. Central Command, spoke to an audience comprised primarily of War College students who are mid-grade/senior military officers. The majority of these officers have served in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, so there was a real understanding of the dynamics of the region.

VR,
S1Net

A short summary of General Abizaid's comments, from contemporaneous notes:
He is amazed as he goes around the country and testifies before the Congress how many of our countrymen do not know or understand what we are doing or how we are doing. There are very few members of Congress who have ever worn the uniform (of our armed forces). He said that the questions he gets from some in Congress convince him that they have the idea that we are about to pushed out of Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no relation between this and the reality on the ground.

As he goes around the region and talks to troops and junior officer he is very impressed by their morale and their achievements. They are confident that they are capable of defeating the enemy. You will never see a headline in this country about a school opening or a power station being built and coming on line, or a community doing well. Only the negative things will get coverage in the media. He told the mid-grade/senior officers to go to their local Lions Clubs when they go home and tell the people what they are doing. If they don't get the word out, the American people will not know what is really happening. The insurgency is in four of 18 provinces in Iraq, not all 18. You do not hear about the 14 provinces where there is no insurgency and where things are going well. The insurgency in Afghanistan is primarily in Kandahar province (home of the Taliban) and in the mountain region on the Pakistani border. The rest of the country is doing well.

Iraq now has over 200,000 soldiers/police under arms and growing. They are starting to eclipse the US/coalition forces. Their casualty rate is more than double that of the US. There are more than 70,000 soldiers under the moderate government in Afghanistan and growing. He predicted that the insurgencies in the four Sunni provinces in northern/central Iraq and in Southwestern Afghanistan will be there for the foreseeable future, but they will be stabilized and become small enough so the moderate governments will be able to keep them under control.

2006 will be a transition year in Iraq and that will see the Iraqi forces take much more of the mission from the US forces. This is necessary to bring stability to Iraq. We need to be fewer in numbers and less in the midst of the people for the moderate Iraqi government to succeed. Our primary enemy is not the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is Al Qaida and their ideology. We are at a period now that is similar to the 1920s where Communism and Nazism had not taken hold in Russia and Germany. The ideology of Al Qaida is out there and it has not taken hold in any country in the Middle East. We need to make sure that it does not and we are doing that, but it will be a long problem with a long commitment.

He said that we are focused on the things that we (Americans) have done wrong, like Abu Ghraib, and not talking about this enemy. We need to talk about this enemy. Al Qaida is all over the world. Their goal is to get the US out of the region and come to power in the Islamic countries of the region. From there their goal is to establish a Caliphate (under a single Islamic ruler) that goes from the Atlantic in North Africa to Indonesia in the Pacific. Fifty years after this happens their goal is to rule the rest of the world. Since Desert Storm in 1991 US forces have not lost any combat engagement in the region at the platoon level or above. Al Qaida has no beliefs that they can defeat us militarily. They see our center of gravity as being the will of the American People. That is influenced by the media and they are playing to that. They don't need to win any battles. Their plan is keep the casualties in front of the American people in the media for long enough that we becom(e disillusioned) [? this sentence was cut-off in the original, I'm guessing]

If you look at the geography (of Al Qaida) there is no place to put a military solution. They are networked and they are all over the world. They are a virtual organization connected by the internet. They use it to proselytize, recruit, raise money, educate and organize. They have many pieces that we must focus on: the propaganda battle in the media, safe houses, front companies, sympathetic members of legitimate governments, human capital, fighters and leaders, technical expertise, weapons suppliers ideologically sympathetic non-government organizations (charities), financers, smugglers, and facilitators. A lot of their money comes from drugs.

We are winning but we have got to maintain constant pressure over time with the international community and across the US government agencies. No one is afraid that we can't defeat the enemy. Our troops have the confidence, the courage, and the competence. We need the will of the American people to be sustained for the long haul.

H/t, Jim C.

Update: Greetings, Cornerites! Since the Blogfather sent you - vote for us!

The polls are open!

Just click on the icon!

Hosting provided by FotoTime

Don't forget - you can vote once every 24 hours in each category... and The Corner is up for Best Blog!

3 Trackbacks

TrackBack this entry at http://www.thedonovan.com/cgi-bin/mt41/mt-tb.cgi/4916

Castle Arrgghhh! posts notes on Iraq and Afghanistan taken from General Abizaid's Naval War College speech last week, a few excerpts from which I'll highlight here (concentrating on Iraq) -- though the whole thing is worth a read:[...

Read More

Via Jeff Goldstein and Castle Argghhh! comes General Abizaid's thoughts on the war. Worth reading in full.... Read More

Via Jeff Goldstein and Castle Argghhh! comes General Abizaid's thoughts on the war. Worth reading in full.... Read More

9 Comments

Well, the good general gets it. It's nice to hear some other people mention the goals of the enemy. I always disliked the tendency to by pass them as if they were unachievable and thus we should ignore all their attempts to meet them. It gave people the false idea that these folks could not come to power anywhere which is not exactly true. they could and they only need one place to stand on and from to actually begin the second phase. Success breeding success and all. Distance makes it so much easier to ignore I suppose.
 
Thanks for the notes... awesome! I'll be sure to pass this on to my buddies. We all like the "Crazy Arab" cause he has proved himself (with Ranger BN inparticular).
 
The longer we stay in Iraq, the larger the number of KIAs. Not to mention wounded. And the less folks back home will support the war. Good news? Yes, well I guess that new schools and power stations are good news. Curious that 2,100 US soldiers have to die in order to build infrastructure. And those 200,00 soldiers/police don't seem to be all that effective. 2006 a "transition year?" Fine that must mean the US is going to withdraw in 2006. Just Like Rep. Murtha says Nice to know the administration has a plan to get us out of this quagmire. Simply declare "victory" and get out. Which can't happen too soon. Howard Dean's right, the war in Iraq is an insurgency and as such is unwinnable. And as the Israelis know from hard experience, insurgencies cannot be defeated by military power.
 
No, Carl - but military power *can* provide time for a government to get organized where once there was nothing but a kleptocracy. And, Carl - when the war is over, will you still care about the deaths of soldiers? We lose as many soldiers in non-theater related accidents in training etc - you gonna campaign for those, too? Or do you really only care about the ones who get shot in Iraq? And is it okay for the ones in Afghanistan? I got you think the whole Iraq thing is a mess, whether because you can't stand Bush or other, more principled reasons. What's your alternative?
 
Sorry, Carl. *Despite* what Howard the Ducker thinks, just because a war is an insurgency doesn't mean it's unwinnable. And there's considerable evidence that it's *not* a true insurgency, but a case of a home-grown gang of thuggish sectarians allying with a foreign gang of thuggish another-sectarians in order to beat up on the adherents of still-another-sectarian group. In the '50s, the Brits proved you *can* defeat insurgents militarily. They did it in Malaysia by isolating the insurgents from all sources of external support. And here's something that'll give you conniptions: we did it in Vietnam. The Tet Offensive was the death-knell of the NLF as a militarily-effective force in the northern portion of South Vietnam and the Cambodian Incursion broke its back in the Delta. After June of 1970, the only time we saw troops of Tay Do 2, the local VC battalion, was when they waved Chieu Hoi leaflets in surrender. By the time I left, the only people we were fighting in IV Corps were PAVN--troops of the *North* Vietnamese Army, Carl--and pirates. It was an armor-spearheaded North Vietnamese invasion in 1975--three years after we left--that caused the downfall of South Vietnam, not a home-grown insurgency. Hmmm--you say that's in conflict with what you've been told? That's no surprise; nobody told the American people about it while it was still current events, either. So, why is it that you guys keep touting Vietnam as a sterling example of a quagmire and as a defeat of American arms?
 
Because it was a defeat, Bill. A failure of will, on the part of the most important component of the force - the people and their leaders. Just as people like Carl wish to engineer this time. How sad they don't want to truly try something different... rather than simply SSDD.
 
A defeat of *political* will and a subsequent Congressional refusal to honor a commitment hardly qualifies as a *military* defeat. Heh--the "military defeat" came later, when Congress revoked our GI Bill benefits, Gerry Ford gave the skedaddlers a free pass and Jimmy Earl whacked the budget so hard we regularly stopped flying (or doing anything else) for the last fiscal quarter(s) in the final years of the '70s because there was no money left to buy fuel or parts. *That* troika kicked our butts big time. Good thing the Sovs never got the nerve to bump heads with us...
 
The practical effect was the same. We didn't win - and I prefer to keep everybody in the boat on that issue - the German Army's "Stabbed in the back by the politicians" excuse for WWI is too close to 'through a glass, and darkly" for my taste. And wasn't it Gerry who ditched the Draft, and Jimmy who patted the deserters and evaders on the head?
 
I'm not disagreeing that we didn't *win*--just saying that it wasn't a defeat of military arms. General Giap said it best. When he was reminded by a fellow guest (an American, at a luncheon held well after the dust had settled) that PAVN had never beaten a major American unit in battle, he thought for a bit, then replied: "That is true. It is also irrelevant." Nope--Gerry was the one who invited the skedaddlers back. He promised amnesty from prosecution as long as they turned themselves in and outprocessed from the military. Most of them replied that they wouldn't do that because they'd be issued "bad paper" upon discharge. Jimmy later sweetened the pot by offering them a blanket, no-strings pardon for running--which some Law Enforcement types raised a stink over, because the wording left wiggle room for those who had committed a crime before heading for the hills would *also* have been pardoned.
 
© 2008 John Donovan
All rights reserved.