|
Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
Washington -- A scathing new report published by the Army War College
broadly criticizes the Bush administration's handling of the war on terrorism, accusing it of taking a detour into an "unnecessary" war in Iraq and pursuing an "unrealistic" quest against terrorism that may lead to U.S. wars with states that pose no serious threat. The report, by visiting U.S. Professor Jeffrey Record, who is on the faculty of the Air War College at Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala., warns that as a result of those mistakes, the Army is "near the breaking point." It recommends, among other things, scaling back the scope of the "global war on terrorism" and instead focusing on the narrower threat posed by the al Qaeda terrorist network. "(T)he global war on terrorism as currently defined and waged is dangerously indiscriminate and ambitious, and accordingly ... its parameters should be readjusted," Record writes. The anti-terrorism campaign "is strategically unfocused, promises more than it can deliver, and threatens to dissipate U.S. military resources in an endless and hopeless search for absolute security," he said. Record, a veteran defense specialist and author of six books on military strategy and related issues, was an aide to former Sen. Sam Nunn when the Georgia Democrat was chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. In discussing his political background, Record also noted that in 1999, while on the staff of the Air War College, he published work critical of the Clinton administration. His essay, published by the Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute, carries the standard disclaimer that its views are those of the author and don't necessarily represent those of the Army, the Pentagon, or the U.S. government. But retired Army Col. Douglas Lovelace, the director of the Strategic Studies Institute, whose Web site carries Record's 56-page monograph, hardly distanced himself from it. "I think that the substance that Jeff brings out in the article really, really needs to be considered," he said. Publication of the essay was approved by the Army War College's commandant, Maj. Gen. David Huntoon, Lovelace said. He said he and Huntoon expected the study to be controversial, but added, "He considers it to be under the umbrella of academic freedom." Larry DiRita, the top Pentagon spokesman, said he had not read the Record study. He added: "If the conclusion is that we need to be scaling back in the global war on terrorism, it's not likely to be on my reading list anytime soon. " Many of Record's arguments, such as the contention that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was deterred and did not present a threat, have been made before by critics of the administration. Iraq, he concludes, "was a war-of-choice distraction from the war of necessity against" al Qaeda. But it is unusual to have such views published by the War College, the Army's premier academic institution. In addition, the essay goes further than many critics in examining the Bush administration's handling of the war on terrorism. Record's core criticism is that the administration is biting off more than it can chew. He likens the scale of U.S. ambitions in the war on terrorism to Hitler's overreach in World War II. "A cardinal rule of strategy is to keep your enemies to a manageable number," he writes. "The Germans were defeated in two world wars ... because their strategic ends outran their available means." The essay concludes with several recommendations. Some are fairly noncontroversial, such as increasing the size of the Army and Marines Corps. But he also says the United States should scale back its ambitions in Iraq, and be prepared to settle for a "friendly autocracy" there rather than a genuine democracy. |
Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
Ya, ya.
Just more left wing spin from that bastion of socialist traitors, The Army War College. We do need to apply some objective standards of course. All of those who claimed moveon.org was completely responsible for the contest entry comparing the Bush administration to the Third Reich have no room---none---to claim that the Army War College doesn't fully endorse this professor's opinion. Gotta love it. :-) |
Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
What's funny, is that a little research will show that Record has written
(as recently as 2001) papers in *favor* of "presidential subterfuge" to promote a conflict. "Mr Record explicitly urged painting over the US's actual reasons for warfare with a nobly high-minded veneer, seeing such as a necessity for mobilizing public support for a conflict." In and around the year 2000 and 2001, the Army War College had publications calling for the use of military force "for more than simply protecting a nation and its people from traditional threat-based challenges". Onoe of the authors argued that defence meant protecting the US lifestyle, the circumstances of "daily life". Records (and other members of the War College) favored military action in the Middle East if it meant protecting our economy from an oil crisis. Remember, terrorists struck a financial target as a way to disrupt our economy. They also hoped to drive us from the Middle East so they could overthrow the government of Saudi Arabia, seize the oil, and put us at their mercy. Sending troops into Iraq was a strategy to prevent that. Why Records has done an about-face just 3 years later is beyond me. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that it's an election year...and he's an ex-aide to a former Democratic Senator. "basskisser" wrote in message m... Washington -- A scathing new report published by the Army War College broadly criticizes the Bush administration's handling of the war on terrorism, accusing it of taking a detour into an "unnecessary" war in Iraq and pursuing an "unrealistic" quest against terrorism that may lead to U.S. wars with states that pose no serious threat. The report, by visiting U.S. Professor Jeffrey Record, who is on the faculty of the Air War College at Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala., warns that as a result of those mistakes, the Army is "near the breaking point." It recommends, among other things, scaling back the scope of the "global war on terrorism" and instead focusing on the narrower threat posed by the al Qaeda terrorist network. "(T)he global war on terrorism as currently defined and waged is dangerously indiscriminate and ambitious, and accordingly ... its parameters should be readjusted," Record writes. The anti-terrorism campaign "is strategically unfocused, promises more than it can deliver, and threatens to dissipate U.S. military resources in an endless and hopeless search for absolute security," he said. Record, a veteran defense specialist and author of six books on military strategy and related issues, was an aide to former Sen. Sam Nunn when the Georgia Democrat was chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. In discussing his political background, Record also noted that in 1999, while on the staff of the Air War College, he published work critical of the Clinton administration. His essay, published by the Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute, carries the standard disclaimer that its views are those of the author and don't necessarily represent those of the Army, the Pentagon, or the U.S. government. But retired Army Col. Douglas Lovelace, the director of the Strategic Studies Institute, whose Web site carries Record's 56-page monograph, hardly distanced himself from it. "I think that the substance that Jeff brings out in the article really, really needs to be considered," he said. Publication of the essay was approved by the Army War College's commandant, Maj. Gen. David Huntoon, Lovelace said. He said he and Huntoon expected the study to be controversial, but added, "He considers it to be under the umbrella of academic freedom." Larry DiRita, the top Pentagon spokesman, said he had not read the Record study. He added: "If the conclusion is that we need to be scaling back in the global war on terrorism, it's not likely to be on my reading list anytime soon. " Many of Record's arguments, such as the contention that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was deterred and did not present a threat, have been made before by critics of the administration. Iraq, he concludes, "was a war-of-choice distraction from the war of necessity against" al Qaeda. But it is unusual to have such views published by the War College, the Army's premier academic institution. In addition, the essay goes further than many critics in examining the Bush administration's handling of the war on terrorism. Record's core criticism is that the administration is biting off more than it can chew. He likens the scale of U.S. ambitions in the war on terrorism to Hitler's overreach in World War II. "A cardinal rule of strategy is to keep your enemies to a manageable number," he writes. "The Germans were defeated in two world wars ... because their strategic ends outran their available means." The essay concludes with several recommendations. Some are fairly noncontroversial, such as increasing the size of the Army and Marines Corps. But he also says the United States should scale back its ambitions in Iraq, and be prepared to settle for a "friendly autocracy" there rather than a genuine democracy. |
Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
|
Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
|
Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
Unlike moveon.org, the Army War College is an educational institution.
As you know, censorship is highly frowned on by educational institutions. Please don't assign to the Army the values of every author who has been published by the Army War College. See the following "pixel" this professor's opinion. :-) |
Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
|
OT: Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
Marty S. wrote:
Note that it is a vehicle for continuing education and professional development. Thus it is hardly a place to censor material to ensure only one side of a story is told. John H That's a pretty naive thing to say. If the publisher of a journal disagrees with a particular position, whether academic, scientific, or political, then it won't publish the article. I'm not defending or condeming the article in question -- I haven't read it. I don't have a dog in this fight. But, what you said, John, is just not the way the world works. -- Marty S. Baltimore, MD USA My wife has two papers under consideration for publication by two separate professional journals in her field. Both articles and everything related to them are being carefully vetted and, AFTER that, they are submitted to the editorial boards for commentary and a vote on whether they should be published. John's concept of the world is slightly colored by his years in the military and his inexperience with the real world. -- Email sent to is never read. |
OT: Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:18:21 -0500, "Marty S."
wrote: Note that it is a vehicle for continuing education and professional development. Thus it is hardly a place to censor material to ensure only one side of a story is told. That's a pretty naive thing to say. If the publisher of a journal disagrees with a particular position, whether academic, scientific, or political, then it won't publish the article. I'm not defending or condeming the article in question -- I haven't read it. I don't have a dog in this fight. But, what you said, John, is just not the way the world works. And yet it happens all the time. Especially when a journal publishes "both sides" of a story. There's no way the publisher can agree with both disagreeing viewpoints. Steve |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:40 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com