This is an aeticle by the Army War College from last year. There have been new comments yesterday I have not been able to find.

Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article


Published on Monday, January 12, 2004 by the Los Angeles Times
War College Study Calls Iraq a 'Detour'
Institute's report warns anti-terror campaign may launch 'open-ended and gratuitous conflict.'
by Chuck Neubauer and Ken Silverstein


WASHINGTON — A report published by the Army War College criticizes the Bush administration's global war on terrorism as "unfocused" and contends that the war in Iraq is "unnecessary" and a "detour" that has diverted attention and resources from the threat posed by Al Qaeda.

The report warns that the administration's global war on terrorism may have set the United States "on a course of open-ended and gratuitous conflict with states and non-state entities that pose no serious threat to the United States."

The report by Jeffrey Record, a visiting research professor at the Strategic Studies Institute of the Army War College, calls for downsizing the war on terrorism and focusing instead on the threat from Al Qaeda, the terror network responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as well as other sites around the world.

"The global war on terrorism as presently defined and conducted is strategically unfocused, promises much more than it can deliver, and threatens to dissipate U.S. military and other resources in an endless and hopeless search for absolute security," Record wrote, concluding his 56-page monograph. "The United States may be able to defeat, even destroy, Al Qaeda, but it cannot rid the world of terrorism, much less evil."

Record calls the war in Iraq "an unnecessary preventative war" that has "diverted attention and resources away from securing the American homeland against further assault by an undeterrable Al Qaeda." The Iraq war was a "detour" from the war on terrorism, he said.

The Army War College, located in Carlisle, Pa., trains military and civilian officials in the theory and application of military strategy using land-based forces. The report contains a disclaimer stating that it does not necessarily represent the views of the Army, the Pentagon or the U.S. government.

In the foreword to the report, found on the Internet at http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/2003/bounding/bounding.pdf , Douglas C. Lovelace Jr., the institute's director, said the monograph was offered "as a contribution to the national security debate over the aims and course of the war on terrorism."

Record, a former staff member for the Senate Armed Services Committee, has written six books on military issues. He also teaches at the Air Force's Air War College in Montgomery, Ala.

Loren Thompson, a defense analyst at the Lexington Institute, an Arlington, Va.-based research organization that focuses on military affairs, said: "There's no question that Iraq has diverted U.S. attention from the war on terrorism. However, [the U.S.] invaded Iraq to resolve a potentially more serious threat that American intelligence indicated was quite urgent — that being the threat of weapons of mass destruction…. All intelligence estimates pointed to an urgent threat."

Daniel Benjamin, a member of the National Security Council staff in the late 1990s, said, "The criticism does not seem out of line with many of the conversations I have had with officers in every branch of the military."

Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times

Col gene has stooped to a new low, now he won't even look for articles that make Bush look bad. He's just going at it straight from his mind. For as long as he has it anyways, every article he post seems to show that he's losing his mind.

At least some people who he go Bush bashing find decent articles that make it a bit dificult to fight back.

BTW Col gene, I think you misunderstood the saying "repetition is the key to success". See quote below:

Anyone that did not obey his orders the way Bush didn't should never have received an Honorable discharge

Saddam would not have allowed any such groups to operate. He was the Dictator.

You seem to know a hell of alot about Saddam and Iraq for a guy who doesn't live there. The next Encyclopedia created should have a chapter called "Col gene Everything about Saddam and Iraq"

I read a lot including material from the Army War College. The article from the Army War College is not from a Bush Bashing organization. The War College tells it like it is not as Bush and his staff SPINS everything.

The Army War college is like everywhere else. It has it's great minds and total fools. In my years in the military, I saw both ends of the War College Alumni spectrum. Just because they are there, doesn't make them any less influenced by their own political biases as anyone else.

They know a lot more them you or our Commander-in-chief! I graduated from the War College and I know they are NOT political.

The nature of the government after we leave will determine if the Bush adventure in Iraq was a success. It will not be a measure of how many or how fast we can train the Iraqi military and police. It will be if the new Iraq allows terrorist groups to operate like they are today in Iraq or if the governmnet of the new Iraq is anything like Iran or Seria. If ANY of those result, The Bush policy in Iraq will be a BIG FAILURE!

They know a lot more them you or our Commander-in-chief! I graduated from the War College and I know they are NOT political.

and you are a lying sack of crap! Or are Army War college students just a bunch of robots? Of course they have their own thoughts you slime!

Next what, you're going to tell us that all Colonels are perfect, they're farts never stink, and honey oozes from their butts?

Tell me that you understand the even Field Grade officers are human... complete with political opinions that often effect their decisions.

Before you answer, keep in mind that I know at least 1 Colonel who was convicted of rape, 3 that were caught driving drunk and a couple of wife and child beaters... some were democrats, some were Republicans, and 1 was a socialist.

Para Ted 2K

Like ANY academic institution, the faculty and strudents are free to study military issues without the need to support or not support current policy. the issues must be supported with both facts and lodgic. Every person has their beliefs but when you must support you position with facts and lodgic the pure political impact is far less.

You are an Ass. YOU DO NOT KNOW ME AND TO SAY I AM LYING SHOWS YOU FOR THE IDIOT YOU ARE. To think I spent 30 years defending the rights of the likes of you makes me sick. DROP DEAD !

That's all well & good, Gene (the Army War College assessment), but the war is a fait accompli in progress and it is pointless (except as an academic exercise, which is what the College does, BTW, academic study of war history) to argue something that has been decided. The College could be more helpful if they were to provide an assessment of how best to finish the job we have started - that would be an academic exercise worth reading.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Trying in vain to drag this back on-topic...

My wife drove past the Naval Academy yesterday during the speech! So she saw the crowds of "average Americans" (midshipmen) while lost in downtown Annapolis.

Unfortunately, by "average Americans", you mean "those who hate Bush". And also unfortunately, those who hate Bush can get quite unruly in a closed environment. Especially when they can try and hog the limelight, thus distracting from the message of the President.

What can be learned from Iraq is how not to make the same mistake again! The Best way is to elect a President that knows what he is doing!

The average Americans includes some who support Bush and some that do not. What I have said in this Blog which is 100% true is that Bush only appears before those that support him and his policies. That means he does not appear before the majority of Americans.

Psst... Hey, Gene. There's a couple of newfangled technologies you may not have heard of - television and radio - that the Pres uses fairly often. Average people have them, even the majority of Americans.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Daiwa -- great insight. Television and radio --- hmmmm. You left out blogging. Consider that the 1992 and 1996 elections were conducted without the benfit of Blogs, Bloggers et al. There were internet discussion groups at 28K-56K, but that's it. That was 10 short years ago. We can all tell our kids we were there to debate the meaning of THE AVERAGE AMERICAN in cyberspace as the reality of it disappeared completely. Kids in Japan will be reading this post as soon as Poldark Maximus hits the "Submit" button. What difference does it make who is sitting in from of my PC?

You are an Ass. YOU DO NOT KNOW ME AND TO SAY I AM LYING SHOWS YOU FOR THE IDIOT YOU ARE. To think I spent 30 years defending the rights of the likes of you makes me sick. DROP DEAD !

The same can be sais for you! Para and I both spend time so and idiot like youcan spew your fiflth? Lefties and libs like you make us sick. And as to the last part of you sentence....."SAME TO YA".

Drmiler

Fool - I am not a liberal. I have been a MODERATE Republican for over 40 years. You know NOTHING! I do not agree with the conservatives which does not make me a liberal. The majority of Americans are NOT conservatives and is WHY we should NOT be following the conservative policies. Clinton, for all his faults, understood where the majority wanted to be and was far more centrest then GWB. Bush is trying to sell conservatism in this country and a western style democracy in the Moslem World. Neither group wants what Bush is selling!!!! Bush is OUT TO LUNCH and any who support his policies is out of touch with what the majority of this country wants from their government. That is why poll afret poll tells the same story - NO Mr. Bush we do not support your policies - Iraq, border security, Social Security, trade, taxes, energy etc. I can not remenber in my life time when the policies of a president and a Congress were so out of agreement with what the vast majority wanted! It is time for a change in either the GOP is controlled by the moderates or a change to the Democrats. No more stay the course.

I read a lot including material from the Army War College. The article from the Army War College is not from a Bush Bashing organization. The War College tells it like it is not as Bush and his staff SPINS everything.

OHG, we have people who spend years in school studying the history of other countries, scientist who spend most of their lives finding, proving and disproving history and people that have actually been around people from other countries for long periods of time, living with them, eating their food, dressing in their clothes and even celebrating their holidays. But we have you, a guy with the Army War College to teach us how wrong we are about the world. It's sad to say that Saddam, himself, would have better chances of making us believe him than you do.

You are an Ass. YOU DO NOT KNOW ME AND TO SAY I AM LYING SHOWS YOU FOR THE IDIOT YOU ARE. To think I spent 30 years defending the rights of the likes of you makes me sick. DROP DEAD !

Listen you lunatic, sad excuse for an American, uneducated, iliterate, Bush-hating, broken record cry baby. You put your life on the line for the rights of every American, not just your sorry ass, those of your family and those who think like you. If you don't like what you created maybe you should just put a bullet in your head and rid us of your ignorant mentality. You might have been better off dying during those 30 years and we would only have to remember you as an American who gave his life for us instead of having to get to know you more personally and wish you would have been cought, tortured and raped and then burned to death.

How dare you rub in our faces the 30 years you fought for our freedom? No one here or anywhere else asked you or forced you to join. You did that all by yourself with that little brain of yours which makes me wonder how did you ever make it to Col. The let anyone in high positions now adays. If we look at things thru your eyes you don't deserve that Col title any more than Bush deserves his honorable discharge.

Well that felt good. Sorry for acting this way folks, it's not like me to insult with more than one word at a time. But Gene, cause you don't deserve to be called by your complete screen name, deserves it. IMO.

BTW, I know that that comment was not ment to me but it was ment to more than one person.

Drmiler Fool - I am not a liberal. I have been a MODERATE Republican for over 40 years. You know NOTHING! I do not agree with the conservatives which does not make me a liberal. The majority of Americans are NOT conservatives and is WHY we should NOT be following the conservative policies. Clinton, for all his faults, understood where the majority wanted to be and was far more centrest then GWB. Bush is trying to sell conservatism in this country and a western style democracy in the Moslem World. Neither group wants what Bush is selling!!!! Bush is OUT TO LUNCH and any who support his policies is out of touch with what the majority of this country wants from their government. That is why poll afret poll tells the same story - NO Mr. Bush we do not support your policies - Iraq, border security, Social Security, trade, taxes, energy etc. I can not remenber in my life time when the policies of a president and a Congress were so out of agreement with what the vast majority wanted! It is time for a change in either the GOP is controlled by the moderates or a change to the Democrats. No more stay the course.

Fool. yourself! You SURE as hell are no moderate either. Even with ALL you've said to the contrary! Every time you open your mouth you convince everyone that you're no moderate. As far as being a conservative? Hell no! We wouldn't want you! And your' polls that say GW is out of touch with the majority? What a pile of liberal/democrat crap!

You are just DUMB! I guess you can not help yourself!

You are just DUMB! I guess you can not help yourself!

Wow, you kept it short. Is this the best you can do? Are you giving up already? Maybe you just forget to get Duracell batteries for yourself. With all those who you say are against Bush in the US I have to wonder where are all these people if there is hardly anyone here backing you up, keep in mind that there are people here who dislike Bush and are Liberals. But you, you are in a category all by yourself. Those in your party can't stand you and those in the opposing party don't want to be associated with you. Sad if you ask me.

Face it Col, you don't have what it takes to debate online with people. The fact that you can't spell right hints everyone right off the back.

You are just DUMB! I guess you can not help yourself!

Sorry DJBandit but I gotta go with this! To col klink: "If I'm "just dumb", then you must be "just as stupid"! And I guess you can't help it either.

You are just DUMB! ...If I'm "just dumb", then you must be "just as stupid... Fool. yourself!

What happened to this thread? It's degenerated to "You're dumb" and "No, you're dumb!" I expect more from all JUsers.

I am not a liberal. I have been a MODERATE Republican for over 40 years.

I'm glad you have, but it's the first we've heard of it. How are we to think your views when you have been so rabidly, drum-bangingly against Bush and his policies for your entire blogging career? I mean, even the name of your blog is "Bush Truth". The name of your book is "Four More Years of George W.?" Both proceed to cite all the bad things you see in the Bush administration.

For someone who claims to be conservative, you don't seem to have conservative philosophies. In fact, you scream ideologies that are against everything the current flag-wavers of conservatism, the Republican Party, even give a hint of supporting.
So again, what are we to think? Someone that blinkardly against Republican principles and policies must be a liberal.

You are just DUMB! ...If I'm "just dumb", then you must be "just as stupid... Fool. yourself!

What happened to this thread? It's degenerated to "You're dumb" and "No, you're dumb!" I expect more from all JUsers.

I am not a liberal. I have been a MODERATE Republican for over 40 years.

I'm glad you have, but it's the first we've heard of it. How are we to think your views when you have been so rabidly, drum-bangingly against Bush and his policies for your entire blogging career? I mean, even the name of your blog is "Bush Truth". The name of your book is "Four More Years of George W.?" Both proceed to cite all the bad things you see in the Bush administration.

For someone who claims to be conservative, you don't seem to have conservative philosophies. In fact, you scream ideologies that are against everything the current flag-wavers of conservatism, the Republican Party, even give a hint of supporting.

So again, what are we to think? Someone as blinkardly against Republican principles and policies as you scream must be a liberal.

You are just DUMB! ...If I'm "just dumb", then you must be "just as stupid... Fool. yourself!

What happened to this thread? It's degenerated to "You're dumb" and "No, you're dumb!" I expect more from all JUsers.

I am not a liberal. I have been a MODERATE Republican for over 40 years.

I'm glad you have, but it's the first we've heard of it. How are we to think your views when you have been so rabidly, drum-bangingly against Bush and his policies for your entire blogging career? I mean, even the name of your blog is "Bush Truth". The name of your book is "Four More Years of George W.?" Both proceed to cite all the bad things you see in the Bush administration.

For someone who claims to be conservative, you don't seem to have conservative philosophies. In fact, you scream ideologies that are against everything the current flag-wavers of conservatism, the Republican Party, even give a hint of supporting.

So again, what are we to think? Someone as blinkardly against Republican principles and policies as you scream must be a liberal.

You are just DUMB! ...If I'm "just dumb", then you must be "just as stupid... Fool. yourself!

What happened to this thread? It's degenerated to "You're dumb" and "No, you're dumb!" I expect more from all JUsers.

I am not a liberal. I have been a MODERATE Republican for over 40 years.

I'm glad you have, but it's the first we've heard of it. How are we to think your views when you have been so rabidly, drum-bangingly against Bush and his policies for your entire blogging career? I mean, even the name of your blog is "Bush Truth". The name of your book is "Four More Years of George W.?" Both proceed to cite all the bad things you see in the Bush administration.

For someone who claims to be conservative, you don't seem to have conservative philosophies. In fact, you scream ideologies that are against everything the current flag-wavers of conservatism, the Republican Party, even give a hint of supporting.

So again, what are we to think? Someone as blinkardly against Republican principles and policies as you scream must be a liberal.

You are just DUMB! ...If I'm "just dumb", then you must be "just as stupid... Fool. yourself!

What happened to this thread? It's degenerated to "You're dumb" and "No, you're dumb!" I expect more from all JUsers.

I am not a liberal. I have been a MODERATE Republican for over 40 years.

I'm glad you have, but it's the first we've heard of it. How are we to think your views when you have been so rabidly, drum-bangingly against Bush and his policies for your entire blogging career? I mean, even the name of your blog is "Bush Truth". The name of your book is "Four More Years of George W.?" Both proceed to cite all the bad things you see in the Bush administration.

For someone who claims to be conservative, you don't seem to have conservative philosophies. In fact, you scream ideologies that are against everything the current flag-wavers of conservatism, the Republican Party, even give a hint of supporting.

So again, what are we to think? Someone as blinkardly against Republican principles and policies as you scream must be a liberal.