A friend alerts us to a fascinating piece from the Wall Street Journal entitled "Our Generals Almost Cost Us Iraq" by Mackuber Thomas Owens, the editor of Orbis. Owens points out that

even when it comes to strictly military affairs, soldiers are not necessarily more prescient than civilian policy makers.

and that this seems to have been especially the case during the Iraq war, when commanders like GEN Casey, GEN Abizaid, and worst of all, ADM Fallon sought to undermine the Surge -- presuming of course that the accounts in Bob Woodward's "The War Within" are true (always a big if). Owen concludes

not since Gen. McClellan attempted to sabotage Lincoln's war policy in 1862 has the leadership of the U.S. military so blatantly attempted to undermine a president in the pursuit of his constitutional authority

 

The farewell letter to his troops from the most successful American general in the last half century.  David Ignatius's account of the Petraeus farewell HERE.

Those with tired eyes may wish to click-through the image to read the letter, or perhaps to download the image and zoom in.

- JSL

 

Standpoint's Washington insider, "The Beltway Bandit" was impressed by Bob Woodward's Washington Post article about General Jack Keane, without whom "The Surge" strategy would never have become fact:

 What's fascinating here is how Bush and Keane clearly understood the strategic necessity of winning in Iraq, while the brass were stuck in peacetime mode worrying about not having enough forces for other contigencies. A failure in the actuality of Iraq would have been the best way to turn these contingencies from possibilities to probabilities.

Next week is the Fifth Annual Anglo Sikh Heritage Week in the UK and unsurprisingly there are a number of exhibitions and events with a military theme. These include From Jawans to Generals - Loyal Allies, Proud Britons, an exhibtion at the Warwickshire Museum, beginning Saturday Sept 13, and lectures at the Imperial War Museum ('Water Stirred With Steel", the National Army Museum and the Royal Geographical Society.

It was extraordinary how little attention was paid in the media on either side of the Atlantic to a momentous event: the handover last week of Anbar Province to Iraqi forces. Ralph Peters, the great American soldier-scholar and novelist turned columnist sets out the facts in his usual devastating fashion:

This year, Iraq received a special gift to kick off Ramadan, Islam's holy month of alternate fasts and feasts: The handover of a huge, economically resurgent, peaceful province. More than 12,000 Marines have been withdrawn from Anbar. The remaining 25,000 US troops are packing up. That means more forces available for Afghanistan - and more time together for our military families.

The handover also means that 11 of Iraq's 18 provinces are now the responsibility of the country's long-derided security forces - with two more provinces scheduled to revert to full Iraqi control by year's end.

Yes, challenges remain in Anbar. The province is overwhelmingly Sunni, and the Shia-dominated government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki will have to avoid clumsy partisanship that could ignite a new round of Sunni-Shia strife. All parties will have to make compromises, and inter-communal cooperation isn't deeply embedded in the local DNA.

But the irrefutable fact is that we did our part - and our troops did it well. When Anbar appeared to be al Qaeda's turf and its cities endured ferocious urban combat, our defeatists insisted that victory was impossible, that Iraq was hopelessly lost.

Imagine how much worse off the Middle East - and the world - would be today if we'd listened to the quit-and-damn-the-consequences crowd. Al Qaeda would've won a great strategic victory.

UK readers unfamiliar with Peters' articles for Armed Forces Journal, USA Today and the NY Post, should have a look at his recent collections: Wars of Blood and Faith - The Conflicts that will shape the Twenty First Century;  New Glory - Expanding America's Global Supremacy; Beyond Terror - Strategy in a Changing World; Fighting for the Future; and Beyond Baghdad - Postmodern War and Peace.

There is also an  excellent introduction to Peters' work in The Shah Always Falls, an interview with Fred Smoler of American Heritage magazine.

The New York Times reports today that a senior CIA emissary has confronted Pakistan's ISI with evidence of its agents' links to terrorists and militants in Afghanistan. 

The C.I.A. emissary presented evidence showing that members of the spy service had deepened their ties with some militant groups that were responsible for a surge of violence in Afghanistan, possibly including the suicide bombing this month of the Indian Embassy in Kabul

These links have long been an open secret in the region, but this is the first time since 9/11 that they have been raised so publicly by the West.

The story makes the Trilateral Afghanistan-Pakistan-NATO Commission seem even more absurd. Eventually the US, UK and NATO are going to have to recognize that key elites in Pakistan see Afghanistan as their colony, as well as a battleground in Pakistan's covert struggle with India. The success of the Afghan government and the defeat of the Taliban and other militants are not in their interest.

In the UK, the mainstream press generally discusses close air suport only in the context of bombs gone astray in Afghanistan or Iraq. It's a shame because there are fascinating lessons to be learned from the both conflicts about CAS. Many allied ground forces in Afghanistan wish they had their own dedicated CAS assets like the US Marine Corps does (in the form of jet fighters as well as attack helicopters). The latest issue of Air and Space Power Journal(the professional journal of the US Air Force) includes a fascinating paper by Maj. Michael H. Johnson of the USMC entitled Cleared to Engage - Improving the Effectiveness of Joint Close Air Support.

Standpoint's 'Unfit for Purpose' article about the dysfunctional culture of the British Ministry of Defence has provoked some fascinating on-line comment. Check out this contribution from a former member of the Parachute Regiment -- it's an infuriating story:

....In May I emailed the US Military's Medical Research and Material Command, seeing if they were interested in our Hands-Free Drinking System to help hydrate their injured and disabled service personnel coming back from Afghanistan. I timed it so they'd receive my email first thing in the morning. They took just three hours to write back to advise me of the procedure and who to contact. They even answered my follow-on questions. On the same day I wrote letters to the various Head Shed within the Defence Medical Services Dept. Six weeks later and a chase-up phone call to Whitehall - still waiting for an acknowledgement. I also wrote with reference to Headley Court, offering some free-issue equipment to help our personnel in rehab - still no reply. Is this reality? A reflection of what's happening in the rest of the MOD/Services? I hope not...

A military friend writes to us concerning a peculiar piece that appeared in the Spectator a couple of weeks ago justifying the privatization of the UK's Defence Research Agency:

 It was interesting to note that the Spectator last week contained a 'defence of the indefensible' - the selling off of UK Scientific Research to form QinetiQ - so widely condemned by MPs from all sides of the House only the week before, as revealed by Standpoint's Mole article on the MOD. How Ross Butler - which planet is he on? - could write such a piece beggars belief as Cogito Ergosum and Peter Sugar write in direct comment on his piece: 'if the Government feels it got too little from the deal, that merely matches their disdain for the scientific skills which propelled the company. If they really valued scientists and engineers, they would have kept ownership of the company' said Sugar.  Ergosum pointed out to the author:  'you are forgetting the large single tender government contract handed down by government for the management of the ranges, just prior to flotation. You are also forgetting the enormous amount of land that the government allowed QinetiQ to keep and which they sold for cash to fund the purchase of those companies in the USA. The chairman and people who profiteered did not work for that but were handed all of that on a plate. How could the valuation of the business had been so low escapes everyone and it stinks to high heaven. The numbers look unbelievable whatever you say about context. The business of this firm today is what it always was a handout from government (UK or US) and the patents and elite scientists they inherited meant that they could not fail. The firm is not as robust as you are describing it for otherwise the share value would be much higher than at flotation prices'. This is, as the Standpoint Mole says 'a national disgrace' and yet the sell off of land and our unique scientists and science continues apace. It is surprising that the Spectator would allow such drivel to appear in its 'Business' section and one wonders why. Perhaps all the more reason for people to read Standpoint.