Re: More generals admit mistakes, poor planning, wishful thinking

On Sep 20, 3:50 pm, "George Z. Bush" <georgezb...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
mg wrote:
"George Z. Bush" <georgezb...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
messagenews:girIi.861$nc7.501@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
mg wrote:
Florida wrote:
http://www.examiner.com/a-940913~More_generals_confess_to_mistakes.html

More generals confess to mistakes

Sep 18, 2007 3:00 AM (6 hrs ago)
by Rowan Scarborough, The Examiner

WASHINGTON (Map, News) - The number of top generals
willing to admit
mistakes in planning for post-Saddam Hussein Iraq is
increasing.

The most recent mea culpa came right from the top -
Marine Gen. Peter
Pace, the outgoing Joint Chiefs chairman, who last week
gave his most
extensive answer to the question of what he would have
done
differently in 2003.

At the time, Pace was vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs
and had a
front-row seat in war planning sessions at the Pentagon
with Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

"One of the mistakes I made in my assumptions going in
was that the
Iraqi people and the Iraqi army would welcome
liberation, that the
Iraqi army, given the opportunity, would stand together
for the Iraqi
people and be available to them to help serve the new
nation," Pace
said.

He said the Iraqi army more or less "disintegrated." The
Bush
administration made a much-criticized decision in 2003
to disband the
army rather than reorganize it, beginning the long
process of building
a new force from scratch.

Pace said if he could have foresaw the Iraqi army's lack
of
cooperation, "I probably would have made a different
recommendation
about the total size force going in."

There is a consensus among Democrats, Republicans and
military experts
in Washington that Rumsfeld, his advisers and generals
botched the
post-war plan.

For one, there were too few troops to safeguard
government buildings,
arsenals and neighborhoods.

Retired Army Gen. John Abizaid worked closely with
Rumsfeld at the
Pentagon as director of the Joint Staff. He eventually
became chief of
U.S. Central Command during the the insurgency's rise.

Asked at a 2006 hearing if Gen. Eric Shinseki, then the
Army chief,
was right in calling for more than 300,000 troops in
Iraq, Abizaid
said, "General Shinseki was right that a greater
international force
contribution, U.S. force contribution and Iraqi force
contribution
should have been available immediately after major
combat operations."

Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, was
not a
Rumsfeld confidante during 2003 war planning, but he did
command the
101st Airborne Division in the initial invasion and
occupation.

In a run-up to his January Senate confirmation hearing,
Petraeus
provided an extensive list of the military's biggest
mistakes.

"There were a number of assumptions and assessments that
did not bear
out," he told the committee. "Prominent among them was
the assumption
that Iraqis would remain in their barracks and ministry
facilities
would resume their functions as soon as interim
government structures
were in place. That obviously did not transpire."
___________________

Bush's plan was to gain control of their oil, turn Iraq
into a Neocon
paradise, and force the Iraqis to love their Christian
conquerers. The
extent to which U.S. generals are responsible for the
failure to
implement that sociopathic plan, is highly debatable.

However, U.S. generals have failed, for many years, to
protect Iraqi
civilians from genocide and any general who didn't have
the guts to
tell Bush that we need to implement a draft and get more
troops over
there, have blood on their hands and are probably war
criminals.

As a retired military man, I don't see it in quite the
stark terms you do. What it boils down to, rather than the
stretch you've taken, is that professional military men,
particularly at the flag level, have a responsibility to
give their best impartial professional advice to their
civilian policy-making supervisors and then are
constitutionally charged with the duty of carrying out
that policy.

There is no requirement in US law that they engage in
insurgency or civil war because they disagree with the
policies given to them by the policy-makers. Over the
years, the manner in which they show their disapproval of
policies that they believe not to serve the best interests
of the nation has been for them to make their statements
of disapproval with their feet as they either resign their
commissions or retire from the active service.

If you have a need for putting blood on the hands of
anyone, reserve it for the policy makers who cause the
blood letting. I realize that the common perception of
flag rank officers is that they're a bunch of callous,
uncaring individuals, but that is, in most cases, a
misperception. I've known and presently know flag rank
officers who mourn the loss of colleagues and subordinates
with whom they had close personal and social relationships
as much as the rest of us do.

George Z.

Let's just look at this objectively, from a legal
standpoint, for a moment. I believe that if I did some
research I would find that international law requires that
an occupying nation provide order and security for
civilians.

Everything you said following this point left objectivity behind without
even a link to the international law you think exists. Without it, there's
no point in getting into hypothetical situations because they'll prove
nothing. In the meanwhile, the only international law I'm aware of that is
writ in stone as it were is the Geneva Convention, which is a treaty to
whose provisions numerous nations subscribed as signatories. Until you can
find one that outlines what constitutes international criminal behavior,
pursuing hypotheticals is little more than an intellectual exercise of
flights of fancy signifying little if anything IMHO.

(Snip)

George Z.

This really is mostly common sense to assume that an occupying force
would be responsible for the safety of the citizens of the occupied
country. However, if one does a quick search on Google using the words
INTERNATIONAL LAW OCCUPYING FORCE a lot of stuff pops up. Here's an
example:

"Published on Friday, April 18, 2003 by the Baltimore Sun
U.S. Victory has Steep Price in Maintaining Safe Iraq Peace
International Law Places Demands on Occupier
by Robert Little

WASHINGTON - As their soldiers police Baghdad and their engineers
grapple with the city's failing water and electrical systems, American
military officials in Iraq are acting out of more than simply
humanitarian good will - they are required to repair the country under
international law.

According to well-established treaties that the United States has long
upheld, the invading American forces must restore and maintain order
in Iraq. And that is only the beginning of the reparative
responsibilities of a foreign occupying power.

If Iraqi citizens need food and medicine, the United States must get
it for them. If orphans need an education, the United States must
provide it. If anyone in Iraq needs books or supplies to practice
their religion, American forces have an obligation to help gather and
distribute them.

The laws of occupation are so demanding that some legal scholars think
they are a disincentive for American officials to declare a formal end
to the war. Once the United States' status as an occupier is
established it not only inherits Iraq's humanitarian and peacekeeping
needs but also faces new obstacles in its effort to find or kill
Saddam Hussein. He is a military target as long as the war continues,
but becomes a "protected person" during a military occupation, subject
to criminal prosecution but not to assaults by Special Forces or 2,000-
pound bombs.

"It's harder for us to kill Saddam Hussein if we're [an occupying
power] because then he has protection," said John B. Quigley, a
professor of international law at Ohio State University. "I've
suspected that is one reason why we've been reluctant to declare that
the war is over. As long as there's still hostility we can say he's an
enemy and go after him."

The laws of occupation carry little legal punch, because the United
States does not recognize the International Criminal Court that most
likely would be called on to enforce them.

But as an occupying force, the United States is nonetheless
responsible for virtually every facet of Iraq's civil administration,
according to long-accepted treaties that have been incorporated into
this country's own laws and guidelines for war.

"[Gen.] Tommy Franks can't just call off the fighting and then sit on
his hands while people need food and medical supplies," said
University of Houston law professor Jordan J. Paust, referring to the
top U.S. commander in Iraq. "That would be dereliction of duty, with
possible criminal consequences.

"I don't mean to say that has happened, but it is something that has
to be taken seriously. I can assure you that the Pentagon knows to
take it seriously."

The United States has long been a party to two groups of international
treaties - the Hague Conventions of 1907 and the Geneva Conventions of
1949 - that form the basis for a general law of war that is recognized
throughout the world. The U.S. Army's "Law of Land Warfare," first
published in 1956 and still in effect, is essentially a compilation of
the Hague and Geneva conventions.

Most of the laws are designed to protect prisoners and civilians while
a war is raging, but they impose specific responsibilities on an
invading army that has seized control of enemy territory and assumed
the role of "belligerent occupant."

Foremost, the occupying army must assure that the basic humanitarian
needs of the population are met, either by bringing in food and
medicine or by handing over that function to an aid organization. It
must also do its best to restore public order.

And the obligations go on. The occupying army must respect citizens'
rights to family life and religious freedom, and it must enforce
criminal laws and ensure that a judicial system is functioning. No
government or public buildings can be destroyed without a specific
military purpose; no private property can be seized unless a receipt
is issued and compensation is promised and, ultimately, paid.

"It's a very serious obligation," said Quigley. "When you take over a
country, and eliminate whatever controlling authority existed there,
you have a responsibility to make sure things are decent, that the
people's basic needs are met."

The occupying forces can restrict the movement of citizens, regulate
commercial business, seize and operate public transportation and
censor newspapers and broadcast stations, according to the United
States' interpretations of international law. It can collect taxes,
create a new currency system and operate government revenue sources -
like the Iraqi oil wells - to pay for the costs of occupation.

Some legal experts think the United States has already violated
international law by not preventing Iraqis from looting banks and
shops and destroying government buildings and historical artifacts.
According to the Hague conventions, an occupying force "shall take all
the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible,
public order and safety."

American military officials say they tried to prevent some of the
recent looting, and that military battles prevented them from
assigning troops to policing roles.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld described the looting in Baghdad
as "an unfortunate thing" during a Pentagon briefing this week, but
said American forces were too involved in combat to stop it. "To the
extent it can be stopped, it should be stopped," he said. "To the
extent it happens in a war zone, it's difficult to stop."

Added Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff: "When some of that looting was going on, people were being
killed, people were being wounded. ... So I think it's, as much as
anything else, a matter of priorities."

The laws of occupation, however, make no exception for "the mere
existence of local resistance groups."

"There's a strict duty here - the Pentagon had a responsibility to do
something about the looting of Baghdad, and it didn't," said Francis
A. Boyle, a professor at the University of Illinois College of Law.
"Basically, we're now responsible for the entire country of Iraq and
all of its 25 million residents. Somebody should have given the order
to stop the looting and protect those buildings."

But international laws are subject to broad interpretation, and other
legal authorities do not find fault with the United States' behavior
in the war.

"The law doesn't say you have to have 20,000 trained MPs who come in
right behind you. That's ridiculous," said Eugene R. Fidell, a lawyer
specializing in military law and president of the National Institute
of Military Justice in Washington. "I don't know of any authority for
the proposition that you have to prepare yourself for a premature
collapse of your adversary."

The U.S. military's position on the laws of occupation seems to be
that it has not formally made the transition from invading force to
occupying power, and so the laws don't apply, at least not yet. Brig.
Gen. Vincent Brooks, a spokesman for the U.S. Central Command, said
this week: "We're still a liberating force, and that's how we're
approaching our operations. The final legalistic declarations we make
will be forthcoming in the next several days."

But "liberating force" is not a legal designation, and many legal
scholars say the United States already meets the legal definition of
"belligerent occupant." The United States' peacekeeping
responsibilities kicked in the moment Hussein fell from power, they
say, regardless of whether those responsibilities were militarily
convenient.

"It makes sense that the military would not be all that interested in
moving into that role right away. It's a big responsibility," said
Boyle. "But there's no question that we are now a belligerent occupant
of that country, whether we choose to acknowledge it or not. We have
an obligation to ensure that the indigenous Iraqi civilians can carry
on with their lives."
http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/headlines03/0418-04.htm

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engmde140892003
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2005/1222belligerent.htm



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT - Id like to find out whos willing to replace him.
    ... It's a violation of eternal moral law. ... International law is merely a pact of convenience between human ... No country was going to go to war against the United States because it ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Linux Advocates Fear Solaris 10.
    ... >>United States of America coyright law. ... >>Canada, let alone in the EU, Switzerland ... >>China, or Japan, or any place other than the United States. ... Specifically what "international law" do you mean? ...
    (comp.unix.solaris)
  • Re: Blair Down
    ... International Law is not the same as national law, ... made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law ...
    (uk.rec.motorcycles)
  • What about this on Neocon99
    ... THE UNITED STATES IS STILL A BRITISH COLONY ... We have One World Government, One World Law and a One World Monetary ... The King of England financially backed both sides of the Revolutionary ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Imperialism and Fascism are on the Rise in the USA
    ... development is important for the United States, but it is also of paramount ... what is the fate of democracy elsewhere? ... rule of law, the decentralization and separation of powers, and the ... a powerful political and legal framework that could allow President George ...
    (misc.survivalism)