[Rhodes22-list] General McCaffrey's latest trip report from Iraq

[DCLewis1 at aol.com]

Hank,
 
McCaffery's report is Interesting reading, thanks for the post -  really.  A 
couple of comments:
 
Seems to me McCaffery’s report is an example of something for  everyone.  
- If you’re against the war cite section 3 of the report  titled The Problem, 
things are terrible.  As you pointed out the Washington  Post will cite that 
material.  I point out, he starts that section with the  statement “These are 
the facts” so it's probably appropriate that The Washington  Post cite the 
material.
- If you’re actually doing the war you will want to  cite section 4 of the 
report titled The Current Situation.  The situation  on the ground “has clearly 
and measurably improved”. The troops are  extraordinary, performing very well, 
leadership is superb, Spec Operations is  “magic”.  But he goes to great 
lengths to show why we can’t send anymore  troops.  This has been the Pentagons 
position and it’s what the leadership  in the Pentagon will cite.  We also 
learn the keys to solving the Iraqi  problem are 5000 light armored vehicles,  24 
C-17s and need 240 light  attack aircraft (I’m sure Boeing, Lockheed Martin, 
and General Dynamic’s will  cite those findings).
- If you’re the Administration just cite section 6, the  summary, send more 
troops money and supplies.
 
There are major contradictions: 
- Is his estimate of the situation  the dismal one in Section 3, or the happy 
one in Section 4?  How are the 2  reconciled?  Petraeus has been there for a 
while now, it shouldn't be that  bad.  And if it was that bad how did it get 
that bad and why didn't it  improve sooner?
- How, after going to great lengths to highlight the manpower  problem in 
Section 4 and flatly stating “The US Armed Forces cannot sustain the  current 
deployment rate” (see pg 7 Section 5), can he recommend sending more  troops in 
Section 6, the summary?  Where does he recommend the troops come  from?
 
And there are just plain off-the-wall recommendations: Do you really think  
the Iraqi war hinges on 3 squadrons of Iraqi light attack aircraft?  Or  even 
any Iraqi light attack aircraft?  
 
So there's something positive for everyone to latch on to, and the  premise, 
facts, and conclusions are not consistent from section  to section.
 
I think the core of McCaffery's thoughts are probably in Section 5, titled  
The Way Ahead, and some of those thoughts are contradicted in Section 6,  the 
summary.  He points out we cannot sustain the present deployment rate -  in the 
summary he asks for more military strength (i.e. troops) - instead he  points 
out that it's really up to the US leadership in Iraq to get the  warring 
factions together.  He points out that still, after many years, we  are in the 
wrong ball park (his words) regarding what is needed for the Army,  Police, and 
border patrol, and that there is very little time to put this and  any other 
matters right.   He may be right about the ball park, I'm  sure he's right about 
little time remaining.  
 
What McCaffery does not touch on, at all, are the historical  factors that 
got us into this mess - who screwed up?  McCaffery may  regard the issue of "how 
we got here" as irrelevant to figuring out how to get  out of the mess, but 
from my perspective there are clear lessons to be learned  so that we don't 
touch the tar-baby again, and I think it does bear on how we go  about extracting 
ourselves from the mess that is Iraq.    
 
Again, thanks for the post.  Hey, it beats working on taxes!
 
Dave



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.