Why We Lost: A General's Inside Account of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars

[Hacksaw]

An observation from my perspective; GO's are surrounded by retards. Here is how I've seen it, take a Division like 1st CAV, have numerous Brigades from all over the Army supporting that Division with each Brigade sending their top mouth breather (O-3 to O-5) up the DIVHQ at BAF to work as the LNO for their Brigade. Simple, top commanders are surrounded by the worst officers (and often times NCO's) from a huge mixed bag of units most of which do not fall under that command stateside. I've been doing the advisor thing now for 10 years in both Iraq and Afghanistan (where I am right now), from Division down to squad, and it has been hard to watch or to understand the breaks between the different levels of command. I've watched time and time again LTC's and COL's outright LIE to their commanders with absolutely no repercussions. I don't know Bolger or whatever the hell his name is but it's unimportant, they come, make big plans, rarely to never make good on those plans, leave and the next guy does the same. I was just a team guy, maybe I'm just not capable of fully appreciating the awesomeness that is command level occurrences but I do look forward to never seeing it again.

[Hacksaw]

To get back on track for this thread, we lost because we fought 1 year wars while our enemy has continued to fight the entire time. We've used Infantry units to guard FOB's and Field Artillery units to conduct DA operations. We used MiTT teams to do SF missions and SF teams to do Ranger platoon missions. We do change of command ceremonies half way through a rotation so that no officer is left behind. This guy writing a book on why we lost....how the hell would he know?

[Box]

One thing I learned as a commander, your focus on preparing and leading your unit to carry out its assigned missions forces your 'world-view' to become necessarily self-limiting and, therefore, limited, and it isn't until months or even years after relinquishing command that you become far enough removed to realize it

No argument there. That speaks to my original question though...
...after ten years of the same war, why aren't there any senior leaders at the GO level that don't need "years" of reflection to realize that the frontal assault was in fact an attack and not a ruse?



...Hacksaw, you are right on the money.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Hacksaw

This guy writing a book on why we lost....how the hell would he know?

I suspect he might know a thing or two about it all from a synthesized tactical, strategic, and national policy perspective.

http://www.isaf.nato.int/about-isaf/...olger-usa.html

Anyway, whether one will agree with his view(s) or not, it should be an interesting read.

Richard

[Toaster]

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

I remember an officer saying almost the same thing about Vietnam in a book once. He said we did not fight there for ten years but we fought there for a year ten times. That may not be exact but close.

Sounds like COL Hackworth. Not sure the opinion of the board members, but to me it showed that if someone speaks out in the public arena, a cruxification awaits them.

[Hacksaw]

I suspect he might know a thing or two about it all from a synthesized tactical, strategic, and national policy perspective.

He may well have some interesting things to say and I'm sure he and the guy helping him write it will make some insightful and well fused observations, however; the odds that he, as a general officer, had a decent understanding of what the ground truth was on his watch is unlikely. I have seen a couple GO's go down to the ODA or platoon level to get an honest perspective but that is literally a couple....two, MG Allen and MG Townsend (and I mean they went and sat with the soldiers without their entourage and personally took notes). It is easy to disparage those at the top or the bottom, I'm fortunate in that I've been able to see and be a part of both at least in Iraq and Afghanistan. Watching yet another retired GO come out and tell everyone what went wrong after years sitting on his hands means little to me. It would be great if there is another COL Hackworth out there ready to give some insight on what happened in Iraq or Afghanistan but I'm not going to hold my breath.

[MFF3705]

I was in the same IOBC as 2LT Dan Bolger. Out of a circa 200 man class, i seem to recall he graduated within the top few - and deserved it. All that said, the below quote places a decision to delay publishing until 35 years into a wee bit of context....just sayin'.....

"Before the law was changed, typical retired pay for a four-star was $134,400. Now, a four-star retiring in 2012 with 38 years of service gets a yearly payment of about $219,300, a jump of nearly $85,000. A three-star with 35 years gets about $169,750 a year, up about $39,000."

[PRB]

"Why We Lost".....
Because we try 'nation building' in places where they don't even understand what a Nation is.
Because there is no real central power to address or influence.
Because we have no clue as to the motivating factors in an Islamic/mafia run country (term used loosely to describe a geographic entity).
In an environment like Astan you kill all the bad guys with extreme prejudice and leave...you just fking leave.
We win.
If they start down the same path again you return and kill them all again and their goats.
They understand that.
We win, and save our soldiers and our wealth.

The SF hearts minds crap is wasted there....seeds cast on concrete...maybe a weed will grow in a crack but that is it.
Our nation building worked in Japan/Germany due to educated societies that could reason.

If the General doesn't say something similar then he's an idiot too.

[Hacksaw]

"Before the law was changed, typical retired pay for a four-star was $134,400. Now, a four-star retiring in 2012 with 38 years of service gets a yearly payment of about $219,300, a jump of nearly $85,000. A three-star with 35 years gets about $169,750 a year, up about $39,000."

I may have just thrown up in my mouth a bit.

PRB..spot on.