Next on the reading list

Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife: Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam

Invariably, armies are accused of preparing to fight the previous war. In Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife, Lieutenant Colonel John A. Nagl—a veteran of both Operation Desert Storm and the current conflict in Iraq—considers the now-crucial question of how armies adapt to changing circumstances during the course of conflicts for which they are initially unprepared. Through the use of archival sources and interviews with participants in both engagements, Nagl compares the development of counterinsurgency doctrine and practice in the Malayan Emergency from 1948 to 1960 with what developed in the Vietnam War from 1950 to 1975.

In examining these two events, Nagl—the subject of a recent New York Times Magazine cover story by Peter Maass—argues that organizational culture is key to the ability to learn from unanticipated conditions, a variable which explains why the British army successfully conducted counterinsurgency in Malaya but why the American army failed to do so in Vietnam, treating the war instead as a conventional conflict. Nagl concludes that the British army, because of its role as a colonial police force and the organizational characteristics created by its history and national culture, was better able to quickly learn and apply the lessons of counterinsurgency during the course of the Malayan Emergency.

and this week’s volte-face from Bob Woodward:

State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III

Book Says Bush Ignored Urgent Warning on Iraq - New York Times

The White House ignored an urgent warning in September 2003 from a top Iraq adviser who said that thousands of additional American troops were desperately needed to quell the insurgency there, according to a new book by Bob Woodward, the Washington Post reporter and author. The book describes a White House riven by dysfunction and division over the war.

The warning is described in “State of Denial,” scheduled for publication on Monday by Simon & Schuster. The book says President Bush’s top advisers were often at odds among themselves, and sometimes were barely on speaking terms, but shared a tendency to dismiss as too pessimistic assessments from American commanders and others about the situation in Iraq.

As late as November 2003, Mr. Bush is quoted as saying of the situation in Iraq: “I don’t want anyone in the cabinet to say it is an insurgency. I don’t think we are there yet.”

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld is described as disengaged from the nuts-and-bolts of occupying and reconstructing Iraq — a task that was initially supposed to be under the direction of the Pentagon — and so hostile toward Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser, that President Bush had to tell him to return her phone calls. The American commander for the Middle East, Gen. John P. Abizaid, is reported to have told visitors to his headquarters in Qatar in the fall of 2005 that “Rumsfeld doesn’t have any credibility anymore” to make a public case for the American strategy for victory in Iraq.

The book, bought by a reporter for The New York Times at retail price in advance of its official release, is the third that Mr. Woodward has written chronicling the inner debates in the White House after the Sept. 11 attacks, the invasion of Afghanistan, and the subsequent decision to invade Iraq. Like Mr. Woodward’s previous works, the book includes lengthy verbatim quotations from conversations and describes what senior officials are thinking at various times, without identifying the sources for the information.

Required pre-emptive strike against anticipated “WoodwardisaMoonbat” jihadists:

Plan of Attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Bush Administration’s own view of Plan of Attack is interesting. When the book was published the administration denied many of the accounts in the book, but the Bush/Cheney re-election campaign listed Woodward’s book as recommended reading nevertheless.

Both of Woodward’s two previous books about Bush were quite positive. Indeed, he has dismissed by the Moonbats as a Bush apologist.

Comments

  1. Hans wrote:

    Just a question: how do the “related posts” get selected? They seem to share nothing so much as a lack of relationship to the post to which they claim to be related.

  2. commissar wrote:

    Hans,

    It’s an automated plug-in, which mainly works on the post title or keywords. With a generic title like this post, almost anything can happen.

    Source here.

  3. rabit wrote:

    tried to post this twice but it never got through…

    Woodward was indeed considered a Bush apologist, but I think he was a lot more shrewd than that. There was a lot more revealing details when you read between the lines.

    Also, regarding your continued use of the word derogatory ‘Moonbats.’ What is the actual difference between an Iraq war critic and a ‘Moonbat?’ The timing?

  4. commissar wrote:

    rabit,

    Michael Moore is a moonbat. Kevin Drum is an Iraq War critic.

    My apologies for any difficulty commenting. Ever since I had to deactivate SpamKarma2, I have been struggling with comments and anti-spam software. Currently I am using Akismet and another plugin that closes comments after 21 days. The Akismet spam file has no record of your attempted posts. Believe me, I wish I knew how/why comments are getting eaten.

  5. rabit wrote:

    So Michael Moore is a moonbat? Can you name one single assertion in Fahrenheit 9/11 that turned out to be false? Should be easy since the movie has been out over two years now.

  6. commissar wrote:

    Six children of US congressmen serving in Irq. Not “none.”

  7. rabit wrote:

    The supposed source of the page you link to is dead. Do you have a better one? Better yet, here’s the so-called “refutation” of Moore. If there were “six children of US congressman serving in Iraq” - couldn’t this person make a much stronger argument?

    And at least get the assertion correct. Moore stated that out of 535 members of congress, only one, democrat Tim Johnson of South Dakota had a son serving in Iraq.

    So,

    A) A son or daughter, NOT a nephew or uncle, grandpa.
    B) Serving in Iraq

    How many?

  8. rabit wrote:

    And no problem with the commenting problem, it was a short anyway.

    I hit ‘Post’ and get ’save as wp-comments-post.php’. I don’t know if you use Apache but I’ve had this happen to me with some php scripts causing Apache to crash and restart. This would show up in your webserver error log.

  9. commissar wrote:

    Five: Johnson, Hunter, Wilson, Bond, Akin. Children.

    Reported here (Live link).

    Not one, but five.

  10. rabit wrote:

    Fahrenheit 9/11 was released to theatres on June 25, 2004. The Fox News article you link to is dated March 13, 2005. Did you notice that this is nearly ONE year after Fahrenheit 9/11 was released?

    But hey, 5 out of 535 sons/daughters of US senators actually serving is an improvement, and it only took 260 days. Another 570 days, I wonder how many senators have children serving in Iraq now.

    And by the way, Bond’s son didn’t enlist until Feb. 2005. The article doesn’t give dates about the others.

    Ohhh, one of my favorite is when Michael Moore out-snoped Barbara Mikkelson of snopes.com’s after she accused him of making a false assertion, then had to post an then apologized after it turns out he was right. Then later edited out the apology and any mention of Michael Moore, and had it removed from Google Cache.

    Snopes.com was proven false by Michael Moore. Does that make sense?

    That was fun. Got others?

  11. rabit wrote:

    woops - pardon a few minor typos in there. :)

  12. commissar wrote:

    The Bin Laden flight nonsense.

    Read Deceit 11-14.

    But nonetheless, many viewers will leave the movie theater with the impression that the Saudis, thanks to special treatment from the White House, were permitted to fly away when all other planes were still grounded. This false impression is created by Moore’s failure, when mentioning Sept. 13, to emphasize that the ban on flights had been eased by then. The false impression is further pushed when Moore shows the singer Ricky Martin walking around an airport and says, “Not even Ricky Martin would fly. But really, who wanted to fly? No one. Except the bin Ladens.”

    Thanks for encouraging me to look this stuff up. It’s clear what Moore was doing. He’s a moonbat.

    If you want to try to slide thru “well, he didnt actually say … ” go ahead.

  13. rabit wrote:

    Yes. And here is the actual list of flights released by the Department of Homeland Security. You will notice a flight 210 from Altanta to Saudi Arabia on 9/11/2001. One passenger, one year younger than Osama. Could this be the step-brother who invested $2-million into the very Bush-connected Carlyle Group?

    Too easy. Got another? :)

    Truth is that the problem with Michael Moore isn’t that he plays loose with facts but the way he presents them make you FEEL like your being propogandized. He spends a lot of time on things that are pretty benign, guilt by implication (does it matter who Bush’s friend in the National Guard was?), and so on. On the other hand, his target audience are people who wouldn’t normally see a political documentary and need to be entertained. Still, is he a moonbat if the information is factual?

    Robert Greenwald makes better, more clearly-focused documentaries and he just lets the experts do the talking.

    But seriously, please go ahead and pick another if you want. I think I’ve gone through all of them and even tracked the original source to some ‘adjunct’ UCLA professor who refuses to talk about it. Fun stuff.

  14. commissar wrote:

    Who knows who the single passenger was?

    “But not the bin Ladens”

    plural, right?

    (Don’t know why my spam filter doesn’t like you. I’ll keep approving them as i see ‘em.)

    I’ve now read enough of this to understand Moore’s deceptions. There’s a lot one can do with cinematography, with images, with editing, with fast cuts, with juxtapositions, with omissions, etc. If that somehow makes him “more honorable” in your eyes, just so he and his ilk can prevail on internet boards, … well … that’s your call.

    “I never lied.” Like the kid in second grade, “I’m not touching you,” with his finger an inch from your nose.

  15. rabit wrote:

    Here is some more on that 9/11/2001 flight.

    An assertion can only be true or false. Half-truths are still falsehoods. Can’t you even find one falsehood in Fahrenheit 9/11? It should be easy when even many democrats consider Moore dishonest.

  16. commissar wrote:

    “but not the bin Ladens” … plural …

    He claims the bin Ladens (plural) were able to get out before travel restrictions were lifted. You point to one (singular) anonymous passenger on 9/11.

    As I said above, if all of the words in the screenplay can be rationalized down to “technically not falsehoods,” while the full effect of the movie, thru techniques noted above, create false impressions and deceit, and you take some solace in such things “not being lies,” that’s your privilege.

  17. rabit wrote:

    Who knows who the single passenger was?

    “But not the bin Ladens”

    plural, right?

    This is backed up by the somewhat credible 9/11 Commission report. One chartered a personal jet and flew out of the country as fast as he could immediately after the WTC attack - before the towers. The several hundred or so remaining family members flew out after 9/13. (see that Department of Homeland Security link)

    Did they receive special treatment? Apparently so - family members of a man who murdered several thousand Americans in cold blood were allowed to leave after only being question for a few minutes.

    And you’re saying it’s dishonest for Moore to point this out?

  18. rabit wrote:

    woops - I was going to write ‘…before the towers fell’ but I can’t quite verify the time zones. The plane was immediately chartered and flew out at 10:30am from Atlanta to Saudi Arabia. Is it wrong to point that out?

  19. commissar wrote:

    Yes.

    He said the Bin Ladens, clearly implying before restrictions were lifted. You point to ONE passenger on a 9/11 flight.

    After restrictions were lifted, not “several hundred” Saudis exited, as you claimed. The report listed about 150 names.

  20. rabit wrote:

    Yet again I’ve lost a post to the spam filter. :( Anyway, the facts are that there was one flight from Atlanta to Saudi Arabia on 9/11, just a few hours after the attack on the WTC. The other flights happened after 9/13, yes, but it is also a fact (see 9/11 Commission Report) that the White House helped the Bin Laden family members fly out of the country.

    Every single so-called refutations against Fahrenheit 9/11 fail upon closer inspection. Most of them fall flat on their face if you just apply a little common sense (sorta like Christopher Hitchens).

    The right politicized the movie as democrat vs. republican (just like they politicize everything else) but it’s more accurately an America vs. Saudi Arabia movie. It tries to make a case that Bush is protecting Saudi Arabia. 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. We are very close to losing as many Americans in Iraq as were killed in the World Trade Center. 10 times the human beings are dead on this planet and Osama achieved his goal. So, you thought moonbats were pissed-crazy Bush haters? It’s getting easier to see why but the real question is, why did it take so damn long for some of you?

  21. commissar wrote:

    rabit,
    It’s getting easier to see why but the real question is, why did it take so damn long for some of you?

    Let’s see if you agree with the following statement: “Bush’s extremism has served to energize his enemies, the terrorists.”

    What do you think about that statement? Can you draw any analogies from it? Think hard.

  22. rabit wrote:

    Which extremism? Without context, the statement is completely without meaning but I’ll take a swing at it.

    Abu Ghraib.

    Do I get the prize?

    The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist but when you are a superpower, you only win the trust of other countries when you strongly and unflinchingly follow the principles of your constitution and universally fair treatment of human beings (i.e. Geneva Conventions). Terrorists attack to create fear and fear creates weakness. Why is it that 9/11 happened five years ago and we still feel like we’re being terrorized?

    “Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself”
    Franklin D. Roosevelt
    March 4, 1933

    Booo!
    George Bush
    September 30, 2006

    That’s really all I need to say. :)