US Military Leadership Failure in Iraq

On at least two counts, it seems like the war of choice that the US embarked on in Iraq has quickly turned into another Vietnam for the Bush White House. First, it has become a war which many people believe can no longer be won. Secondly, for members of the US military top brass, the war has increasingly exposed their inability to exhibit leadership expectations. One would recall that some analysts of the Vietnam war argue that long after it became obvious that the US military would be unable to dominate the situation in Vietnam, rather than find the courage to convey that assessment to their civilian leaders, the top brass preferred to play along in what became known as card-punching all in the bid to protect their careers. It is happening again, this time in Iraq.

Since General Shinkeshi gave his candid opinion during Congressional hearings on what he felt were the right estimates of the number of troops he thought was needed in Iraq, and was retired for it, no other serving members of the top brass has been willing again to convey their candid assessment of the situation of things on the ground in Iraq. A front-page story in the USA Today yesterday indicated that attacks on the transportation of supplies for the military in Iraq have been on the increase. From the military point of view, the implications of that story are enormous. As skilled managers of violence, US military top brass are not unaware of the fact that the inability to guarantee supplies to a highly complex outfit like the US military in a theater of operation is not a child’s play after all. There are other related indicators of the inability of the US military so far to dominate the situation in Iraq. Those are in the sense that the US military even at this stage still finds it difficult to move around the entire theater of operation in Iraq—in the air and on the ground—without hindrance. Yet, it does not seem as the top brass have summoned the courage to convey the true implications of that to their civilian leaders. If they do, there is little doubt that Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and their advisers will certainly be showing some inclinations towards modifying their insistence that they will not accept anything short of “victory” in Iraq. Military victory is unlikely under the aforementioned state of affairs.

The only members of the top brass who have expressed their candid assessment of the situation of things in Iraq are those who are no longer in active service. The inability of the top brass who are still in active service to express such candid assessment is plainly a failure of leadership. One is at a loss as to what the US military establishment and the Bush White House are hoping to make out of the deteriorating situation in Iraq. Someone recently mentioned in a conversation that he would not wish the military situation of things in Iraq today on his worst enemy. The top brass must help with the right leadership.