NEWS: Study By Army Criticizes War On Terror, page

The US military may be streched by so many missions around the world that planners are reccommending scaleback of war on terror.

---

A scathing new report published by the Army War College broadly criticizes the Bush administration's handling of the war on terrorism, accusing it of taking a detour into an "unnecessary" war in Iraq and pursuing an "unrealistic" quest against terrorism that may lead to U.S. wars with states that pose no serius threat.


www.washingtonpost.com


"This development could have strong political ramifications for the current administrations global war on terror"



[Edited on 12-1-2004 by SkepticOverlord]

This study/report, as per your article, may sound condemning but in truth, it is "advice".
Here's what was further commented:

"The report, by Professor Jeffrey Record, of the war college at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, warns that as a result of those mistakes, the US Army is "near breaking point".

The report recommends scaling back the scope of the war on terrorism and instead focusing on the narrower threat posed by the al-Qaeda terrorist network.

"The global war on terrorism as currently defined and waged is dangerously indiscriminate and ambitious, and accordingly . . . its parameters should be readjusted," Professor Record said."


I think that the below link goes to that "report":

"Bounding the Global War on Terrorism
Dr. Jeffrey Record
December 2003"
Link:
www.carlisle.army.mil...

*NOTE* Will need Adobe Acrobat to read.

Excerpt from link:

"The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government."

SUMMARY

The author examines three features of the war on terrorism as currently defined and conducted: (1) the administration's postulation of the terrorist threat, (2) the scope and feasibility of U.S. war aims, and (3) the war's political, fiscal, and military sustainability. He believes that the war on terrorism--as opposed to the campaign against al-Qaeda--lacks strategic clarity, embraces unrealistic objectives, and may not be sustainable over the long haul. He calls for downsizing the scope of the war on terrorism to reflect concrete U.S. security interests and the limits of American military power."



regards
seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof
This study/report, as per your article, may sound condemning but in truth, it is "advice".
Here's what was further commented:

"The report, by Professor Jeffrey Record, of the war college at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, warns that as a result of those mistakes, the US Army is "near breaking point".

The report recommends scaling back the scope of the war on terrorism and instead focusing on the narrower threat posed by the al-Qaeda terrorist network.

"The global war on terrorism as currently defined and waged is dangerously indiscriminate and ambitious, and accordingly . . . its parameters should be readjusted," Professor Record said."


I think that the below link goes to that "report":

"Bounding the Global War on Terrorism
Dr. Jeffrey Record
December 2003"
Link:
www.carlisle.army.mil...

*NOTE* Will need Adobe Acrobat to read.

Excerpt from link:

"The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government."

SUMMARY

The author examines three features of the war on terrorism as currently defined and conducted: (1) the administration's postulation of the terrorist threat, (2) the scope and feasibility of U.S. war aims, and (3) the war's political, fiscal, and military sustainability. He believes that the war on terrorism--as opposed to the campaign against al-Qaeda--lacks strategic clarity, embraces unrealistic objectives, and may not be sustainable over the long haul. He calls for downsizing the scope of the war on terrorism to reflect concrete U.S. security interests and the limits of American military power."



regards
seekerof

Thanks Seekerof, your point is well taken in that I agree a focus on Al-Qaida is the prime concern at this time.

My ending comment spoke of the "Political" damage that will be done with this report.

The Media will fail to report the information you quoted in the summary.

I've seen some stories in liberal media spinning this report
and the dem websites are all over it.

So even though I agree with your analysis, the general public is easily swayed by the initial headline - hence the political fallout.

Israel angered over IAEA vote on nuclear arsenal
  Posted 13 days ago with 79 member flags

Neil Armstrong dead at age 82 - report
  Posted 17 days ago with 63 member flags

Judge orders release of detained Marine veteran
  Posted 19 days ago with 58 member flags

Birds hold \'funerals\' for dead
  Posted 10 days ago with 55 member flags

Russia announces enormous finds of radioactive waste and nuclear reactors in Arctic seas
  Posted 12 days ago with 49 member flags

TSA agents swarm Ron Paul\'s plane, demand explosives check
  Posted 11 days ago with 47 member flags

Mysterious Changes in Ocean Salt Spur NASA Expedition
  Posted 1 days ago with 36 member flags

Ga. Murder Case Uncovers Terror Plot by Soldiers
  Posted 15 days ago with 32 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: