NEWS: Study By Army Criticizes War On Terror

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 09:40 AM
link   
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]




posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 02:05 PM
link   
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



posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 03:04 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 01:05 PM
link   
I wouldn't call it all 'advice', for example :

"[the anti-terrorist effort is] strategically unfocused, promises more than it can deliver, and threatens to dissipate American military resources in an endless and hopeless search for absolute security."

Sounds very much like condemnation to me.



posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Quite possibly kegs, I'll agree, though it is merited only by a "personal view/opinion" condemnation:

"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."

So stated by the author of said 'condemning' report/document.



regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 01:27 PM
link   
The author is employed, and the report was commissioned by, the US war college so it wouldn't be too far a stretch of the imagination to say that that is their view. Or else why would they publish the report in their name? The name of the War College of course carries far more weight than the view of one man, but they asked that one man to write it for them.



posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 01:32 PM
link   
In such kegs, Dr. Jeffrey Record wrote this while employed at the War College, and he specifically says what I mentioned above in my last post.

How many other "think tanks", military or otherwise, have released reports and documents? How many of those have had bearing or weight when applied to an administration.

This report/document can be viewed as "scathing", "condemning," or any other word or phrase to describe, but again, it bears just "how" much weight and forebearance?


regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 01:43 PM
link   


By Seekerof
it bears just "how" much weight and forebearance?


As with anything anyone’s says, only as much as any individual cares to give it.



posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 01:49 PM
link   
I agree whole-heartedly my friend kegs....whole-heartedly and well said.



regards
seekerof





new topics
top topics
 
0

log in

join