Today's required reading comes from The Command Post, one of the other places at which I frequently post.
Tom Barnett, Naval War College professor, Defense Dept. analyst, and The Pentagon's New Map author Tom Barnett has written an article exclusively for The Command Post entitled, "The Pentagon's Debate Over What Iraq Means." The article is available on the Command Post's Op/Ed page and is worthy of your time.
Barnett focuses on the debate over how many troops were required for Iraq. He offers very good perspective persuasively arguing that there were really two separate issues. The first, dealing with the war and the second dealing with the peace:
You remember the debate: Rumsfeld versus then-Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki. Rummy said we could "win the war" with a small, highly transformed force, whereas Shinseki argued for massive ground forces (roughly 200,000). In the press and in our own wording of this debate, the argument became known as, "How many troops are required to win the war?" Later accusations revolved around whether or not "Rumsfeld sought to fight this war with too few troops!"
My problem with this description, as I’ve noted many times in my blog, is that it conflates two concepts: regime takedown and the post-conflict stabilization / nation-building effort. I call the former, the "war," and the latter, the "peace." So, in my more careful lexicon, I say that Rumsfeld was arguing—and arguing correctly—about how to "win the war," while Shinseki was arguing—and arguing correctly—about how to "win the peace."
Barnett concludes that we need to get as good as the peace part as we are at the war part.
Barnett also points out that our efforts with the earthquake tsunami relief can pay huge dividends in the battle for "hearts and minds" that is going on in southern and southeast Asia.
I don't find anything in Barnett's article with which I disagree.
Go read "The Pentagon’s Debate Over What Iraq Means."
Comments