No News on Iraq Military Deaths Because...

When the war in Iraq first started in 2003, I was still in college. And just like a lot of other college students, I didn't fully understand why we were going into this war. But US Intelligence said Iraq was dangerous, connected to The War on Terror and our President was convinced of it. Though I never liked Bush, I naively trusted that this was a response to the war on Terror.

As if being lied to weren't enough. Eventually evidence came out that the people in charge of this had no freaking clue what they were doing.

I recently watched the PBS Frontline Special: Bush's War

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/

The amount of infighting among the administration over the prosecution of this war was astounding to me. Not only that, but the idea of "finding intelligence to qualify international policy" amazed the CIA. Because, you don't do that. Your intelligence forms policy. Not the other way around.

One of the most astounding facts was the Military's Opinion was largely ignored by the Rumsfeld who was tasked with overseeing the war. Via him they ignored the amount of troops needed to secure a country, they ignored the international position that this was not going to be a Bosnia (where international peace keepers took over after Combat Operations).

And then the complete lack of coherrent levels of command. Who was in charge? Bremer was "supposedly" in charge on the ground in Iraq. But factually his only gameplan was to "get rid of the bathists"

Again, in direct conflict with the military who said. You need to keep the civilian army (not the republican guard) in tact. Not 2 days after the army is disbanded (suddenly creating a bunch of unemployed, armed citizens) the first bombing attack was done.

Col. H.R. McMaster, who demonstrated what the successful strategy in Iraq would have to be. He led the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment's successful counterinsurgency campaign in Tal Afar and the surrounding Ninawa province from May 2005 through June 2006.

The idea of "clear, hold, build." - The problem being, Rumsfeld had supported the small footprint strategy all along. But McMaster correctly deduced if you could bring stability to the people of a region (food, water, power, safety) the insurgency would fail in that area.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/endgame/interviews/mcmaster.html

Also note that after the beginning of the war...every major military leader left Iraq. Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez was placed in Charge in June 2003. He had NO, ZERO, NADA combat experience, and had only 2 years previous been a 1 star general. That right there highlighted that the military was at odds with how the war was being done and most of the commanders knew they were in for a hot mess. Being as they were virtually all ignored by the Politicians (Rumsfeld, Bremer, Bush admin) I don't blame them for wanting out.

All that said. It Amazes me that with no plan, no strategy, no effective leadership, inferior equipment for a guerilla war, and largely ignored....The US Military managed to find a working strategy and they, they alone appear to have turned Iraq from sure disaster to a much needed successful exit.

Current troop level is 110,000. 30,000 lower than the start of the war, 60,000 lower than the height of the Surge.

Just perhaps something positive in a sea of negativity today.

And as you know economics...the financial industry loves a good war.

Government debt is a great thing when you're providing the credit and collecting interest payments.