We Never Promised You A Rose Garden

Democrats Unwilling to Meet with Iraq/Afghanistan Vets that want Victory in Iraq

On Tuesday, Vets for Freedom went to Capitol Hill to appeal to the members of the US Congress.  Five days prior, they had requested 5 minutes with the Majority Leader and Speaker of the House.  Neither Senator Harry Reid or Rep Nancy Pelosi could find the 5 minutes to consider the request of 40 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans to give General Petraeus the chance to pursue victory in Iraq.

Vets for victory links several articles and video of the assault on the Hill:

Vets For Freedom

Here's the NPR story with Pete Hegseth's statement:

Iraq Pullout Date to Test Republicans

If you are interested in getting involved, visit the site.  Vets for Victory will be supporting Gen. Petraeus in force in Washington, DC in September.

Semper Fidelis.

My MOTO Email to RCT-6

Over at BlackFive, they've organized an email writing effort to "surge" American support for Victory in Iraq to the Marines of RCT-6 (be sure to check it out).  I had a run in with a Mr. Rod Nordland of Newsweek a few weeks ago at a lecture entitled "The War Correspondent."  I thought the Marines of RCT-6 might get a kick out of it.

Marines,

You may hear all the bullshit from the media, all the hype from Hollywood actors/activists and the crazy talk from the “hill,” but here’s the thing – I have yet to talk to a NORMAL American, democrat or republican, that believes that we can afford to walk away from Iraq. I have talked to friends; friends that marched in anti-war demonstrations before OIF-I that now understand and actively support what you are doing in Iraq. Don’t get me wrong - the Honorable Mr. Reid and Mrs. Pelosi may have a way of making you feel like your balls have been dipped in dog shite from time to time but here’s a story to brighten your day:

I work at Penn State University. Several weeks ago the former Baghdad bureau chief (2003-2005) from Newsweek magazine came back to his alma mater to receive a distinguished graduate award. While Mr. Ron Nordland was here he gave a lecture entitled “The War Correspondent." When this distinguished gentlemen stood before the audience (journalism department faculty, a journalism summer session class, a few other cats and dogs plus me) his multimedia presentation failed and he was forced to read from a backup lecture about why it’s no fun being a war correspondent anymore.

Now I could appreciate the gallows humor involved in stories from Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia about booze and women, about hopping on Huey’s and bombing around the countryside in search of a story, but I was a bit taken aback by the dismal portrayal of the plight of the modern foreign correspondent in a war zone since everything went down hill in Lebanon in the 1980s.  Mr. Nordland described his Iraq experience in terms of a military that only shows the journalist what they want them to see, a journalist that can’t go into the country side to report on the war without fear of kidnapping and beheading, and a journalist forced to hide behind contracted bodyguards and body armor.  Once the Q&A period opened up, he proceeded to explain to the audience why the situation in Iraq is consumed by the hopelessness of the death spiral (Here’s a Newsweek article by him that clearly illustrates his position http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8101422/site/newsweek/). 

At this point I announced my presence.

(Please understand that all these quotes are paraphrased from memory, but I haven’t changed the tone or message.)

"My name is Mike Hendrickson; I work in the Applied Research Laboratory here at Penn State. In my part time job I am a Marine Infantry Officer preparing for a deployment to Iraq.  Mr Nordland, can you explain why the Iraq analysis of a distinguished professional journalist is completely divergent from the estimate of the situation of a professional war fighter like me?  Can you explain why you feel the situation in Iraq is lost, but I feel that the United States Military can and will be successful in the long term?"

I don’t believe that he had anticipated that a military person would be in the room.  He shot back “Have you been to Iraq?"

I don’t believe that he had anticipated that a combat veteran would respond to that question either.  I returned fire “Nope.  I was in Afghanistan."

The essence of his response to my question can be paraphrased by the following:  you military guys believe what you are told to believe.

Roger that.

Needless to say the exchange continued.  I silenced myself, feeling that further debate was not acceptable in that forum.

One of the professors then asked Mr. Nordland – “If you were SecDef, what would you do in Iraq." Nordland responded (to his credit) “Hey, I’m just a journalist; I’m not qualified to answer that question."

So the moderator looked at me “Mike, what do you think we should do?"

I said “Look, I’m just an infantry captain. I would not presume to be able to parse the National Security Strategy of the United States into a coherent plan in Iraq from the vantage point of the SecDef. However, I will tell you that the commitment of the American people to support the long term efforts of the United States military’s mission in Iraq will be key to our success. Please remember this – 63 years after the end of WWII, we still have forces in Germany and Japan."

A few more questions were fielded and I eventually asked a non-Iraq, general American media question:

“Mr. Nordland, do you believe that there is a burgeoning political divide in the American media between Fox News and Rupert Murdock on one side and news organizations like NBC, who have apparently made a conscious decision to go after the liberal demographic, on the other? Is it just background noise?"

He immediately responded “Fox News is the Satan of the American media."

Wow. For a split second I felt like Bob Woodward.

The moderator then looked at a cute little second year journalism major in the second row who had stated earlier that she wanted to be in “entertainment,” and said “Ok, you’ve got the Newsweek Baghdad bureau chief here; you have one question to ask him, fire away."

She cocks her head to the side, thinks for a split second, and fires out the FPF “Sir, given the reality of the situation on the ground in Iraq, given the fact that you must do your reporting behind bodyguards and body armor and give that it is logistically challenging and expensive to even leave the safety of the green zone, doesn’t that create a serious bias in your reporting?"

After a long winded response Mr. Nordland paused and said “Does that make me biased, yeah probably."

So here’s my point – Initially I felt that I had lost the argument with this guy. I didn’t feel that I could stay on the attack as it would not have been the proper venue for debate. I felt I had missed my opportunity to demonstrate the magnitude of the problem that the media creates for the grunts slugging it out on the ground.  However, that second year journalism student at Penn State who wants to be the next Mary Hart on Entertainment Tonight got it in a heart beat. My faith in the American public was resurrected on that day. Each one of you need to take comfort in knowing that even Ron Nordland, despite his bias, understands that leaving Iraq without finishing the job will be catastrophic to the regional security of the Middle East and eventually a serious threat to the National Security of the United States. But what is even more important is that the American public is beginning, however slowly, to come to a definitive understanding about Iraq – they refuse to walk away when marines are willing to charge into the fray.

America might not be able to verbalize it yet, but they are telling you that they support victory in Iraq.

Luck, Safety and Godspeed my brothers.

Semper Fidelis.

Capt H, USMCR/0302

To the American Public and Mr. William Arkin:

Dear America and Mr. William Arkin,

With all due respect, here is the problem with the currency of popular Iraq analysis and the back bone of my criticism of Mr. Arkin:

The American public, in general, does not understand warfare because they have not studied it. The logical conclusion for us (the military) is that the opinion of the public mean little more than those of the Monday morning armchair quarterback.

I have been in the Marine Corps for 14 years. I began as a recruit at MCRD Parris Island and am now a Captain of marines. I have more responsibility that 95% of Americans will ever be required to shoulder. I am a graduate of more military schools than I have room to list; they include the Expeditionary Warfare School, the College Command and Staff and a Masters in National Security Strategic Studies from the Naval War College. I am also a combat veteran.

So what?

Here's the bottom line, I have spent nearly my entire adult life studying warfare, conflict and foreign policy. I don't point this out to sound "elitist," I only point this out to explain that my job requires me to be a professional warfighter.  Mr. Arkin, along with the majority of Americans that continue to contemplate this war, haven't spent the requisite time to become an expert on the conduct of warfare.  Most Americans, began really digging into those issues after 9/11. Those who have served or have studied prior to 9/11, (including Mr. Arkin, many in this Administration and Congress) have WWII, Korea, Vietnam and the Cold War as their frame of reference and foundation for metrics.

The inherent problem for America is that the fight in Iraq and the larger GWOT is new; just as new as maneuver warfare in N. Africa in 1942-43. The point is - armchair quarterbacks and cold warriors cannot fully understand the complexity that this new battlespace offers after taking a few classes, reading some books and providing "reasoned" commentary. One can develop theories, but those theories are not fact, nor have they been adequately tested in the GWOT battlespace. Hence, theory does not equate expertise.

The experts are people like me; not because I am an egomaniacal elitist military guy, but because the marine, soldier, sailor, airmen and coasty are learning how to fight this war successfully, in the battlespace, on a daily basis. With all due respect to the American public - books, sound bites, newspapers and opinion pieces do not provide the lessons learned that our military gleans from the streets, alleyways and deserts of Afghanistan, Al Anbar, Baghdad and Diyala. Reading newspapers, surfing the net and watching cable news does not provide the rigor necessary to make sound judgments on foreign policy or grand strategy.

Please let us do our job. Please realize that we (the military), not the American public or Mr. Arkin, are the professionals and duty experts trained with your tax dollars and that we, being human, make mistakes. Those mistakes do not mean that we are incompetent - they merely mean that we are learning to do something that this nation's military has never done on a battlefield; we were only trained to execute the theoretical tactics, techniques and procedures devised by our Generals and Policy Makers.  This process is defined by the history of warfare and will always remain bounded by the reality of confict and humanity.  Unfortunately, the battlefield - being the most demanding and unforgiving environment on earth - provides hard lessons requiring the blood and lives of America’s sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters.

War is always hell and victory is always determined by the strength of a nations will.

Semper Fidelis.

A Letter to the Speaker of the House

Dear Madame Speaker,

On September 11, 2001 I was deployed in Australia with the 15th MEU. Five months later I left Afghanistan and returned to the states. During that time I was overwhelmed by and immensely proud of our country’s willingness to put aside partisan differences and prosecute the global war against terrorism. Today, I am preparing for a second combat deployment, this time to Iraq, and I am dismayed and saddened by the actions of my countrymen.

I am deeply concerned about the President’s new plan for Iraq. I am concerned that it has no hope of success. My concerns are not founded in the abilities of our nation’s military or the capabilities of the Iraqi security forces. I am concerned that your party and the American citizens that follow your leadership will fail once again to put partisanship aside and fully support victory in Iraq. I am afraid that the blood of my brother and sister marines will be on your hands because of your unwillingness to do everything in your power to ensure that we are victorious in Iraq.

The plan outlined by the President last night was the last best hope for success. As was the initial foray into Iraq, it carries with it enormous risk and like all audacious plans in war, relies on more than a little luck. Unfortunately, the “incalculable” effect of our national will has not been and will not be brought to bear against our enemies in Iraq because your party has sought to undermine the military effort and the national will ever since we crossed the line of departure into Iraq five years ago. It is painfully obvious that the political defeat of President Bush is synonymous with America’s defeat in Iraq.

Mrs. Pelosi, I respectfully request that you stand in the House, with your comrades in the Senate, and give the President and my marines the support we need to make a legitimate stab at final victory in Iraq. The President has provided you with a time table and a benchmark to measure success. If there is no significant progress by November of this year and we have not achieved the metrics outlined last night, relentless criticism is warranted and should reach a crescendo unmatched in the Iraq debate.

Until then, I still believe, as almost all of my comrades in arms do, that we can and will be victorious in Iraq. Please do not undermine our efforts. Please support our mission. Help us to be victorious.

Semper Fidelis.

Respectfully Submitted,

Michael J. Hendrickson

Captain 0302/USMCR

The Opportunity for Victory in Iraq

It seems that this week has exposed some giant cracks in the ideology of the American defeatist camp.

1)  All of the sudden President Admyneedablowjob is in trouble at home, while sitting at the poker table and betting the kitchen sink with a fist full of shite.

2)  The Iraqi situation, while still fraught with violence and chaos, is showing increasingly resilience from the moderates backed, guided and supported by the most influential Shi'ite religious leader in Iraq.

What does this mean?  Obviously, it doesn't mean that I'm jumping up and down like Nevile Chamberlain on crystal meth screaming VICTORY and PEACE IN OUR TIME!

The bottom line is that the situation in Iraq is at the final cross-roads. Victory is still attainable, military operations can have a positive short term effect (24-36 months) and diplomatic/political/military operational objectives must be attacked in a synergistic / mutually supporting environment.

This is the last chance to get it right. I’ll leave the political/diplomacy up to the duty experts, but from a military perspective I think we need to prosecute 5 operational objectives in three phases:

Phase I - Set Conditions for the Physical Security of Iraq

1) Isolate Iran by fomenting the internal strife. If Iran wants to fight a proxy war against the US in Iraq, let’s turn the table and fight a proxy war against them in their own country. Start with pushing the Iraqi Kurds toward unification with their brothers in NW Iraq. Who knows, maybe the Turkmen and Azerbaijanis will jump on the band wagon.  Simultaneous diplomacy with Syria must be a priority.

End state – Iran’s government becomes internally focused, unable to effectively influence its neighbors.

2) Continue operations in An Bar.

End state – Insurgents and Foreign Fighters unable to effectively prosecute an organized insurgency inside An Bar province.

3) Surge forces (30-40k all in Baghdad). Start a true clear, hold, rebuild operation. Start from the green zone and push salients out into the city. Clear, hold and rebuild in each (like spokes of a wagon wheel). Then move laterally to close the spaces between the spokes (again, clear, hold, rebuild). Repeat. Essentially you are increasing the size of the Green Zone by an order of magnitude. Here's the key - this effort must include the Iraqi forces. The Iraqis should hold the interior of each salient, Coalition forces should hold the perimeter and both Iraqis and Americans (and the Brits if they are able) should rebuild together. Aside from increasing the physical security situation, this would accomplish a myriad of positives for the Iraqi people, the government and further the the proficiency of the Iraqi security forces.

End state – Baghdad secure, Mahdi army defeated, and Sadr city cordoned by US and Iraqi forces poised to launch follow-on operations (in Sadr city).

Phase II - Transition Main Effort to Iraqi Forces

4) Once Baghdad is secure and An Bar is under control, the main effort of US Forces becomes the cordon of the country of Iraq. We cut off all rat lines. We secure Iraq’s boarders with Iran and Syria, aggressively patrol An Bar and Ninawa and Diyala, and allow the Iraqi Security forces to clear, hold and rebuild the interior of Iraq (with limited US support).

End state – Insurgency/Foreign fighters unable to rely on ratlines for resupply and Iraqi army able to conduct operations against the remnants of the insurgency without being impeded by foreign influx of forces and supplies.

Phase III

5) Redeployment.

End state – A phased redeployment of the majority of US combat divisions CONUS.

The Iraq Surrender Group, Iran-Contra and the Path to Victory

In order to cause the enemy to come of their own volition, extend some profit. In order to prevent the enemy from coming forth, show them the potential for harm. Sun Tzu - The Art of War

The Democrat vs Republican Group Think (ISG debate) is really getting annoying.  Here my bottom line - the Iraq Surrender Group report is only a piece of the puzzle.  We need an aggressive strategy to win back the initiative in Iraq, Internationally and Domestically.  Two specific issues come to mind when analyzing the ISG report vis-a-vis grand strategy:

1)  I don’t care how many military guys were consulted on the report; you put a bunch of old school cold war diplomats in a room together and you will end up with a DIPLOMATIC solution.  Not that diplomacy is bad; but its only one tool in the tool box.  You can pound a nail with a caulking gun, but all you get is a big fucking mess. So now lets here what the CJCS working group comes up with.  Bet ya $10 billion it’s more objective and comprehensive that the ISG.

2)  I was thinking about Iran–Contra the other day and stumbled upon a wonderful logic bomb: are the liberals the same ya-hoos who freaked out over Ronnie’s back door deals with Iran to get our hostages back and marginalize the radical components of the Iranian regime?  What the fuck has changed in the last 20 years?  When they invaded our Embassy and kidnapped Americans they wanted to impeach the President for negotiating with terrorists – now Iran is fighting a proxy war against us in Iraq and they want to deal with them?  Whiskey, tango, foxtrot over.

Wanna hear my strategy for victory in Iraq? It’s all about seizing the initiative.

A) Increase troops by 10-20k and send them all to Baghdad. Start a real clear, hold, rebuild mission from the Green Zone by pushing salients into Baghdad proper, clear them, and hold (like a wagon wheel).  Establish a perimeter then clear, hold and rebuild the interior of the wagon wheel until you have a bigger Green Zone.  Eventually, you secure all of Baghdad.  Then you look at the rest of the country.  Point is – by then; you should have an Iraqi Army and Police force ready for the job.  And you tell em – once Baghdad is secure they’re up; we will transition US forces to isolating the interior of Iraq by pushing to the boarders with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria and Iran. Turkey will take care of its own boarder.

B)  Fight a proxy war against the Iranian regime utilizing the Kurds.  Once the Kurds start fighting the Iranians in Iran (for unification) chances are the Azerbaijanis and Turkmeni will jump on the bandwagon.  If they don’t we can always give them a push.  If Turkey doesn’t like it – tell those fuckers to get the Iranians to stop funding and supplying the insurgency in Iraq.

3)  Get serious about the relationship between domestic politics and Victory in Iraq.  Stop pussy footing around with the debate.  Either you want us to win or you don’t.   Where is the propaganda machine of WWII?  We need to get this country on a war footing.  Gen Pace must be involved.  We are loosing the information warfare piece here at home.  The only way to get it back is to go on the offensive.

Anyway, I’m just a dumb grunt living in Academia.  What do I know?

Semper Fidelis

Victory in Iraq is Dependant on a Unified America

Our failures in Iraq are owned by the entire government, congress, the military and the American people – it’s not just about the commander-in-chief. Its about a congress (both democrat and republican) who has controlled the purse strings and shortchanged the warrior since Vietnam, its about a SecDef that didn’t understand how the blood and the mud fit into operational art, its about the generals who were more concerned with their pensions than throwing their stars on the President’s desk in protest of a flawed planning process, and its about a country who’s people lament our failure while remaining completely ignorant about warfare, unwavering in their commitment to armchair quarterback our nation toward ultimate defeat.

Two timeless lessons of Vietnam are being ignored:

1) Wining the political struggle in Washington doesn’t win wars and

2) Undermining the national will is the strategic objective of our enemy; it’s the only way they can defeat the US military on the battlefield.

The Congress doesn't have a clue how to fight a war. The Administration doesn't have a clue how to fight an insurgency. The SecDef was looking for a "Revolution in Military Affairs" as his legacy. The American people don't understand why we need to fight. The only people that should be in charge of making decisions on how to win in Iraq are the people in the Military. Not some skinny fucker who was a Lieutenant JG, looking at fuck books while on his swift boat back in the NAM. Not some “hero” that flew a Navy Jet for a while got shot down and spent 7 years as a POW. Neither of them knows jack shit about strategy or operational art. It should be the guys who really make the decisions. They guys who have gone to school, practiced, rehearsed the plays and know when and how to kill effectively and efficiently.

I heard a great commentary on NPR a couple weeks ago from an Army Ranger (enlisted) that was now at Yale. He went off about how his classmates continuously bemoan the administration and history for sending the poor kids to war while the rich kids get away with it. His response - the poor kids fight because the rich kids refuse to. Rich and republican are not synonymous and Democrats need to stop shoveling the BS.

When people hop up and down and say "Bush won't even give those guys body armor and the stuff to fight with" I want ot punch them in the mouth. For anyone in congress to imply such bullshit is a straight up lie. They know exactly why those guys don't have their shit - it's because congress didn't buy it for them. The Republican Party doesn't spend the money, the entire congress does. The "toys" that we have today were all bought 10-12 years ago. One of the most fucked up things about our military technology procurement process is that we are forced to guess what we will need 10-15 years in the future and how those technologies will emerge as legacy budget items. Then we go to congress, ask them to fund it they approve it and the President signs it into law.

Add the politics to the pot and stir. What you get is barbequed pork. And it ain't blue or red - it's just brown and tastes like shit.

Giving a Senator or LCPL Binotz any credibility when it comes to military strategy and operational art is like putting the valedictorian of a high school in charge of a multinational corporation. He might be smart, dedicated and a great kid, but there is no fucking way he's going to be able to run a company in the real world tomorrow.

I just get pissed at the political vodo. Democrats need to stop trying to dismantle our national will in hopes of winning in “oh-ate.” Its making a tough fight in Iraq even harder.

The bottom line according to Capt Crunch (me) - if we all supported this war, we would have won it two years ago. Sure Rummy was an idiot. Sure the Generals should have stood up for a better plan. Sure we should have had more troops on the ground. Sure we should not have hamstrung the intelligence community after the fall of the Soviet Union. Sure, hindsight is 20/20.

And guess what, we had the same "debacle" in 1942 in North Africa. That's why FDR had a strangle hold on information coming out of the theater. That's why propaganda was so important. He knew if the American people found out that 7000 Americans died as a result of ineptitude, incompetence and inadequate training, he and Ike would loose their jobs. He also knew that his military wasn't stupid; they just didn't have the first idea how to fight the Germans and the revolutionary tactics of maneuver warfare. He knew they needed time to learn and that the knowledge would be paid for with the blood of American sons and fathers. He knew that every single death would save countless more on the European continent because we would learn how to fight the Germans and win; or the war would be over as we were defeated.

It doesn't matter what any of those turncoat motherfuckers who backed the war on the floor of the senate and baulk at our policy say now. They don't have a plan now, they didn't have any brilliant insight 4 years ago and they are just as responsible for the situation as the President, SecDef and the Generals.

Here's the thing - we would have lost every single war in our nation's history if we didn't fight to win. Fighting to win means supporting each other as a nation, not trying to derail the policies of a sitting President because you feel like you got screwed in 2000. Fighting to win means doing everything possible to make sure our enemies don't win, not leaking classified memos that derail the relationship between two nations in peril. Fighting to win means uniting the American people to crush those murdering religious fanatics that oppose us on the Arab street. Fighting to win means taking the gloves off and fighting a war, not pussy footing around the fragile sensibilities of the squeamish.

Fuck those guys. Their bullshit is getting my friends killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And the last point I will make is this – if our leaders in congress and the people of this country didn’t understand that this war would last for decades they don’t understand history or warfare. Even after receiving the unconditional surrender of the Axis powers in 1945, our troops remain in Japan and Germany - 61 years later.

We can win this thing if the American people and congress let us do our jobs and quit all the political posturing bullshit and start being Americans first.

Semper Fidelis.

Why We Fight

“The bended knee is not a tradition of our Corps.”
(General Alexander A. Vandergrift, USMC, to the Senate Naval Affairs Committee, 5 May 1946.)

There has always been an enormous divide between what Marines know about Warfare and how the American people perceive the idea of war. In today’s digital age, the utopian paradigm of war, according to the American civilian and politician, is totally and completely fucked up. I hate to sound like the conjured Col. Nathan Jessup, but America needs to wake up and smell what they are shoveling.

From the Administration to Academia, there are very few people that are willing to accept the four primary truths about warfare:

1. “War is the extension of politics by other means.” – Carl von Clausewitz

2. Warfare begins with a period of learning, during which, many mistakes are made, the military weans itself of incompetents and cowards and techniques, tactics and procedures are perfected.

3. Victory in war is achieved by the side with the strongest will. The vanquished is always the one who quits in the face of adversity.

4. The cost of war is paid in blood.

There is another important truth. It is so important, that it overrides all other functions of warfare, factors that influence outcomes, intangibles, etc. It is this: No democracy can wage war successfully without the support of the people. It is the national will that will determine victory.

The National Will is so fundamental to the concept of warfare that the Chinese government is shaping its warfighting doctrine around the American Iraqi experience. Before Operation Iraqi Freedom, the PRC had high hopes that the Iraqi Insurgency would validate the legacy of Mao’s “People’s War.

” We can see that if Saddam Hussein can mobilize the entire army and people of the entire country to fight a guerrilla war and street battles so as to delay the speed of the US offensive and trap the US forces in a ‘Desert Storm,’ the situation will be the common wish of the Chinese military. ”

The Chinese also made a chilling prediction:

“If the US has some 100 casualties, there will be large-scale anti-war demonstrations within the United States. If the number of casualties exceeds 1000, Bush may be forced to resign.”

It is interesting to me, that this reality is crystal clear to the Chinese. It is so fundamental to the concept of fighting a war with the United States, that it has shaped their warfighting doctrine around a single fundamental truth – the way to defeat America is to suck them into a conflict that will challenge the strength, courage and commitment of the populace.

Maybe it was just easier to understand al Qaeda’s strategy from their side of the map.

This line of attack is not new. It dates back to our birth. The British tried it, the Japanese tried it, and the North Koreans tried it. Not until Vietnam did the tactic succeed. It has been used successfully since; in Beirut, Somalia and now in Iraq.

I would argue that the current Domestic Political climate in this country is exactly what UBL hoped to see. I believe that he thought that our National Will would fracture on September 11th, 2001. I believe that the pendulum has begun to swing in his favor and that the Chinese prediction is on the verge of becoming a reality.

I am writing, from the perspective of a former Enlisted Infantry Marine and Marine Officer, to explain why many of us feel that our nation is not willing to give us the tools to win the Global War on Terror or achieve victory in Iraq. I hope that my words may wake people up to the fact that the citizens of our great nation, not the insurgency, Al Qaeda, or our nation’s military will determine success.

One of the most important lessons that I learned as a Marine was that no plan survives contact with the enemy. This is true because the enemy “has a vote.” As soon as friendly forces come in contact with enemy forces, something will happen that no one had planned for. Then, all bets are off and the force that can “observe, orient, decide and act” first will win.

The point is - there is no certainty in warfare. Intelligence is routinely wrong, the enemy either has something you didn’t know about, is in a different place or does something completely out of character. It’s the nature of warfare. It has not changed since the Athenians fought the Peloponnesians. Sun Tzu knew it. Carl von Clauzewitz knew it. Every military man and woman worth a shit knows it. But somehow, as a country, we have either never heard of such a silly idea or some think the Bush administration made it up to cover their own ass. Believe me; Don Rumsfeld didn’t come up with this one himself.

At this point, some may simply tune out because they believe this is another work of the republican propaganda machine. Yes I am a republican. Yes I voted for Bush. Twice.

But my ranting is not an attack on the left. It is a critique of how all Americans have failed to capitalize on the lessons of history and are repeating the mistakes of the past. The mistakes that were made in North Africa, Vietnam, Beirut, Bosnia and Somalia are all testaments to how we can succeed in the future. Today these lessons are being ignored the administration, congress, generals, media moguls, the anti-war movement and the American people.

Much of the problem stems from the situation – we are attempting to do something that this nation did not train to accomplish, our culture is ignorant to the requirements, sacrifices and cost of war, and neither our civil, nor military leadership has the experience to make perfect decisions. Prior to 2002, our doctrine was still dominated by blunting the tactics of the Soviets, we dismantled our intelligence capability after the wall fell and it took us over a decade to figure out that gutting our armed forces would not create a lean, flexible, responsive force capable of fighting in the post cold war paradigm.

My goal is to focus on the impending consequences of our naiveté about the ugliness of the world outside of our boarders. This is a commentary about how we win or loose. It is a story about strength, weakness and character. It is about the way to show the world that we are determined to be a positive force for democracy and at the same time stand to fight the evil of tyranny and murder. It is about honor, courage and commitment.

Our ideology is one that is worth fighting for. As an American is it your decision. Do we stand together and fight or do we tear each other apart? I hope you choose to read on, think critically about our future, and cast aside partisan propaganda to find the path of victory.

Semper Fidelis.