How do the guests define victory in Iraq?

Sent by Scott Triggs | 2:15 PM ET | 07-01-2008

It is shocking to hear the incompetence from the military. When George Bush was first elected by the Supreme Court, many doubted his military smarts. They thought Dick Cheney would add that expertise. Were these mistaken efforts approved by the President and Vice President?

Sent by Earl Nissen | 2:15 PM ET | 07-01-2008

What does this new report mean with regards to any future actions that may be contemplated in Iran? I ask this question based on just reading Seymour Hersh's new article.

Sent by David Chance | 2:17 PM ET | 07-01-2008

What about the introspection that did not occur that led to the decision to go to war in the first place? When was the last time the US officially declared war....probably WWII? How many people have to die, United States citizens and otherwise, before our government realizes that war causes more problems and costs more in lives and other resources that could be used to resolve other domestic problems we face?

Sent by Steve in St. Louis, MO | 2:23 PM ET | 07-01-2008

Did DA plan for military govt/civil affairs operations PRIOR TO the invasion of Iraq? I'm particularly interested in comparisons between Germany and Japan prior to and following the end of WWII with events in Iraq.

Sent by Bill Neill | 2:24 PM ET | 07-01-2008

Whether one agrees with the decision to go into Iraq or not. Once we're in, we should have fully committed. We did not do that either politcally by mobilizing the nation, or apparently by the military by committing enough resources.

Sent by Brian | 2:25 PM ET | 07-01-2008

Anyone paying the slightest attention knew about these problems years ago. Why are they just now appearing to have figured this out. It's more than astounding.

Sent by Barry | 2:27 PM ET | 07-01-2008

According to the August 08 Foreign Affairs ("Is Ethnic Conflict Inevitable"), what really keeps the peace among ethnic groups is a fair enforcement of contracts. Is the military somewhat blind to using 'commerce techniques' for keeping peace? After all the miltary isn't really a business

Sent by Paul Pic | 2:27 PM ET | 07-01-2008

I believe and have believed from the beginning, from reading as much news as possible from as many places as possible......

We did in Iraq what we intended to do from the beginning.

The turmoil we expected and even promoted.

We said we wanted Democracy in Iraq but lied to the American Public. What we wanted was a country the would NEVER nationalize its oil again and give us always good contracts.

There were those who wanted it to end well, but they were removed from jobs.

The American people see Iraq as failed policy and it is to the benifit of those who did in Iraq what they wanted to be able to transfer mistakes to the Generals and others.........so the real program can remain hidden.

here is a bremer article in WPO from 2004 - if you read this you can begin to see how history is being rewritten so blame is defelcted.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7053-2004Oct4.html

When Naomi Klein came out with her ideas and the concept of Disater Capitalism she reinforced and resourced and confirmed what I have been thinking a long time.

The Corporations doing this are doing it to survive as they see it and for reason they see as necessary for their own survival......and can not see the forest and other individuals for their own indivdual group of trees.

The question as always is FOLLOW THE MONEY - which is hard in Iraq but leads to the transfere of great wealth to some particular corporations......that is it in the end.....as in all wars...follow the money and you will see what is really happening beyond the B.S. put to justify the transfere of money and power

Sent by joe magner | 2:28 PM ET | 07-01-2008

Listening to these men cooly describe the situation in Iraq, and the errors made in the run-up to it, makes me sick.

No discernable offerings of accountability can be found in their excuses for allowing sheer willfull stupidity to guide our country into this mess.

It may be bad for "business" but I say: GET OUT NOW! These "talking-head" guys will keep their jobs, their homes, their families and their mental health intact. Our military service people won't get that lucky. Nor will the people of Iraq. The whole thing disgusts me.
Peace,
Mari M.
Quincy, MA USA

Sent by Mari McAvenia | 2:33 PM ET | 07-01-2008

Many people have stepped up to say "we made mistakes", now The Army is going to join the crowd. But, we need to ask where does tha buck stop, and in my mind it stops with the Commander in Chief and the Sec Def. . Will they ever admit the core mistake in Iraq, that the intial invasion was a mistake and the first months following the invasion were handled poorly because rose colored glasses were worn by those in high command?

Sent by john | 2:44 PM ET | 07-01-2008

Why do you let this Gen. Sanchez natter along saying everything in the present tense? Interrupt and ask, "General, you said "this is a problem' but you're talking about something that happened in 2004, right" So it WAS a problem, rather than IS a problem, right?"

This is not a pedantic complaint about grammar. We have tenses in English for a reason, to clarify the time element, and when the issue is war -- i.e. life and death -- why not speak clearly? Sanchez talks like this all the time. How did he get to be a big-shot general?

Sent by Larry Thorson | 2:46 PM ET | 07-01-2008

With all due respect to your guests, I agree with the caller that felt this was a civilian leadership debacle. We elect our leadership with the belief that they should have enough experience and knowledge to see the big picture.

After all, it is only the president and his administration that can send the army initially and only they can send a "surge." The idea that no one in the Bush administration thought that this might turn into an unconventional war and bottomless pit the likes of Vietnam is utterly astounding. To invoke a much better president than what we have had lately, on this issue the buck stops with the top elected official in the country, in my opinion.

Did the military make mistakes? Probably. But, had there been better leadership at the top, they would have never been in position to make those mistakes.

Sent by David Carr | 2:46 PM ET | 07-01-2008

Iraq was better off with Sadam. People knew what to expect out of life and Uday and Kusay...well the dictators' sons are entitled to a few excesses. Everything was 'right' under Sadam. Does he have any relatives who'd be up to the job?

Sent by Mo | 3:37 PM ET | 07-01-2008

What is fascinating about On Point II is how easily it becomes fodder for the interpreter's agenda.

This is not to say that it was so intended by its authors. The study itself is direct in its criticism, analytical towards the events and diligent in its objective: to determine what happened, good and bad.

History professor Donald Wright and General Jack Keane's made a clear and strong point criticizing the gross and often fatal errors of the pre-invasion planning, the failure by some military leaders to face-off against devastatingly amateurish and irresponsible leadership coming out of the Rumsfeld-led DoD.

Equally, the critique goes on to identify both fact and person in the poor leadership of the first year, both civilian and in thye higher ranks of the military.

However, they authors made it just as clear in On Point II that the adjustments that prepared the ground and later made success possible came from the field commanders and soldiers themselves.

The study strongly argues for the changes in tactics as soldiers and field commanders saw the impact of poor leadership. Just as the soldiers changed the disaster of Washington's Long Island campaign, the strategic defeats along the Mississippi during the civil war, the critical situations in Europe and the Pacific in World War II, and the sad prospects in Korea they adapted,changed course and managed to turn the bitter lemon of defeat into lemonade.

On Point II clearly identifies both fact and process and identifies its fundamental origin, the soldier.

Yet, the host of Talk of the Nation almost refuses to acknowledge this point. Why? Both Gen. Keane and Prof. Wright clearly tried to bring this out. Yet the host of almost bitterly attempted top gloss over it. Listen carefully to the portion of the interview with Prof. Wright. The host is no longer an interviewer, but an advocate for a political point.

Likewise, the choice of the interview that follows the authors, a Col. McGregor, who left the army in 2004.

Many officers who had actually turned retirement papers as war broke out actually withdrew them. Their act reflected the obligation they felt towards the Nation and to their brothers-in-arms.

Not so McGregor. Almost joyfully he now makes the circuit throwing his brother soldiers 'under the tank'.

Sent by Jorge in Chicago | 4:05 PM ET | 07-01-2008

Leave it to NPR to mis-frame a vital question.

"What do you think went wrong?", they ask.

What Talk Of The Nation is really asking these "experts" is:

"Why are we losing, and who is to blame?"

The failure of the "war" against Iraq was in invading it in the first place, based only upon deception, ignorance, hatred, fear, and greed.

Because we have no valid reason to have invaded Iraq, our invasion constitutes an illegal war of aggression. Several WWII era Nazis were tried, convicted, and hanged for this serious offense.

The people of Iraq obviously have every right to defend themselves against the heinous and criminal invasion of their country. Anyone with any dignity would do the same here, if we found ourselves in a similar position.

Neal Conan and programs such as this one, demonstrate plainly as to why NPR is known as National Pentagon Radio, in some circles.

What a waste of air-time.

Sent by Get Out of Iraq! | 7:23 PM ET | 07-01-2008

My thoughts are many.

First, I wish Neil (sp) would prepare for his interviews. I wish he had some passion for his job. Only half of what Tim Russart had and NPR would be a voice in America. Oh well.

Second, if he hears comment, that he follows. up. For example, a general said that the lessons of prior years were lost. But, the Army is doing the best job it can to review what went wrong in Iraq. Duh!! What an opportunity missed. The obvious question, do we learn from prior mistakes, or just quote Churchill.

Neil, was more concerned about moving to the next segment in his program, (I'm tired of listening to him shuffle papers (what do I say next). Didn't happen in this program, but happens all too frequently.

Why am I writing this email. Because I care. Get a good journalist on Talk of the Nation. Someone who prepares and can ask good questions.

Neil needs to earn his job. He should not ride on other's coattail.

Sent by Kate | 8:04 PM ET | 07-01-2008

I listened with interest to the program segment discussing the content of On Point II. Not being a military person, I will not insult the integrity of the military by trying to offer comments about strategy although I am not a supporter of the war.

However I wish to address some of the comments of Col. MacGregor regarding his comments concerning the "attitudes" of the regional culture toward the presences of, as he mentioned ". . . Christian armies in the Muslim Arab lands . . ." While that cultural dichotomy has existed historically over many generations, it should not be perceived as some basis for inter-religious hatred or enmity by Muslims against Christians or vice-versa. Col. MacGregor had stated a historical fact that has been known for generations and that was apparently disregarded in the context of the Iraq strategy.

Unfortunately, that disregard has resulted in disastrous results for Americans and Iraqis alike.

Sent by I Siddiq | 9:52 AM ET | 07-02-2008

Neil Conan begins by calling the report critical and candid. Of course Mr. MacGregor completely blows that out of the water. My own experience , as a Vietnam vet, is that the army is never candid about anything. When I left the army and came to Boston in '72 public radio and TV were much more critical of government officials. Sadly, in my opinion because of increasing corporate underwriting, NPR has become (like the rest of MSM), a stenographer for the government. How about a"critical and candid" report by NPR on that.

Sent by Michael Striff | 2:31 PM ET | 07-02-2008

As one of the co-authors of On Point II, I wish to compliment Jorge from Chicago for apparently taking the time to read the book and commenting thoughtfully upon it. I encourage everyone to read the book (it can be downloaded for free or purchased from the Government Printing Office).

The book has nothing to do with the national strategic decisions to go to war in Iraq. On Point II is a story of the US Army in Iraq in the 18 months following the overthrow of the Saddam regime. Dr. Wright and I believe the main theme of this story is the incredible skill of US Army Soldiers in Iraq who conducted an amazing series of transitions in this 18 month period to adapt to the reality of Iraq after Saddam.

Despite conditions in Iraq that bore little resemblance to pre-war assumptions, Soldiers, commanders and units immediately began to conduct the full spectrum of military and non-military tasks related to providing security and assisting the Iraqi people and their leaders in building a new Iraq.

On Point II needs to be seen in the context of the Army as a learning organization which routinely evaluates its training, education and operations looking for insights and lessons that will make it better in the future. Military history, the mission of the Combat Studies Institute that produced this book, is only one of the many manifestations of this culture of introspection.

Readers of On Point II will see the steadily increasing effectiveness of the US Army in Iraq between May 2003 and January 2005. From tactics to equipment to doctrine to training Iraqi security forces to reconstruction and humanitarian projects, the Army continually improved in large part because of its learning processes.

Those who want to use the book to debate political issues need to look elsewhere.

Sent by COL Timothy Reese | 6:39 PM ET | 07-03-2008

Please help me if you can. In the middle of june I heard on NPR a story af a soldier who was blown up in iraq and had written a book about his experinces encluding tramautic brain injury.I too was blown up(in Viet Nam) and forever my life changed. If you could please give me the name of the soldier and title of his book. thanks Rick Guy

Sent by Rick Guy | 7:42 PM ET | 07-03-2008