Die Washington Post schreibt heute auf ihrer Webseite wie der Unmut
in Kreisen hoher US-Militärs über den Kriegsverlauf wächst.
Besonderst die Strategie Rumsfelds und Wolfowitzs wird kritisiert und
sogar deren Rücktritt gefordert. Man sieht sich noch für Jahre
kämpfend ohne wirklich Stabilität ins Land zu bringen. Es werde sich
auch kaum lohnen, um jeden Preis einen Erfolg zu erreichen, denn der
Preis wäre viel zu hoch. Der Führer der 82sten Airborn Division ist
überzeugt davon, dass man diesen Krieg strategisch verlieren wird.
Andere sagen es wäre ein zweites Vietnam, wo man auch jede Schlacht
gewonnen habe, den Krieg aber verloren hat (das sind Realisten, viele
Amis glauben ja immer noch an ihre Dolchstoßlegende). Der Schaden am
Ansehen der USA sei auch schon vor dem Folterskandal enorm:
Deep divisions are emerging at the top of the U.S. military over the
course of the occupation of Iraq, with some senior officers beginning
to say that the United States faces the prospect of casualties for
years without achieving its goal of establishing a free and
democratic Iraq.
Their major worry is that the United States is prevailing militarily
but failing to win the support of the Iraqi people. That view is far
from universal, but it is spreading and being voiced publicly for the
first time.
Army Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., the commander of the 82nd
Airborne Division, who spent much of the year in western Iraq, said
he believes that at the tactical level at which fighting occurs, the
U.S. military is still winning. But when asked whether he believes
the United States is losing, he said, "I think strategically, we
are."
Army Col. Paul Hughes, who last year was the first director of
strategic planning for the U.S. occupation authority in Baghdad, said
he agrees with that view and noted that a pattern of winning battles
while losing a war characterized the U.S. failure in Vietnam. "Unless
we ensure that we have coherency in our policy, we will lose
strategically," he said in an interview Friday.
"I lost my brother in Vietnam," added Hughes, a veteran Army
strategist who is involved in formulating Iraq policy. "I promised
myself, when I came on active duty, that I would do everything in my
power to prevent that [sort of strategic loss] from happening again.
Here I am, 30 years later, thinking we will win every fight and lose
the war, because we don't understand the war we're in."
The emergence of sharp differences over U.S. strategy has set off a
debate, a year after the United States ostensibly won a war in Iraq,
about how to preserve that victory. The core question is how to end a
festering insurrection that has stymied some reconstruction efforts,
made many Iraqis feel less safe and created uncertainty about who
actually will run the country after the scheduled turnover of
sovereignty June 30.
Inside and outside the armed forces, experts generally argue that the
U.S. military should remain there but should change its approach.
Some argue for more troops, others for less, but they generally agree
on revising the stated U.S. goals to make them less ambitious. They
are worried by evidence that the United States is losing ground with
the Iraqi public.
Some officers say the place to begin restructuring U.S. policy is by
ousting Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, whom they see as
responsible for a series of strategic and tactical blunders over the
past year. Several of those interviewed said a profound anger is
building within the Army at Rumsfeld and those around him.
A senior general at the Pentagon said he believes the United States
is already on the road to defeat. "It is doubtful we can go on much
longer like this," he said. "The American people may not stand for it
-- and they should not."
(...)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11227-2004May8.html
(Man muss sich dort anmelden um den Artikel zu lesen)
in Kreisen hoher US-Militärs über den Kriegsverlauf wächst.
Besonderst die Strategie Rumsfelds und Wolfowitzs wird kritisiert und
sogar deren Rücktritt gefordert. Man sieht sich noch für Jahre
kämpfend ohne wirklich Stabilität ins Land zu bringen. Es werde sich
auch kaum lohnen, um jeden Preis einen Erfolg zu erreichen, denn der
Preis wäre viel zu hoch. Der Führer der 82sten Airborn Division ist
überzeugt davon, dass man diesen Krieg strategisch verlieren wird.
Andere sagen es wäre ein zweites Vietnam, wo man auch jede Schlacht
gewonnen habe, den Krieg aber verloren hat (das sind Realisten, viele
Amis glauben ja immer noch an ihre Dolchstoßlegende). Der Schaden am
Ansehen der USA sei auch schon vor dem Folterskandal enorm:
Deep divisions are emerging at the top of the U.S. military over the
course of the occupation of Iraq, with some senior officers beginning
to say that the United States faces the prospect of casualties for
years without achieving its goal of establishing a free and
democratic Iraq.
Their major worry is that the United States is prevailing militarily
but failing to win the support of the Iraqi people. That view is far
from universal, but it is spreading and being voiced publicly for the
first time.
Army Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., the commander of the 82nd
Airborne Division, who spent much of the year in western Iraq, said
he believes that at the tactical level at which fighting occurs, the
U.S. military is still winning. But when asked whether he believes
the United States is losing, he said, "I think strategically, we
are."
Army Col. Paul Hughes, who last year was the first director of
strategic planning for the U.S. occupation authority in Baghdad, said
he agrees with that view and noted that a pattern of winning battles
while losing a war characterized the U.S. failure in Vietnam. "Unless
we ensure that we have coherency in our policy, we will lose
strategically," he said in an interview Friday.
"I lost my brother in Vietnam," added Hughes, a veteran Army
strategist who is involved in formulating Iraq policy. "I promised
myself, when I came on active duty, that I would do everything in my
power to prevent that [sort of strategic loss] from happening again.
Here I am, 30 years later, thinking we will win every fight and lose
the war, because we don't understand the war we're in."
The emergence of sharp differences over U.S. strategy has set off a
debate, a year after the United States ostensibly won a war in Iraq,
about how to preserve that victory. The core question is how to end a
festering insurrection that has stymied some reconstruction efforts,
made many Iraqis feel less safe and created uncertainty about who
actually will run the country after the scheduled turnover of
sovereignty June 30.
Inside and outside the armed forces, experts generally argue that the
U.S. military should remain there but should change its approach.
Some argue for more troops, others for less, but they generally agree
on revising the stated U.S. goals to make them less ambitious. They
are worried by evidence that the United States is losing ground with
the Iraqi public.
Some officers say the place to begin restructuring U.S. policy is by
ousting Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, whom they see as
responsible for a series of strategic and tactical blunders over the
past year. Several of those interviewed said a profound anger is
building within the Army at Rumsfeld and those around him.
A senior general at the Pentagon said he believes the United States
is already on the road to defeat. "It is doubtful we can go on much
longer like this," he said. "The American people may not stand for it
-- and they should not."
(...)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11227-2004May8.html
(Man muss sich dort anmelden um den Artikel zu lesen)