I just spent a few minutes talking with COL David Hunt (ret.) about a number of issues including the situation in North Korea, Iraq, and Iran.My hope was to determine whether or not this was a topic that we could cover for the radio show. I wasn't real sure that I had a sufficient grasp of the situation to be able to tackle this material intelligently. I didn't. And I still don't. But I'll give the old Academy try anyway.
Most folks would try to cobble this into a straight interview and regurgitate it back to you, but my thoughts going in to it were to attempt to get an education. Let's see how I did...
Current Disposition of Our Military
If I take anything away from my talk with Colonel Hunt, it will be this: we have guys who are going back for their third and fourth rotations into Iraq. We are learning the limits of an all-volunteer force.
The men and women who wear the uniform of this country are the best of the best, but even they have limits. They aren't superheros with unlimited power and strength. They are, in fact, quite human. Do I think, like Congressman Murtha, that our troops are "broken"? No. But I do think that we have to realize that there are limitations to what any human being can withstand.
In World War II, America sent her troops over and they stayed until the job got done. But they were not an all-volunteer force then. Everyone made a contribution to the war effort back then and I suspect that part of the problem with the "popularity" of the Iraq war is that very few of us have sacrificed anything for it. Those who have, have really paid the price for the rest of us.
The entire Marine Corps has roughly 200,000 men and women. The Army is back to meeting recruiting goals again, but we have to face the fact that we are fielding a small army. Much smaller than I realized. Throw in the fact that we have two fronts going already in Afghanistan and Iraq, it appears that we don't have enough soldiers to open a third front.
The advantages in technology and training that our forces have can be overcome given a set of conditions that favor the adversary. Geopolitical variables being just one of them.
North Korea
The situation in North Korea is a difficult one. It appears that Kim Jong Il is looking for attention and has chosen the development of long range missiles and nuclear weapons as his method of getting that attention.
Diplomatic options don't seem to have worked and the outlook on that front doesn't seem all that bright either. Multi-lateral talks don't seem to produce much except what appears as minor delays in increasing North Korea's supply of nuclear weapons.
I'm not sure that direct negotiations with Kim Jong Il would produce any better results. And frankly, that sort of thing has been tried before without too much success because here we are...
North Korea has a million man army. The South Korean capital is very close to the border. Kim Jong Il has promised that his response to any military action taken against North Korea would mean a certain and swift death for the eleven million people who live in Seoul.
Frankly, I'm not convinced that our air and naval forces could do sufficient damage quick enough to prevent this scenario. And I have every reason to believe that Kim Jong Il would carry out his plan.
China
China is a major player in the North Korea situation and we really should take a look at the motivations of the Chinese. China is an emerging superpower. Does China want North Korea to get in line with what the west wants or not? Ultimately, I don't think anybody but the Chinese really know the answer to that question. It appears at times that the Chinese are enabling the North Koreans to continue down this dangerous road. At other times, China seems almost embarrassed by Kim Jong Il's antics.
Iran
Iran is a serious emerging threat. COL Hunt and I didn't really get in to Iran a whole lot except I get the distinct impression that the Colonel feels very strongly that Iran (and North Korea) was (were and are) a much bigger threat than Iraq. I can't say that I disagree with him.
I didn't think to ask, and I really wish I had, whether or not he thought we should have chosen Iran or North Korea instead of Iraq. I won't presume to speak for him, but I will say that I think we should have taken Iran instead given those two choices. But the problem with chooisng Iran (and North Korea as well) at the time is that Iran didn't have the "history" of Saddam's Iraq. The world wasn't prepared to deal with the threat of Iraq, let alone Iran.
Iraq
I would characterize the Colonel as something of a pessimist on the subject of Iraq but his point of view is well worth considering. In a guerilla war, the odds are 50/50 on who is going to win. Basically, it comes down to who is going to stop first: the insurgents or the occupiers. I get the impression that what we're talking is a battle of wills as much as a battle of bullets. The motivations of both sides and the level of dedication to those motives are an indicator.
This war is approaching the length of World War II. If there is something that the administration isn't doing that they should in order to win, they should do it. As for what that might be, I'll have to give that some thought. Personally, I think the idea of training up Iraqi police and military forces while stabilizing the Iraqi government sound like the right direction to me. I've not really heard any other plausible ideas presented. Withdrawal is not an option, but what does Victory look like? I honestly don't know...
Which brings me back to a point that the Colonel made when we were talking about endurance. I asked if there was some way of knowing when our troops have reached their limit, and he said that the only way of really knowing that is to get out there and be with them in order to make that judgement. I suspect that there is a great deal about this war that can be described that way...
The Media
My biggest surprise came when the subject of media coverage came up. The more I think about what COL Hunt said, the more I think he is absolutely right. No matter what the media says, the White House and the Pentagon have the ability to get out in front of the story and make sure that the truth gets out.
Part of my rational for this is the enormous frustration I felt throughout the entire reign of Scott McClelland as Press Secretary. The one thing that you have to give to President Bush (POTUS 41), Generals Powell and Schwarzkopf is that their handling of the press was very effective and efficient in the first Gulf war. I think it would do President Bush (POTUS 43), Tony Snow, and General Pace some good to attempt to replicate their media strategy.
Bad things happen in war. How we react to bad things is at least as important as how we react to good things. Could the media do a better job of presenting some of the good stories coming out of Iraq? Sure. But the administration could do a better job of doing the same. They have the biggest bully pulpit in the world and it is well past time it be used for a purpose that furthers the cause.
Final Thoughts for This Post
As I expected, the Colonel gave me a lot to think about. As I digest more of what he had to say and do some more research, I know that I will find myself asking even more questions. I've barely scratched the surface of what Colonel Hunt and I talked about and already I have spent over an hour and a half trying to put it all in to perspective.
Thank you, Colonel Hunt. For you service. For your dedication. For your tenacity. And for giving me the opportunity to learn a little bit more and discover whole new areas of personal ignorance.
