Game Not Over
Frontline’s latest investigation, Endgame, dissects how the military went from a "light footprint" in Iraq to a last-ditch troop surge.
Frontline's new documentary presents a timeline of the Iraq War punctuated by ill-prepared leadership, rushed military decision-making, and needless political snafus. That’s a now-familiar litany of disaster, but Endgame adds to the record with first-hand concessions from some of the retired Army generals who planned and executed the war. Their candid interviews—particularly one with retired Army General Jack Keane, the Army's second in command during the 2003 invasion–drive the film and provide a new perspective on its military and political failings.
Endgame, which airs June 19 on PBS and will be posted afterward online, is the fifth in a series of Frontline segments on the Iraq War from producer Michael Kirk. It isn't a pretty tale. There's no light at the end of the tunnel here; no hope for a clean exit. Early in the film, New York Times reporter Michael Gordon identifies wishful thinking as the war’s fatal flaw: "From the day we got in, the plan was to get out at the earliest possible opportunity." This half-hearted approach turned an initial victory into a vicious slog. "We never even considered an insurgency as a reasonable option," Keane admits. "From the time we took the regime down, we never made a commitment to secure the population, and never had the resources to do it."
Just trying to follow the war’s shifting cast of commanders and official strategies, not to mention its accumulation of missed opportunities, can be mind boggling. Endgame starts with the appointment of Ricardo Sanchez, the former tank division commander who was suddenly put in charge of the 2003 invasion. Washington Post reporter Thomas Ricks describes him the Army’s most "junior"—i.e., inexperienced—lieutenant general. In addition to being untested, Sanchez was never given a coherent strategy to execute.
Sanchez was replaced by General George Casey Jr., "a guy in charge of the biggest American war since Vietnam and nobody knows who he is," as Times' correspondent Dexter Filkins puts it. Casey consolidated American bases in Iraq in an effort to implement the "light footprint" strategy, a theory that our visibility should be minimized to discourage the Iraqis' dependency on and dislike of U.S. forces. Meanwhile, the military's missteps where exacerbated by political infighting back home. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice undermined the light-footprint plan by pushing the "clear, hold and build" approach, in which American troops go door to door clearing insurgents from an area and then maintain an ongoing presence. Like many official decisions in Iraq, it’s another case of too little, too late.
The current troop surge is just the latest strategy to come out of this muddle. Reflecting on President Bush's January announcement to send 20,000 additional troops to Iraq, Col. Thomas X. Hammes scoffs, "If you're talking 20,000 or 30,000 troops over the next X number of months, that's not a surge, it's a dribble. You're going to dribble more forces in and hope it has some impact." The surge will be at full force by the Fourth of July, but its success won't be officially determined until September.
So where does this leave us? "We're nowhere near the endgame," explains State Department counselor Phillip Zelikow toward the film's end. "The only way we're near the endgame is if we decide that Iraq's no longer gonna be our problem and we're just gonna get out." Filkins takes a more philosophical approach, alluding to the arc of a Greek tragedy: "In this particular narrative, the hero has gathered himself and seen his errors and tried to get everything right. And maybe it's too late."
No matter what you think of the war, Endgame's exploration of how we're fighting it by the seat of our pants is deeply discouraging. How to end a game that never had a gameplan in the first place?
Page 1 of 1 
"Like many official decisions in Iraq, it’s another case of too little, too late." is Gary's opinion. The program decided that "maybe its too late." But they were willing to wait and see.
Why have a desire or at least a predisposition to lose? Political gain? Or something else?
I don't get it. All we heard on the tv was Abizaid and Meyers for the firsrt couple years. Now General Keane tells us it was his fault for the early failure to plan for an insurgency. What gives? How dopey do they think we are? Rumsfeld was bullied by THEM. Right, OK.
I have always subscribed to the former German Minister of Interior's comment that this war is a Hitlerite diversion from corporate robbery at home.
Now that the surge strategy has been explained, it appears that the "clear, hold and build" approach could work, at least in the 23 Baghdad neighborhoods cited in the plan. It worked in Talafa (sp?) and if we can get considerable help from Iraqi police and armed forces for the hold and build components of the plan, it could work in Baghdad. Once Baghdad is secure and utilities are restored then there will be hope for the rest of the country. I'm hopeful.
In a world that everyone committs mistakes, war is a place of many errors. They become fatal. In a war that was never needed, errors are most obious
Dr.Q
The plan was not “to get out at the earliest possible opportunity” as reported by Michael Gordon, unless you include in that description the installation of a puppet government that would give the big oil companies and America and Britain easy access to “our” oil which just happened to be under their sand.
Since Gonzalez tried the "Alzheimer defense" as do all GOP staffers caught in POLITICAL misconduct they must assume that people tend to forget important details frequently when those important events happen more than 3 months ago. I keep seeing contradictory "news exposes" about the same issues - separated by a mere three to six months. The Daily Show is making a career of having officials debate each other with their own statements. It would be hilarious if so much taxpayer money wasn't being flushed down a toilet and so many lives destroyed.
Please stop trying to be revisionists.
It was not a case of too little, too late.
It was a case of never should have been done, not a single wargame outcome was considered positive leading up to the intelligence community and pentagon assessments.
People not on the front lines have a funny notion that waiting will fix things. Like a country where almost every person in it knows a family member who died will suddenly just forget all of that and welcome occupation.
They found out the hard way that American exceptionalism is the biggest myth. No footprint(or lack thereof) can change that fact.
The reason Iraq was not invaded was not invaded during desert storm remains valid and trumps all the grandoise arguments of AEI lackeys promoted throughout the Executive ranks and especially in the old CPA.
As for you apologists in the rpess, think about the Nurembergg precedent. Enablers get what is coming to them.
The Iraqis had it coming to themselves, ungovernmable heathens. File that notion next to the fools who happened to be too poor to just up and leave New Orleans on their own. Ungovernable types with ethnic white roots or even dreaded brownish types. Ask Kenneth Tomlinson about that...
'Heck of a job,' Bushies...
So you favor an unending occupation and military presence there. Tell me how peacefully that worked for Israel every decade of its existence.
Keep falling back on history neocons, blood's on your hands.
Two Points , Mr. Moskowitz
Not to continue with hindsight, but in this particular instance--since obviously those who are supposed to know can't find their ass with either hand--perhaps to take a glance back to see where the POTUS was.
With Al Qaeda's plan executed, Dubya could have easily went to the Constitution and gotten a Declaration of War. Yes, it would have been drastic to draft half a million Americans, but the country not only would have tolerated it--it expected it after the speech Dubya gave beside the honorable Bob Beckworth in NYC. Over the course of a year, while Osama could have had the experience of a committed military engagement (the type of experience that could find Saddam in a spider hole--that kind!), the military could have easily been bolstered by a fresh infusion of 350,000 thousand Regular Army forces with an additional 150,000 Marines. That solves both problems--Osama is killed or captured, with enough troops to achieve a "clear, hold and build" approach in what is essentially presidential policy. The Neo-cons didn't think big enough. Of course isn't it nice that instead of paying Army truck drivers $1000 a month to drive the trucks, KBR is having to pay practically that A DAY to transport materials. How did this policy ever fit into a model that could be described as "on the cheap." Anyway, next point.
Seizing for national defense some piece of territory has had to have been direct policy by some office since the oil crisis in the '70's. Clearly some thought lines shifted from simply keeping it low priced to making sure it was available. Thus, when the same bunch of unitary executives were able to gather under the umbrella of such a thoughtful and studious intellect as dubya, some degree of politics by other means was inevitable--probably even patriotic. Bottom line though, until the actual threat; that clear and present danger to the security of the country was neutralized, any diversion of the US military toward anything but Al Qeada could be interpreted as dereliction of duty. And the fact that there are American farmers growing gas as I type this creates a real answer as to whether securing Iraq was strategically more important than the tactical capture of Mr. bin Laden.
As far as I see it, America's only hope is to pull the troops home and begin to purge the greed heads who think that securing territory with blood so some oil company can have an extraction cost under $2 a barrel is a good idea. These are obviously the same sort of people who would rather see one CEO of an oil firm make $500 million instead of 10,000 mid-westeners make $50,000. They are also the people guilty of malfeasance or misfeasance and should be forced to do time with Scooter.
Respectfully submitted,
Francis Jens Erickson
PBS's Frontline "Endgame" explains to some degree what we should expect in the years to come. A "Historian" from the American Exnterprise Institute reflects the view "Take it to the other side not here". We will have a major world problem for years to come and we don't even know it in Middle America. We have made a lot of problems and we are not solving any of them. IRAQ, The Middle East or the World. We need to reevauluate where we are and where we are going??. Ask ourselves what are we really doing?? and why should we allow the President and Neo Con's cause our grandchildren to continue to fight a prolonged and continued war on terror.
