Why Didn’T George W. Bush Heed The Knowledge Of Our Military Commanders?

Had the Bush Administration followed these concepts leading up to the Iraq War, it would not be the hell it is today.Why Didn’t George W. Bush Heed The Knowledge Of Our Military Commanders?By Cliff Montgomery – May 10th, 2007The March 7th, 2007, Department of Defense report entitled “Multinational Operations” was “prepared under the direction of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.”  It’s a publication which “provides doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States when theyoperate as part of a multinational force,” declares its introduction. “It describes joint  organizational structures essential to coordinate air, land, maritime, space, and special operations,” it continues, “and it addresses operational considerations that the commander and staff should consider during the planning and execution of multinational operations.”Had these concepts been followed by George W. Bush during the lead-up to the Iraq War, we would still have a mess–there can only be waste in any fruitless nation-building, especially one based on lies and deceit, after all–but it would not be the hell is is today, or will be tomorrow.We quote from the Joint Chiefs’ report below:“Multinational operations are usually undertaken within the structure of a coalition or alliance. Other possible arrangements include supervision by an intergovernmental organization such as the United Nations or the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.”An alliance is a relationship that results of a formal agreement (e.g., treaty) between two or more nations for broad, long-term objectives that further the common interests of the members.”Operations conducted with units from two or more allies are referred to as combined operations.”A coalition is an ad hoc arrangement between two or more nations for common action. Coalitions are formed by different nations with different objectives, usually for a single occasion or for longer cooperation in a narrow sector of common interest. Operations conducted with units from two or more coalition members are referred to as coalition operations.”Nations form partnerships in both regional and worldwide patterns as they seek opportunities to promote their mutual national interests, ensure mutual security against real and perceived threats, conduct foreign humanitarian assistance operations, and engage in peace operations.”Cultural, diplomatic, religious, psychological, economic, technological, and informational factors all influence and impact multinational operations and participation.”In assigning missions, the commander must consider that national honor and prestige may be as important to a contributing nation as combat capability. All partners must be included in the planning process, and their opinions must be sought in mission assignment. US commanders and staffs should establish rapport with their counterparts from partner countries, as well as the multinational Nature of Multinational Operations force commander (MNFC). This requires personal, direct relationships that only they can develop.”US commanders and their staffs should have an understanding of each member of the multinational force (MNF). Much time and effort is expended in learning about the enemy; a similar effort is required to understand the doctrine, capabilities, strategic goals, culture, religion, customs, history, and values of each partner.”Effective partnerships take time and attention to develop. Diligent pursuit of a trusting, mutually beneficial relationship with multinational partners requires un-tiring, even-handed patience. This is easier to accomplish within alliances but is equally necessary regarding prospective coalition partners.”Security cooperation refers to Department of Defense interactions with foreign defense establishments to build defense relationships that promote specific US security interests, develop allied and friendly military capabilities for self-defense and multinational operations, and provide US forces with peacetime and contingency access to a host nation.”Based on guidance from the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the combatant commanders (CCDRs) and designated executive agents develop plans and employ forces and personnel in peacetime to protect and promote US interests and regional objectives.”Security cooperation activities demonstrate US commitment, lend credibility to its alliances, enhance regional stability, provide a crisis response capability, and build capacities of potential coalition partners while promoting US influence and access.”Forces participating in a multinational operation will always have at least two distinct chains of command: a national chain of command and a multinational chain of command.”The President always retains and cannot relinquish national command authority over US forces. National command includes the authority and responsibility for organizing, directing, coordinating, controlling, planning employment, and protecting military forces. The President also has the authority to terminate US participation in multinational operations at any time.”While the President cannot relinquish command authority, in some multinational environments it might be prudent or advantageous to place appropriate US forces under the OPCON (Operational Control) of a foreign commander to achieve specified military objectives. In making this decision, the President carefully considers such factors as mission, size of the proposed US force, risks involved, anticipated duration, and rules of engagement.”In many cases, coordinating authority may be the only acceptable means of accomplishing a multinational mission. Coordinating authority is a consultation relationship between commanders, not an authority by which command and control (C2) may be exercised.”