Where are the profesional war planners on Iraq Study Group?

Ralph Peters:

THE proposal to embed more American military trainers with Iraqi units makes sense, but creates a grave danger: the prospect of a coordinated revolt among Shias in uniform who slaughter or take hostage thousands of our dispersed troops.

The best deterrent is the back-up presence of our own Army and Marine combat formations. As long as our cavalry can ride to the rescue, the prospect of a sectarian mutiny to "teach America a lesson" and humiliate us remains low.

Now early word has it that The Fabulous Baker Boys (straight from the political boneyard and known formally as the Iraq Study Group) will recommend withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq by 2008, while leaving behind our embedded trainers and vulnerable support units.

This is the sort of nonsense that sounds great to civilians with no military experience. To veterans, it's nuts.

THE problem here is the composition of the panel headed by former Secretary of State James Baker. Not only does it drag yesteryear's Washington insiders out of the crypt, its make-up reveals the disgraceful extent to which our governing "elite" despises those in uniform.

Why on earth wasn't a single retired military officer appointed to the the Iraq Study Group? We're at war, for Heaven's sake. Briefly interviewing a few generals is no substitute for a steadying military voice amid the committee's naifs.

Washington insiders pretend to respect our troops but continue to believe that those in uniform are second-raters and that any political hack can design better war plans than those who've dedicated their lives to military service. This is arrogance soaring through the clouds - and a disheartening replay of the shut-out-military-advice approach to warfare that got us into such a mess in Iraq.

...

The anti war left likes to quote generals who criticize the conduct of the war but then rejects their advice on what is needed to win. At the heart of the revolt of the generals was a belief that more force was needed to defeat the enemy. While this was characterized as a disagreement with Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, it was really a disagreement with the Centcom staff headed by Gen. Abizaid. There should have been a rational debate over opposing philosophies in war fighting, but instead the anti war media turned it into a political debate.

When the discussion about a pullout with deadlines disguised in vague terms started leaking out the retired generals revolted again as did the Joint Chiefs and the result is going back to what Abizaid has proposed all along, with the addition of more Iraqi troops.

Peters concern about a revolt against US troops embedded with the Iraqi troops overlooks one significant problem such a revolt would have. While there has been much concern about the Iraqis inability to operate without US support, the bottom line is that any revolt would quickly run out of bullets and beans without US logistic support. Because the Iraqis still do not have the logistic infrastructure to support their troops, no rebellion could last more than a matter of days.