Peter Mansoor

Great question. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have put a great deal of stress on our volunteer soldiers, who often serve multiple tours in combat zones (I know – I served 28 months in Iraq during two separate tours). Fortunately, DOD has finally realized the scope of the PTSD problem and has committed resources to deal with it. Perhaps the greatest need is to provide a way to help military personnel make sense of what they have gone through and put their experiences into some sort of context that helps them sort out their memories and emotions.

I’m really excited that the Ohio State University offers one such program for veterans, called the Veterans Learning Community. The purpose of this program is to help students connect their experiences in the field with academic approaches to learning and provide them with a platform to communicate their experience and research. Central to this program is a comparative studies course entitled “Experiences of War.” In this course, students are exposed to representations of the experience of war in art, literature, and film from diverse cultures and time periods. The course has been a huge hit, and it has enabled combat veterans to filter their experiences through the lens of others throughout history who have also gone to war and experienced danger at the sharp end of combat. It would be nice if other universities followed suit.

There are several ongoing trends that will impact warfare in this century, among them increased urbanization, the "democratization" of media and information, and the rise of non-state actors who have been empowered by the first two trends. State-on-state warfare will not disappear, but wars in the future will increasingly include a variety of combatants who do not wear the uniform of a nation state. This certainty will require conventional military forces to be more flexible, versatile, and trained in such tasks as information and stability operations.

The U.S. military might wish to refight the Normandy invasion and the drive across France and Germany in 1944 and 1945, but this kind of war is unlikely in the foreseeable future. As much as Americans might not like the type of wars waged in Afghanistan and Iraq since 9/11, they are closer to the future of war than World War II.

The surge in Iraq accomplished its goal of enabling the competition for power and resources in Iraq to move back into the realm of politics, at least the kind of politics that doesn’t use bombs and bullets to make its point. In the winter of 2008 the Iraqi Council of Representatives passed a number of laws, such as amnesty legislation, de-Ba’athification reform, and an annual budget, that showed that Iraqi legislators could make deals with one another. After the Charge of the Knights operation in Basra and the clearing of Sadr City in the spring of 2008, all but one of the political parties in Iraq gave a vote of support to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The provincial elections of 2009 brought a large majority of Iraqis of all sects and political persuasions to the polls and brought the Sunnis back into the political process. The wheels started to come off the bus after the presidential election of 2010, when the United States backed Maliki’s candidacy for another term as prime minister instead of supporting the winner of the elections, Ayad Allawi. After that election the Sunnis lost faith in the political process and the jihadists were once again able to make inroads among them. The current violence in Iraq dates to that ill-considered decision, not to the outcome of the surge, which ended in July 2008.

In Afghanistan, the surge of forces has not advanced U.S. objectives. It staved off defeat, but has not resulted in the degree of success that the surge in Iraq enjoyed. There are a number of reasons: a dysfunctional leader (Karzai), guerrilla sanctuaries across the border in Pakistan, the unwillingness of the Pashtuns to side with the national government, and the announcement by the president that the surge was not open ended - which had a tremendous psychological impact on all parties. President Bush was "all in" - President Obama was ambivalent at best. This doesn't mean a fully supported surge in Afghanistan would have worked, but does explain why Iraq was so different.

As I argue in my book, the surge was a catalyst that allowed other processes at work in Iraq - such as the Awakening - to have full effect. Most people do not know that Gen. Petraeus ordered his subordinate commanders to support the Awakening and the Sons of Iraq. Without this support, the Awakening would have been confined to the Ramadi area but with MNF-I support, it expanded across a number of key provinces.

I gave my children four tips for being successful in life, so I'll share them with you:

1. Get as much education as you can.
2. Marry well and for life.
3. Start saving early and make it a habit.
4. Find something you love, and figure out how to make money doing it.

(Admittedly, #4 is tough for a lot of people, but if you can pull it off you never work a day in your life.)

Oh! And I almost forgot - spend more for good bacon and never drink cheap liquor. :-)

Tough question, since there are at least a dozen that significantly impacted the course of history. But here are three:

1. Salamis (480 BC) - The Athenian navy defeats the Persians at sea, turning back the Persian invasion of Western Europe. What would our world look like today without Greek civilization?
2. Saratoga (1777) - The American victory over the British brought France and Spain into the war against Britain, and globalized what had been a regional conflict. The world today would look a lot different had the British defeated the colonists.
3. Moscow (1941) - The Red Army turns back Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union and turns WWII into a two front struggle in Europe that Germany had no hope of winning from that point onward. The world today would be a dark place indeed had the Wehrmacht succeeded in defeating the Soviet Union.

The Normandy invasion was an important campaign, but look at what would have happened had it failed:

1. The Red Army would still have rolled over the Wehrmacht in the East.
2. The first atomic bomb would have been dropped on Berlin.

So Normandy did not change the outcome of the war the way the Battle of Moscow did - IMHO.

Good question. But Europe would have been much worse off had the war ended that way.

Yes, in fact when Stalin was asked if he was satisfied with the Red Army taking Berlin, he replied, "[Tsar] Alexander III got to Paris."

I wrote in my memoir, Baghdad at Sunrise, that I was raised in Sacramento, California, but I grew up at West Point. It's true! And it may out me as a total nerd, but I loved the academics at the Academy. Small class sizes (<20 students per class), faculty who are interested in your education (they are there to teach, not research), and a supportive environment in which to learn and grow.

What did I like least? That's easy. I hated the negative (and juvenile) examples of leadership I endured my first year at the Academy. I don't want to paint the entire Class of 1979 with a bad brush, but there were a few *&%holes among them. Once I got through the first year, life improved dramatically and, with a few exceptions, I loved my time at the Academy from that point onward.

Drones are actually part of an ongoing trend that will impact war dramatically in the future - robotics. We will witness that evolution on the ground as well as in the air. If you look at drones, as advanced as they might seem, we are actually at the point where nascent air forces were in 1916 during WWI. Aircraft were first used for reconnaissance, then someone figured out how to drop bombs from them, then fighter aircraft were developed to attain air superiority, then aircraft were used for transport and strategic bombing. The same evolution will occur with drones, and we are at the leading edge of that evolution.

Robotic ground vehicles will also be developed in the future, as well as exo-skeletal suits that will dramatically improve the capabilities of infantrymen. It sounds like sci-fi, but it will happen.

Perfect. In fact, we should hire Amazon as a private military contractor to replace Blackwater. LOL

ROTFLMFAO?

You obviously have no idea who I am. I lost 24 soldiers in the sands of Iraq. So get off your soapbox and realize that the war affected everyone involved. And by the way, this comment didn't even relate to the Iraq War.

Sorry, I have no aide, administrative assistant, or other helper. Just me and my Siberian husky. And all she can do is howl.

Really bad idea - there should always be a human in the loop.

War is still horrible regardless of how it is fought. I don't think drones will prolong conflicts; rather, the importance of the political goals at stake will continue to drive the amount of blood and treasure leaders are willing to apply to conflict.

Air forces will still need manned aircraft for the near future. However, I believe that in the longer term unmanned aircraft - perhaps controlled by a few manned aircraft flying nearby - will be the way air battles are fought.

And how exactly do you intend to "Plan our way to Peace?" Of course peace is the ideal, but the world is a place where, in the words of Thucydides, "The strong do what they can and the weak accept what they must." I am not a big fan of the Obama administration drone campaign, but Americans benefit from the security gained from having a strong military that keeps the peace by deterring conflict.

Yes, he did.

Your analysis of drone strikes is very thoughtful and you're right, they make it easier for the president to use force in situations where he otherwise might not. Drones are here to stay, but since their use comes with so little political cost, the administration has failed to develop a strategy to deal with the root causes of the terrorist problem. Instead, drones simply mow the terrorist grass, which will grow back. And hitting noncombatants has the effect of creating new converts to the terrorist cause. I think we should be much more selective in who we target with drone strikes, and work more closely with host nation governments to control the land within their borders. Easier said than done, of course.

If you look at the evolution of warfare in the last half century, the biggest change has been the creation of precision guided munitions and the intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems to target enemy forces. This means that one bomb can now achieve the same effects that required dozens (or hundreds) of bombs in the past. PGMs are more expensive, but a force needs fewer of them to accomplish its tasks - which reduces the logistical tail.

The speed of communications has also increased dramatically, making the world a smaller place strategically.

Having said that, war will always be a human endeavor and, as the Prussian military philosopher Carl von Clausewitz noted in his famous book On War, will always be governed by politics, passion, and chance. Technology can help reduce the fog and friction of war, but will never eliminate it. If the Iraq War taught us anything, it reawakened us to these enduring truths.

Absolutely. For an example of that arrogance in action, look at the Iraq War in 2003. After destroying the Iraqi army and Republican Guard, the Bush administration decided the war was all but over and started to stack arms. The resulting insurgency was a dose of reality that didn't sink in until it was in full swing. I discuss this dynamic in Chapter 1 of my new book, Surge.

The impact of religion on military affairs is an age old phenomenon. In this regard, insurgents who claim Islam as their guiding force are guided by similar motivations as many insurgent groups in the past - among them Jewish and Christian forces. For an excellent look at the history of guerrillas and insurgencies, I recommend Max Boot, Invisible Armies: An Epic History of Guerrilla Warfare from Ancient Times to the Present (Liveright, 2013).

Yellow - the branch color of armor and cavalry in the U.S. Army. (I was an armor officer during my military career, so yellow is my favorite color).

Unlike Van Halen, though, I can't demand an entire bowl full of just yellow ones. http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/vanhalen.asp

I think the United States had to fight the war in Afghanistan, but we took our eye off the real objective, which was the destruction of Al Qaeda. The mishandling of the fight at Tora Bora in 2001 was incompetence at its finest. The Bush administration then took its eye off the ball again through its ill-considered invasion of Iraq, leaving Afghanistan to fester.

At this point the best the United States can hope for is to support an Afghan government that can keep the country together after 2014 and convince the Taliban that it cannot win the war in any conceivable time frame. In my view, this will require the election of an Afghan president with some real leadership abilities, unlike Hamid Karzai. With good leadership and support from the United States and our NATO allies, anything is possible.

For a view of what winning might look like, look at Colombia. A decade ago the country seemed on the verge of disaster with the FARC on the ascendancy, but now the war there is all but over. Good Colombian presidential leadership and U.S. support were the keys to victory.

We tried to fight at Tora Bora with Afghan militia rather than risking U.S. ground forces in the mountains. Gen. Mattis was willing to put his Marines in harm's way and was told to stand down. That to me defines the incompetence of the leaders in Afghanistan who allowed Al-Qaeda to escape to fight another day.

And for the record, my words are my own and copied from no one's speech. That's insulting.

The greatest lesson is not one that needs to be learned, but relearned: War is governed by politics, passion, and chance. When the Iron Dice roll, unexpected things can and will happen. The resort to war, therefore, should be the last choice of policy makers, undertaken only for the most serious of national security reasons, and not entered into lightly.

Yes, they already have. Or they have convinced some political leaders that they can fight war on the cheap - just look at the massive use of drone strikes masquerading as a strategy in the current administration.

It is well that war is so horrible, else we might grow too fond of it

Nope - Robert E. Lee after the Battle of Fredericksburg in Dec. 1862

I would differentiate assassination from the deliberate targeting of enemy combatants. The two examples you use both fall into the latter category and are in accordance with the laws of war.

Actually, it is from a 17th century political treatise:

"Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man…In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

Thomas Hobbes

Not surprisingly, they are all nuclear powers:

1. Russia
2. China (will soon jump to the top of this list as its economy continues to grow)
3. Great Britain
4. France
5. North Korea (a powerful but also very brittle force)

But there is a huge gap between the United States and these five.

I was in command of a convoy that was traversing a difficult area of Baghdad on Christmas Eve in 2003. We were hit by an IED, which killed my Command Sergeant Major, Eric Cooke. Watching him die was exceedingly difficult. If I had to do that night over again, I would make different decisions. But in war, the enemy gets a vote. I was proud of the way the brigade reacted to that tough night - with professionalism and discipline.

Zone 18 - Omar Street in Adhamiya.

Unfortunately, I was not in Iraq during the initial invasion - I arrived in June 2003 after the end of major combat operations. So I don't have the answer to your question.

In general, however, Gen. Franks and his leadership team wargamed a fight against a mirror-imaged enemy. So when the force confronted paramilitary forces such as the Saddam Fedayeen, Lt. Gen. Wallace, commander of V Corps, stated that this was not the type of enemy his corps had wargamed fighting against. It shows how narrow the U.S. Army's vision of operations had become by 2003.

Senior leaders must be willing to listen. Rumsfeld thinks he was open to criticism, but he was not. If a leader cannot listen to contrary opinions and make informed decisions based on a full range of views, then he/she courts disaster - as Rumsfeld did in Iraq.

Abu Ghraib was a moral failing of the U.S. military that should have resulted in the resignation of the Secretary of Defense. President Bush was faithful to his subordinates to a fault. He should have let Rumsfeld go in the spring of 2004 and put different leadership in place in the Pentagon.

Edward Snowden would be a sympathetic figure if he had limited his disclosures of NSA activities to their intrusiveness into the lives of U.S. citizens. But by divulging the details of U.S. spying on other nations and foreigners, he has done great damage to U.S. national security and therefore in my view deserves no sympathy. The fact that he went to China and Russia - those paragons of liberal ideals - instead of staying in the United States (like Daniel Ellsberg who leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1971) speaks volumes.

Yes, I do. He may have had to go to jail, but that is what a civil dissident does.

Yes - perhaps even better given the influence of social media on the administration in today's world. Again, I think he would have been a sympathetic figure to most Americans had he limited his disclosures to the collection of Metadata on U.S. citizens.

One of the most important aspects of the pivot to Asia will be the ability of the U.S. military to work with foreign armies. In this regard, special forces play a crucial role in advising and assisting other military forces. A good example of the role of SF in Asia is the great work they have done working with the Filipino military in recent years.

Due to its history in North Africa and the Levant, France believes its national interests are at stake in those regions. Remember that a number of these countries were French colonies. So expect continued French involvement in those areas.

I met Gen. McCrystal once in Balad in 2007. He struck me as an extremely competent leader who had the implicit trust and confidence of his subordinates. He did great work with JSOC in Iraq and the American people should be grateful for leaders like him. I have never met Michael Hastings.

King of the Army - I like the title! I would change the professional military education (PME) system to make it more challenging and rigorous. Allow only the top officers to attend these schools, and then take the top graduates and place them in positions of influence in the Army. PME is the key to producing great officers - and therefore should be of paramount importance to the Army as it enters this next interwar period.

Military personnel indeed sometimes must make difficult decisions when they receive what they believe to be unlawful orders. But principled disobedience is essential to the healthy functioning of a military force of a democracy - My Lai and Abu Ghraib are both examples of what can go wrong in toxic leadership climates.

I don't have any first-hand information on Abu Ghraib, but reading the investigation and other reports, I believe there was a serious breakdown in the unit leadership climate and the chain of command. I doubt the guards received guidance to engage in the kind of criminal conduct they performed, but the fact is that no one was checking on them. Clearly, the guards had not been trained or educated on the moral standards of an army of democracy, and for this you can blame the commanders higher in the chain.

I do not believe that security functions in a combat zone should be performed by mercenaries - and I have said so publicly. They lack the accountability that comes with wearing the uniform of a nation state. Contract workers are fine for logistics functions, but should be limited to those non-combat roles.

SSG - I hear you, but the difference in the case of Abu Ghraib is guarding prisoners was the duty of the military police unit stationed there, so the standards of conduct in performing that duty is part of their METL. I agree there is a lot of wasted training time in the Army as you indicate, but this is not one of those cases.

Armies of dictatorships are certainly different - like Saddam's army or the army of North Korea. In those armies soldiers are shot for disobeying orders, whether legal or illegal. When the Iraqi army took Kuwait in 1990, it proceeded to rape every woman in Kuwait City with no consequences for these criminal acts. A bit different, by any measure.

Yes, much of what you describe amounts to torture and should be banned from use by American forces (and indeed Congress has already passed legislation to this effect). As for what Americans can do - they can organize politically. I am part of the Campaign to Ban Torture - you will see my name on the web site at http://www.campaigntobantorture.org/.

Keep calm and carry on.

Not with my bad back - armor was the perfect choice! I loved having that 65 ton monster to carry my gear around. And my cooler - couldn't fight without lickies and chewies on hand.

Your analysis is accurate with one exception - South Korea. Our presence there has helped the Land of the Morning Calm become a vibrant democracy and economic powerhouse. But it did not happen overnight and required a sustained U.S. presence and support for more than half a century.

We should disabuse ourselves of the notion that U.S. military forces can conduct regime change in foreign countries and then rebuild them in our image in a matter of years. When the political conditions are favorable, U.S. support can help other nations to develop. But in the end, it is their country, not ours - and we can only help, not do the job for them.

By the way, President Bush used to say that his vision of Iraq was along the lines of South Korea rather than Vietnam. Regrettably, it does not seem to have turned out that way.

Congress has already changed military regulations in this regard to give more rights to service members who file sexual assault charges. In my experience in the military, however, nothing permanent happens without sustained involvement by commanders. I fear by taking the prosecution of sexual assault cases out of their hands, we might be making the situation worse, not better. But clearly sexual assault is a scourge that the military needs to eliminate from the ranks. Doing so begins with continual and sustained command involvement.

See my answer here: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1uba7f/i_am_colonel_retired_peter_mansoor_former/cegbnl2

Yes, I have - in fact, I wrote a review of the book in Military Review 86:6 (Nov-Dec 2006)

Here is an excerpt: "For the U.S. Army and Marine Corps, The Centurions is not just a timeless story, but a timely one as well. In Lartéguy’s novel one can find many of the principles and paradoxes of counterinsurgency warfare. The primacy of politics, the need to secure the population, the criticality of good intelligence (which can only be obtained by engaging the people), the requirement to adapt conventional units to fight in an unconventional manner—all of these lessons and more can be found in Lartéguy’s masterpiece. The novel also explores the dangers of going too far in the quest for victory. The moral dilemmas of the French in Algeria echo only too loudly in Iraq and Afghanistan today. The Centurions is a compelling story and a good read, too, one that I highly recommend be included in an officer’s program of self-study and professional development.

Although the threat of communist revolution has all but ended, the use of insurgent methods is on the rise. Until the West can show itself capable of defeating insurgents, it will continue to be challenged in this manner. Larteguy, in a sense, foretells this when one of Raspéguy’s officers, a French-Algerian taken prisoner at Dien Bien Phu, reflects that he may soon be a rebel himself, but on behalf of Islam, not communism. The reflection is meant to foreshadow the looming conflict in Africa, but it speaks to our own predicament 50 years later, in the Middle East."

The American soldier. We could trade weapons with most nations and still win a war against them.

"Every Marine a riflemen" pretty much sums it up. Soldiers are soldiers first, specialists second. I stand by my comment. And I did say "most nations" - the ones you list could be exceptions.

The MoveOn.org ad attacked a principled leader of U.S. military forces and basically accused him of lying. And the article was factually incorrect, to boot. In my new book, Surge, I discuss how the report to Congress was created (I co-wrote a draft with Liz McNally, his speechwriter, and then Gen. Petraeus and his initiatives group polished it) and the fact that the White House, Central Command, and the Joint Chiefs had zero involvement in its writing. So far from being a mouthpiece of the White House, as the ad alleged, the report to Congress was Gen. Petraeus' professional view on the state of the war in Iraq - and no one else's.

It very much surprised all of us who worked for him.

I don't think the average person understands just how open Gen. Petraeus was to advice from below. He had an open e-mail channel to anyone in Multi-National Force-Iraq - and often received messages from junior leaders on problems in their areas that they could not get resolved through their chain of command (or problems that the chain of command were creating). I often discussed issues with Gen. Petraeus and found him willing to listen - provided you had something intelligent to say and were ready for the give and take that followed. I think this aspect of his leadership style is one that other leaders can and should follow - but they have to be willing to listen and accept advice and thoughts from below (which means reining in their egos).

Appreciate the very kind comment. And yes - I love board games! The old Avalon Hill game, Third Reich, is by far my favorite. But kids today, they can't seem to get off their computers... :-)

Most definitely - especially if I get to be the Persians. Armored elephants rule.

I used to play a game called Kingmaker - great parlor game, especially if some adult beverages are involved.

There were three decisions made in the spring of 2003 that, in my view, created the insurgency in Iraq:

• Extensive de-Ba'athification that many Iraqis believed amounted to the de-Sunnification of Iraqi society
• Disbanding the Iraqi Army, the only indigenous forces that could have been revitalized and used to help secure Iraq in the aftermath of major combat operations
• Empowerment of an Iraqi Governing Council composed of highly sectarian politicians, many of them expatriates who did not understand the Iraqi people's concerns

The occupation of Iraq was significantly different from the occupation of Germany after WWII. Germany was devastated from end to end and its armed forces annihilated. Millions of Germans died in the war and the Germany people were starving. Simply put, the level of distress made the Germans more open to cooperating with the occupying forces.

I discuss these issues in both Baghdad at Sunrise and Surge.

Al Qaeda is on the upsurge in Iraq today due to miscalculations by the Maliki administration and spillover from the civil war in Syria. It didn't have to be this way, but decisions by the Obama administration (and Iraqi intransigence) that led to U.S. forces departing Iraq in 2011 have resulted in the deterioration of the security climate in Iraq. But the biggest problem is Maliki's sectarianism and his unwillingness to share power with other groups in Iraqi society. I think the United States could have moderated his conduct had we been willing to remain engaged, but the Obama administration was more concerned with bringing the troops home. We are now reaping the rewards of that policy.

Bucks 56-49. Not sure we'll see a lot of defense tonight.

See my answer here: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1uba7f/i_am_colonel_retired_peter_mansoor_former/cegbnl2

Student veterans often come up and talk to me. They appreciate getting life advice from someone who has shared experiences similar to theirs. Ohio State has roughly 1,500 veterans on campus - they are an important and meaningful part of the university community.

Thank you for your service in Al Anbar during the surge - Semper Fi and Army Strong!

No, never served there except for a brief stint with my brigade outside of Fallujah in Aug-Sep 2003. I was in Baghdad and Karbala.

I don't think the tactical conduct of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have changed America's strategic policy. Rather, the results of those wars (messy, long term counterinsurgency campaigns with lots of boots on the ground) have made Americans and their political leaders much less willing to get involved in overseas conflicts. This is, to an extent, a good thing, but also can be taken to an extreme might lead to an isolationist America and a much more chaotic world.

There are two gold standards in this regard:

• Hannibal's maneuver at Cannae in 216 BC that led to the annihilation of 8 Roman legions
• The German panzer drive through the Ardennes Forest in 1940 that resulted in the fall of France

But I would add that neither of these tactical victories led to enduring strategic results. Thus the lesson: poor tactics and operations can be overcome, but mistakes in strategy live on forever.

Hannibal could never bring enough Latin allies over to his side to defeat Rome. Not sure more Carthaginian troops would have helped. What Carthage really needed was to rule the seas, but they lost that ability after the First Punic War.

Chancellorsville, I would argue, ended in a draw. The Union soldiers felt so angry at Hooker's withdrawal that they were ready for another showdown with the Army of Northern Virginia. That came a month later at Gettysburg.

Yes, they needed to better evaluate what actually happened in 1917 and 1918 and create a military doctrine suitable to the kind of war they would soon face. The best source here is Robert Doughty, The Seeds of Disaster: The Development of French Army Doctrine, 1919-1939 (Archon, 1986).

Hannibal lacked a siege train and command of the sea, so the Romans could have outlasted him in a siege. The keys to the war, in my view, were control of the Mediterranean and control of Spain. Carthage lost the former in the First Punic War, and the later in the Second. Hannibal's tactical genius could not make up the deficit.

The problem was neither, in my view - it was U.S. Army doctrine. The Army had faith in the Apache's ability to conduct deep attacks based on the results of computer wargames (like Janus simulations), ignoring real world experience at the National Training Center that suggested the going would be much tougher against an actual enemy (I was in the OPFOR from 1997-1999 and saw many deep attacks suffer the same type of casualties as the 11th Avn Bde suffered in Iraq in 2003). I'm just thankful the lesson the enemy taught us in 2003 wasn't more severe than it actually was.

The lesson here is the Army needs to conduct realistic training and experimentation in peacetime and pay attention to the results.

I find the conduct of a war against a tactic (terrorism) to be ahistorical. Rather, the Bush administration should have named the enemy: Al Qaeda and like minded terrorist organizations. Military force is only part of the solution to the scourge of global terrorism. Regrettably, by painting the counterterrorist campaign as a "war," the administration overemphasized the use of military forces and downplayed other instruments of national power (diplomatic, economic, informational, etc.). We had the world basically united after 9/11 - the administration should have worked closely with friends and allies to maintain that solidarity.

Engage them privately first and ask if they would be willing to share their experiences with the rest of the class. I'm sure many would appreciate this outreach rather than being put on the spot in class.

I-O!

I let them know the first day about my background - at least the basics. Many are surprised when they dig deeper and find out more about me. But I put the spotlight on what I teach, not on me.

I-O! Go Bucks!

Collapse from within - the increasingly polarization of our domestic politics. We need to find common ground and work from the middle outward, not from the extremes inward.

You obviously have no clue about me or my background. I was in the Army War College at the time of the invasion, and argued against the war. But I had no input on the decision to invade Iraq - in Washington or elsewhere.

No, but I'm proud to be a member of the same military force as him. He is a hero.

The ability to find common ground - like Ronald Reagan's ability to cut deals with Tip O'Neil despite their political differences. They save Social Security back in the 1980s. I despair we will find such moderate voices again in our government.

HI 2550 - History of War HI 3570 - History of World War II HI 3561 - American Military History, 1902 to the Present

But not every course every year.

Yes, the one great power challenge to the United States in the foreseeable future is a rising China. But war with China is not inevitable, and it should be U.S. policy to help to integrate peacefully a powerful China into the global community. Harder said than done, as history suggests that all rising powers go to war at some point.

North Korea will eventually collapse from within. We just need to ensure the NK leaders don't take out Seoul on their way to hanging from a lamp post. Perhaps we can call in Team America, World Police to help? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esel1TBg_k0

Fighting non-state actors requires good intelligence and allies. The best thing we can do is pay attention to our alliances overseas and help those nations that ask for it with their counterterrorism capabilities. Having said that, state-on-state conflict is still the most dangerous threat to the United States - just not the most likely.

The biggest issue is Taiwan, but a conflict over useless pieces of rock in the South China sea that have stirred nationalist passions in various countries is not out of the question.

Thanks for the note about my books. I would also recommend Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor's Endgame. Long, but worth the read if you are interested in the history of the Iraq War.

My next project is a history of the U.S. liberation of the Philippines in WWII. WWII was the subject of my first historical monograph and I've been meaning to get back to it for quite some time. As I tell my wife, it's much less stressful writing about people who are dead and can't complain.

DOD actually is experimenting widely with fuel cells and alternative fuels. Military leaders understand the shackles the fuel supply chain puts on their forces.

It was a period of liberation - one of the greatest feelings in the world - for the German people. I witnessed families divided by the fence reach out and hug each other across what used to be no-man's land. The Germans celebrated in their usual, awesome style - with beer, bratwurst, and oompah bands. It was one of the high points of my career.

I haven't read the book or seen the movie, but I did read Nate Fick's One Bullet Away. Nate was the platoon leader of the unit depicted in the movie. I highly recommend his book.

I found the most important experience in my career in preparing for the Iraq War was my time studying military history at Ohio State from 1990-1992. The courses I took under Allan Millett, Williamson Murray, and Joe Guilmartin expanded my horizons and were much more professionally relevant to what happened in Iraq than the courses I took at the Command and General Staff College or the Army War College. Being intellectually prepared helps one adapt to new situations, as I discovered in Iraq in 2003-2004.

The junior officers who served in the military since 9/11 learned by doing in the school of hard knocks. They became used to a lot of independence, which COIN requires. Then when they returned to garrison duty in the United States, they couldn't understand why the senior officers and the Army as an institution were so controlling. So a lot of them left, frustrated at the lack of initiative they believed they should have been granted. Not sure if this was the determining factor in junior officer retention in the last decade - the economy is usually a more important factor in this regard.

There should always be a human in the loop when life or death decisions are made by robotic vehicles. Do we really want to create Terminators?

Unfortunately, AQI is blossoming once again in Iraq. There are many reasons for this, among them the withdrawal of U.S. forces in 2011, Maliki's sectarianism which has led to Sunni discontent, and the civil war in Syria, which has created a terrorist safe haven. Given these trends, Iraq is regrettably spiraling downward. Whether the state can hold together remains to be seen.

Yes, I know Bing well and think highly of his work. He takes a "Marine centric" approach to his writing, as he spent a lot of time with Marine units in al Anbar province. You might also find my book Surge of some interest if you are interested in the conflict in Iraq. John Nagl has written that Surge will remain the standard work on the surge for some time to come.

There are many reasons to serve, the most important of which is a willingness to, well, serve! I think a tour of service is an excellent decision for any citizen (and some non-citizens, too) who feel they can/want to contribute to the security of their nation. The military is also a good job and provides skills training. Many find life long friends in the military, and remember their military service as among the high points in their life. Don't expect a bed of roses - military life can be very challenging and difficult - but if you are called to serve, then I highly recommend joining up.

Listen to your noncommissioned officers and learn as much as you can from them.

Do the best you can at whatever task and job you are given.

My favorite pizza is the Varsity Club deluxe combination with double anchovies. I think they might eventually name it after me.

A really BIG question. I agree with you that Guard and Reserve soldiers are, generally speaking, not as effective as active duty soldiers. If they were, then the entire force should be Guard and reserve immediately. But the Guard and Reserve fulfill an important function of providing troops for conflicts that don't require immediate readiness. The issue is the Guard and Reserve are better configured for "The Big One" where they can be mobilized and then brought up to standard through months of training prior to deployment. Yet the wars we have fought in the last decade require a constant rotation of units overseas in wars of indeterminate duration. We need both the active force and the Guard and Reserves; it really is a question of how much of each. But let's not fool ourselves into believing that one can be a substitute for the other.

Personnel costs are the largest part of the DOD budget. So cuts must come from personnel, which means cutting units. The Army is currently reducing in size to 480,000 personnel, but will go lower. My guess is it will stabilize at around 420,000 soldiers by the end of the decade, but we'll see. The American people don't have a lot of appetite for balancing the budget by cutting entitlements, so DOD will continue to be a target of budgeteers.

My tactical officer, Major Fox. I don't remember the first enlisted person I saluted - I didn't personally know him. But he got a dollar!

Overrated: General Omar Bradley - failed to listed to advice that would have ensured effective fire support on Omaha Beach (because the Pacific War was "bush league" in his view); failed to close the Falaise Gap, which might have ended the war in 1944; sent U.S. troops into the teeth of a tenacious German defense in the Huertgen Forest; need I go on? And yet he still got five stars. Yeesh.

Underrated: Ulysses S. Grant - masterful campaign to take Vicksburg plus other victories in the West; at least as good at R.E. Lee at maneuver warfare; understood politico-military affairs at the highest levels. Unfair reputation as "Butcher Grant."

No and no - she never came to Iraq during my tenure there to my knowledge. I first met her in June 2008 at a reception hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations.

Thanks!

The good news is Europeans feel so much at peace that they can reduce their military expenditures year after year. The bad news is this has in many cases produced military forces incapable of action outside their borders. In the sense that Europe remains at peace, this is wonderful. But we saw the downsides of this lack of capability in Libya (not a comment on whether the operation was justified or not, just that European forces couldn't pull it off without lots of help from the United States).

I have the utmost respect for the UK armed forces. I served with them in Iraq and they are top notch in every respect. The issues I had with the UK forces (and which I wrote about in my book, Surge) stem from the lack of support at the political-strategic level and not from the conduct of the troops in Iraq, which was exemplary. The special relationship lives.

How could it not? Winston Churchill was half American. :-)

There is no evidence to support that view. Stalin himself demanded a second front at the Tehran conference in Nov. 1943. The Wehrmacht was still very much viable at that time, and didn't really start collapsing until the destruction of Army Group Center in June 1944 - after the invasion of Normandy.

Ana auslee min Ramallah - my heritage on my father's side is Palestinian. And I understand that Mansoor translates into Arabic as "victorious."

The surge was the catalyst that brought to fruition a number of factors that influenced the outcome of the war in Iraq. Without the surge, the Awakening would have remained a local movement confined to Ramadi or, at most, al-Anbar Province. Without the improved security conditions in Baghdad created by the surge, Muqtada al-Sadr would never have offered a cease-fire after the gun battle between his militia and the shrine guards in Karbala in August 2007. Without the surge, Prime Minister Maliki would not have felt emboldened to confront the Jaish al-Mahdi in Basra, Sadr City, and Maysan Province. On the other hand, the surge would not have had the same results had it been attempted earlier in the war. It needed the other elements at play in Iraq in 2007 to succeed.

I hope that the military does not ignore training and education for counterinsurgency as it did after the Vietnam War, but we'll see. I didn't work for Gen. Petraeus at the CIA, and was surprised and saddened by the revelations of his affair with his biographer. I thought he was the last person on earth who would engage in that type of conduct. Very disappointing (and he realizes that as well).

Both good books written in the moment. I waited to write Surge to gain perspective that only time (and declassified sources) can provide. Hopefully you'll find it of value as well.

I argued against the Iraq War in a debate at the Army War College, where I was a student in 2002-2003. My thoughts were that the strategy of dual containment (against Iraq and Iran) was working, and there was no reason to roll the Iron Dice in a very uncertain venture in Iraq.

Please add George Washington to your list - we would not have a country without him. My third choice would be Franklin D. Roosevelt, who handled America's involvement in WWII very deftly.

Sunny side up - runny yolks rule. To be eaten with Cholula hot sauce.

I-3 - go Polar Bears!

Appreciate the comment.

Thanks!

Yes, although the first 13 months we were deployed to Iraq and didn't have a chance to PT as a unit, and several months after returning to Germany I had a knee operation and was in rehab.

My greatest accomplishment during my second tour in Iraq was beating General Petraeus on every Tuesday afternoon run by cutting two miles off the course. The man is a gazelle.

He wrote the book after his career was over, and after he was passed over to be the Commandant of the Marine Corps. It smacks of "sour grapes" to me.

Great story - I never saw him in a mode quite like that. Those were 2nd Brigade's tanks, I believe - Col. Rob Baker. But you're welcome.

I think your stats are off - the vast majority of people serving still come from the middle class. But perhaps a Recruiter can weigh in here. A draft is a non-starter with most Americans, so the system we have is the one that will be in place for awhile.

I think Jeff Monken is a great choice - proven track record of success with an option offense and experience at an Academy (the one down south, of course). Our biggest problem is defense, however. If he can't fix the Army D, he will be gone in five years as well. Time to hire a good defensive coordinator and fire up the recruiting pipeline!

"Only the dead have seen the end of war." Plato

The answer is yes. Nikki says Ro-ro-ro!!!

I'm on record publicly as supporting females in combat units, but only if they can meet the same physical requirements as men. It worries me that the military might change its standards to accommodate females - that is not a road we want to travel down.

I really love teaching at Ohio State. I know that many professors would rather teach in small seminars (and don't get me wrong, I love small group settings), but I really enjoy the big lecture halls filled with smiling faces as well. Well, except for the ones sleeping in the back of class.

History suggests that should the United States withdraw from international affairs, the international environment will not magically stabilize. A quarter of the world hates the United States simply because it is the most powerful nation on earth. Reducing defense spending will not change our image in this regard.

Teaching history at the college level usually requires a PhD, which takes 5-7 years to complete after earning a BA. During that time you will make no money, so you must be committed to your goal.

To get into a Phd program you'll need top grades, excellent writing abilities, excellent Graduate Record Exam scores, and several letters of recommendation from your professors (so get to know them well).

Jobs are scarce, but not impossible to find. I would say if you are sure of your career path and are a top-notch student, go for it. But academia is not the career field for most people.

Go Bucks!

What we discovered during the surge was the synergy created by having conventional forces and special operations forces working together. Conventional forces could clear and hold ground, which forced insurgents to move and communicate. They could then be identified and targeted by the special operations folks. One without the other was not nearly as effective.

What you are referring to is what is termed information warfare, and yes, the ability of parties to have a global, instantaneous information presence has already changed war to a certain extent. The battle of the narrative is much more important in this environment. Being right doesn't matter if you are last with the truth.

Watching the Iron Curtain fall - tough for anything to compare with that.

Read. Get enough sleep. Stay fit and stay healthy. Find the right balance between work and play. Appreciate the talents God has given you.

I don't think it is a matter of them jettisoning it as never having it in the curriculum in the first place. Given that warfare has been one of the most important drivers of human civilization and development, one would think there would be more attention paid to it in academia.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/09/computer-simulations-suggest-war-drove-the-rise-of-civilizations/

As far as I know they met after General Petraeus left Iraq. I found out about the affair the same time as the public. And yes - it very much came as a surprise to me.

No political ambitions - but thanks!

Abraham Lincoln - he kept his head when all around him were losing their's. A president needs to be able to think strategically, listen to contrary advice, make decisions, and then supervise those decisions down the chain of command. Few presidents did all of the above successfully - Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt are the gold standard.

We'll see - should be a great game. Woody is rolling in his grave as we write.

Commander, M Company, 3/11 ACR - Maulers!

The one with which I served most closely (and this might surprise you) was in Karbala in 2004 - the Polish Army. We fought closely with a Polish brigade to retake the city from Sadr's militia which had risen up in April of that year. Great soldiers.

Saving Private Ryan.

First, thanks for the vote of confidence - it means a lot to me. Regarding your question, the army has a crucial role to play in the future, especially in the Pacific. History shows that all conflicts between great powers are decided on land. We need to cultivate allies and then help them with joint forces (including land forces) if (God forbid) war were to occur.

Ready First!

My father's family was from Ramallah. They emigrated to the United States in 1938 when he was 8 years old. Unfortunately, he dropped the language in the great melting pot of American schools (Arabic would really have come in handy in the last 10 years). The family history has never been a hindrance.

Wasn't there - sorry.

I never do - it's grammatically incorrect. Go Bucks anyway!

I respectfully disagree with the report. The elections of 2009 and 2010 were successful and boded well for the future. The Sunnis had returned to the political process. We then blew the endgame. I don't think it was a given that sectarian violence would resume.

I wouldn't call myself famous, but my reception has been cordial across the university.

The Cold War is over - time to head back to school.

Epic... just epic. LOL

One dinosaur sized duck, because after killing it with my bare hands, I would have mallard meat for months to put on the barbie. Would bring a whole new meaning to Duck Dynasty. :-)

Yes, actually I did - and said so publicly at the time. I think the president should have given Petraeus a leave of absence to sort out his personal affairs, and then bring him back to continue his service to the nation. And no, for those of you who might think so, Gen. P did not plant this idea in my mind.

Actually, two of them:

Oklahoma State Oregon State

Great! And the kitchen is still clean - great work!

No prerequisites needed to take the History of War, since it is a GE course. You need to take another history course first before you can register for the others that I teach.

Awesome - make some noise, and Hang on Sloopy!

No, he passed away before I arrived at Ohio State. But he indeed taught military history, and there is now a chair of national security studies named in his honor. Woody never took more in salary than the highest paid professor at the university. A great, principled man despite the lapse in judgment that ended his coaching career.

You'll have a social life, but you won't be highly paid most likely. You really need to be committed to the goal if you want to go down this road. But if you are and can handle the academic load, then go for it! Go Bucks!

I hope to! Love my Middle Eastern food. :-)

My brother and part-time ski instructor.

Oh yeah. AMA ends within the hour.

Your post reminds me why I wrote Surge - all the misinformation in the public regarding what went on in Iraq from 2006-2008. Gen. Petraeus didn't request the surge, he merely led coalition forces during it. The strategy was developed by others (see Chapter 2). And the president didn't use Gen. Keane as a backchannel to circumvent the chain of command. He was a valued adviser to Gen. P, but not a go-between. President Bush had a video teleconference with Gen. P on a weekly basis - there was no reason to have a backchannel contact with him.

No, but I did wake up one night at the National Training Center in Fort Irwin, California to see a massive comet stretched from one end of the sky to the other. The most impressive site I've ever seen in the night skies!

Yes, we're friends. He wrote a significant part of FM 3-24.

Well said.

I served honorably and well, and sleep very soundly at night. Thanks for asking.

Perhaps, but the Galactic Empire would never have followed a "protect the population" strategy. So destroying Alderan was part of their slash and burn counterinsurgency strategy - much like the Russians in Afghanistan in the '80s. It didn't work there, either.

The Ohio Union - on campus! Love Sloopy's Diner.

Love Van Halen! And '80s rock in general.

I'm not aware of any trends, but agree the air in both places was awful. Glad to be back in the land of the EPA again.

We were very much on alert and ready to defend West Germany if the Red Army came across the border. My tank company occupied OP Alpha (now a museum), OP Romeo, and OP India as the fence came down. I still have a piece of the Iron Curtain in my study. A great moment.

I can understand Col. Tibbets' comment. While the bomb he dropped killed hundreds of thousands of people, in the end it also saved millions of lives - most of them Japanese - had the war continued with a U.S. invasion of the Japanese home islands. Most of those Japanese would have died of starvation in the winter of 1945-1946 as the next target in the U.S. bombing campaign was the Japanese transportation system, the destruction of which would have rendered impossible the ability of the Japanese government to move food around the country.

This is the problem with messing with history - changing one thing often has second and third order consequences that go far beyond what most people think.

So RIP, Col. Tibbets - you're a great American.

My wife and I have been to Copenhagen twice - love the city! Hope to return one day.

Score lots of points - turn the Orange Bowl into Hyde Park, and hope for a defensive stop every now and then.

Not me - I was a full colonel by then.

Kelly's Heroes!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly%27s_Heroes