(HOST) Debate about our Iraq War strategy is increasing, and commentator Bill Seamans says that some of the criticism is coming from within the military.
(SEAMANS) April has left us with the highest monthly casualty toll in Iraq and Afghanistan so far this year – over a hundred of our troops have been killed, nine of them just this past weekend making it doubly difficult for this observer, among others, to see the progress claimed by the Bush administration. And there was another story that broke over the weekend that did not receive a hard follow-up by the pundits therefore escaped the attention it truly deserved.
Have you heard of a Lt. Col. Paul Yingling (that’s spelled Y-I-N-G-L-I-N-G)? He’s the deputy commander of the 3rd Armored Calvary Regiment that was cited in a speech by President Bush as a good model in the battle for control of Baghdad. Yingling was on the way up the promotion ladder, having been chosen to attend the Army’s elite School for Advanced Military Studies. This past weekend an article he wrote was published in the Armed Forces Journal charging the top commanders in the war with poor leadership.
Lt. Col. Paul Yingling wrote, and I quote: “After going into Iraq with too few troops and no coherent plan for postwar stabilization, America’s general officer corps did not accurately portray the intensity of the insurgency to the American public.” Col. Yingling further says: “For reasons not clear, America’s general officer corps underestimated the strength of the enemy, overestimated the capabilities of Iraq’s government and security forces and failed to provide Congress with an accurate assessment of security conditions in Iraq.” The Washington Post said that until now, charges of incompetent leadership have not been made as publicly by an Army officer – this one while on active duty – not retired.
It’s said that Yingling’s article exposes the anger and frustration expressed privately by many majors and lieutenant colonels – the younger mid-career officers – with the top brass, none of whom it was said have been replaced for poor performance like the handling of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. Col. Yingling says the way generals are chosen should be overhauled and he contends that, “As matters stand now, a private who loses a rifle suffers far greater consequences than a general who loses a war.”
This situation was reflected in congressional testimony last week by acting Army Secretary Peter Geren who said that top Army officials are worried by the above average number of captains and majors choosing to leave the service. Yingling, himself, plans to stay in the Army and is scheduled in a couple of months to take command of a battalion at Fort Hood, Texas.
Now, the question is why hasn’t this story received more news media and public attention? Meantime, the full text is available on line.
Bill Seamans is a former correspondent and bureau chief for ABC News in the Middle East. For a link to the article, go to VPR.net.
Here is the link to the journal: www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/05/2635198