“Mission Accomplished” is Right
MAY 1, 2006 marked the 3rd anniversary of the end to “major combat operations†in Iraq, according to President Bush aboard the USS Lincoln. The President said:
“Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (Applause.) And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.”
(Full text of speech)
What is almost never included in this quote is that last sentence. The transition from MCO (Major Combat Operations) to reconstruction, security and fighting an insurgency is exactly what happened in May 2003.
Opponents of Operation Iraqi Freedom and President Bush ridicule the “end of major combat operations†with every IED or US casualty in Iraq. However, the truth is that Pres. Bush was 100% accurate in his statement. The “Mission Accomplished” banner seen aboard the USS Lincoln was used by the Navy at the completion of the ship’s mission in Operation Iraqi Freedom as it arrived at port. It was not a part of the President’s speech, although it was true that they do describe the successful conclusion of Major Combat Operations in Iraq as well.
US Army Field Manual 3-0, paragraph 2-12,Operations states:
A campaign is a related series of military operations aimed at accomplishing a strategic or operational objective within a given time and space. A major operation is a series of tactical actions (battles, engagements, strikes) conducted by various combat forces of a single or several services, coordinated in time and place, to accomplish operational, and sometimes strategic objectives in an operational area. These actions are conducted simultaneously or sequentially under a common plan and are controlled by a single commander.
In other words, Major Combat Operations (MCO) require U.S. military operations to deter and defeat large-scale aggression by a state or coalition that threatens a U.S. ally or the stability of a region. It involves joint and potentially combined military operations that project, apply, and sustain substantial US combat and combat support forces for high-intensity/high-end conflict.
What followed was an insurgency, which does NOT meet the standard for MCO. President Bush’s annotation, “And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country,†clarified this.
Cindy Sheehan wrote an editorial piece on the 3rd anniversary of the May 1, 2003 declaration by the President. It reads, in part: (caution: read her op-ed only on an empty stomach)
This is the faith based fable of what happened almost exactly three years ago. The reality based scenario goes something like this:
- Over 2400 American soldiers (including my son who was killed almost a year after Mission Accomplished Day) have come home in cardboard boxes in cargo areas of planes in the secrecy of the night.
- Thousands of our young people wounded, many grievously also bused into Walter Reed and other hospitals in the dark of the night.
- Tons of rubble upon rubble in Iraq with inconsistent electrical power still and not much clean water or chance of future power and clean water.
- Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians are dead, being punished for the sins of a leader who was propped up, armed and supported by many US Regimes.
The Mission Accomplished Day (or, Operation Codpiece) public relations’ dream for the presidential pelvic zone has turned into a frighteningly real nightmare for so many people around the world who have had sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, and oftentimes entire families wiped out and devastated by the strutting and smirking terrorist who was feeling mighty “chipper” last night at the Washington Correspondent’s annual dinner as the 2400 th soldier was being killed and as the 2400th Gold Star Mother was falling on the floor screaming for her child. There are hundreds of thousands of people on our planet who will have a hard time ever feeling chipper again because of George Bush, no matter how good he looks in a flight suit.
What great, competent and informed commentary from the Cindy.
It would be impossible for for US troops to currently be engaging in Major Combat Operations with these milestones having occurred in Iraq: 27 million Iraqis liberated; 3 successful free and democratic Iraqi elections; establishment of an Iraqi interim to a permanent government in less than 3 year; Iraqi Constitution ratified in less than 3 years; deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein on trial by the Iraqi court; the establishment of functional Iraqi military and security forces; an active Iraqi stock market. These factors are a direct result of “securing and reconstruction” of Iraq, as President Bush said.
The Democrats attempting to make hay on this issue are demagoguing over syntax; the President was addressing a military audience (US Navy) who understood his comments to be referring to the cessation of MCO doctrinally defined. The President cautioned that there was more fighting to come. The sign “Mission accomplished” posted behind the president was the work of that particular aircraft carrier and had nothing to do with the overall war in Iraq. That has been mercilessly exploited by Democrats. The facts deserve to come out especially after irresponsible tirades by leaders such as Harry Reid who are hailing this as the third anniversary of a “publicity campaign gone horribly wrong.”
Cross-posted at Amy’s Blog
Technorati Tags: President Bush, Military, Iraq, Operation Iraqi Freedom
May 3rd, 2006 at 1:30 pm
Verdict reached
In a few minutes, the world will find out whether 9/11 conspirator Zacharias Moussaoui lives or dies. More……
May 3rd, 2006 at 5:37 pm
Was I the only person who actually knew that all this time?
May 4th, 2006 at 6:04 am
Thanks for the clarification and the meaning of ‘major combat operations’. I’m 100% behind the President on Iraq, but I must say I got the impression - helped by the media no doubt - that the ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner had a more general meaning. I winced at the time and thought it would be much better to say something more modest and less open to manipulation by al press. In this poisonious atmosphere PR flacks are paid well to spot potential problems that provide an opening for the press to - as we say in Australia - stick the slipper in. The trouble is that picture: There is the President, there is the banner - it will still be around when we are all gone in 2106 in some “Cavalcade of the 21st Century” coffee table photo book.
May 5th, 2006 at 12:52 am
Wrong. The “Mission Accomplished” speech was not for the internal Navy audience as you claim, but for the external US and world audience. Why else was the carrier forced to head BACK towards the ocean to facilitate the backdrop of a “carrier at sea”, thus delaying the return of these Sailors and Marines even LONGER? Why else was the President’s speech carried LIVE on all major networks?
Also, arguing the specificity of “mission accomplishment” of a carrier group using an ARMY Field Manual makes little sense.
The bottom line is that this was an incredible PR mistake, most notably the placement of the sign itself. The White House staff forced the sign placement and even had the nerve to claim initially that is was the Navy’s idea, thus causing the Navy to take the heat for a while until the truth finally came out.
My personal opinion is that the Bush Administration came to power with the intent to remove Saddam’s regime. I think this was done with the best intentions. I just think they used the wrong argument and justification (WMD and collusion with Al Qaeda) to do it.
By the way, I have volunteered a second time to deploy to Southwest Asia and be in Iraq by July.
May 5th, 2006 at 4:11 am
Carl,
I’m an Army wife, my husband active duty. He was able to recite that Army code off the top of his head (although of course I looked it up for accuracy). He served in Iraq for a year (2/03-2-04). You’re wrong about the “Mission Accomplished” issue.
While it was also a statement to the public, it was primarily the Commander and Chief addressing his troops. If he wanted to address the nation he would have done so from the Oval Office. Just as Pres. Bush flew into Baghdad to have Thanksgiving with the troops as a sign of solidarity and a morale boost, he also flew onto the deck of the USS Lincoln to show them, in a sense, he’s one of them, by taking the same risks and being in the same place.
This wasn’t primarily a photo op. Liberals are stuck on Clinton, thinking all politicians do everything out of vain conceit. Pres. Bush is no such President and shouldn’t be confused with the media obsessed, poll taking Clinton. Separate the two.
You’re also wrong that Pres. Bush delayed the return of the ship longer. That’s just a lie or you simply are ignorant. When a unit returns from WAR or a major deployment, before the troops are released into the custody of their dependents and loved ones, the highest ranking available commander gives a speech and thanks the soldiers for their service. When my husband returned from Iraq to Ft. Bragg, 82nd ABN DIV, 2nd BDE, we went through the same exact thing. The commander gave his little speech and then they were released to the unit to unload all their “junk” (weapons, packs, etc.). THEN and only then, after every piece of weaponry was accounted for were they released to their families. This is the way the military works.
The troops appreciated the speech and were honored that so high ranking a commander met them to personally thank them. If you care about soldiers, this would be a non-issue. It might also so surprise you that it was telecast live because this was American history in the making. This was the first fleet returning from a major war since arguably Vietnam. Definitely a bigger war than the 1st Gulf War. Why wouldn’t it be carried live on TV? It was news. Big news.
As per “Army field manuals” on a Navy carrier, most doctrines are identical. You’re talking about military logistics. The sailors understood the President. Obviously many civilians didn’t get it. Either way, he was exactly correct.
You may think it was an incredible PR mistake, but this is why the troops overwhelmingly love Pres. Bush. He doesn’t give a flying flip about being misinterpreted by civilians and the media in military matters: he puts the morale of the troops FIRST. We’re honored to have a Commander in Chief who “gets it”. 8 years of Clinton was really demoralizing for the military. I know. We suffered through it. My husband enlisted in 1993.
Well, thank you for volunteering. I would be astonished if you claimed to be active duty because any active duty soldier knows all this. If you mean you haven’t “volunteered” yet or are Nat. Guard, maybe that explains it. Or perhaps you’ll be a civilian contractor, more likely. I believe your time in Iraq, if you are truly honest, will be eye opening and you’ll change your tune once you see Iraqis up close and personal. They may be going through some hardships, but this is a transitional stage that they are willing to go through to reestablish their government.
May 5th, 2006 at 9:22 am
Amy,
Be astonished. I enlisted as a private E1 in 1986 and have been on active duty ever since. I even garnered a commission from West Point. “Slick Willie” was at my graduation is you want try to figure out what year I graduated.
I am amazed at your naivete. Presidential visits are scripted to the smallest detail and Bush’s visits are fine-tuned more than most. His communications office specializes in stunning visuals — New York harbor, Mount Rushmore, the Lincoln Memorial — using a team of professional producers and camera and lighting specialists.
Scott Sforza, a TV veteran who produces many of Bush’s appearances, was on the carrier days in advance of Bush’s landing. The Lincoln’s return was delayed a day for the appearance and the carrier was positioned to look as if it were far out at sea rather than in sight of the California coast. The visit was choreographed even down to the members of the Lincoln crew arrayed in coordinated colors over Bush’s right shoulder and the ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner placed to capture the president and the celebratory two words in a single shot. The speech was specifically timed for what image-makers call ‘magic hour light,’ which cast a golden glow on Bush.
For anyone to argue this wasn’t a “photo op” is the ignorant one.
“When a unit returns from WAR or a major deployment, before the troops are released into the custody of their dependents and loved ones, the highest ranking available commander gives a speech and thanks the soldiers for their service.
First of all, service members aren’t criminals or mental patients who need to be released to anyone’s “custody.” Secondly, there is a huge difference between waiting a few extra hours to hear a boring speech from a general and waiting an extra DAY to have the President thank you. Ask any Sailor or Marine on that carrier whether he would like to see his family after a year-long deployment right away or wait an extra day so the President can “thank you†and I will bet that “overwhelming” support for this President would quickly evaporate.
“Pres. Bush is no such President and shouldn’t be confused with the media obsessed, poll taking Clinton. Separate the two.”
You are kidding, right? Have you even been watching the news for the last month? Do you think Bush’s lowest poll numbers of his presidency and him firing his Chief of Staff and Press Secretary is a COINCIDENCE?
Finally, what I meant by volunteering was that I chose an assignment that guaranteed I would be deployed to Afghanistan. I could have stayed where I was with zero chance of being deployed anywhere (I would still be there until July 2007). Upon return from Afghanistan, I volunteered to deploy to Iraq. I could have stayed at my current job for at least 18 more months before any chance of deployment. I stated “volunteering†not to toot my own horn, but to show that I support both current missions. I simply disagree with the justification to invade Iraq in the first place.
My eyes are already opened. We are doing great things in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The point I was making was that the “Mission Accomplished†was completely choreographed AND a mistake. I think you need to open YOUR eyes to the fact that President Bush is on the precipice of a Jimmy Carter presidency…….
May 5th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
I honor your service. My hat is off to you, sir.
I’d rather be a bit naive than overly critical and suspicious. I understand that the President, any and every President, does photo ops and presentation for the camera. Still this cannot take out of context the events of the day. He wasn’t faking and what he said, the substance and technicality, was misinterpreted because of a lack of understanding of military terminology and suspicion. Presidents, Vice-Presidents, Secretaries of State and so on all participate in these speeches, not as staged appearances, but as a way to honor the returning troops. Condi has done it, Dick Cheney, and on it goes.
I believe in Bush’s sincerity. I trust it more than George Srs. Even if he were totally fake, the context exonerates the Mission Accomplished speech.
“First of all, service members aren’t criminals or mental patients who need to be released to anyone’s “custody.” ” No, they’re servants in submission to superiors. That’s a fact. Soldiers are owned by the military and their units. Its not insulting if you understand the terminology, which i would suspect you should. Hell, you can’t even leave a 50 mile perimeter during training cycles, which in the 82nd were 3 months at a time. Maybe you’ve never been with an infantry unit? I don’t know.
“Do you think Bush’s lowest poll numbers of his presidency and him firing his Chief of Staff and Press Secretary is a COINCIDENCE?” Of course not, anymore than Tony Blair’s shake up is a coincidence, but PERHAPS Bush wants to be more effective and have a better staff? I’m not so cynical.
“The point I was making was that the “Mission Accomplished†was completely choreographed AND a mistake. I think you need to open YOUR eyes to the fact that President Bush is on the precipice of a Jimmy Carter presidency…….” I totally disagree. I suppose to suit the cynic the Pres. should have either 1) met privately ?? with the returning fleet, somehow, with no cameras… even though it is a very important event and news story, or 2) he should have not bothered at all to meet with the USS Lincoln sailors. From what I know about him, he’s not interested in appearances, which is why his polls are so low. All the Washington insiders, both friends and foe, say this. Remember that Republicans began to abandon Reagan in his last 2 years. Jimmy Carter vs. Pres. Bush… everything is different but the poll numbers: economy, state of national defense/military, etc. Please don’t try to blame gas prices on the President, too, if that’s where you’re going with this.
May 6th, 2006 at 5:19 am
Amy,
You are clearly an ardent Conservative Republican who will argue in support of your ideology even when the facts don’t support it. President Bush and the White House staff knew EXACTLY what message they were sending by speaking live on network television aboard a US Navy aircraft carrier returning from the war in Iraq with the words “Mission Accomplished†precisely placed over his shoulder as he spoke. This message was completely choreographed and intentional. Any argument to the contrary only discredits other more credible points you might try to make in the future.
“Soldiers are owned by the military and their units. Its not insulting if you understand the terminology, which i would suspect you should. “
This is completely insulting. Have you heard of the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution? Here it is in case you missed it:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Ask your husband about the oath he and I both took to support and defend the Constitution and obey the “lawful†orders of those appointed over us. I obey lawful orders, not blind “submission†to superiors because I think of myself as a piece of property. If your husband truly thinks this, I recommend he reconsider his service. I want Soldiers in the US Army who have self-worth and independent thought, not robots who think they are pieces of meat that their superiors can treat like property.
I guess when I was single and returned from deployment I was released on my own recognizance…
“From what I know about him, he’s not interested in appearances, which is why his polls are so low. All the Washington insiders, both friends and foe, say this.â€
Please reply with the names of these Washington insiders who state that a sitting President of the United States isn’t interested in appearances and that this is PRECISELY the reason why only 32% of Americans approve of him as President. By your logic, if only the President made more appearances, his approval rating would be higher. Do you REALLY believe that?
“Remember that Republicans began to abandon Reagan in his last 2 years.â€
So, Bush’s low numbers are some magical, cyclical event that happens to 2-term presidents in their sixth year? So, it has nothing to do with how most (68%) Americans feel about the President’s performance? I don’t think so. And if there WAS any lack of support for Reagan in his last two years it came more from a little scandal called Iran-Contra then from any 6th year Presidential eventuality. Oh, and if you too young to remember, this was a little scheme where the Reagan administration sold weapons to Iran and funneled some of the proceeds to the contra rebels in Nicaragua (both actions were illegal). Ironic, don’t you think, that your dear Republican friends illegally sold the Iranians weapons that, if they took really good care of them, might be aimed at your husband and I in the very near future…
But please, by all means, keep supporting President Bush to the very end, just like Republicans did for Nixon as he waved goodbye from the helicopter doorway in disgrace and as Democrats did for Clinton as he shamelessly lied to the American people about “having sexual relations with that woman†and inexplicably granted more last minute pardons than any President in history…
May 6th, 2006 at 7:18 am
1) Ardent Republican, yes, and proud of it, but I don’t blindly follow. I’ve disagreed with the President (and many, many senators and congressmen) many times.
2) What I said in the article speaks for itself and you’re welcomed to argue it with yourself. THAT part of the military mission was accomplished. I consider myself discredited in your eyes, but I don’t base what’s true or not on your opinion. You sound like an ardent Democrat to me.
3) What I said doesn’t violate the 13th amendment, give me a break! Any soldier who knows about submission, authority, leadership and unit cohesion shouldn’t have a problem with what I said. I don’t know about your personal experience (or if I believe it), but our experience has been numerous deployments and countless field activities for months at a time. If a single piece of equipment goes missing, the entire unit is locked down and cannot return home.. for days, weeks, as long as it takes. In the civilian community this might be offensive, but this is how the military works. You should know this. Have you ever been with infantry units are you always in the rear? Soldiers are not “released”, yes, that’s the term, to their families unit the commander officially “releases” them, yes, that’s the term. Infantry units get that they are married to the military. We all consider it being “owned” by the unit. It’s not a derogatory term unless one has a chip on his shoulder or a superiority complex.
When I said “servants”, I’m not talking slavery, but as one who serves. You know, “service”? One who serves is a “servant”? You’re way too hyper sensitive. Let’s face it; the military tells you went to eat, get up, report, go here and there, when to leave your family, when you can or cannot leave your area… are you sure you’re a soldier?
I’m not going to argue this point. I stand by what I said in the article and subsequent comments. Peace.
May 6th, 2006 at 7:20 am
PS:
“G.I.
(US) As a noun, GI refers to a member of a US military service. As an adjective, it can be applied to any item of US military materiel or procedure.”
Hence the slang GI implies the soldier is “owned” by the military. It’s slang. Lighten up.
May 6th, 2006 at 8:54 am
Sir (I assume you are a Major):
If you are an officer, then surely you know that joint doctrine is Army doctrine, and that the definitions for MCO are (a) inherently Joint; and (b) standardized for all services: Navy, USAF, USA, Coast Guard, etc… There is no MCO defn that is different for Army than the one for the USN. The President was declaring MCO “mission accomplished” and he was correct. How can you dispute that? The operations that followed have evolved from stability and support operations (SASO) to stability and reconstruction operations (SRO) to counter-insurgency to nation building (where we are now). None of those Joint doctrinal definitions meet the criteria for MCO. Please consult the joint pubs if you don’t believe me.
Was it a staged PR event? You bet. How many presidents do you know that have landed on the deck of an aircraft carrier in a fighter jet during a time of war? I have never heard of such things. I was in Baghdad when President Bush made his clandestine visit to the 1st AD on Thanksgiving Day 2003. I admire him deeply as a conscienteous war-time president who TRUSTS his generals and field commanders. You seem to have inadvertently fallen into the spin of democratic politicians and pundits who want to exploit this story as “Bush was wrong.” He was not wrong, he did not say it was all over, let’s go home. And FYI, sir, regime change in Iraq has been the OFFICIAL POLICY of the US State Department for years - years before Bush ever thought of running for president. So your accusation that Bush entered the White House with some personal agenda to invade Iraq is false. It was the official policy of our national security strategy for many years.
SFC John Proctor
May 6th, 2006 at 9:55 am
In case you were wondering, SFC Proctor is my hubby.
:)
May 8th, 2006 at 3:08 am
SFC Proctor,
You just don’t get it. President Bush wasn’t giving a speech to the War College or the SGM Academy that “might†have been carried live on C-SPAN. He landed on an aircraft carrier at sea returning from combat action that he initiated as Commander in Chief with a ginormous “Mission Accomplished†sign over his shoulder broadcast live on all US networks and worldwide. I concede that “mission accomplished†means something completely different doctrinally. But that’s not the message the President was sending. He knew it. His staff knew it. And any rational, non-partisan person knows it.
The get upset when people negatively refer to “Mission Accomplished†and use revisionist arguments to say the President was misunderstood and that the liberal media just doesn’t understand military operations is nonsensical. The President knew exactly what he was communicating to the American people and had there not been an insurgency, there would be no credibility to referring the “Mission Accomplished†in a negative way.
You are correct. Clinton made regime change the official US policy towards Iraq. However, there is a huge leap between regime change and MILITARILY FORCED regime change. There is increasing evidence (pre-9/11 diversion of % of intel assets from Al Qaeda to Iraq, VP Cheney’s transition security brief request to cover only one country – Iraq, etc…) that the Bush administration was completely focused on the “threat†Iraq posed on US interests prior to 9/11. Once again, Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator that deserved to be overthrown. I just wish we hadn’t destroyed our 9-11 credibility (and future ability to influence our allies against real threats, like IRAN for instance) in the process.
The only person who has fallen under the “spin†is you. It must be very easy to vote for you. I mean, how hard is it to punch your absentee ballot Republican and not have to think about each candidate and where they stand on issues that are important to you. I, however, don’t have that luxury.
I personally think it is petty for the media to continue to revisit “Mission Accomplishedâ€. However, you and your wife to say that doctrinally the President was correct that day and any negative references are once again the “liberal†media getting it wrong is completely revisionist. The President KNEW what he was communicating to the American people that day and it wasn’t a theoretical lesson on strategic military doctrine.