What's the most important lesson you think America should learn from its experience in Iraq?

That the so-called "Revolution in Military Affairs" should be pronounced DOA (dead on arrival). It wasn't Predator drones or laser guided bombs that took Baghdad, but tanks leading Army and Marine infantry units. Just as the first tanks were built to do in World War One.

Sure, the Iraqis didn't have a lot of the most modern ATGMs, but we have to face that fact that the battlefield is saturated with weapons that can't kill a modern MBT (even if the basic design is over 25 years old and needs replacing). Not only was the M1 Abrams able to advance in the face of enemy fire (which light infantry can't), they could also negotiate a lot of urban obstacles, which Armored HMMWVs and Strykers can't. The same protection that allows the Abrams to advance under fire allows the operators can be a lot more select of who, what and when to engage with their weapons. The only option for light troops such as the Rangers in Mogadishu or US Troops in lightly armored HMMWVs in Iraq and Afghanistan is to fire early and fire often, which just increases civilian casualties and adds to America's enemies.

Not that I mean to sound like the Heavy-Tread-Head Pep Squad. The Abrams has some flaws. First is the gas-guzzling engine. Many defended it after the first Gulf War for no other reason as they equated fuel consumption with performance. Second is the de-emphasis on mine protection seen on the M1 design. This leads many to think that only wheeled vehicles can truly be mine resistant. The M41 Light tank as well as the Abrams' direct predecessor, the M48/M60 Patton tank series were build with mine protection in mind. Even a casual examination of these tanks' hulls will show this. The M2/M3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the M1s constant companion on the march to and into Baghdad, likewise suffers from this. Though this is because of the design flaw carried over from the M113 (which itself was a companion to the Abrams/Bradley team race to Baghdad).

So how does this effect the Revolution in Military Affairs? RMA is based on light forces engage Nation-State enemies with precession stand-off firepower on a battlefield totally devoid of any sort of "clutter" or cover like cities, civilians, mountains, forests/jungles or even Forces of Nature. Battlefields just like those sanitary Cold War training areas devoid of any enemy who gets a vote. Likewise RMA places all of its "survivability" eggs in the one, lonely basket of completely avoiding direct engagement of ground forces is the enemy. This was the basis for the Reagan-Era 9th Motorized (Light) Infantry Division test-bed. It was meant to have the "survivability" through "mobility" and "agility" and the same (stand-off) "firepower" of the Heavy Divisions, while having "rapid deployment ability" as that eras Light Infantry Divisions (6th, 7th, 10th and 25th LIDs). Sound familiar? That is the same recipe for the Stryker Brigades and Future Combat System. And for the rare occasions an RMA force full of Information Age Fighting Vehicles does come in direct contract with the enemy they rather depend on "active" systems because they fail to realize two things. First, that electronics require a power source, which means RMA vehicles will continue to burn fairly large amounts of fuel just as the ideologically passe, armored, Industrial Age Fighting Vehicles. Second, that electronics are not immune to the physical stress which brake down mechanical systems. Heat, dust, moisture, the vibrations of being mounted on a moving vehicle, electric surges from being turned on and off, and the stresses coming from associated usage all effect battlefield electronics all brake those systems down not dissimilar to how mechanical systems brake down. Unlike what RMA/Transformation theorist might say, no free lunch comes from shift the burden from the mechanical to the electronic.

Basically RMA/Transformation is a costly Cold War dinosaur that threatens to turn large areas of the World into giant "Free Fire Zone" for precision weapons. Just like the Vietnam-Era Free Fire Zones, no regard will be made for the people that who live in them. RMA is about the instant gratification for a hand-full of policy makers who want to go back to the Glory Days when America could wipe a country off the face of the Earth with the push of a button. Though they want to replace Nuclear firepower with precision firepower (though are still holding out for the former in the form of "Bunker Busting" and "Tactical" Nukes).

Yes, precision weapons are here to stay and use we should plan accordingly. But taking the RMA path with all its pitfalls and its enormous costs while regressing to a less capable and downsized force that can't even meet today's challenges all in the interest of Instant Policy Gratification? What is the point?

Instead of Revolution we need Evolution. Instead of Transformation we need Reformation. We need a more deployable heavy force evolved directly from the one that existed in 2001, taking in all the lessons we should have known before then and the ones we should have learned since. We need a deployable and sustainable medium force that depends on Real World Physics and not RMA/FCS Fantasies. We need ground forces that are fully capable of defeating a Nation-State Military foe in any terrain and environment, but that are also highly capable of stability operations as well. And we need to do with with fair less reliance on a National Guard that is desperately needed at home. This means a larger Active force for the Army and Marines. This means equipment that is based heavily on what is now known to work. This means emphasizing production even at the cost of R&D. This means more time and funds for training for the Active force, both educational and Field training. We spent most of the 1990s poring money into R&D that we haven't even capitalized on at the direct expensive of production. We aren't even in an Arms Race. We are trapped in a Development Race with no one but ourselves, vainly hoping to make warfare too expensive for everyone but us in the interests of Pax Americana. Instead we are making a smaller but extremely costly, narrowly focused low-utility force that is only meant to be sustained for very short periods of time. We are the proverbial dog chasing its own tail, building a decorative saber meant to be often rattled, but rarely used.

And finally we should stop lying about Afghanistan. It wasn't just American Air Power and 300 or so Special Operators. We can't forget the thousands of Afghani Fighters we out-sources ground combat operations to. Unlike us they were willing to use every single old Soviet tank that could run, every single mortar and piece of tube and rocket artillery that could fire and every single vehicle they could get their hands on for mobility. For them it wasn't just a big ideological game. To ignore their contribution is nothing less then a double-helping of Hubris with a unhealthy sprinkling of Bigotry.

We attacked an innocent country because we were afraid. We won't get out because we are still afraid. Fighting men as well as innocent women and children continue to die because those who sit safely in Washington (and in America's heartland) are afraid to admit they were wrong, and are afraid to stand up to the fear mongers who cling to power.

If courage means doing the right thing in spite of being afraid, then we Americans are cowards. Fear of an imaginary, bearded, dark skinned hoard of "Islamofacists" means a substantial number of us have abandoned our core values. We've given up our belief in civil liberties, dissent, Geneva Conventions, protecting innocent life, the rule of law for our leaders, and the need to adapt when experience shows we are on the wrong course.

Afraid to speak truth to power, we cling to the illusory safety of a strong daddy who will protect us. Our leaders expertly stoked that fear, and continue to try to make us afraid at every turn. Promise to kill the people you've made me afraid of, and I will vote for you. How cowardly.

And how ironic that our unchecked fear means making choices that make us less safe.

Never think "nobody could be that stupid" because, apparently, arrogance can make people behave like morons. There's a fine line between vision and delusion. Know which side your President is on.

Without a truly free press, we the people cannot know the facts necessary to determine the motives of both current and future leaders. The current media is owned and controlled by the leaders of big corporations, who provided the resources to elect the current administration and who benefit from the expenditures of the government at war. Consequently we have not been informed of the facts, and we have not been able to determine the motives of the current administration, as to war and many other matters.

If we cannot separate candidates for election, and political parties, from corporate money, we will never again have government of the people, by the people and for the people.

We should all remind ourselves that ideology trumps public sentiment and that we rarely know the real motivations behind our leaders' acts. Politicians don't listen to the will of the people any more than the media represents true objectivity. Be very, very careful who you vote for.

As with most strategic debacles, hubris played a key role in the unwarranted invasion of Iraq. This was enabled an ideologically-driven and conscious effort, coming directly from within the current administration (to a great extent, lead by the Office of the Vice President), to expand the powers of the Executive Branch. To enact such an expansion, a systemic effort to control every aspect of government was required as well as an unprecedented media blitz, leveraged highly on the events of 9/11.

The outcome of this effort created a decision-making vacuum, devoid of objective and constructive criticism that could have prevented the invasion. Those individuals and institutions that did question the decision to invade or provided reasonable alternatives were either marginalized within the government, forced out of their positions of authority, or were attacked using a well orchestrated media machine.

Hubris is a truly human condition that is often the result of overconfidence and/or removing objective, intelligent debate. Luckily, this war has not resulted in a fatal blow to our democracy or way of life. However, it serves as a great lesson that we are as fragile now as we were in 1789, and the principles that this nation were founded on must be rigorously defended by each and every individual and institution.

I would leave on one last thought...What if the Iraq war was successful? Perhaps, it would have been a greater threat to our democracy and way of life than our having lost the war, by providing legitimacy to the methods that led to the invasion. Perhaps, the controls are working, albeit in a latent manner and at a truly terrible loss.