I was correct on the first point and I do not think I would be proven wrong on the other.
Even the most casual of observers now wonder whether the United States can ever actually win in Iraq, what with the war having gone past the five-year mark and the elusive peace, prosperity and stability promised, nowhere in sight.
Over 4,000 US soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians have died since the "Mission Accomplished" declaration on a US aircraft carrier was displayed.
This does not to count the untold destruction and suffering brought unto the country and its people by the invasion and occupation.
The monetary cost of the war is also astronomical, to date having gone over US$500 billion (RM1.7 trillion), roughly five times more than the budget initially estimated for it.
The lack of detailed overall planning and preparation was often cited as a major cause of this debacle.
But that aside, the pre-war US military also suffered from a common problem faced by military forces the world over -- of essentially having manpower levels and capabilities that are only prepared to fight the previous war.
Not the present and, most definitely, not the future.
When the realities of war present themselves, these forces would then play the inevitable catch-up game, through additions, improvisations and speedy inventions to acquirecapabilities, in order to triumph over their opponents. Until and unless these measures can help to overwhelm the opposition, the war will grind on.
The problem that many fail to appreciate sufficiently is the question of change.
In the past, this occurred much more slowly when compared to the speed it is happening now. People were thus easily drawn to bask in the comfort zone and were unwilling to rock the boat, so to speak.
Why try on new ways and means when what worked in the past and what appears to work at present are in place?
That adage used to ring true when advances made in knowledge, technologies and communications did not occur by incredible leaps and bounds.
Today, changes can occur in microseconds -- opening up vast opportunities and options to many that were unthinkable or even unheard of even an hour earlier.
The acceptable adage now is, therefore, to expect the inevitable changes with readied novel ideas and capabilities, especially in the realm of military battles and fighting wars.
I suppose political election battles are similarly affected by these same advances, although many politicians fail to realise this.
This makes them continue employing outmoded and ineffective strategies and tactics with predictable results. Those who did realise were sometimes unable to change their ways and means quickly enough.
They continued to have capacities and capabilities suited only to fight the previous campaign, thus making them more likely to lose than to win.
Their subsequent explanation of their failure was ultimately to border on the ridiculous -- pleading ignorance and blaming the opposition for unfair play.
Few would admit that they failed to appreciate the changes that had occurred and that the brutality of the competition seemed to allow that the end justifies the means for as long as everything was done lawfully.
I am just a bit tired of listening to losers saying that they did not know that their opponents had something up their sleeve or that they were caught by the changes.
In any battle, there is a need to know everything, to expect the unexpected, and to have ready answers for any possible eventuality.
To go into any battle is to win. Failure can never be an option. Thus, such excuses are just unacceptable.
I must give credit to the US military for their openness to ideas on how to execute their war (it being illegal, notwithstanding) and their ability to utilise every available resource in their effort.
This is unlike what happened in the last general election in our country, when political parties either did not bother to tap ideas from those willing to contribute or even mobilise all that was available to them.
Ego and arrogance were the stumbling blocks causing even some of their ready and potential supporters to shy away, be ignored or even discarded.
The side, unwilling to listen to better wisdom and unable to employ all available resources efficiently, normally loses.
The interest to know how political parties and politicians conduct their campaigns in any political election period shall not detract me, however, from not wanting to have the candidates whom I want to win.
He or she shall be of impeccable character, likeable as a person, believable in his (her) presentations and must possess the ideas and capabilities to prosper and unite all of the people in the constituency.
He shall not be someone whom I know wants to win only for his own selfish ends and at the expense of the wellbeing of others. Certainly, he shall not be someone who would be an embarrassment later on.
Others may label all of these wants as wishful thinking. The military mind, however, would like to believe it is actually about having foresight.
Lt-Gen (R) Datuk Seri Zaini Mohd Said is a former army field commander. He can be contacted at panglima_sauk70@hotmail.com
About NST | Contact Us | Advertising | Subscribe Online | Privacy Policy | How To Get There