Charles Krauthammer Hearts George Michael

I find it surprising that Charles Krauthammer’s music library includes Wham! However, I do not find it surprising that Krauthammer’s latest column in The Washington Post would add to the orchestrated defense of Donald Rumsfeld and Mr. Bush’s Iraq policy. His column comes on the heels of an opinion piece in the Post by Melvin Laird and Robert Pursley that makes the same argument. [Aside: Melvin Laird is the architect of "Vietnamization" so the Administration mantra "We will stand down when the Iraqis stand up" should give him Goosebumps since Vietnamization worked out so well]

You cannot blame Krauthammer (and Laird) for shooting the messenger, after all, the message is hard to discount. Krauthammer sees a danger to our Republic. He sees a collapse of civilian control over the military. He sees a military takeover of the United States.

I-know-better generals are back. Six of them, retired, are denouncing the Bush administration and calling for Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation as secretary of defense. The antiwar types think this is just swell.

…

We’ve always had discontented officers in every war and in every period of our history. But they rarely coalesce into factions. That happens in places such as Hussein’s Iraq, Pinochet’s Chile or your run-of-the-mill banana republic. And when it does, outsiders (including the United States) do their best to exploit it, seeking out the dissident factions to either stage a coup or force the government to change policy.

….

It is precisely this kind of division that our tradition of military deference to democratically elected civilian superiors was meant to prevent. Today it suits the antiwar left to applaud the rupture of that tradition. But it is a disturbing and very dangerous precedent that even the left will one day regret.

Charles, Charles, Charles. Calm down and breathe into the brown paper bag. I would share your alarm but I have not been able to find a good way to detach my brain from my skull and still function as a human being. But fear not you have many who will carry the water with you.

Let me take it from the top:

1. Not withstanding the last holdout, American policy in Iraq has been a disaster.
2. We were lied or bumbled (no practical difference) into this preemptive war by this Administration.
3. We failed to take any steps to plan for a post-conflict peace. We have reigned over chaos since 2003.
4. We have handed Iraq on a silver platter to Iran.
5. We have put in power in Iraq the same group of people that killed 241 marines in Beirut in 1983.
6. We have no exit strategy in Iraq other than to say, "Stay the course" or "We will stand down when the Iraqis stand up".
7. We have lost over 2000 American lives and at least 30,000 Iraqi lives.
8. Civil war rages in Iraq with ethnic cleansing at its core.
9. We have been taken to war on the backs of two ideologies. That of the neo-cons like Mr. Krauthammer who argue for Pax Americana at the barrel of a gun; and that of Mr. Rumsfeld that is bent on proving his concept of a light and agile military is superior, facts or circumstances be damned.

According to the latest Fox News poll only 33% of Americans approve of how President Bush is handling his job. Of those who disapprove, the most frequently cited reason is the debacle in Iraq. In this environment, does this surprise you, Charles, that retired generals would also disapprove of our Iraq policy. The public is well ahead of the military on this one – as they should be. Krauthammer argues rather disingenuously that the generals should have spoken out while on active duty:

Some of the complainers were on active duty when these decisions were made. If they felt so strongly about Rumsfeld’s disregard of their advice, why didn’t they resign at the time? Why did they wait to do so from the safety of retirement, with their pensions secured?

Nice one Charles, but by your own thesis, didn’t the generals do what they should have done. While on active duty, they accepted the civilian control of the military, registered their complaints, saluted and followed orders. I applaud them for that – as should you, Charles. I think our Republic is safe from a military takeover precisely because our men and women in the military are a disciplined group of people who understand and respect the Constitution of the United States.

Of course, when all other arguments fail the fallback argument is always that dissent aids the enemy. Laird and Pursley conclude with this:

In speaking out now, they may think they are doing a service by adding to the reasoned debate. But the enemy does not understand or appreciate reasoned public debate. It is perceived as a sign of weakness and lack of resolve.

The real enemy is sitting in some cave in Afghanistan or Pakistan laughing at us for our fiasco in Iraq. When the majority of the public think the country is being mismanaged and when retired generals speak out, it is time to take heed. Attempting to dismiss legitimate criticism by suggesting that it is aiding and abetting the enemy is the same mindset and groupthink that got us embroiled in this mess in Iraq in the first place.