Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying

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.

I recall quipping to a friend a few weeks ago that I thought the way out of Iraq for this Administration was through Iran. What I meant at the time was that since this Administration had haplessly shifted the center of gravity of Iraqi politics to Iran, without Iran having to fire a shot, that the only way to exit out of Iraq with "credibility" was to attack Iran. Iran then becomes a continuation of a larger war "on terror" and it can then not be said that Iraq was lost since it will only become an unfinished chapter in a larger war.

I of course was being cynical. I knew then that there have been people within and outside the Administration who have been advocating for an attack on Iran from the time that "Mission Accomplished" was declared in Iraq. Neo-conservatives had focused their attention on Iran as the next domino in the new American Domino Theory. Some of the most rabid of the neo-cons advocating war were the usual suspects such as Daniel Pipes, Frank Gaffney and Charles Krauthammer. But I had calculated that the appetite for war had waned in Washington due to Mr. Bush’s flagging approval ratings, the disaster in Iraq, the Congressional scandals, and the overextension of the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan. I had obviously underestimated the hunger for war in Washington.

Today the Washington Post reports that the United States is planning for a nuclear strike on Iran. This report comes nipping at the heels of Seymour Hersh’s tour de force in the New Yorker magazine on the same topic. Mr. Hersh has been doggedly pursuing this story for some time, with a report in January that the United States was already engaged in covert action inside Iran.

The drumbeat for war with Iran has been ongoing for some time. The rhetoric and the diplomatic doublespeak is eerily reminiscent of the run up to the Iraq invasion. But what is different this time is that the United States is considering using nuclear weapons as a first strike option against Iran. Apparently the civilian leaders in the Administration have surveyed the options against Iran’s nuclear facilities and concluded that a conventional attack will not cause the requisite amount of damage. So like any group of people bent on destruction, they have decided that if the bomb you are using is not big enough, get a bigger bomb - in our case, a nuclear bomb. This is the kind of thinking I have been able to coax my five-year-old out of over the last year. My daughter has matured to a point where she now tends to utilize thought and consider more the longer-term consequences of her actions instead of first resorting to brute force when confronted with a difficult task.

There is likely to be much discussion of this story in the days, weeks, and months to come. Instead of focusing on the primary story which I suspect will be widely discussed in today’s talk shows and on the web, I would like to use the remainder of this post to highlight two aspects of this story that are particularly frightening.

Seymour Hersh’s writes about Mr. Bush’s determination and motivation in attacking Iran:

A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.” [Emphasis added by me]

It has been widely reported and speculated that Mr. Bush sees his mission in remaking the Middle East very much in biblical terms. If Mr. Hersh’s source is accurate in his assessment then we are confronted with a President with messianic and evangelical zeal that will not be tempered by reason or the facts. In this case, war with Iran is inevitable. This is a frightening development, and the dangers may actually increase as Mr. Bush’s popularity slips further. He may feel that the urgency to accomplish his mission becomes greater as his position in office become more tenuous.

The Washington Post reports on a possible timetable for attack and Israel’s role in setting that timetable:

Israel is preparing, as well. The government recently leaked a contingency plan for attacking on its own if the United States does not, a plan involving airstrikes, commando teams, possibly missiles and even explosives-carrying dogs. Israel, which bombed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear plant in 1981 to prevent it from being used to develop weapons, has built a replica of Natanz, according to Israeli media, but U.S. strategists do not believe Israel has the capacity to accomplish the mission without nuclear weapons.

…

Israel points to those missiles to press their case in Washington. Israeli officials traveled here recently to convey more urgency about Iran. Although U.S. intelligence agencies estimate Iran is about a decade away from having a nuclear bomb, Israelis believe a critical breakthrough could occur within months. They told U.S. officials that Iran is beginning to test a more elaborate cascade of centrifuges, indicating that it is further along than previously believed.

"What the Israelis are saying is this year — unless they are pressured into abandoning the program — would be the year they will master the engineering problem," a U.S. official said. "That would be a turning point, but it wouldn’t mean they would have a bomb." [Emphasis added by me]

The Israelis have been pushing the notion of a point of no return, or "turning point", for quite some time, arguing that even though the actual bomb may be sometime away the date on the calendar that we should be concerned about is much sooner when the Iranian program reaches a technical threshold that once achieved cannot be reversed. Israel has chosen a timetable for attack by the United States by the end of this year by indicating if this attack does not happen, they will launch the attack unilaterally. Israel has also been at the forefront of the nuclear strike option.

The timetable set by Israel for the United States dovetails nicely with the November Congressional elections. An attack on Iran would politically rescue Mr. Bush and the Congressional Republicans from the disaster in Iraq. The actual attack does not have to occur before the elections, in fact it is better politically that the attack take place after the elections. The drumbeat to war and the tension and fear it will generate for the public is much more useful as a political tool than the war itself. By this time in early November, with any luck for the Republicans, the daily death toll in Iraq, the Congressional scandals, the NSA spying and the fallout from the NIE leaking should all take a backseat to the coming war with Iran. With these constraints, the likely strike date on Iran will be in late November or early December of this year, just in time for the Christmas season.

In many ways, war has already begun with Iran. The conversation has changed. It should give all of us pause that on this day in the 21st Century we are considering the possibility that the greatest experiment in Democracy in the history of the world is about to launch a nuclear first strike against another sovereign state. May our children forgive us.

General Paul Eaton’s scathing op-ed in The New York Times takes aim squarely at Donald Rumsfeld. The first three paragraphs set the tone for a verbal assault on the Defense Secretary:

DURING World War II, American soldiers en route to Britain before D-Day were given a pamphlet on how to behave while awaiting the invasion. The most important quote in it was this: "It is impolite to criticize your host; it is militarily stupid to criticize your allies."

By that rule, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is not competent to lead our armed forces. First, his failure to build coalitions with our allies from what he dismissively called "old Europe" has imposed far greater demands and risks on our soldiers in Iraq than necessary. Second, he alienated his allies in our own military, ignoring the advice of seasoned officers and denying subordinates any chance for input.

In sum, he has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically, and is far more than anyone else responsible for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq. Mr. Rumsfeld must step down.

In labeling Mr. Rumsfeld as "incompetent", General Eaton, in one stroke, dismisses Mr. Rumsfeld as unqualified to lead the armed forces. That is a very serious charge, and if in fact, our senior commanders share this view, Mr. Rumsfeld would best serve the country by stepping down.

General Eaton also makes very clear how ill prepared we were for the post-war (Phase IV) part of the invasion. This is a familiar charge, vehemently denied by the Administration, which is now adding to the growing chorus coming from our retired senior officers. The General also charges that the invasion and its aftermath were micro-managed from Washington by what he termed the "8,000-mile screwdriver". Apparently, the lessons of Vietnam have been overlooked.

The General further charges that the military was sent in under-manned and under-equipped. In other words, from the very beginning of the invasion, we have left our military in dire straits.

Apparently the message from the military senior staff wasn’t getting through to Washington then and is not getting through now. I suspect the message left the military fine but no one was listening at the other end. Not surprising, given Vice President Cheney’s remarkable defense of the patently false today:

On Sunday, Vice President Dick Cheney did not express any regret for predicting in the days before the invasion that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators or his assessment 10 months ago that the insurgency was in its "last throes." On the contrary, he said the optimistic statements "were basically accurate, reflect reality."

There is a stunning disconnect here between those statements and what has actually transpired over the last three years. The President today kept up the positive spin without mentioning the difficulties:

President Bush marked the anniversary of the Iraq war Sunday by touting the efforts to build democracy there and avoiding any mention of the daily violence that rages three years after he ordered an invasion.

The president didn’t utter the word "war."

In their effort to convince us that all is well, the Administration is losing us, the military and the war in Iraq. It is time to stop spinning and start listening to the best advice of our generals, our experts on the region, and others to get us out of the morass we are sinking into.