US Air Power to Replace Infantry in Iraq;
Distant President Trapped in Utopianism
Veteran journalist Seymour Hersh is reporting in the New Yorker that the Bush administration has decided to draw down ground troops in Iraq. Knowledgeable observers strongly suspect that this step would produce a meltdown and possibly even civil war in Iraq (which could become a regional war). Bush's strategy may be to try to control the situation using air power.
Readers and colleagues often ask me why a Shiite majority and the Kurdish Peshmergas couldn't just take care of the largely Sunni Arab guerrillas. The answer is that the Sunni Arabs were the officer corps and military intelligence, and the more experienced NCOs, and they know how to do things that the Shiites and Kurds don't know how to do. The Sunni Arabs were also the country's elite and have enormous cultural capital and managerial know-how. Sunni Arab advantages will decline over time, but they are there for this generation, and no one should underestimate the guerrilla leadership. If the Americans weren't around, all those 77 Hungarian T-72 tanks that the new Iraqi military now has would be in guerrilla hands so fast it would make your head spin.
Shiite leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim complained to the Washington Post that the US itself was holding back the Iraqi army (which seems to be mostly Kurds and Shiites) from going after the Sunni Arab guerrillas in a concerted way. But this prospect is the other reason that the Shiites and the Kurds can't just take care of the Sunni Arabs. If one isn't careful, it would turn into a hot civil war on ethnic grounds (I don't mean 38 dead a day, I mean it would be ten times that). And if the Shiites and Kurds massacre Sunni Arabs in the course of fighting the guerrillas, the Saudi, Jordanian and Sunni Syrian publics are not going to take that lying down and volunteer fighters would flock to Iraq in real numbers.
This diary over at Daily Kos discusses both Hersh's reporting on this military issue and what his sources are saying about Bush and the White House.
Hersh reports that US Air Force officers are alarmed by the implication that Iraqi targeters may be calling down air strikes using US warplanes. I remember that Iraqi troops (mainly Kurds) were allowed to call down airstrikes in Tal Afar last August, and if my recollection serves, the Tal Afar operation may even have been conceived as an opportunity for Iraqi troops to get practice in doing so. They levelled whole neighborhoods of the Sunni Turkmen (many of whom had thrown in with Saddam in the old days).
The Air Force officers are right to be alarmed. It has been obvious to me for some time that US air power will be used to try to keep the guerrillas from taking over Iraq as the ground troops depart. This is why last August I argued for keeping some US Special Operations forces embedded with the new Iraqi army, since I felt that the US military should remain in control of the use of American air power (i.e. the laser targetting should be done by Navy Seals and others, not by Iraqis).
Likewise, I argued that the US should only make this airstrike capability available for defensive operations. Say that the 1920 Revolution Brigades got up a militia force to march on Hilla from Mahmudiyah, and the brigade made short work of the Iraqi infantry sent against it. In such a situation, the US should use air power to stop the neo-Baathists and Salafis from massacring the Shiites of Hilla. But the US Air Force should not be a toy in the hands of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, who will most likely be the most powerful politician in Iraq come Dec. 16. If one keeps some Special Ops forces in Iraq, it would require a continued ability by the US to rescue them if anything went wrong, which is one reason both I and Congressman Murtha envisaged a continued over-the-horizon US presence in the region for a while.
But Hersh's sources in Washington strongly give the impression that George W. Bush is incapable of making coherent policy in Iraq, and is fixated on his legacy there 20 years down the line.
Even Bush allies such as former transitional Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, however, are already bringing his legacy into question. Allawi asserts that governmental abuse of human rights in Iraq today is even worse than in the time of Saddam. If yours truly had said something like that, Jeff Jarvis would have called me pond scum and Andrew Sullivan would have given me a Sontag award. Jarvis and Sullivan were big supporters of Allawi (who is alleged to have been involved in a terrorist attack in Baghdad in the 1990s that blew up a school bus full of children). So what do they have to say now that the bad news is coming from the secular, pro-American politicians and they aren't playing pollyanna any more? By the way, President Jalal Talabani rejected Allawi's charges, but then he heads the government that Allawi is critiquing.
Bush's legacy as a builder of democracy and promoter of rights in Iraq, all he has left going for him, was dealt another black eye by the emergence of a video that appears to show private security guards in Iraq firing at civilian vehicles for sport out on the road to the airport.
Hersh appeared on Wolf Blitzer on Sunday, and Wolf read out this quote from the New Yorker piece by Hersh:
" 'The president is more determined than ever to stay the course,' the former defense official said. 'He doesn't feel any pain. Bush is a believer in the adage, "People may suffer and die, but the Church advances." ' He said that the president had become more detached, leaving more issues to Karl Rove and Vice President Cheney. 'They keep him in the gray world of religious idealism, where he wants to be anyway,' the former defense official said."
Hersh goes on to tell Blitzer that Bush disparages any information about Iraq that does not fit his preconceived notions, and that he feels he has a (perhaps divine) mission to bring democracy to the country. Hersh's inside sources paint a president who is detached and in the grip of profound utopian delusions, which Hersh charitably characterizes as "idealistic."
Congress really has to step in here. Senators and representatives should demand that Bush get the ground troops out without turning control of the US air force over to Shiite clerics like Abdul Aziz al-Hakim. Presidents cannot do anything without money, and Congress controls the money. The wiser and more knowledgeable heads on both sides of the aisle have to start telling Bush "No!" when he comes to them asking for another $100 billion so he can level another Sunni Arab city. He is counting on the public punishing "no" votes on military affairs. But the American public would at this point almost certainly be grateful for it. And apart from telling him "No!" they should put strict reporting requirements on how the money is used. For instance, only defensive operations should any longer be funded.
Let me finish with a word to W. As for your legacy two decades from now, George, let me clue you in on something--as a historian. In 20 years no Iraqis will have you on their minds one way or another. Do you think anyone in Egypt or Israel is still grateful to Jimmy Carter for helping bring to an end the cycle of Egyptian-Israeli wars? Jimmy Carter powerfully affected the destinies of all Egyptians and Israelis in that key way. Most people in both countries have probably never heard of him, and certainly no one talks about the first Camp David Accords anymore except as a dry historical subject. The US pro-Israel lobby is so ungrateful that they curse Carter roundly for all the help he gave Israel. Human beings don't have good memories for these things, which is why we have to have professional historians, a handful of people who are obsessed with the subject. And I guarantee you, George, that historians are going to be unkind to you. You went into a major war over a non-existent nuclear weapons program. Presidents' reputations don't survive things like that. Historians are creatures of documents and precision. A wild exaggeration with serious consequences is against everything they stand for as a profession. So forget about history and destiny and the divine will. You are at the helm of the Exxon Valdez and it is headed for the shoals. You can't afford to daydream about future decades.
posted by Juan Cole @ 11/28/2005 12:30:00 AM
|
Facebook
25 Comments:
USAF
It's interesting that in the course of conversation about the 1920 Revolution Brigades, there must be recalled the Angaloid response to Iraq on the ground had something to do with the RAF -- of the 1920ies -- dealing with the then recently created Iraqi insurgency and freedom fighting and sectarian conflicts. It's as if the military was to be appointed some role in delivering divine intervention and a heavenly reigning rain of lead (or DU) onto whoever is deemed to have been contrary to the Master Plan. While Churchill was somewhat in favour of applying chemical weaponry to the solution of his "native" problems, something that Saddam Hussein put to use, following the more learned and civilised leaders' examples, the Americans will be able to apply another of the Angaloids' failures in strategy, that of airpower. Without learned and trusted eyes and ears on the ground, who knows who will be blow'd to bitserinoes.
And some worry about George's and Tooney's legacy in history, all the while others' history has been neglected if not just plain old forgotten. The subduing of the Iraqis by their new Master Planners following the Great War, Part Une, has been ignored to a large extent. Even George HW Bush's reservations in and about the early 1990ies were ignored. And all of this on top of dismissing all of the Iraqi history for millennia during the invasion. It seems as though the intent is to erase all other historical influences except those of 2003 and beyond, focussing on what Blair has stated will be justification of the recent invasion for removal of banned weapons, regime change, institution of democrazy, laying the groundwork for a Shi'ite controlled Irani style theocrazy, or just a settling of old personal vendettas along the lines of "He tried to kill my Dad." One might be reminded of the disappeared figures in the Stalin-era Soviet Union, the ones who were to be historically cleansed, for the good of the "true" and sanitised Soviet history.
What is bound to result is -- again -- the removal of any secular -- or egalitarian -- emphases in the region, first by the decades long undermining of Saddam Hussein, followed by the demonisation of the Syrians, following the old dayze of the imposition of the imposter Shah over Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh. We have seen enough of the influences of the rapidly rabidised religious in recent years, what with UbL and the Taleban, recent weeks' actions against Buddhists in Thailand, and even more recently in Pakistan with sieges on so-called "Christian" institutions. We cannot ignore the Fall-Wells and Robertsons and Dobsons and others in our own part of the planet.
While there have been some who have endeavoured to ease the tensions among the religious factions, this latest incursion into Middle Eastern affairs has done nothing but accentuate the differences and reinforce sectarian pride and prejudice. Extremism has a nasty habit of inherent exclusion of alternative views, raising peoples' tempers, razing the "others' " existences.
You say defense and I say offense; let's call it war. And nothing about it is civil. -- If Hersh is right once again, and it would be remarkable if he weren't, considering his record so far, we are already stepping up the air war in Iraq and there are already special operations people working with Iraqi units. It doesn't seem to be making the corner we're always about to turn show up, does it.
So now, the administration or some part of the administration -- the part that gets to make decisions about our kids' lives and other people's kids' lives and using our money to kill people -- is going to do the thing that can 'win' this war for 'us'. And that's to expand the no-fly zone to all of Iraq.
Next thing you know, these great minds will be bringing the inspection teams back in...just give 'em time.
It's worth noting that the contractor video is alleged to be of personnel from Aegis Defence Services.
There were specific protests against the Aegis contract because of the record of its chief executive Tim Spicer.
Two soldiers under his command were convicted of murdering an unarmed 18-year-old, Peter McBride, in Belfast in 1992.
He was also involved in breaking a UN arms embargo in Sierra Leone, and a mercenary operation in Papua New Guinea that provoked a coup by the local armed forces.
Peter McBride's mother Jean won the backing of some pretty heavyweight Democrats when she protested the contract.
They will now be in a position to say, we told you so.
More details here.
If Bush's refusal to deal with unpleasant facts is the result of a religiously-inspired messianism, then he doesn't care what the historians will say. He only cares about "God's final judgment" - perhaps as interpreted to him by some religious leaders.
Hersh is implying that Congress may have to step in with more than just fiscal constraints. Hersh is invoking the spectre of the 25th amendment's invocation in the case of Presidential incapacity. The narrative that is finally stringing the nuggets of evidence together is that Bush has religious delusions of God' anointing. Remember his statement to Nabil Shaath and Mahmoud Abbas in June 2003:
"I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George go and end the tyranny in Iraq,' and I did."
No facts or evidence or logic will sway the feelings of a madman in the grip of a religious delusion. Every effort to dissuade them is only interpreted by the individual as one of God's tests.
If Congress or the press could ever get Bush away from his handlers and speechmakers for more than 45 minutes, they can begin to quiz him on his convictions regarding his personal "destiny". Bush will have to Testify in order to remain true to his otherworldy instructions.
There may be a percentage of Americans, anywhere from 5 to 20%, that will be even more devoted to a President that has decided that he is the Messiah and that any idea conceived in "prayer" is actually God's word.
But the vast proportion of Americans will be appalled and demand he be impeached for malfeasance.
I think George W. Bush's legacy is cemented already in the M.E. and that he will not be forgotten in years ten or twenty from now. Carter or Clinton were instrumental in putting forth policies and programs. People remember the programs or policies not the man occupying the WH. You are right about that.
W., on the other hand, has cast all his policies as extensions of his own self and psyche ['he is a good man. I looked into his soul'] and, now we learn, his manifest destiny. I'd be willing to wager that his name will stay on lips for a while yet.
I think your words to Bush (W) are lost on him - he surely doesn't care at all about what History has to say about him in 5, 10, 20 or 100 years from now. If I read Hersh's comments right, Bush is thinking about somebody else in maybe 20 years or so - he's thinking about GOD judging him! Well, we can think what we want about that now, but that's who we've got in the White House.
It's hard for me to buy the theory that Bush won't let go of his utopian view of "Bringing democracy to Iraq". Come on, this is the guy who snuffed out democracy in Haiti without batting an eye. If he could get away with it he'd do the same thing in Venezuela. This is the guy who walks hand in hand through the garden with his despotic buddies the Saudi royals. If he is honestly worried about his legacy as a democracy bringer he belongs in a nut house not the White house.
Although it is pretty irritating to start from scratch every time, I'd like to repeat some basics.
Since neocons and their allies get their opinions straight from God, any independent expert assessments are the last things they want to consider. For this reason, they call themselves “idealists”.
With GOP moderates and rightist dems, it is slightly different. They are ready to listen, but still they don’t want any concrete regional analysis. Instead, they want to know what is to be done - considering the options available. This is why they are called “pragmatists”.
All this explains “pragmatic” questions about the Iraqi situation - like why a Shiite majority and the Kurdish Peshmergas couldn't just take care of the largely Sunni Arab guerrillas without US/UK interference. Major problem with this question is that it actually needs decoding. The problem is, taking terms “Shiite majority” and “Kurdish Peshmergas” literally appears to be highly confusing. That’s just generic terminological games!
So, terminological manipulations aside, we have a question of what US armed forces are supposed to do in Iraq – considering that they are already there. Next, it naturally comes to separation of duties between the Army and USAF. This way, it appears to be natural to reduce the ground presence and increase the relative role of air strikes.
Another turn of the screw is to use the Yugoslavian model and employ “defensive” aka “humanitarian” air strikes. As usual, their purpose is to “save lives” of “innocent civilians” from “terrorist barbarians”. What it means in practical terms?
Civilian infrastructure starting from bridges is going to be the major target for two reasons. First, military targets are long gone in Iraq. Second, destruction of infrastructure is what Air Force is supposed to do.
Next, there will be targets of opportunity – urban blocks, buildings and vehicles. The problem is, hitting these targets needs timely info from local sources. So, we are going to hear more, more and more laments about the “lack of humint”. In practical terms, the tail of local factional interests will wag the USAF dog again, again, and again.
Professor Cole-
Well said, especially your remarks to our out-of-touch President. Unfortunately, he's managed to tune out his critics all along, and I fear that he'll continue to do so.
It is not in dispute that W is a Christian Ayattolah. In fact, most of his voters chose him just for that. Religous hallucinatation can only be expected, it goes with the territory
In the end, even if the elected government is protected by American power, there will have to be some kind of accomodation reached between all the sects, parties, factions or tribes of Iraq where they can live in peace.
The forced, rushed arrangement we have imposed on Iraq cannot be expected to stand as a serious functioning government, and there will be a new one someday sooner or later, a balance of power and interests whre people will work together to provide for a stable society. They will work it out in a process of discussion and negotiation with one another to establish whatever institutions, processes or borders they need to live in peace.
The only question is whether they will have to go through a period of war to get to that point. Why should they have to?
Why can't the contribution of the Americans be to guard and protect a serious process of negotiation with the factions of the governement, the insurgency and anyone else with an interest there and a contribution to make?
Why are we talking about how the Americans will use our soldiers and warplanes, and not how we will use our ideals and intelligence? Why is the only option more war or withdrawal?
They are trying on their own to begin a negotiation process, but all we are doing is trying to stifle it. When we talk about our options, why is this not one of the options?
The concern with W's concern being how he is viewed "20 years from now" is that he is thinking of how God and/or Christ will think of him when he dies. Not history or historians here on earth (aka reality).
Dr. Steve--
I think God and Jesus might be pissed too!
Howie Luvzus
From the Hersh article...
Robert Pape, a political-science professor at the University of Chicago, who has written widely on American airpower, and who taught for three years at the Air Force’s School of Advanced Airpower Studies, in Alabama, predicted that the air war “will get very ugly” if targeting is turned over to the Iraqis. This would be especially true, he said, if the Iraqis continued to operate as the U.S. Army and Marines have done—plowing through Sunni strongholds on search-and-destroy missions. “If we encourage the Iraqis to clear and hold their own areas, and use airpower to stop the insurgents from penetrating the cleared areas, it could be useful,” Pape said. “The risk is that we will encourage the Iraqis to do search-and-destroy, and they would be less judicious about using airpower—and the violence would go up. More civilians will be killed, which means more insurgents will be created.”
Even American bombing on behalf of an improved, well-trained Iraqi Army would not necessarily be any more successful against the insurgency. “It’s not going to work,” said Andrew Brookes, the former director of airpower studies at the Royal Air Force’s advanced staff college, who is now at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, in London. “Can you put a lid on the insurgency with bombing?” Brookes said. “No. You can concentrate in one area, but the guys will spring up in another town.” The inevitable reliance on Iraqi ground troops’ targeting would also create conflicts. “I don’t see your guys dancing to the tune of someone else,” Brookes said. He added that he and many other experts “don’t believe that airpower is a solution to the problems inside Iraq at all. Replacing boots on the ground with airpower didn’t work in Vietnam, did it?” "
hate to disagree with Juan Cole on any point, especially this, but having the Americans around for the generation it will take to turnover the Sunni human infrastructure is just not going to happen
What is going to happen, no matter what we decide is chaos. Yes chaos, and I have been saying this for over two years. It is the consequence of lies, of the invasion.
The longer we stay the worse it will become. Had we left in Sept 2003 when I first made observation, perhaps things would be better no, but no matter, there is nothing the US can realistically do that is going change things for the better - except leave as soon as possible.
The Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites will work things out themselves. It won;t be pretty. It will be our fault, but it is inevitable
Rep. Murtha correctly identified the continued US presence as the catalyst for the armed resistance. It also creates a scenario in which the resistance can operate without the risk of a large-scale sectarian conflict (there are low-level attacks between Shia/Kurds and Sunnis, but nothing approaching the scale of civil war). The effect, therefore, is to perpetuate a scenario where our soldiers and even more civilians are killed, but in which the consequences of such aggression (provoking open warfare) are not in play for the Sunni resistance. In short, there is no mutual deterrent on the violent actions of the two sides, particularly the Sunni given their minority status. A withdrawal of US troops is therefore essential to remove the conditions which permit violent attacks without the consequence of wider conflict.
I think Dr. Cole overstates the possibility of widescale civil conflict and, even more so, the advantages of the Sunni in such conflict if it arose. First, all sides could see the potential for destruction and wider conflict precipitated by such a war and would be deterred from pursuing such a course without considerable provocation. Second, Iran would side with the Shia/Kurds and its populace and military exceed that of any Arab nation. It also has ready access to more sophisticated weaponry with a phone call to Moscow or Beijing. Since such arms transactions would be on behalf of the US' ostensible allies in Iraq, the US would be in no position to object to the transfers. In short, the population, expertise and material of Iran are more than a counterweight to the Sunni officer corps (who the Iranians fought to a standstill when they had an army) much less the petty autocracies elsewhere in the Arab world whose militaries are less effective than the old Iraqi military.
My point is not really to disagree with Dr. Cole's prescriptions as continued US control of its air power is essential (as the repeated mishaps in Afghanistan demonstrate) and an "over the horizon" redeployment is the most that can be hoped for in any event. My point is more that the various factions are neither stupid nor insane and can as easily recognize the destructive effects of open war as can we. A redeployment immediately would permit those factions to make the pragmatic choices demanded by those terrible consequences.
We can write the story in advance:
As many as 47 civilians, including 26 children, were killed yesterday when American fighter-bombers unleashed an airstrike on a predominantly Sunni neighborhood in Fallujah. U.S. military sources said the airstrikes were ordered and executed by Iraqi Security Forces on the basis of what the sources called "reliable intelligence." The Iraqi Army had identified the neighborhood as a staging area for the growing insurgency, which has been increasingly active in recent months, according to the sources.
Just wait for the picture of a crying mother holding a bloody and lifeless 3 year old girl in her arms, and print it.
The Exxon Valdez was piloted by a drunk. The Ship of State is piloted by a dry drunk. Which is worse?
1) Allawi was accused of shooting a detainee in cold blood with a pistol while at the helm of the transitional government.
2) Given that the occupation has provided distraction, the number of reprisal killings will probably increase dramatically over the next two years.
3) Were guerrilla groups able to attain armour, what is the likelihood that they could sustain the use of heavy munitions?
Obviously, despite arguments to the contrary, air strikes are arbitrary and would have drastic implications with regards to the civilian population.
"In 20 years no Iraqis will have you on their minds one way or another."
I seriously doubt that Bush cares what Iraqis think now or in 20 years. He is worried about what Americans will say, particularly about whether he was a better president than his "daddy."
MINOR POINT OF CLARIFICATION
I agree that Andrew Sullivan was an enthusiastic supporter of Allawi, but I did a Google search on Jeff Jarvis's and didn't find much to support your description of him as a "big Allawi supporter." There's a brief blog post following Allawi's appointment as interim president when Jarvis quotes criticisms of Allawi with a rather mocking tone, but he didn't particularly sing Allawi's praises.
Whether the targets of the air strikes are defined by the Iraqis or by the US won't make a big difference. Air strikes are bound to create a lot of civilian casualties. I can't understand that democrats are proposing such an exit solution.
Further, how can an American force adopt a defensive tactic in Iraq? US invaded Iraq and none of its military actions there can be seen as defensive. At best their tactic would be trying to keep an illegally and militarily acquired advantage. Any war operation is bound to create more harm than good and no humanitarian wrapping can justifies it.
The US should withdraw completely and then the different political forces existing in Iraq could begin negotiating a real compromise. As long as one faction or another is artificially supported by the US, the political game is skewed. Yes, it will probably be costly in human lives, but how much lives has already cost the US invasion? Why calling for more of the same?
After withdrawal, the US should pay compensations for all the harms and damages she has created to the Iraqis after its withdrawal and an independent commission should judge how much she owes to the Iraqis.
Historians were polled by George Mason U before the last election and 81% of them rated W's administration a failure. In fact, many of them thought he was the "worst president ever". I would like to see the same poll conducted today - although since things seem to be going downhill at an ever increasing rate - the outcome might not be as "favorable" for Bush and co. as it was 18 months ago.
I never said I was a "supporter" of Allawi's, as you contend. When he was selected in May, 2004, I said: "Tonight, NPR's reporter said outright that he's corrupt and second in Iraqi contempt only to Chalabi." You continue to have a unique relationship to the facts, professor.
A few observations based on my limited professional experience.
1. Seymour Hersh has done some great reporting in the past, and maybe has here (I've not yet read it). But he, like other press organs, weakens his own writing through indiscriminate use of government sources. This paragraph in particular:
" 'The president is more determined than ever to stay the course,' the former defense official said. 'He doesn't feel any pain. Bush is a believer in the adage, "People may suffer and die, but the Church advances." ' He said that the president had become more detached, leaving more issues to Karl Rove and Vice President Cheney. 'They keep him in the gray world of religious idealism, where he wants to be anyway,' the former defense official said."
What possible reason could Hersh have to protect the identity of a former defense official--none is offered (as the NY Times and other papers at least attempt to do)? This is a rather brazen accusation to make for an unnamed source, and of course is completely irrefutable. This is mudslinging at its worst.
2. Such a placid reaction is not unusual in a leader. Take into consideration casualties: 3,000 dead/10,000 Allied servicemen wounded on the first day of the D-Day invasion. Tens of thousands killed and wounded in the Battle of the Bulge. The Civil War was even worse. Our casualties are dearly felt of course, but they don't even come close.
That said though, the commanders-in-chief certainly felt that they had a job to do and that the cost, though horrible, was worth it. Don't let hindsight save Roosevelt and Lincoln. Roosevelt, at best, was accused by his staff of diverting forces from the "necessary" war against Japan, and often was accused (even today) of instigating Pearl Harbor as a causus belli. Lincoln had to defend himself from the charge that the Civil War was killing thousands of whites only to free blacks, which of course finally he declared in 1863.
The point here is the difference between advisors and deciders. Especially during this war, we've seen nothing displayed if not the hurt egos of advisors who seem to believe the world would be saved if only their own advice were followed 100% (Richard Clarke, Colin Powell, et al). Such crybabies then run to the press, drop often anonymous quotes to the press about the inability of the leader to see the forest from the trees, and never consider that the Decider (the President) considers advice from dozens of sources and must make a decision based on incomplete information. These results the decider lives with, good or bad, all his life (and of course a success like D-Day comes with a huge price to consider).
3. As much as I often disagree with the conduct of the war, the job of the decider is to do the "necessary work" at least cost to himself. Many times I had to give orders that exposed my soldiers (and myself) to great harm. Those commanders who lost soldiers feel those losses on a name and face basis every day, but it wasn't and cannot be the primary fear or concern. George Bush, for reasons he has frequently articulated (however well, badly, or truthfully), believes the Iraq War just and necessary. He has announced these reasons in elections and been reelected, so there cannot be any surprise to the electorate. If that's the way he feels, then he should no more cringe at reading the casualty lists than Franklin Roosevelt or Abraham Lincoln did when their wars were less than popular. Its not that he doesnt care, its that he feels that larger historical gains can be realized. People who disagree should not vote for Republicans in the next election.
The American people have received the war they deserve, by waiting two years to debate this war. Even then, I think most (certainly among Congressmen) take issue with the relative success, and not the principle itself.
4. Lastly, though I fully understand your unease at Iraqi use of American air power, the restrictions are doctrinally not exact. If, for example, the Iraqi government could raid a house with Zarqawi in it--that by nature would be an "offensive operation". In this environment, there is no purely "defensive" since an operation to say, stop suicide car bombers in Ramade from blowing up explosives in Baghdad have at the same time an offensive and defensive nature. I really see no advantage to the insurgents in a mass-offensive operation. They'd be much better off continuing what they have been doing already.
On Monday Nov 28th, you wrote in part,
"And I guarantee you, George, that historians are going to be unkind to you. You went into a major war over a non-existent nuclear weapons program. Presidents' reputations don't survive things like that. Historians are creatures of documents and precision."
And just a few days later we have an example of history passing its judgment on US involvement in Indonesia's invasion and brutal 24-year occupation of East Timor in 1975.
Some quotes from Saturday's Sydney Morning Herald online:
"Released this week by the independent Washington-based National Security Archive (NSA), the documents showed US officials were aware of the invasion plans nearly a year in advance."
...
"The administration of President Gerald Ford knew that Indonesia had invaded East Timor using almost entirely US equipment, and that the use of that equipment for that purpose was illegal, the documents showed."
...
"In 1977, officials of the administration of Ford's successor, Jimmy Carter, blocked declassification of an explosive cable transcribing President Ford and Secretary of State Kissinger's meeting with Indonesian President Suharto. At the meeting in December 1975, they explicitly approved of the East Timor invasion, according to the documents."
...
The National Security Archive had provided more than 1000 formerly classified US documents to help an East Timorese commission of inquiry into human rights abuses that occurred between 1975 and 1999.
...
"Brad Simpson, Director of the National Security Archive's Indonesia and East Timor documentation project, said he expected the commission's final report to show that Indonesia's invasion of East Timor and resulting crimes there "occurred in an international context in which the support of powerful nations, especially the United States, was indispensable". "These documents also point to the need for genuine international accountability for East Timor's suffering," he said.
The official "secrets" of USA on Iraq 1990+ will make interesting reading in another 30 years. I hope I'm still around.
Post a Comment
<< Home