 |
September 06, 2006Deconstructing RummyRumsfeld writes letters to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi: I was concerned about comments attributed to you in the media about the remarks I recently made to the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Well, I didn't read the AP coverage of Donald Rumsfeld's speech, instead having read directly from the Pentagon transcript itself. But I'm not in the least bit surprised by Rumsfeld's typically disingenuous spin that somehow AP's version of the speech was some gross distortion of his remarks, while the original was all peachy clean and unimpeachably above board. After all, he's become accustomed to treating a supine media and public as idiots, and too often, he gets away with it. The usual routine, more often than not, is something akin to: Goodness gracious! (Followed perhaps by another folkism or two). Then, fake protest: why all the indignation, don't you know the perfidious MSM was at fault—or perhaps some other conveniently trumped up scapegoat? On top of all this, and sorry to say, this time Rumsfeld sounds like something of a spurned third grader too when he writes: "(t)hought and careful preparation went into what I said." So there! But really? Indeed, one might respond that, if “thought and careful preparation” really did go into this speech, he's rather less creative and thoughtful than one might hope a Secretary of Defense to be, given how mediocre the substantive points in his speech were (putting aside its offensive rhetorical overtones that I mentioned in passing earlier). But, without further ado, let's analyze the actual speech, by directly citing to the text of the original, so as to explain better (Note: Rumsfeld's speech in italics, my commentary interspersed in non-italicized font, with the entire speech excerpted, save introductory thank-you’s, unrelated fare about his time in the Boy Scouts, and other such boiler-plate): No one is more proud of these young people than their Commander-in-Chief, and I know that President Bush is looking forward to being with you later this week. It's a privilege to work with a president who is determined to protect our flag. We are fortunate to have a leader of strong resolve at a time of war. On September 14th, 2001, the day of Bush's famous 'bullhorn' visit to Ground Zero, the one Rumsfeld evokes above, I was alternately enraged, horrified, and bewildered by what had occurred several blocks south three days earlier. Downtown Manhattan felt like a bona fide war zone, reminding me of time I had spent in places like the former Yugoslavia in the mid-90s. This time, however, it was not Gorazde or Sarajevo or Vukovar but my own home, my own city, my own country. The New York City I so loved was in a state of deep and profound mourning. Missing posters were all over the streets. The smell of the 2,700 dead (though we didn't know the toll yet), mixed with the ash and debris of the destroyed buildings of WTC 1, 2 and 7, hung lugubriously over the streets of lower Manhattan. It is true, Bush's unscripted moments later that day, bullhorn in hand, actually bolstered my spirit. 'We're gonna make it," I thought, "we took a big hit but we are going to stand tall and get through this and get the people who did this." As it happens, I had written about the so called bullhorn moment, on a subsequent 9/11 anniversary, here. All this is to say, in response to Mr. Rumsfeld, I well appreciated the moment our President stood in the rubble of Ground Zero and rallied this nation from the catastrophe that befell it. But I don't believe in creating false myths or heroes or engaging in leader-worship. It might be true, as Rumsfeld says, that Bush "has worked every day to fulfill his vow to protect the American people", but if he is not learning, really learning, from his Administration's mistakes, what good is that? I am a pragmatist, and I will not put a President who relies too much on faith-based policy-making and has blundered like an amateur in Iraq, and who is innocent in the extreme to the damage his policies in the Middle East are doing to the U.S. national interest, I will not give him a pass based on cheap mythologizing by a proven incompetent like Mr. Rumsfeld, solely so the latter can tee off via such cheerleading the impending Congressionals. We simply cannot afford to let Rumsfeld get away with this kind of stuff anymore. Rumsfeld: That year --1919--turned out to be one of the pivotal junctures in modern history with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, the creation of the League of Nations, a treaty and an organization intended to make future wars unnecessary and obsolete. Indeed, 1919 was the beginning of a period where, over time, a very different set of views would come to dominate public discourse and thinking in the West. With this speech Rumsfeld has become something of our 1938ist-in-Chief (though POTUS appears to be giving him a good run for his money of late). A 1938ist is a journalist, or think-tanker, or blogger, or policy-maker (this last, the most dangerous variant, by far) who tiresomely wield cliched and hackneyed historical analogies about, mostly, Munich, Chamberlain, Hitler and Churchill, somewhat like dim primitives, so that all significant geopolitical challenges these United States are currently confronting are met with clarion calls that we sternly rebut any pussy-footed Chamberlainism, that we be sure to wield Churchill's steely will and adopt his grave mien, that we be careful not to futilely feed the uber-crocodile of Islamic fascism. It's something akin to a freshman 20th Century European history class, where the little nerdy guys who want to prove their manhood yelp on about the perils of appeasement, all the while barely understanding what we are at risk of appeasing even. I mean, we are led to believe that Sheikh Nasrallah, Ahmadi-Nejad, Khaled Mashal, Bashar Asad, Sunni insurgents in Anbar (whether criminals, neo-Baathists, local Sunni nationalists, or international jihadists), Shi'a militias (whether Mahdi or hard-line Badr, or Mahdi splinter groups), Hamas' leadership in Gaza and the West Bank--all are part of one big mega-pot--one where they can easily be labeled with the nonsensical moniker of Islamic Fascists. And us pussy-footers who dare question whether staying the course (sorry, 'adapting to win') via Rumsfeld's failed strategy in Iraq is the best policy, or refraining from direct high level diplomatic discussions with Syria or Iran (or indirect talks, via European and Arab proxies, with elements of Hamas' leadership), or keeping Guantanamo open, we are told we are rank appeasers. We are Chamberlains. We are defeatists. We are traitors. But this is madness. This is idiocy. This rote regurgitation of hyper-simplistic "analysis" is not worthy of the world's reigning superpower's foreign policy and policy-making elites. But, alas, we are not blessed with talented practitioners, but rather blundering “leaders” wedded to failed strategies who are not statesmanlike enough to look at the larger national interest dispassionately, so as to execute much needed course corrections. In short, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush have become stubborn discredited national security actors who, with Rove, are attempting to grasp on to continued Congressional support for the remainder of a lame-duck term, and they are trying to take us along for the ride, not least with liberal dispensations of fear-mongering rhetoric. The scary thing is, it could work. This is a country in the grips of a national mania, namely gross paranoia fused with governmental incompetence. We are petrified when we see an Arab language T-shirt on a plane, we dutifully ditch our bottled water and shampoo and stick deodorants before boarding a flight (without even the merest peep about whether there might not be a more intelligent way to ban prospectively dangerous liquids), we don't stop to wonder how by failing to provide for basic security in Iraq, or not pushing for a general peace settlement as 'honest broker' between the Arabs and Israelis, or not controlling the excesses of Israel's recent military action in Lebanon, or not stopping to ponder whether Iran today is really anywhere near as powerful an actor as Hitlerian Germany--whether such policies in the region might not be helping to radicalize new generations of jihadi recruits, not least as the 1938ist broad-brush approach looping all the above parties into some idiotically simplistic categorization of Islamic Fascists, or Islamo-Nazis, or so on, is contributing to a self-fulfilling prophecy whereby we are dutifully helping to effectuate Bin Laden’s bidding by stoking a bitter religious war. Rumsfeld goes on: We need to consider the following questions, I would submit: Who is counseling appeasement, Mr. Rumsfeld? Critics like me want to prevail in this war. To do so, we must either, as I've written here, bulk up by a magnitude of about another 40,000-70,000 troops, ditch you, continue to pursue a long term training and equipping of the Iraqi Army and Police (a five year effort, at minimum, yet, and I’m speaking of the Army, let alone the Police), while prosecuting a more classic counter-insurgency campaign (see the linked post for more). In the alternate, if our political leadership lack the vision and wherewithal to make such moves (our uniformed officers get it, but Rumsfeld manifestly doesn't) we need to look at helping midwife an Iraqi confederation, also as discussed in the linked piece. This last would be a terrible outcome, but it would be better than staying the course (read: unconvincingly 'adapting to win') in the face of a failed stategy, one where we are not even devoting enough resources to infrastructure repair (so critical in winning hearts and minds), among myriad other shortcomings that have us failing to snuff out the Sunni-led insurgency, or adequately containing the rising sectarian violence, or putting persuasive pressure on Mahdi militia and other radical Shi'a groups. Or perhaps Rumsfeld is cautioning us not to appease Iran, so that he's not even talking about Iraq, having effectively resigned it to the dust-bin. But, of course, the best way to contain a resurgent Iran, I'd proffer, is to see through a unitary Iraq, one where we can allow the breathing room, over many years yet, for the emergence of a moderate Arab Shi'a politics. In tandem with Iran's youthful demographic, and if we don't blunder into another war, one could just, per chance, see a wider de-radicalization taking root over many years in the region. But this most assuredly will not occur if we mount air strikes on Iran, not if we continue to fail to stabilize Iraq so the chaos there continues, not if we give carte blanche to the Israelis to devastate large portions of the infrastructure of an entire nation emerging from the Syrian yoke, not if we conflate the grievances and aspirations and politics of Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, Syria, Shi’a militias and Sunni extremists in Iraq under one single moniker of Islamic Fascism. This is far too simplistic, and brings to mind jihadi recruitment tactics that seek to grossly oversimplify the issues of Palestine and Chechnya and Iraq and Kashmir and Kosovo into one meta-narrative. We live in the post-modern era, one that Francois Lyotard has characterized as a time of incredulity to meta-narratives. Our policymakers, to the extent there are intelligent ones with any influence around, should keep this in mind. Rumsfeld: "Can folks really continue to think that free countries can negotiate a separate peace with terrorists? What "folks", Mr. Rumsfeld, are recommending "a separate peace" with al-Qaeda? Not even Nancy Pelosi is recommending such imbecilities. This is but yet another in a long line of cheap straw man arguments. Now, if he means that the "terrorists" are the Iranians, or the Syrians, Mr. Rumsfeld is going to have to summon up the intellectual courage to tell us that, rather than engage in evasive ambiguities, rank demagoguery, and other such dishonest tactics. After all, men at least as intelligent as Rumsfeld think we should be talking to the Iranians. There are legions of profound idiots in the blogosphere, most of who have never set foot in the Middle East and barely know the difference between Iran and Iraq, who are aghast at the prospect of us speaking to the "Mullahs". Are you a dhimmi? Do you seek servitude? Don't you know your cowardice risks us becoming Islamacized? And so on, the buffoonish prattling goes on and bloody on. But, among serious people who know more than just to peddle such sophomoric fears and moronic fare, and have actual familiarity with the region, people like Robert Gates, and Henry Kissinger and Chuck Hagel and Dennis Ross and Richard Lugar--well, they think we should be speaking with Iran, it turns out, and directly. What is Rumsfeld's view? He doesn't say. We are just warned that "free countries" shouldn’t be "negotiat(ing) a separate peace with the terrorists". But again, what separate peace is he talking of? Is it Iran he’s spouting on about? Is it Iraq? Is it perhaps Syria, a country even many Israelis wish we were speaking to? And if not, I again ask Mr. Rumsfeld, so spoiled by a dim media climate that doesn't call BS more sharply to the old dog’s cheap tricks and evasions, I ask him, what serious American politician, in either the Republican or Democratic parties, has counseled “appeasement" of al-Qaeda? Betcha he can't name one. Put up Mr. Rumsfeld, or admit you are a fibber and dissembler extraordinaire. Rumsfeld: Can we afford the luxury of pretending that the threats today are simply law enforcement problems, like robbing a bank or stealing a car, rather than threats of a fundamentally different nature requiring fundamentally different approaches? Talk about a cheap analogy, fit for the radio show interviews Rumsfeld does routinely with adulatory lap-dogs, but easily laughed out of more distinguished company. I agree that the war on terror is not just NYPD Blue fare, it's a war, and it involves marshalling the entire panoply of our nation's might, to include both hard and soft power, to include financial investigatory tools, Geneva-compliant interrogations of detainees, covert intelligence gathering, monitoring of conversations done in accord with Constitutional requirements, and yes, calibrated military action on occasion. But what is Don Rumsfeld's favored "fundamentally different approach"? Turning Nasrallah into something of a Nasser, the better to fire up Islamist sentiment in the Arab world? Is it to hand Somalia over to the Islamists? Is it to hand Anbar over to al-Qaeda in Iraq (Rumsfeld’s “just enough troops to lose” approach is risking just that outcome)? Is it to lose Baghdad? Is it to bungle an Iran containment strategy by uniting all Iranians against America after a misguided bombing campaign (doubtless a botched one, if Rumsfeld is at the helm)? Is it to midwife the rise to power of Moktada-al-Sadr's party in Iraq, or get involved in intrigues with used carpet salesmen like Chalabi? Is it to rely on piss-poor hyped intelligence from in-house Pentagon intel shops? In short, what fundamentally different approach is this failed figure speaking of? You bet we need a "fundamentally different approach." And you can further bet your bottom dollar it’s not the inept Rumsfeld one. Rumsfeld: And can we really afford to return to the destructive view that America, not the enemy, but America, is the source of the world's troubles? These are central questions of our time, and we must face them and face them honestly. But we aren’t but a Blame America First Caucus. This is again a straw man, mendaciously deployed to gain applause lines in front of friendly audiences. To stress, all this isn’t about chest-beating about America, and whether she is right or wrong. It’s about winning a conflict through the effective marshalling of our nation’s hard and soft power, with competence and intelligence and sobriety. Rumsfeld has shown none of these qualities. He must go! Rumsfeld: We hear every day of new plans, new efforts to murder Americans and other free people. Indeed, the plot that was discovered in London that would have killed hundreds -- possibly thousands -- of innocent men, women and children on aircraft flying from London to the United States should remind us that this enemy is serious, lethal, and relentless. Here we have more fear-mongering, married to a canard that some just don’t get it and are acting to weaken the country’s fiber like some fifth column or such. Most everyone is serious about the threat of terrorism, Mr. Rumsfeld, and that includes large swaths of the opposition party, as well as Republicans like myself who have absolutely no confidence in you (despite the Decider’s immensely poor decision to keep you in office). We well realize that there are thousands of international terrorists out there keen on slaughtering as many Americans as they can their hands on, here or abroad. But it doesn’t follow, unless we wish to hand over a victory to these terrorists of our own volition (by shredding our freedoms in favor of a Hinderakerian Big Brother approach to government), that we should not feel more than comfortable in airing our differences in opinion as to how this war is best conducted, rather than run around goose-stepping in kowtowing accord to the grotesque incompetence you have displayed prosecuting this war. Rumsfeld: It's a strange time: When a database search of America's leading newspapers turns up literally 10 times as many mentions of one of the soldiers who has been punished for misconduct -- 10 times more -- than the mentions of Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith, the first recipient of the Medal of Honor in the Global War on Terror... (a)nd it's a time when Amnesty International refers to the military facility at Guantanamo Bay -- which holds terrorists who have vowed to kill Americans and which is arguably the best run and most scrutinized detention facility in the history of warfare -- "the gulag of our times." It’s inexcusable. Those who know the truth need to speak out against these kinds of myths and distortions that are being told about our troops and about our country. America is not what's wrong with the world. The struggle we are in -- the consequences are too severe -- the struggle too important to have the luxury of returning to that old mentality of “Blame America First”…. Your watchdog role is particularly important today in a war that is to a great extent fought in the media on a global stage, a role to not allow the distortions and myths be repeated without challenge so that at the least the second or third draft of history will be more accurate than the first quick allegations we see You know from experience personally that in every war there have been mistakes, setbacks, and casualties. War is, as Clemenceau said, “a series of catastrophes that result in victory. And in every army, there are occasional bad actors, the ones who dominate the headlines today, who don't live up to the standards of the oath and of our country. But you also know that they are a very, very small percentage of the literally hundreds of thousands of honorable men and women in all theaters in this struggle who are serving our country with humanity, with decency, with professionalism, and with courage in the face of continuous provocation. The shamelessness of the above passage is just breathtaking. In addition, in a LA Times op-ed that appeared shortly after the American Legion speech, Rumsfeld recites the dirty spin that, basically, the detainees at Guantanamo are getting meals that cost more than those of their American counterparts relying on MRE’s, and that they are all running around reading Harry Potter (I kid you not). But it’s not the conditions, since improved given international scrutiny (including groups like Amnesty International, of course), that raises the ire of critics. It’s that the basic writ of habeas corpus has been shunted aside, it’s that interrogation tactics that Rumsfeld authorized at Guantanamo, some of which arguably ‘worked’ under controlled circumstances, far removed from a war zone, and with adequate guard to detainee ratios, spun totally out of control when they ‘migrated’ to places like Abu Ghraib, located in a war zone, with woefully untrained troops guarding far too many detainees. Even the Pentagon approved Schlesinger Report acknowledges that Guantanamo was a contributing factor re: what occurred at Abu Ghraib, and deep down most thinking people well realize Rumsfeld should have been relieved of his duties in disgrace when this scandal broke. Why? Because, put simply, the fish rots from the head, in the main, as it did with the prison scandals. But it’s one thing to not resign (I speak here not of likely ritualistic exercises, soi disant geniune, where Rumsfeld reportedly offered up his resignation to the President a couple times, but the real thing, where you walk in announcing your are going, no matter what) quite another to continue to raise the issue unapologetically, and disgracefully avoid any accountability by blaming a few bad apples. So you can be assured Mr. Rumsfeld, those of us who “know the truth”, as you put it, will do out utmost to “speak out.” Just not the way you would have it, I’m afraid. As for quoting Clemenceau about cascading catastrophes, we all know what Rumsfeld had predicted back in the day, and it was much closer to Ken Adleman’s “cakewalk”, of course, than anything akin to a “series of catastrophes”. Rumsfeld: And that is important in any long struggle or long war, where any kind of moral or intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong, can weaken the ability of free societies to persevere. Our enemies know this well. They frequently invoke the names of Beirut or Somalia -- places they see as examples of American retreat and American weakness. And as we've seen -- even this month -- in Lebanon, they design attacks and manipulate the media to try to demoralize public opinion. They doctor photographs of casualties. They use civilians as human shields. And then they try to provoke an outcry when civilians are killed in their midst, which of course was their intent. Ah, a good ‘fauxtography’ angle in the speech too boot, doubtless cheering on the brutish blogospheric hordes on towards going forward glorious ‘catches’. But tell me, Mr. Rumsfeld, what attacks were “designed” to “demoralize public opinion” in Lebanon? Was Qana “designed” by Hezbollah? Yes, yes, I know, the Roger Simons of the world are taken by a green-helmeted bestubbled A-rab running around with dust-caked babies being paraded in front of the cameras. Courageous chaps like Mark Steyn, among other notables, smell a rat. So, of course, the fact that dozens of innocents were killed doesn’t matter a whit, right? This was all designed by the Hez-bullies, so as to kill their kin to help the cause. Ah, and a photograph of a casualty or two was doctored. Michelle Malkin espied La Pieta amidst the rubble of South Beirut, and somewhere billowing smoke was photo-shopped up to look smokier. This is what our Defense Secretary is up in arms about, in a campaign that led to the death of over a hundred Israelis, about a 1,000 Lebanese, set back the Cedar Revolution, had hundreds of thousands of Israelis hunkering amidst air raid sirens, and over 1 million Lebanese internally displaced, and returning to homes often littered by cluster munitions? This is the pitiable crap that occupies our Secretary of Defense’s time, a photo-shop or two, as if we don’t employ psy-ops and propaganda tactics when we wage war too? C’mon! As for “human shields”, I defy Rumsfeld to provide us a concrete example of where Hezbollah specifically employed civilian Lebanese as such, rather than this simply being about asymmetrical guerrilla tactics that require hiding and basing near and even among civilians, often supportive ones, I hasten to add, despite the fairy tale land POTUS occupies. Rumsfeld: The good news is that most Americans, though understandably influenced by what they see and read, have good inner gyroscopes. They have good center of gravity. So, I'm confident that over time they will evaluate and reflect on what is happening in this struggle and come to wise conclusions about it. I do think Americans, on the whole, have “good inner gyroscopes”. Which is why the Democrats will carry the midterms (at least the House), I hope and believe, so that the American public will have rejected this cheap demagoguery and signaled deep frustration with the failed policies of the past. Rumsfeld: Iraq, a country that was brutalized by a cruel and dangerous dictatorship, is now traveling the slow, difficult, bumpy, uncertain path to a secure new future under a representative government that will be at peace with its neighbors, rather than a threat to their own people, to their neighbors, or to the world. As the nature of the threat and the conflict in Iraq has changed over these past several years, so have the tactics and the deployments. But while military tactics have changed and adapted to the realities on the ground -- as they must -- the strategy has not changed, which is to empower the Iraqi people to be able to defend, and govern, and rebuild their own country. All of this is far from assured, of course, not least because of Rumsfeld’s serial bungling. If Turkey feels compelled to intervene in Kurdistan, if Iraq devolves into civil war and the Iranians enter more directly, if the Saudis feels compelled to become involved in some fashion, believe me, it is far from clear that Iraq “will be at peace with its neighbors”. Rumsfeld: The extremists themselves call Iraq the “epicenter” in the War on Terror. And our troops know how important their mission is. A soldier who recently volunteered for a second tour in Iraq captured the feeling of many of his peers. In an e-mail to some friends, he wrote the following, and I quote: Mr. Rumsfeld, it is you who is tired, bereft of new ideas, and recycling old lines, cheap canards, and using divisive rhetoric with your back against the wall. It is you who lack will, not us. It is you who must step down, without further delay, to allow fresh thinking to take hold with regard to the struggle that is indeed the “epicenter” of US efforts in the Middle East today, Iraq, where you failed war strategy has cost us a massive loss of prestige on the world stage, has costs us thousands and thousands of lives lost, and where we risk dismal failure. It is you who have tarnished your distinguished career, all of which came before now but a footnote, as history will remember you now as but a hubris-ridden incompetent who dangerously had us skirting failure in Afghanistan, and perhaps even presiding over an outright strategic loss in Iraq. If will is eroding, it is because of a lack of confidence in our leaders, a loss of confidence that ultimately, I suspect, is mostly based on a legitimate fear that our leaders do not possess the very will they accuse their opponents of lacking, at least if their dearth of ingenuity, intelligence, and honesty is any indication.
Comments
Excellent, and well worth the wait. Posted by: Quiddity at September 6, 2006 03:35 AM | Permalink to this comment
Mr. Djerejian, Allow me to compliment you on this latest in a long line of superb, thorough, factually based posts on the issue. In response to your post of 31 August, you received numerous replies. This one, in particular, struck me: "The point here isn't that Rumsfeld is some Hitler redux, of course. But Rumsfeld's rhetorical tactics of late, it should be noted, are not infrequently rather similar to the Fuhrer's, and this bears noting, I'd think." You've promised further analysis, but "color me deeply unconvinced any 'honest analysis' will be forthcoming." It is my sincere hope that JM Hanes, after sharply calling into question your integrity, will respond with an apology and then with as much agreement - or disagreement - as the writer deems appropriate. Far, far too often these days, we refuse to conduct honest debate and discussion with those who offer different positions. Even worse, we resort to name-calling and false accusations in the meager attempt to further our own efforts. Your knowledge of the issues addressed - or not addressed - by Mr. Rumsfeld and the depth and scope of your position is quite clearly evidenced by not merely this post, but by the standards you employ in this website. As an American interested first in policy and then in politics, I find your site to be the Internet at its finest, most valuable, and beneficiary to all readers and users. I sincerely hope that any and all who respond to - and/or disagree with - your latest post will display the same levels of integrity, passion, and respect for everyone. Thank you. Posted by: Mark Raven at September 6, 2006 05:09 AM | Permalink to this comment
Greg, I think you are too optimistic in your assesment that the Dem's will at least carry the house based on dissatisfaction with the current administration's policies. Democrats, God love'em, are my party. I hope they do will. But our leaders are political dupes. Posted by: Teaser at September 6, 2006 05:33 AM | Permalink to this comment
Thank you. Well said and on the mark. If only such thoughts could make a difference. Posted by: mt at September 6, 2006 06:18 AM | Permalink to this comment
"All this is to say, in response to Mr. Rumsfeld, I well appreciated the moment our President stood in the rubble of Ground Zero and rallied this nation from the catastrophe that befell it. " Uh-oh. I think "rallied the nation" comes awfully close to something that Hitler once said. You should be careful. Haha. Seriously though, the latest rant is as hysterical and deranged as the rest of stuff written here. The levels of unseriousness, for someone who clearly views war as a videogame or academic exercise, is stunning. And the sensitivity to any criticism over the beloved MSM from the "brutish blogospheric hordes" is bizarre, to say the least. Posted by: andrew at September 6, 2006 07:57 AM | Permalink to this comment
Mark: I couldn't have put it better myself. In particular its also nice to see all the straw men that the Neo-con Cheerleading corps like to throw up, pulled apart and exposed for the cheap mendacious excuses that they are. Its time for some serious answers, as the WoT is now a debacle and I think the Western World is now at far great risk as a result of the failure to substantively address the issues at play. Until the Israel-Palestine conflict is resolved, Iraq is resolved, and fairly, then we will never split moderate Islam from the extremists, that is the critical first step in dealing with the threat in my view. Andrew: If you find this piece a "hysterical and deranged" then perhaps you should go and read other blogs more suited to your taste. You've added nothing to the debate here... Posted by: Aran Brown at September 6, 2006 10:42 AM | Permalink to this comment
By all means, Andrew, tell us what's "unserious" about Djerejian's view of military strategy, and why he views it as more of a "videogame" than the 101st Fighting Keyboarders clearly do. (It is, lest we forget, Djerejian who has insisted that we put lots MORE troops into Iraq than Rumsfeld is willing to allow.) Also, give us your own recommendations for how to avoid (in Eugene Robinson's recent words) "creating two new jihadists for each one we kill". Certainly neither the Bush Administration nor the Olmert Administration is managing that right now. Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at September 6, 2006 02:36 PM | Permalink to this comment
Wow! Let me add my kudos for a wonderfully well-crafted post (and add to Aran's advice to Andrew: if THIS example of Greg's prose is what you call "hysterical and deranged" - this blog ain't for you!). But in all of it, there is one point which I thing Greg D. has missed: and it is, imho, the vital crux of the entire debate over the direction of US policy: He writes: To stress, all this isn’t about chest-beating about America, and whether she is right or wrong. It’s about winning a conflict through the effective marshalling of our nation’s hard and soft power, with competence and intelligence and sobriety. Sadly, even though I agree wholeheartedly with this statement, the Bush Adminstration and its political allies have spent the last five years crafting their basic message as just exactly this: that their "War on Terror" (or whatever acronym or buzzphrase is current this week) IS a stark and fundamental issue of America "right" or "wrong". The Administration has, rather skillfully, combined the national sense of victimization over 9/11 with the traditional "wartime" appeals to patriotism - and set the terms of any debate over "war" issues in a black-and-white, Us-vs-Them, Right-vs-Wrong frame; and they will continue to do so right up until Jan, 21, 2009. The Nation-at-War theme has become far too much a core component of the Bush Adminstration's claim on the support of the voting public, and they have way too much invested in the image to ever be able to back off of it, or (even IF they were minded to) significantly change their policies. And nations at war tend to have their political dialog cast very much in terms of "right" and "wrong" - if only because it can prove such a useful weapon against criticism. Like it or not, the simplest message sells best: and, however otherwise incompetent they may be, the Bush gang have got the "message" part of their Administration down pat.
Oh, and if we need any more factual rebuttals to Mr. Rumsfeld's assertions such as: Rumsfeld: "Can folks really continue to think that free countries can negotiate a separate peace with terrorists?
A good thing they're our "allies"! Posted by: Jay C at September 6, 2006 02:58 PM | Permalink to this comment
Greg,
Greg Djerejian once more shows us what blogging is capable of producing as a medium. This is stylistically and substantively a masterpiece. Very well done. Posted by: Diogenes at September 6, 2006 05:16 PM | Permalink to this comment
I used to be a fan of this blog - but now the rhetorical flourishes and prolix syntax make your writing insufferable to read. I may very well agree with you, but your arguments are so shielded by snotty, pseudo-prep school ornamentation that I don't have the patience to find out. One thing for Rumsfeld - he is clear. I may not always agree with him, but at least I can understand him. Posted by: lae12345 at September 6, 2006 06:09 PM | Permalink to this comment
In that case, Lae, you might be advised to stick to Dr. Seuss. Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at September 6, 2006 06:26 PM | Permalink to this comment
I avoid any political speech, littered with BS as it always is, so thanks for deconstructing the Sec Def's most recent one. As I suspected, it's the all-powerful media that's to blame for everything. The media that is so powerful it can't get anybody to pay attention to it unless something happens in, on or around an airplane or a white female disappears/is murdered. The same hateful media that repeated without question or analysis everything Bushco had to say about Iraq and terrorism when it really mattered, before we went in, rather than 4 years later. Guess it's all in the timing. Posted by: LL at September 6, 2006 07:57 PM | Permalink to this comment
Yes - please stick to Dr Seuss mr lae As Bruce Moonbat has stated - this is no place for you Now if you have any fawning praise to heap upon Greg - this is what the comments section is for - Such as "Mr. Djerejian, Allow me to compliment you on this latest in a long line of superb, thorough, factually based posts on the issue." excuse me while I find a vomit bag
I like this blog a lot, and (notwithstanding a few dissenting comments above) I especially like the seriousness of Mr. Djerejian's remarks. My only issue, however, is with the continuing criticism of Rumsfeld, which I think only serves to take the focus off the main problem -- President Bush himself. Acting like Rumsfeld is the problem is similar to the neo-cons' continuing criticism of the State Department as somehow treasonous or, at the least, ineffective. Isn't Bush in charge of the Executive Branch? Doesn't this suggest that his subordinates are acting with his blessing, and doesn't it render him ultimately accountable (even though I agree that it's unlikely that he's really making any substantive decisions). Posted by: Former Republican at September 6, 2006 09:11 PM | Permalink to this comment
Pogue, lae was unhappy because he couldn't understand what Greg was saying. Are you asking Greg to dumb down his posts for the comprehension-impaired? Apart from pulling for the "differently abled" and complaining about compliments, do you have any substantive criticisms? Posted by: Jon Marcus at September 6, 2006 09:17 PM | Permalink to this comment
Greg, It has been a long time since I have commented here, but you once said I was someone whose opinion mattered to you, and you know yours always has been important to me. I am glad you are allowing comments again, I hope it works out. I see Pogue hangs out here now, that should be entertaining. I do admit to having to boil this post down a bit, and as always you and I are pretty much on the same page as far as the importance of making a real effort to make Iraq work. I am not sure I am as pessimistic as you are yet, but our prescription is the same, so, who am I to quibble. I do have one issue, and that is with your problem with the Islamo-fascist label. While all labels and all analogies are abused, and I am fully in agreement that to use that term to boil all the various actors into an undifferentiated mass is wrong, is that what all who use the term, or even Rumsfeld, are doing? Is it possible that the well earned criticism Rumsfeld merits has you reading his and others remarks in the harshest light possible? I ask that question only because I myself am wrestling with these same issues and had adopted the term (or a formulation of it) long ago. I certainly advise only applying it to those it fits, and even within those groups one has to acknowledge that there are differences, but hasn't that always been true of fascism? Certainly Japan, Italy and Spain were all quite different and they were all startlingly different than the Nazi's. Yet I rarely hear people castigated for speeches which lumped them all together then or now. As for 1938, those who liken todays negotiators with Neville Chamberlain are in my mind wrong, but it is not any more off base than some of your off the cuff insults. I don't really have a problem with either, but it makes sense to me to pay attention to the substance of your argument than its breezy moments. I am busy discussing the Neville Chamberlain analogy at my blog, but rather than shrink from the analogy I suggest it be embraced as a learning tool about decision making in rather murky waters. Chamberlain was wrong in the end, and that the threat may not be as serious as Nazi Germany doesn't make it invalid to consider those mistakes in this instance as well. Yet, maybe there are different lessons we might draw, though they are not comforting to any of us about the reasons for the men of those times to make the decisions they did. It wasn't a simple time filled with moral clarity as it is often portrayed. That affects the debate in many unfortunate ways. Some resist any lessons about appeasement because they do not see the obvious and grotesque threat that was Hitler. Well, at the time most didn't either, and for understandable reasons. If that obvious of a threat has to be seen, well we are doomed to repeat those mistakes. Others wish to make the lesson something so simple as Chamberlain was wrong and we should have crushed them all early, without realizing the same truth mentioned above applies to them as well, because prospectively rather than retrospectively Chamberlain and the other powers did not know what lay ahead. It did not have to work out the way it did. I think we can learn from the time and all take something valuable. Shutting the time down for serious discussion is a mistake. I don't know why I stopped commenting Greg, but I think I will start again. Posted by: Lance at September 6, 2006 10:29 PM | Permalink to this comment
Jon, lae didn't say he couldn't understand what Gregory had to tell us, he said he didn't think understanding it was worth the trouble of picking through the tangled bombast. For those of you with a keen grasp of this latest piece, maybe you can point me to where Gregory finally explains what he was going on about in the "unity" post. I had been hoping that when he elaborated on his earlier remarks, he would actually identify the "rhetorical tactic" used by Rumsfeld, which Gregory identifies so strongly with Hitler's 1933 Proclamation to the Nation--presumably Hitler's speech is one of the better examples of its use. Posted by: clazy at September 6, 2006 10:37 PM | Permalink to this comment
"To stress, all this isn’t about chest-beating about America, and whether she is right or wrong. It’s about winning a conflict through the effective marshalling of our nation’s hard and soft power, with competence and intelligence and sobriety. " This is accurate to a point - and its not just America's duty to do this but all of the West. However as I posted previously there is still a fundamental refusal to address the substantive issues that have driven this conflict in the first place. Firstly, until Israel withdraws back to the International Boundaries that define that nation when created in 1948 then the Israel Palestine two state solution can never be reached. How can the Palestinian people have a state when it’s occupied?? This is simply critical and the only real nation than can exert enough pressure on Israel to force a withdrawal from Occupied Territory is the US. This will go a very long way to re-establishing the legitimacy lost in the bungled Lebanon invasion and serve to drive a wedge between moderate Islam and the extremists. Hezbollah and Hamas will lose a lot of their Raison d'etre and I personally believe that the key to overcoming Islamic extremism is to drive that wedge between the extremists and moderate Islam. Secondly, Iraq needs to be resolved, and I agree with Greg that the answer in the short term is more troops - and more international engagement to get troops from other nations involved. Eating some humble pie might be the only way to achieve this, but if an extra 100,000 troops were put into the theatre, that will go a long way to curbing the current sectarian violence and if the international community supports it, it will also send a message to Iran, who are currently exploiting the rift between the west, and between the West and other power brokers such as Russia and China. If you look at what the moderate voices of Islam are saying, they are saying that although they condemn the extremists, they are also effectively pointing out that the West is reaping the rewards of its own hypocrisy. In particular they point to facts such as the hypocrisy of criticising Lebanon and Hezbollah for ignoring a UN resolution to disarm, Israel is ignoring tens of UN resolutions demanding it withdraws from occupied territory and ceases to allow illegal settlements to continue. Until this is put right moderate Islam will never be willing to divorce itself from the extremists, and without that this conflict will never be satisfactorily resolved. Again I will point out Sun Tzu's assertion - know your enemy. Until the issues are addressed then the extremists will continue to pull support from segments of the Islamic world. Once the moderates see resolution to these issues I think we'd see a shift away from the extremists - making it much more difficult for them to gain resources, support and shelter from more mainstream Islam, and thereby making it easier to combat the menace. Until the issues are resolved moderate Islam will throw its hands in the air and decry terrorism, but will not act against it. I'll also point out - this is not about appeasement. There is nothing appeasing about Israel withdrawing from occupied territory. There is nothing appeasing about wanting to separate Islamic extremists from the shelter of mainstream Islam so that can be effectively dealt with (by force). It’s about what strategies will actually lead to success. The strategies of the current administration in the US have only achieved: Division between western nations, and between potential allies such as Russia and China Driving Islam further towards the extremists. Failure to achieve the necessary 2 state solution for Israel and Palestine that is critical to resolving tension in the Middle East. Allowed Iran to feel enough of a sense of invulnerability that it is now a significant threat to security in the region. Reduced our civil liberties - the very foundation of what makes our society preferable to Islamic Theocracy. I can't think of any real positive that this administration has achieved in the WoT apart from removing Saddam and the Taleban - but at what cost??
Rumsfeld repeats the same foolish lies, because they are simple, and they appeal to racial and national pride, and hatred of outsiders and brown people. It is not Rumseld's fault, nor the fault of Rove or Bush, or Bush speechwriters or policywriters, that appealing to pride and the hatred of brown people is a successful strategy. It is simply a facet of human nature -- not a particularly appealing, one, but one nonetheless. Using this pride and hatred of brown people is a powerful too to achieve and build power. This is true both in dictatorships and in democracies -- we occasionally forget that Hitler's crew used this technique lawfully in a democracy, to gain and consolidate power, to browbeat, frighten, and eventually terrorize media and dissenters, and to convince people that they must support the Glorious Decider at all costs, or else risk helping the terrorists. This strategy was successful for Hitler's crew, and is successful for Rove's crew, because it appeals to the wounded pride of the human species, which is especially powerful when a people are economically decaying, such as Germany between the wars, or the US now. It is cheap and easy to blame Rove and Bush and Rumself for taking this slimy Goebbel's route to power. But, that is far too easy. There are always slimy, self-aggrandizing and sleazy bullies such as they, who would like to increase their power and wealth. If the nation depends on there not being such type of politicians, the nation is too weak to survive. The nation must be built on a system robust enough to resist such sleazy and evil-doers. If the nation is not resisting these crooks, we should look at the nation itself. The crooks will not go away. Even if we take away this batch of crooks -- try them for treason and war crimes, and hang them even, as they probably deserve -- that is only treating a symptom. The real problem is that the nation is vulnerable to whatever batch of crooks and thieves come along next. The fact that we are not even trying to address the systemic issue is a very disappointing and depressing fact. Why have we all sold our birthrights for the cheap thrills of torturing a brown person, or watching some brown people be bombed on TV? For this we are willing to let our democracy be sold abroad, and our banking system be enslaved to east Asian markets and communist shareholders?
> Again I will point out Sun Tzu's assertion - know your enemy. I'd like to point out one note. The current administration seems to cleave strongly to a policy rather unlike ones suggested by Sun Tzu. That is, the current administration seems to strongly advocate the strategy of uniting all enemies against it at once. (It need hardly be said that this seems a particularly unwise strategy even for a strong and growing imperial state, and the US is far from such.) Posted by: Harold Robbins at September 6, 2006 11:51 PM | Permalink to this comment
Can we afford the luxury of pretending that the threats today are simply law enforcement problems, like robbing a bank or stealing a car "Simply" is a dishonest boo-word in this context. Rephrase as Can we afford the luxury of pretending that the threats today are essentially law enforcement problems, like robbing a bank or stealing a car and the answer is yes. Because they are. Posted by: William at September 7, 2006 12:59 AM | Permalink to this comment
pogue and everyone else, With all due respect, I may agree with Mr. Djerejian on this issue, but I do not side with him on everything. Instead, as I emphasized at the start of these comments, disagreement and debate should be encouraged, not surprised. "Far, far too often these days, we refuse to conduct honest debate and discussion with those who offer different positions. Even worse, we resort to name-calling and false accusations in the meager attempt to further our own efforts." Disagree. Please! Offer a dissenting opinion. Provide a counter-argument. Do so with merit. Do not resort to character assassination, name-calling, and diatribes. I respectfully submit - and feel free to question my position(s) - that so many of us are too intelligent to resort to such antics. Just present your ideas with respect for people who have points of view different from your own. I happen to enjoy William F. Buckley and, yes, Molly Ivins. Not exactly political pals. They don't live in the same part of the nation. Their backgrounds are quite different, financially and otherwise. I do not always agree with either Mr. Buckley or Ms. Ivins. Most important, both Mr. Buckley and Ms. Ivins offer positions, thoughts, and ideas that often interest me. I am quite sure that you and I can offer numerous times when either or both of these people failed to, well, write like a mature, responsible, compassionate, intelligent adult. I simply appreciate good writing, a well-reasoned position, wit, and humor. Mr. Buckley and Ms. Ivins, more often than not, write in such a manner. Lastly, and I open this to everyone, why do we need to attack our political or policy opponents? Sure, many have done it, but does that somehow make it the correct thing to do? As a boy, I, like most of my friends, often wanted to tempt fate and test the bounds of safety by jumping out of trees or over fences. Call it life in rural America. In the city, I'm sure, boys crossed against the lights and fooled around on fire escapes. When I saw a friend next door doing some crazy thing and wanted to go outside and do the same, my mother always had the same pat answer, one that I think everyone interested in the "political-attack-mob" form of (absent) debate ought to consider now: "If your friend next door jumped off the roof of his house," she would say, "would you automatically jump off the roof of ours? Because I'm not picking up whatever's left if you do." Thanks for your time. And, again, feel free to disagree. Just do so with class, mutual respect, and good humor. Fair enough? Posted by: Mark Raven at September 7, 2006 03:29 AM | Permalink to this comment
"Andrew: If you find this piece a "hysterical and deranged" then perhaps you should go and read other blogs more suited to your taste. You've added nothing to the debate here..." If you find another blog with lamer Hitler comparisons, a greater frequency of childish name calling, and a greater amount of rapid fire strawmen than this one by all means point it out. And yes I have nothing to add to the debate because there is no debate here.
Clazy, Djerejian's argument was "tangled" because he had to dissect an incredibly large amount of long, tangled, and dishonest bombast by Rumsfeld. I will agree, though, that Rummy's pleas for "unity" are reminiscent less of Hitler than of the Wizard of Oz in his final "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" phase -- that is, he's insisting that everyone who objects to this administration's muddleheaded strategy at all somehow objects to the very idea of fighting the terrorists, and praying that somebody out there somewhere will fall for his cretinous argument besides those people who have always had their lips firmly glued to the Administration's rump. In this connection, note also today's Bush's similar attempt to declare that everyone who opposes his new attempt to legalize both wholesale official torture for ANY POW and his already-existing kangaroo-court military-tribunal setup ( http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/09/heres-administrations-cruel-treatment.html ) really opposes trying Khalid Shaikh Mohammed for mass murder AT All. Sure enough, Bush's remaining fanatical supporters are publicly and ecstatically praising him for his "cleverness" in trying to make the public think that the second requires the first: http://chipmathis.blogspot.com/2006/09/why-i-think-george-bush-spilled-beans.html http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWFkOTAwMzdlOTkwMzAzZjg1MWY0ZWU4ZmI4MGVmMzk= http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015207.php http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/009650.php http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=36348 The real question at this point, it seems, is whether McCain, John Warner and Lindsay Graham will go along: Meanwhile, Marty Lederman also quotes a most interesting piece of testimony this morning: "The thrust of the President's speech is that such techniques -- let's call them 'torture light,' since the President is so insistent that we never 'torture' -- are absolutely necessary to preventing terrorist attacks. Apparently the Pentagon hasn't gotten the memo. At a briefing this morning, Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence John Kimmons forcefully argued that: " 'I am absolutely convinced [that] no good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the last five years, hard years, tell us that. . . . Moreover, any piece of intelligence which is obtained under duress, through the use of abusive techniques, would be of questionable credibility, and additionally it would do more harm than good when it inevitably became known that abusive practices were used. And we can't afford to go there. " 'Some of our most significant successes on the battlefield have been -- in fact, I would say all of them, almost categorically all of them, have accrued from expert interrogators using mixtures of authorized humane interrogation practices in clever ways, that you would hope Americans would use them, to push the envelope within the bookends of legal, moral and ethical, now as further refined by this field manual. " 'We don't need abusive practices in there. Nothing good will come from them.' " Note particularly Kimmons' statement that "it would do more harm than good when it inevitably became known that abusive practices were used." Yes indeed -- particularly in this type of conflict. If torture is used at all, it must be used only in rare and absolutely extreme emergencies -- and any decision to use it must be made by more than a single man (including the single twerp who sits in the Oval Office or the single twerp currently running the Pentagon).
In that case, why not at least Deeply Upset all of us by expressing your views, Andrew? As for pointing out "another blog with a greater amount of childish name calling": how many millions of them do you want me to list? Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at September 7, 2006 05:35 AM | Permalink to this comment
So if you've got nothing to add to the debate Andrew then why bother to post? If you've not got anything constructive to say or a view point supported by some evidence why post? Of do you belong to the category of people who have nothing better to do than to troll?? I like debate and I'm all for disagreement, but mindless "you're wrong... I'm right" type posts of the sort made by people like yourself and others I can't be bothered naming, are a waste of my time and those of others who read the blog here. My time is precious to me as I'm sure it is to others and I prefer to engage in intelligent debate - where I enjoy learning things from others with different viewpoints, otherwise why bother?? Hence my earlier point. If you've nothing to add then why not go somewhere else where you can sling mud all you want an everyone else enjoys it. Generally most people that come here seem to want intelligent debate... I for one would like to see it kept that way... its a pity more people don't have the ability to self censor. Maybe thats a reflection on our ever decreasing attention spans... Enough said I think... Posted by: Aran Brown at September 7, 2006 06:51 AM | Permalink to this comment
"So if you've got nothing to add to the debate Andrew then why bother to post?" I underestimated how far things had fallen here. There was a time when there was a certain level of intelligence debate here but that has been replaced by a fever swamp circle jerk. And it's getting uglier over time. Any doubts about that have been completely removed now. "I like debate and I'm all for disagreement, but mindless "you're wrong... I'm right" type posts of the sort made by people like yourself and others I can't be bothered naming, are a waste of my time and those of others who read the blog here." Mindless "you're wrong...I'm right"? You're accusing me of doing that? Coming from someone who takes that incoherent rant above seriously? Posted by: andrew at September 7, 2006 07:29 AM | Permalink to this comment
Andrew, Please present your coherent positions in support of the actions of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Employ all the depth, detail, and time necessary to offer your salient points and well-evolved arguments to advocate the activities and ideas of Mr. Rumsfeld. Thank you. Posted by: Mark Raven at September 7, 2006 02:26 PM | Permalink to this comment
For all the invocations of "Churchill" people forget or are ignorant of the fact that when Winston was the architect of the failed enterprise that was Gallipoli he had the decency to leave his postion!!
Andrew - I sympathise with you and agree completely with your summation of this sad little community - a "fever swamp circle jerk" indeed For all the desire for substantitive debate expressed - the reality is that this site has become BlameBush.com - but without the hysterical parody that makes that worth visiting
For what - noone is going to be convinced of anything - the BDS here is past terminal anyway - and frankly this issue is so hardened that it is far past debate Either you take a view of the GWOT that is broad - or you yearn for the "peace" of the Clinton years All of this ankle biting about Rumsfeld - really tedious The wits here ( lowercase intentional ) like Bruce Moonbat - repeat their favorite zingers constantly ie: 101st fighting keyboardists - ha ha ha - why do leftist fucktards think they can chickenhawk others when the actual military hates the leftist fucktards much more than the average conservative - got an answer for that? It really is just a circle jerk here - everyone falling over each other with criticism of Rumsfeld and Bush and whoever at the moment is available to attack
Its so obvious that the venom at the Sec Def is so irrational that to even pretend that some alternate plan would have made you moonbats happy is absurd Posted by: Pogue Mahone at September 7, 2006 06:35 PM | Permalink to this comment
Thats funny ...I dont feel like a moonbat!?!? Posted by: centrist at September 8, 2006 04:29 PM | Permalink to this comment
Ask for substantive debate and get "leftist fucktards." Now *that's* witty. (Lower case intentional there too.) pogue, if it'd be too painful to sully this page with your thoughts, maybe you could just give us a link to the page where your true brilliance shines forth in defense of Mr. Rumsfeld? Posted by: Jon Marcus at September 8, 2006 08:24 PM | Permalink to this comment
And the defence of Greg is that he called for "more troops" - which means nothing really because, and lets all be honest here, if they sent 538,000 instead of 138,000 - Greg would be calling for that incompetent Rumsfelds head for sending too many troops and so becoming an overbearing presence and occupying force I'm sure that all it would take to delight Greg would be some strategy that worked. If Rummy made some other mistake that was obviously failing, of course he'd get a lot of criticism for that too. Whyever would he not? All we're asking for is victory. Rummy said it was going to be easy. There were estimates that we could withdraw all but 50,000 troops real quick. But each estimate that things are about to get better has failed. Just a few months ago they were saying things were getting so much better we'd be able to draw down troops before the elections. And just since then things got so much worse they couldn't do it -- even for the US elections, after they'd announced it. The US strategy in iraq isn't working. We don't want the opposite mistake. We just want to win.
Haha. Always good to see the airchair generals promoting their foolproof plans. The thing I hate about Democrats nowadays is that they think because I disagree with them, I'm a weak-minded idiot. Or that Bush & co. are cowing me into agreement with their fear-mongering. My perception, from reading sites such as this one (as well as listening to guys like Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann) is that Democrats's lust for power has interfered with their ability to reason. Their vile, blind hatred for their opponents is a huge turn-off. I don't agree with a lot of the strategic decisions made by the Bush administration, and I'd vote for a Democrat if they were more sensible, but their alternatives ("redeploy" to Okinawa? WTF?) seem like haphazard, cynical political calculations. When they offer anything at all, that is. Mostly just a bunch of blather about how incompetent somebody is. Simply put, you guys sound like a bunch of power-mad kooks with a severe case of groupthink. Posted by: Mike J. at September 12, 2006 07:58 PM | Permalink to this comment
a bunch of power-mad kooks with a severe case of groupthink Good description of the top ranks of the Bush administration. Anyway, this is a good moment to fantasise. If I was either President, or SecDef, what would I do? I'd figure our generals are the best we have at figuring out what our land forces are capable of, so I wouldn't put a lot of effort into second-guessing them like Rumsfeld did. So the first step would be to ask for the top 50 or so army or marine generals to propose general plans. "You know what outcomes we want. Figure out how to salvage the best you can, given what you know. What can we get? Is it worth it, or should we concentrate more on other threats?" We'd need a team of 20 or so good white house or defense workers to study the plans. Ask some of the generals who been recently fired or who took early retirement to come back for that. Group the reports. Worst case, consensus, special methods. Send back a representative consensus plan and ask for refinements. Ask the top army guy to come propose somebody good who could take over the whole iraq thing if one of the worst case scenarios happened and salvage what he could from it. Look over the information about him and about the most attractive of the creative special-methods guys, and choose one. Give him a staff that includes some guys the worst-case generals choose and some the special-methods guys choose and let him pick some himself. Look over the revised consensus plan and show it to the President, see if he thinks it's worth trying. If not we need to pull out. If so, give a budget to the creative guys, give them all the data they ask for about what's happening in iraq, and let them plan away for crises. If we get into something where we need to fight our way out then we need somebody who's been thinking in those terms for months. We can't expect any civilian to know how to win or even how to pull out. What we need is a civilian leadership that will actually listen to the professionals and pay attention to what they say. I'm sure we have some military hotshots who're getting stifled by the bureaucratic command structure, and we want to make use of them -- but the place for them at this point is not in risky adventures. It's for getting *out* of risky adventures. For losing less when we're about to lose big. We need to actually get solid military methods, not fire the generals who tell us what we don't want to hear like Rumsfeld does.
|
|
Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch
"Awake"
--New York Times
Recent Entries
Lugar States The Obvious, Yet Again...
Water-Boy Central In-House Note Self-Parody Watch Awesome Humor on the Hill! Not Sure It's Making Us Safer, But It's Certainly In the National Security Interest... Anyone at 1600 Penn. Part of the "Brain Trust"? Hey, Just A Casual Lift to Tikrit... Comedy Central: Georgia & The Revolutionary Guards... "See What Might Develop Out of That"
Search
English Language Media
New York Times
Financial Times The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion New Republic National Review The Atlantic Harpers The Week The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation WSJ Opinion Matt Drudge Real Clear Politics
Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Non-English Language Press
The Blogs
Across the Aisle
America Abroad American Footprints The American Scene Armavirumque Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice &C (TNR) Phil Carter Chequer-Board Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Clive Davis Brad DeLong Democracy Arsensal Daniel Drezner Kevin Drum Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Huffington Post Innocents Abroad Mickey Kaus Mark Kleiman Josh Marshall Eric Martin Obsidian Wings Oxblog Foreign Policy's Passport The Plank Post Global Gideon Rachman Red State Romenesko Laura Rozen Andrew Sullivan James Taranto Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias
Columnists
Anne Applebaum
Tony Blankley David Broder David Brooks Roger Cohen Jackson Diehl Maureen Dowd Thomas Friedman Bob Herbert Fred Hiatt Jim Hoagland Richard Holbrooke David Ignatius Robert Kagan Michael Kinsley Charles Krauthammer Nicholas Kristof Paul Krugman Howard Kurtz Sebastian Mallaby Robert Novak The Reliable Source Frank Rich Mark Steyn John Tierney John Vinocur Washington Whispers George Will
Think Tanks
Law & Finance
Barron's
Bloomberg Bruce MacEwen Bull and Bear Wise CBS Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog Corp Law Blog D.C. Toedt DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Gretchen Morgenson Floyd Norris Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance
Security
Books
The City
Curbed
Gawker Lockhart Steele NY Magazine Nick Denton NY Post NY Press New York Observer On The Inside Tribeca Trib Walk Through Village Voice
Archives
September 2007
August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 Syndicate this site:
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|||
|
||||
