The Belgravia Dispatch: Woodward's Latest...

September 29, 2006

Woodward's Latest...

...via the NYT:

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld is described as disengaged from the nuts-and-bolts of occupying and reconstructing Iraq — a task that was initially supposed to be under the direction of the Pentagon — and so hostile toward Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser, that President Bush had to tell him to return her phone calls. The American commander for the Middle East, Gen. John P. Abizaid, is reported to have told visitors to his headquarters in Qatar in the fall of 2005 that “Rumsfeld doesn’t have any credibility anymore” to make a public case for the American strategy for victory in Iraq.

A Secretary of Defense not answering a NSC Advisor's calls. We are far from the days Kissingers and Scowcrofts sat in that chair, eh? This maddening dysfunction had consequences, of course. Contra various blowhards chanting on about how we never needed more troops in Iraq:

Robert D. Blackwill, then the top Iraq adviser on the National Security Council, is said to have issued his warning about the need for more troops in a lengthy memorandum sent to Ms. Rice. The book says Mr. Blackwill’s memorandum concluded that more ground troops, perhaps as many as 40,000, were desperately needed.
It says that Mr. Blackwill and L. Paul Bremer III, then the top American official in Iraq, later briefed Ms. Rice and Stephen J. Hadley, her deputy, about the pressing need for more troops during a secure teleconference from Iraq. It says the White House did nothing in response.

Yes, when the NSC process is broken--the very one that is supposed to broker inter-Cabinet disputes and make cogent policy recommendations to the President--well, bad policy results. And wars get lost. But, hey, Rumsfeld may get to outlast McNamara as longest serving SecDef. That's the kind of thing that matters, these days, speaking of vanity!

Posted by Gregory at September 29, 2006 09:31 AM

Comments

Desparately needed for what? To avoid losing in Fallujah? um, we didn't lose when we fought.

More non-Arabic US troops won't solve the policing problem, though they might help suppress Iraq-Iraq violence.

Lack of Arabic speakers, from Bush I, has been and is a big problem.

But it's up to the Iraqis to stop Iraqis from murdering each other.

(I've a longer comment on your vanity thread.)

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at September 29, 2006 06:27 PM | Permalink to this comment

What the New York Times reported about Woodward's book sounds reasonable, given the outcome we've observed. But I wonder about Woodward's credibility. His previous two books were virtually hagiographies. Is he now saying he was wrong then? Or is he just pumping out books in response to where popular opinion is going?

Posted by: RWB at September 29, 2006 07:06 PM | Permalink to this comment

I don't know if it was Ricks or Suskind who said: "Rumsfeld sends just enough troops to lose."

But there are more important considerations here than either competence or bureaucratic dysfunction. The Bush administration has carefully structured its "war" to require a minimum of political, bureaucratic, and citizen consent, and minimum or nil contribution and "sacrifice" from either the general population or the military (e.g., tax cuts during the "ideological struggle of the 21st Century"). Should the military have genuine needs or requirements, they are ignored. Nearly all of the Administration's actions and strategies -- legal, military, political, domestic -- can be read within this rubric. The object of this fundamental strategy is to limit checks and balances, oversight, accountability, and more generally create a functional military dictatorship (which recent legislation more or less confirms in place). If this is their conscious intent, and I think it is, then absolutely a very small number of troops would be used, wherever the theatre of operations may be. It also explains the natural inclination, given the initial premise, to use nuclear weapons on Iran.

For more on the concept of "minimal consent," check this out: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/09/more-advice-from-classical-greece.html

Posted by: MD at September 29, 2006 07:27 PM | Permalink to this comment

I have seen it discussed several place and have to agree, that this administration doesn't care about policy. I think that goes a long way to explain where we are today.

Posted by: ET at September 29, 2006 08:46 PM | Permalink to this comment

Tom - I'm going to call a big fat Bullshit on that one.

"its up to Iraqi's to stop killing Iraqi's". Whilst there is a grain of truth to that, it shows a complete and fundamental lack of understanding of human nature. Without repeating ad infinitum discussions of various political philosphers already discussed in other threads, in the absence of authority structures people kill each other. Thats WHY we have police, laws and courts - to keep order, prevent anarchy and chaos. You remove those from any society and you get what is happening in Iraq right now. Its nothing more than human nature - the exact same thing would happen in the US if all the institutions of government were removed.

And who was responsible for removing those things Tom? Your precious child president and his republican cronies. Without doubt Saddam was a monster - so don't even bother with the other whiny comeback trying to suggest that I am some kind of Saddam appeaser... but the reality is that when you break the vase you own it. In your rush to cheerlead this invasion did you ever stop to think what would happen once the conventional war was over?? Nope guess not. But it appears you and your ilk have not learned your lesson. So go ahead and bomb Iran too... See where that gets you!

By the way go read the comment in the previous thread concerning cockraoches in the kitchen. It debunks your stupid comment far more effectively than I have here...

Posted by: Aran Brown at September 30, 2006 01:09 AM | Permalink to this comment

Funny, that. We may not have a choice with regard to the Persians. They have become quite arrogant and cocky, and are going to use possession of an atomic weapon to attempt to dominate the Arab League. Or, if they are as messianic I suspect they may be, they may be able to weaponize and attack Tel Aviv and Haifa with a 20-30 KT fission warhead per target.

The Islamic world would cheer. Religion of Peace my ass.

The Egyptians, the Saudis and the Turk are already moving towards research and development of nuclear weaponry. Now eventually, someone is going to lose one of these things to Al Qaeda. That's the problem.

It may be cheaper in the long run to actually go in and destroy the Iranian weaponization program than risk a Middle East nuclear arms race. I suspect that there's only one kind of ending to a Middle East nuclear arms race.

But, of course, everyone on this blog is too busy hating Bushhitler to worry about the Persian Fuhrer and his bomb program. True story, this one for Greg, who REALLY hates Rummy and doesn't seem to like anyone else in the Bush Administration (not even Condi, I guess). President Ahmadhi-Nejad went to see the Foreign Policy Elite (Greg's kind of people) at a CFR get together near the UN building in New York two weeks ago. He was very engaging and animated, as were the other Iranian representatives. One can imagine how engaging Ribbentrop must have been at a diplomatic reception in Berlin in 1937. This struck me as quite similar. Dinner Jacket was in an intense conversation with someone about the Holocaust, and he was going on about how an independent, impartial commission should be empaneled to settle the issue. One of the CFR members looked at him and exclaimed,

"But Mr. President, I lived through Dachau!"

President Ahmadhi-Nejad nodded, smiled and changed the subject.

George Bush is not your enemy.

Posted by: section9 at September 30, 2006 03:57 AM | Permalink to this comment

So, do the Iranians just stop talking to Hezbollah and the Palestinians and say "sorry everyone, but we did kill a bunch of Zionists" when they nuke all the Israeli cities and kill many many Arabs in the process and probably leave most of the area (Israeli and Palestinian) uninhabitable for *anyone*?

I imagine a bit of that lovely radiation would float over to the non-Zionist neighbors as well, and all of a sudden you have the whole region in [near-literal] meltdown and anger at Iran. I'd guess that might even peeve their customers in Russia and China. Is that how the 'bomb the Iranians now' crowd sees the logical end of the Iranians' plans? And how does that work out for them? Or is that scenario presupposing that all they want is The End, now, so some hidden imam fairy god appears (or will good ol' JC appear in a burst of light and duke it out with imam #12? Find out on next week's South Park!)

Three cheers for religious literalists, of all stripes, as they lead the world to annihilation. I hope the unicorns and benevolent wizards come and save us first.

Posted by: TG at September 30, 2006 04:10 AM | Permalink to this comment

So.... am I understanding your philosophy correctly, that you think that we should keep funneling arms and money to Egypt and Saudia Arabia and Turkey, who you say are all building nuclear weapons and will pretty soon spread nuclear weapons to terrorists, but we must declare war on Iran, who you says is building nuclear weapons and will pretty soon spread nuclear weapons to terrorists?

I ask, because it doesn't sound all that self-consistent. Aren't your axioms geared towards arguing that the US should declare war on Egypt, Saudia Arabia, Turkey, and Iran?

Posted by: fairytoothfairy at October 1, 2006 12:01 AM | Permalink to this comment

....

George Bush is not your enemy.

Section8, it sounds like you're saying that al qaeda is an enemy to us, and therefore George Bush is not an enemy to us.

I'm sorry, but that logic is just wrong. That's like saying that china was our enemy so that meant the USSR wasn't.

It could be a race between al qaeda and the GOP to see which can destroy the USA first. Judging by recent results, the GOP is winning.

Posted by: J Thomas at October 1, 2006 07:43 AM | Permalink to this comment

	« Vanity \| Main \| Quote of the Day » September 29, 2006 Woodward's Latest... ...via the NYT: Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld is described as disengaged from the nuts-and-bolts of occupying and reconstructing Iraq — a task that was initially supposed to be under the direction of the Pentagon — and so hostile toward Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser, that President Bush had to tell him to return her phone calls. The American commander for the Middle East, Gen. John P. Abizaid, is reported to have told visitors to his headquarters in Qatar in the fall of 2005 that “Rumsfeld doesn’t have any credibility anymore” to make a public case for the American strategy for victory in Iraq. A Secretary of Defense not answering a NSC Advisor's calls. We are far from the days Kissingers and Scowcrofts sat in that chair, eh? This maddening dysfunction had consequences, of course. Contra various blowhards chanting on about how we never needed more troops in Iraq: Robert D. Blackwill, then the top Iraq adviser on the National Security Council, is said to have issued his warning about the need for more troops in a lengthy memorandum sent to Ms. Rice. The book says Mr. Blackwill’s memorandum concluded that more ground troops, perhaps as many as 40,000, were desperately needed. It says that Mr. Blackwill and L. Paul Bremer III, then the top American official in Iraq, later briefed Ms. Rice and Stephen J. Hadley, her deputy, about the pressing need for more troops during a secure teleconference from Iraq. It says the White House did nothing in response. Yes, when the NSC process is broken--the very one that is supposed to broker inter-Cabinet disputes and make cogent policy recommendations to the President--well, bad policy results. And wars get lost. But, hey, Rumsfeld may get to outlast McNamara as longest serving SecDef. That's the kind of thing that matters, these days, speaking of vanity! Posted by Gregory at September 29, 2006 09:31 AM Comments Desparately needed for what? To avoid losing in Fallujah? um, we didn't lose when we fought. More non-Arabic US troops won't solve the policing problem, though they might help suppress Iraq-Iraq violence. Lack of Arabic speakers, from Bush I, has been and is a big problem. But it's up to the Iraqis to stop Iraqis from murdering each other. (I've a longer comment on your vanity thread.) Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at September 29, 2006 06:27 PM \| Permalink to this comment What the New York Times reported about Woodward's book sounds reasonable, given the outcome we've observed. But I wonder about Woodward's credibility. His previous two books were virtually hagiographies. Is he now saying he was wrong then? Or is he just pumping out books in response to where popular opinion is going? Posted by: RWB at September 29, 2006 07:06 PM \| Permalink to this comment I don't know if it was Ricks or Suskind who said: "Rumsfeld sends just enough troops to lose." But there are more important considerations here than either competence or bureaucratic dysfunction. The Bush administration has carefully structured its "war" to require a minimum of political, bureaucratic, and citizen consent, and minimum or nil contribution and "sacrifice" from either the general population or the military (e.g., tax cuts during the "ideological struggle of the 21st Century"). Should the military have genuine needs or requirements, they are ignored. Nearly all of the Administration's actions and strategies -- legal, military, political, domestic -- can be read within this rubric. The object of this fundamental strategy is to limit checks and balances, oversight, accountability, and more generally create a functional military dictatorship (which recent legislation more or less confirms in place). If this is their conscious intent, and I think it is, then absolutely a very small number of troops would be used, wherever the theatre of operations may be. It also explains the natural inclination, given the initial premise, to use nuclear weapons on Iran. For more on the concept of "minimal consent," check this out: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/09/more-advice-from-classical-greece.html Posted by: MD at September 29, 2006 07:27 PM \| Permalink to this comment I have seen it discussed several place and have to agree, that this administration doesn't care about policy. I think that goes a long way to explain where we are today. Posted by: ET at September 29, 2006 08:46 PM \| Permalink to this comment Tom - I'm going to call a big fat Bullshit on that one. "its up to Iraqi's to stop killing Iraqi's". Whilst there is a grain of truth to that, it shows a complete and fundamental lack of understanding of human nature. Without repeating ad infinitum discussions of various political philosphers already discussed in other threads, in the absence of authority structures people kill each other. Thats WHY we have police, laws and courts - to keep order, prevent anarchy and chaos. You remove those from any society and you get what is happening in Iraq right now. Its nothing more than human nature - the exact same thing would happen in the US if all the institutions of government were removed. And who was responsible for removing those things Tom? Your precious child president and his republican cronies. Without doubt Saddam was a monster - so don't even bother with the other whiny comeback trying to suggest that I am some kind of Saddam appeaser... but the reality is that when you break the vase you own it. In your rush to cheerlead this invasion did you ever stop to think what would happen once the conventional war was over?? Nope guess not. But it appears you and your ilk have not learned your lesson. So go ahead and bomb Iran too... See where that gets you! By the way go read the comment in the previous thread concerning cockraoches in the kitchen. It debunks your stupid comment far more effectively than I have here... Posted by: Aran Brown at September 30, 2006 01:09 AM \| Permalink to this comment Funny, that. We may not have a choice with regard to the Persians. They have become quite arrogant and cocky, and are going to use possession of an atomic weapon to attempt to dominate the Arab League. Or, if they are as messianic I suspect they may be, they may be able to weaponize and attack Tel Aviv and Haifa with a 20-30 KT fission warhead per target. The Islamic world would cheer. Religion of Peace my ass. The Egyptians, the Saudis and the Turk are already moving towards research and development of nuclear weaponry. Now eventually, someone is going to lose one of these things to Al Qaeda. That's the problem. It may be cheaper in the long run to actually go in and destroy the Iranian weaponization program than risk a Middle East nuclear arms race. I suspect that there's only one kind of ending to a Middle East nuclear arms race. But, of course, everyone on this blog is too busy hating Bushhitler to worry about the Persian Fuhrer and his bomb program. True story, this one for Greg, who REALLY hates Rummy and doesn't seem to like anyone else in the Bush Administration (not even Condi, I guess). President Ahmadhi-Nejad went to see the Foreign Policy Elite (Greg's kind of people) at a CFR get together near the UN building in New York two weeks ago. He was very engaging and animated, as were the other Iranian representatives. One can imagine how engaging Ribbentrop must have been at a diplomatic reception in Berlin in 1937. This struck me as quite similar. Dinner Jacket was in an intense conversation with someone about the Holocaust, and he was going on about how an independent, impartial commission should be empaneled to settle the issue. One of the CFR members looked at him and exclaimed, "But Mr. President, I lived through Dachau!" President Ahmadhi-Nejad nodded, smiled and changed the subject. George Bush is not your enemy. Posted by: section9 at September 30, 2006 03:57 AM \| Permalink to this comment So, do the Iranians just stop talking to Hezbollah and the Palestinians and say "sorry everyone, but we did kill a bunch of Zionists" when they nuke all the Israeli cities and kill many many Arabs in the process and probably leave most of the area (Israeli and Palestinian) uninhabitable for anyone? I imagine a bit of that lovely radiation would float over to the non-Zionist neighbors as well, and all of a sudden you have the whole region in [near-literal] meltdown and anger at Iran. I'd guess that might even peeve their customers in Russia and China. Is that how the 'bomb the Iranians now' crowd sees the logical end of the Iranians' plans? And how does that work out for them? Or is that scenario presupposing that all they want is The End, now, so some hidden imam fairy god appears (or will good ol' JC appear in a burst of light and duke it out with imam #12? Find out on next week's South Park!) Three cheers for religious literalists, of all stripes, as they lead the world to annihilation. I hope the unicorns and benevolent wizards come and save us first. Posted by: TG at September 30, 2006 04:10 AM \| Permalink to this comment So.... am I understanding your philosophy correctly, that you think that we should keep funneling arms and money to Egypt and Saudia Arabia and Turkey, who you say are all building nuclear weapons and will pretty soon spread nuclear weapons to terrorists, but we must declare war on Iran, who you says is building nuclear weapons and will pretty soon spread nuclear weapons to terrorists? I ask, because it doesn't sound all that self-consistent. Aren't your axioms geared towards arguing that the US should declare war on Egypt, Saudia Arabia, Turkey, and Iran? Posted by: fairytoothfairy at October 1, 2006 12:01 AM \| Permalink to this comment The Egyptians, the Saudis and the Turk are already moving towards research and development of nuclear weaponry. Now eventually, someone is going to lose one of these things to Al Qaeda. That's the problem. .... George Bush is not your enemy. Section8, it sounds like you're saying that al qaeda is an enemy to us, and therefore George Bush is not an enemy to us. I'm sorry, but that logic is just wrong. That's like saying that china was our enemy so that meant the USSR wasn't. It could be a race between al qaeda and the GOP to see which can destroy the USA first. Judging by recent results, the GOP is winning. Posted by: J Thomas at October 1, 2006 07:43 AM \| Permalink to this comment		Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch "Awake" --New York Times "Always-Worth Reading" --Andrew Sullivan "Honorary Chair--American Appeasement Blogs" --Hugh Hewitt 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 Search this site: About the Author Email the Author 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 Foreign Affairs Foreign Policy Le Monde Diplomatique National Interest Non-English Language Press Le Figaro Le Monde El Pais Pravda 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 AEI Baker Institute Brookings Carnegie Cato CFR CSIS Heritage IISS Intl Crisis Group USIP 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 Janes Fed. American Scientists Defense Tech Global Security Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Books LRB NYRB NYT Book Review Paris Review TLS Granta Grand Street 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: Belgravia Dispatch Maintained by: www.vikeny.com Powered by

	© 2007 Belgravia Dispatch