The Belgravia Dispatch: Brutish Nightmare, or Kaganite Reverie?

October 13, 2007

Brutish Nightmare, or Kaganite Reverie?

Dear NYT Editor,

I find it very distressing that all these generals crawl out of the woodwork and have the temerity to call the surge effort underway akin to an act of desperation. For those of us outside the Beltway who aren't schooled in all this hifalutin' foreign policy stuff, this blistering negativism is particularly puzzling because assorted Washington notables like Frederick Kagan and Michael O'Hanlon assure all is going just so with the surge.

Can someone please explain this baffling and troublesome disconnect?

Sincerely,

/s/

Confused

P.S. From the linked Sanchez article:

Michael E. O’Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution, criticized General Sanchez for implying in his speech that the current military strategy of relying on additional troops and on protecting the Iraqi people is little different than the strategy employed when he was in command.
Noting that calls by members of Congress for troops were rebuffed by the Bush administration in 2003, Mr. O’Hanlon said, “Sanchez was one of the top military people who condoned that, if not directly, then by his silence.”

Chutzpah! Pity we don't have more people with Michael's moral courage in the chain of command. There's just been far too much "condoning" these past years...I'm plain fed up with it too, but take comfort that our best and brightest at Brookings are speaking up--it takes real balls, after all.

Posted by Gregory at October 13, 2007 01:00 PM

Comments

Upon actually reading the whole speech ( http://www.militaryreporters.org/sanchez_101207.html ), it looks to me as though it consists of:

(1) Whining about the criticism he got for presiding over the Abu Ghraib fiasco.

(2) Calling for a draft, without ever quite having the nerve to explicitly use the word. (“AMERICA’S ABILITY TO SUSTAIN A FORCE LEVEL OF 150,000-PLUS IS NONEXISTENT WITHOUT DRASTIC MEASURES THAT HAVE BEEN POLITICALLY UNACCEPTABLE TO DATE.”) Now, THAT’S courage.

(3) Urging both US political parties to come together to construct a new international coalition of allies massively militarily involved in Iraq -- in some totally unspecified way, possibly by waving a Hogwarts wand.

(4) Saying that if we DON’T get both a draft and that magical new international alliance, we had better bail out fast. (“GIVEN THE LACK OF A GRAND STRATEGY, WE MUST MOVE RAPIDLY TO MINIMIZE THAT FORCE PRESENCE AND ALLOW THE IRAQIS MAXIMUM ABILITY TO EXERCISE THEIR SOVEREIGNTY IN ACHIEVING A SOLUTION.”)

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at October 13, 2007 05:01 PM | Permalink to this comment

Interesting related New York Times article about the debate on the appropriate/acceptable forms of dissent for military officers....

and here is a piece from the San Diego Union-Tribune that looks at the phenomenon of retired generals who have been speaking out against the war...

to me, the most interesting thing is the reluctance of these generals to say "President Bush". They will use phrases like 'the failure of civilian leadership', and will even name Rumsfeld, but the ultimate decision was always Bush's, but there is a reluctance to put the blame on him.

Posted by: p_lukasiak at October 13, 2007 06:11 PM | Permalink to this comment

Gee, thanks, General, for telling us something some of us have known for about 4 years now. I understand it's gotta be tough to be the military guys in charge of a clusterf**k planned by the geniuses in the White House, but I gotta wonder, how hard did military people try to talk them out of it? When you can see, before someone even starts the car, that they're gonna drive it straight into a wall, should you buckle up and hope for the best or say "Screw this" and get the hell out? Absent any evidence to the contrary, I kind of assume that most of the military were all "Hoo-ha" and "Halls of Montezuma" and whatnot, thinking that no force on earth could defeat the mighty US military (even though at least one force I can think of has defeated us, in the last century), so it's hard to appreciate their "candor" now. Where was all this sage advice in 2003, when it could have done some good? I'm not saying generals should just shut up, but their telling us stuff we already know is just not very helpful at this point.

Posted by: LL at October 13, 2007 11:46 PM | Permalink to this comment

To defend them a bit, LL, it is rather ingrained in the US officer corps not to make waves -- to advance one needs a pristine record. Also, it is rather ingrained in the Bush Administration and inherited downwards that obedience is everything, and any dissent (or god forbid, whistle-blowing) will be punished severely. So all forces conspire to produce silence -- see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

Posted by: Jay Fordstrom at October 14, 2007 05:06 PM | Permalink to this comment

I know (RE "it is rather ingrained in the US officer corps not to make waves"), but if they're gonna shut up when they really should be speaking their mind (when Bushco and the Pentagon had their "so which country should we shock and awe next?" meeting), I think they'd be doing us all a favor to stay shut up. As a citizen, it doesn't really make me feel better about the military when they tell us all what a disaster the war planning and execution was, especially when they were in charge of that cruddy planning and execution. It's just kinda weenie-ish. Either say something when it counts and let the chips fall where they may (Shinseki, unless there are details there that I don't know about, and that's very possible) or just go along to get along and shut the hell up. But it seems that some of these guys are trying to have it both ways: go along to preserve their unblemished careers and then talk shit about Bushco after helping them because they're afraid they'll look like idiots by association.

Posted by: LL at October 15, 2007 02:02 AM | Permalink to this comment

So I guess I am saying the generals should just shut up.

Posted by: LL at October 15, 2007 02:04 AM | Permalink to this comment

> As a citizen, it doesn't really make me feel better about the military
> when they tell us all what a disaster the war planning and execution
> was, especially when they were in charge of that cruddy planning and
> execution

Well-phrased :)

But, as a citizen, I'd rather hear the truth than not. Sadly, I really don't often get my druthers with this...

Posted by: Jay Fordstrom at October 15, 2007 04:12 AM | Permalink to this comment

LL;

It's pretty typical that folks who blow the whistle are not very attractive characters. But I'd rather have them blowing the whistle (however belatedly) than not, if only for history's sake. It isn't too hard to ignore these guy's policy ideas.

Posted by: Appalled Moderate at October 15, 2007 10:14 AM | Permalink to this comment

RE truth, for the record: sure, agreed. We're clearly never gonna hear it from the civilians, so I guess it has to come from the military, and I guess better late than never (kind of; it's hard to believe "better late than never" when waiting till after it does any real good results in what we have now).

Still, I wonder what would happen if every general refused to tell Bushco what they want to hear and instead told them the truth in their ultra secret meetings where they actually discuss invading other countries before they do it. I wonder if anyone in the Pentagon now is telling them what an unmitigated disaster an invasion of Iran would be. I hope enough people are. But I'm not gonna hold my breath. Their track record on timely candor is not looking so good. I'm tired of people just now "realizing" what their unthinking participation helped to create (war in Iraq, a second Bush term, etc.). It sure would be nice if these people had exercised an ounce of skepticism when it really mattered instead of assuming that Bushco knew what it was doing, long after it became clear that Bushco had no clue whatsoever and never really did.

Posted by: LL at October 15, 2007 01:39 PM | Permalink to this comment

Blame the zionists. Only Israel benefits from these endless Middle East wars. Iraq is the beginning. As we commit war-crimes in Baghdad, the US gov't commits treason at home by opening mail, eliminating habeas corpus, using the judiciary to steal private lands, banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon and Wikipedia, conducting warrantless wiretaps and engaging in illegal wars on behalf of AIPAC's 'money-men'. Soon, another US false-flag operation will occur (sinking of an Aircraft Carrier by Mossad) and the US will invade Iran.. Then we'll invade Syria, then Saudi Arabia, then Lebanon (again) then ....
Final link (before Google Books bends to gov't demands and censors the title):
America Deceived (book)

Posted by: Norman at October 15, 2007 06:13 PM | Permalink to this comment

	« Cooling Your Heels at the Dacha... \| Main \| Our Sunni BFF's (Or Perhaps Not...) » October 13, 2007 Brutish Nightmare, or Kaganite Reverie? Dear NYT Editor, I find it very distressing that all these generals crawl out of the woodwork and have the temerity to call the surge effort underway akin to an act of desperation. For those of us outside the Beltway who aren't schooled in all this hifalutin' foreign policy stuff, this blistering negativism is particularly puzzling because assorted Washington notables like Frederick Kagan and Michael O'Hanlon assure all is going just so with the surge. Can someone please explain this baffling and troublesome disconnect? Sincerely, /s/ Confused P.S. From the linked Sanchez article: Michael E. O’Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution, criticized General Sanchez for implying in his speech that the current military strategy of relying on additional troops and on protecting the Iraqi people is little different than the strategy employed when he was in command. Noting that calls by members of Congress for troops were rebuffed by the Bush administration in 2003, Mr. O’Hanlon said, “Sanchez was one of the top military people who condoned that, if not directly, then by his silence.” Chutzpah! Pity we don't have more people with Michael's moral courage in the chain of command. There's just been far too much "condoning" these past years...I'm plain fed up with it too, but take comfort that our best and brightest at Brookings are speaking up--it takes real balls, after all. Posted by Gregory at October 13, 2007 01:00 PM Comments Upon actually reading the whole speech ( http://www.militaryreporters.org/sanchez_101207.html ), it looks to me as though it consists of: (1) Whining about the criticism he got for presiding over the Abu Ghraib fiasco. (2) Calling for a draft, without ever quite having the nerve to explicitly use the word. (“AMERICA’S ABILITY TO SUSTAIN A FORCE LEVEL OF 150,000-PLUS IS NONEXISTENT WITHOUT DRASTIC MEASURES THAT HAVE BEEN POLITICALLY UNACCEPTABLE TO DATE.”) Now, THAT’S courage. (3) Urging both US political parties to come together to construct a new international coalition of allies massively militarily involved in Iraq -- in some totally unspecified way, possibly by waving a Hogwarts wand. (4) Saying that if we DON’T get both a draft and that magical new international alliance, we had better bail out fast. (“GIVEN THE LACK OF A GRAND STRATEGY, WE MUST MOVE RAPIDLY TO MINIMIZE THAT FORCE PRESENCE AND ALLOW THE IRAQIS MAXIMUM ABILITY TO EXERCISE THEIR SOVEREIGNTY IN ACHIEVING A SOLUTION.”) Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at October 13, 2007 05:01 PM \| Permalink to this comment Interesting related New York Times article about the debate on the appropriate/acceptable forms of dissent for military officers.... and here is a piece from the San Diego Union-Tribune that looks at the phenomenon of retired generals who have been speaking out against the war... to me, the most interesting thing is the reluctance of these generals to say "President Bush". They will use phrases like 'the failure of civilian leadership', and will even name Rumsfeld, but the ultimate decision was always Bush's, but there is a reluctance to put the blame on him. Posted by: p_lukasiak at October 13, 2007 06:11 PM \| Permalink to this comment Gee, thanks, General, for telling us something some of us have known for about 4 years now. I understand it's gotta be tough to be the military guys in charge of a clusterf**k planned by the geniuses in the White House, but I gotta wonder, how hard did military people try to talk them out of it? When you can see, before someone even starts the car, that they're gonna drive it straight into a wall, should you buckle up and hope for the best or say "Screw this" and get the hell out? Absent any evidence to the contrary, I kind of assume that most of the military were all "Hoo-ha" and "Halls of Montezuma" and whatnot, thinking that no force on earth could defeat the mighty US military (even though at least one force I can think of has defeated us, in the last century), so it's hard to appreciate their "candor" now. Where was all this sage advice in 2003, when it could have done some good? I'm not saying generals should just shut up, but their telling us stuff we already know is just not very helpful at this point. Posted by: LL at October 13, 2007 11:46 PM \| Permalink to this comment To defend them a bit, LL, it is rather ingrained in the US officer corps not to make waves -- to advance one needs a pristine record. Also, it is rather ingrained in the Bush Administration and inherited downwards that obedience is everything, and any dissent (or god forbid, whistle-blowing) will be punished severely. So all forces conspire to produce silence -- see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Posted by: Jay Fordstrom at October 14, 2007 05:06 PM \| Permalink to this comment I know (RE "it is rather ingrained in the US officer corps not to make waves"), but if they're gonna shut up when they really should be speaking their mind (when Bushco and the Pentagon had their "so which country should we shock and awe next?" meeting), I think they'd be doing us all a favor to stay shut up. As a citizen, it doesn't really make me feel better about the military when they tell us all what a disaster the war planning and execution was, especially when they were in charge of that cruddy planning and execution. It's just kinda weenie-ish. Either say something when it counts and let the chips fall where they may (Shinseki, unless there are details there that I don't know about, and that's very possible) or just go along to get along and shut the hell up. But it seems that some of these guys are trying to have it both ways: go along to preserve their unblemished careers and then talk shit about Bushco after helping them because they're afraid they'll look like idiots by association. Posted by: LL at October 15, 2007 02:02 AM \| Permalink to this comment So I guess I am saying the generals should just shut up. Posted by: LL at October 15, 2007 02:04 AM \| Permalink to this comment > As a citizen, it doesn't really make me feel better about the military > when they tell us all what a disaster the war planning and execution > was, especially when they were in charge of that cruddy planning and > execution Well-phrased :) But, as a citizen, I'd rather hear the truth than not. Sadly, I really don't often get my druthers with this... Posted by: Jay Fordstrom at October 15, 2007 04:12 AM \| Permalink to this comment LL; It's pretty typical that folks who blow the whistle are not very attractive characters. But I'd rather have them blowing the whistle (however belatedly) than not, if only for history's sake. It isn't too hard to ignore these guy's policy ideas. Posted by: Appalled Moderate at October 15, 2007 10:14 AM \| Permalink to this comment RE truth, for the record: sure, agreed. We're clearly never gonna hear it from the civilians, so I guess it has to come from the military, and I guess better late than never (kind of; it's hard to believe "better late than never" when waiting till after it does any real good results in what we have now). Still, I wonder what would happen if every general refused to tell Bushco what they want to hear and instead told them the truth in their ultra secret meetings where they actually discuss invading other countries before they do it. I wonder if anyone in the Pentagon now is telling them what an unmitigated disaster an invasion of Iran would be. I hope enough people are. But I'm not gonna hold my breath. Their track record on timely candor is not looking so good. I'm tired of people just now "realizing" what their unthinking participation helped to create (war in Iraq, a second Bush term, etc.). It sure would be nice if these people had exercised an ounce of skepticism when it really mattered instead of assuming that Bushco knew what it was doing, long after it became clear that Bushco had no clue whatsoever and never really did. Posted by: LL at October 15, 2007 01:39 PM \| Permalink to this comment Blame the zionists. Only Israel benefits from these endless Middle East wars. Iraq is the beginning. As we commit war-crimes in Baghdad, the US gov't commits treason at home by opening mail, eliminating habeas corpus, using the judiciary to steal private lands, banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon and Wikipedia, conducting warrantless wiretaps and engaging in illegal wars on behalf of AIPAC's 'money-men'. Soon, another US false-flag operation will occur (sinking of an Aircraft Carrier by Mossad) and the US will invade Iran.. Then we'll invade Syria, then Saudi Arabia, then Lebanon (again) then .... Final link (before Google Books bends to gov't demands and censors the title): America Deceived (book) Posted by: Norman at October 15, 2007 06:13 PM \| Permalink to this comment		Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch "Awake" --New York Times "Always-Worth Reading" --Andrew Sullivan Recent Entries A Brief (and Belated) Word on Chas Freeman What Would Real--Rather Than Rhetorical--Change in U.S. Foreign Policy Look Like? Of War, and Tent Hospitals The Obama Imperative Some Addt'l Thoughts Re: Georgia McCain: Let's Compound the Blunder! Georgia On My Mind Should We De-Emphasize The Terror Threat in U.S. Foreign Policy? (Very Belated) In-House News Straits of Hormuz 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 The American Conservative 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 Marc Ambinder 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 James Fallows Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Hendrik Hertzberg Huffington Post Mickey Kaus Mark Kleiman Joshua Landis Daniel Larison Josh Marshall Eric Martin Obsidian Wings Oxblog Foreign Policy's Passport The Plank Post Global Gideon Rachman Romenesko Laura Rozen Andrew Sullivan James Taranto Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias Law & Finance Barron's Bloomberg Bull and Bear Wise Calculated Risk CBS Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog Corp Law Blog DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Bruce MacEwen Gretchen Morgenson Floyd Norris Barry Ritholz Nouriel Roubini Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance Think Tanks AEI Baker Institute Brookings Carnegie Cato CFR CSIS Heritage IISS Intl Crisis Group USIP 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 Arts & Letters Daily The City Curbed Eater Gothamist NY Magazine NY Post NY Press New York Observer On The Inside Tribeca Trib Vanishing NY Village Voice Archives March 2009 January 2009 November 2008 August 2008 July 2008 May 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 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 Syndicate this site: Belgravia Dispatch Maintained by: www.vikeny.com Powered by

	© 2007 Belgravia Dispatch