Sic Semper Tyrannis

Transcript- The Situation Room, 28 February, 2007

"Now, with two U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups in the region, is there a growing chance the United States could find itself at war with Iran? Joining us now, retired U.S. Army Colonel Pat Lang, former chief of Middle East intelligence at the Pentagon.

Pat, thanks for coming in.

COL. PATRICK LANG, U.S. ARMY (RET.): My pleasure.

BLITZER: Take us behind the scenes right now, all of the saber rattling. The leaks we're also seeing -- the Seymour Hersh article in "The New Yorker" magazine.

What's going on, in your assessment, behind the scenes?

LANG: Well, a lot of this, of course, is intended to reach the ears of the Iranians. You know, it's -- it's quite a good idea, in a lot of ways, to make sure the Iranians know the United States is very serious about the concerns about them and if they aren't careful, they could end up in big trouble with us.

At the same time, I think that you have to understand that there is intensive planning for how you would execute an operation against the Iranians going on in the military, in response to direction by the president.

These are contingency plans and when they say -- when the White House says that we do not plan to attack Iran, what they really mean is that they haven't made a decision.

More on the Tabouleh Line Revisited

"Yes Okinawa:
http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Huber/Huber.asp
'3. Lethality in Motion: Tactics'

Is particularly interesting."  Ali

------------------------------------------------------------

We have this note from Ali.  I mentioned Okinawa because a retired marine friend had suggested it to me as an analogous engagement.  After reading the Leavenworth Paper cited above, I think that both he and Ali are correct in making the comparison.

With regard to the building of a new defensive line north of the Litani, this seems to me to be clear thinking on the part of HB.  The Israelis are not good at attritional battles and this one would be spectacular.  UNIFIL provides an effective "screen" for these constructions, and will not necessarily be in place if a new crisis brews up.  In any event, those who do not remember the disregard that the IDF has shown for UN military forces in the past have short memories.

pl

The Tabouleh Line Revisited?

Last Autumn I forecast that the successful linear defense of position conducted by Hizbullah (HB) forces in southern Lebanon would lead to a determination on the part of the Shia group to renew the contest with Israel using similar tactics at some future time.  (See the transcript or video of my 11 September, 2006 talk at the Miller Center at the University of Virginia.)

In the month long war fought between the Israelis and the Shia irregulars, it was clear that HB had successfully stood on the defensive in heavily fortified and inter-connected defensive positions and shelters that made up a defensive "belt" across much of the high ground just north of the armistice line between the two countries.   It has been incorrectly reported in the Wikipedia article on me that I consider the guerrillas to have defended in "isolated" positions.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  The system of defenses were well sited for mutual support and cleverly integrated into the natural terrain and in the built up areas of the mountain villages where the roads ran through the villages.  Maximum use was made of Iranian produced and improved versions of old Soviet anti-tank and anti-ship weapons. 

This London Times article demonstrates that HB is following a dual approach to its situation in Lebanon:

1- It is using all available pressure to seek a greater share of political power in the Lebanese government.  It believes that the US, Saudi Arabia and Israel are working together against HB.  In that context it expects to be attacked again in south Lebanon by Israeli forces when the four powers listed above reach the conclusion that HB political power will increase in spite of their best efforts.  The four powers correctly reason that Iran's influence in the Middle East will grow as HB power grows and the four powers are determined to prevent that.

2- In preparation for the renewal of last Summer's war, HB is building a new line on the high ground just north of the Litani River and OUTSIDE the operating zone of the UNIFIL separation force in place between there and the Israeli border.  From those positions it would still be possible to fire with artillery rockets into northern or perhaps central Israel.  I estimate that the new line will be even stronger than the old one, will have deeper, and more hardened shelters and will have a considerable anti-air capability in addition to what was encountered by the IDF last year. pl

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1438090.ece

Schmidt on Blame

"PL:

"Now, I know that the "economic determinist" crowd will work out some way to find that American financial or resource interests are to blame for this attitude in Washington."

Maybe.  But a quick search of the web shows that Syria trades mostly with the EU, not us, so the class struggle is a little hard to blame.  And, while I've heard that Syria is our ‘uncle in the business’ for torture, Egypt is deep discounting in the next stall over, so business is down.

You are right, economic determinism doesn't explain the "freedom agenda". The premise of class struggle is absent between Syria and the US, and there is no economic motivation for suppression and dominance.  Other gain-based theories of international relations between states (neolibralism, neorealism) may explain what is going on here, but I wonder if any political theories based on rationalism apply.

If rationalism isn’t in play, then ideology holds sway.  But whose?  George Lakoff, in “Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, 2002” argues the conservative paradigm is a hierarchy of transcendent authority and responsibility down and obeisance to authority up (God, Father, Family, Country).  This paradigm explains “the decider” mentality (our great Father in the east), Cheney’s outrage at criticism (we are irresponsible, immature, disobedient) and the appeal to a higher vision (exceptionalism, Manifest Destiny, even the Marshall Plan lite).  It even harkens back to Kipling and his paternalistic charge to America during the Philippine campaign to:

“Take up the White Man's burden!
Have done with childish days—“

(“Take up the White Man’s Burden”, Rudyard Kipling, McClure's Magazine 12 (Feb. 1899).

The ongoing discussion of exceptionalism, Manifest Destiny, the “Freedom Agenda” and the language and reaction to criticism, point to a President now scribing his own orbit around an ideological mass imbedded in the American political body.  Carl Mirra, in a 2003 post at AmericanDiplomacy.org summarizes the orbital mechanics (“George W. Bush’s Theological Diplomacy”, http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archives_roll/2003_10-12/mirra_theol/mirra_theol.html).

So, is it heaven help us?

The Bush administration has not only chosen to ignore a bipartisan opportunity to re-evaluate their position, but show total disdain for Congress, and by extension, the American public.  Mark Shields, responding to a charge by David Brooks (“The News Hour”, 2/23/07) that the Democratic opposition is all “poll driven, said this:

“I don't agree. We do have elections in this country, other than polls. We had an election last fall in which the Republicans, largely on the issue of Iraq, and largely on the issue of the stewardship of the president and vice president of that war, and the conditions and circumstances under which we got into that war, and the way it had been maintained, lost control of the Congress.
That was the reason. The Republicans say that; Democrats say that. So that's not a poll. That's not a focus group. That's the American people having expressed it, their feelings for it.
The president is apparently indifferent, immune. He has a four-year term, so he's indifferent to the plight of members of his own party, as their position becomes increasingly unpopular.”
(http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june07/sbtroop_02-23.html)

The statements of the President, VP and the AIE, looking down from the vantage of their airtight ideological capsule, all make terrible sense if they view the rest of us as disrespectful, disobedient children.  If this is the case, then buckle up.
So maybe we are down to heaven help us.  I hope not.  IMO, ballistics (people, money, politics, and time) dictate that an idea, boosted by hot air and now flying high at apogee, not only comes down, but lands with a thud."  Jim Schmidt

TNI On-Line Interview 8 February, 2007

I forgot that I had given this inerview to "The National Interest" on the 8th of February.  pl

http://www.nationalinterest.org/Focus.aspx?Focus=TopicDI

Time for "Encouragement"

""A bedrock principle of our military system is that we empower commanders with the responsibility, authority and resources necessary to carry out their mission," Gates said. "With responsibility comes accountability."

His comment suggested that senior officials in the Army chain of command would not be immune from disciplinary action.

Gates announced that two former Army secretaries, Togo West and Jack Marsh, would head an independent panel to review treatment and administrative processes at Walter Reed and the National Naval Medical Center at Bethesda, Md. Gates said the group has been asked to report its findings publicly within 45 days.

"After the facts are established, those responsible for having allowed this unacceptable situation to develop will indeed be held accountable," Gates said, adding that so far no one involved has offered to resign.

"We are not going to wait 45 days to begin addressing these problems," he said. "And so there have been some people who are most directly involved who have been relieved. But we will be looking and evaluating the rest of the chain of command as we get more information.""  AP - Burns

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Gates could not be more right.  What happened to convalescent soldiers and marines at WRAMC and perhaps elsewhere must not happen again.  Unfortunately, the only way that officers, SENIOR OFFICERS, and their civilian political and bureaucratic associates can be taught a lesson about bureaucracy, obstructionism, indifference to the suffering of soldiers and neglect of duty is to "lop off" a few heads.

Up until now in this "War on Terror" generals and admirals have been immune from punishment.  They have not been punished for failure.  No, they have been rewarded for failure.  "Screw up and move up" has been rule of the day.  The sole exception was that hapless woman reservist Brigadier General in the Abu Ghraib mess.  I guess she just wasn't well connected enough.

In the 18th Century, there was a famous incident, satirized and therefore immortalized by Voltaire, in which a British admiral, John Byng was court-martialed and shot for a failure in command.

Voltaire mockingly recounts his view of Byng's death by having a character in Candide remark that; "in this country, it is wise to kill an admiral from time to time to encourage the others" (Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres).

In fact, Byng was executed because a naval lieutenant had been executed a year or so earlier for much the same crime, and the British people and parliament demanded equal justice for equal crime in the Byng case.  The example set is widely credited with having contributed mightily to the future performance of the Royal Navy.

Let us hope and believe that Gates is serious and that his "panel" does not decide to let the malefactors and indifferent "off the hook" with a slap on the wrist.

As the sage of Secaucus, New Jersey (Imus) sputtered in rage last week, "Who are these men to say that they will 'accept responsibility for this.'  They already have the responsibility..."  pl

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Byng

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070224/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/army_walter_reed

"Don't Even Think About It." Rice

"When Israeli officials asked Secretary Rice about the possibility of exploring the seriousness of Syria in its calls for peace talks, her response was unequivocal: Don't even think about it.

Israeli officials, including those in the intelligence community, are divided over the degree to which Syrian President Bashar Assad is serious and sincere in his call for peace talks with Israel.

One view describes Assad's call as a propaganda campaign, and insists that the Syrian leader is not serious. Among those holding this view is Mossad chief Meir Dagan.

In Military Intelligence the view differs. There are those who say that Assad is serious in his call for peace talks, but also say that this does not mean that those talks would be easy for Israel. They even suggest that there is a very good chance that the talks would fail.

It is also known that the Syrians have recently tried to send messages to the Israeli leadership through intermediaries in Europe. These are English nationals and former American diplomats. "  Haaretz

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, this is "old news," but worth a comment anyway.  The Syrian "banditti" have been trying to "dial out" to Washington and Tel Aviv for years now.  They are frightened by the overt hostility of the Bush Administration, and would very much like to make a deal.  What deal?  It seems to me that the level of their perceived vulnerability is so high that they would pretty much make any deal that offered the regime survival and a chance to re-build relations. 

Washington is not interested.  Why?  It is because the survival of the Syrian "bandit" regime is not part of the "Freedom Agenda."  Now, I know that the "economic determinist" crowd will work out some way to find that American financial or resource interests are to blame for this attitude in Washington.  That will be interesting.  The anti-Zionist crowd will surely explain our attitude toward Syria in the usual way.  But, is that altogether satisfactory as an explanation?  I think not.

It has always seemed to me that the interaction of American friends of Israel and the various Israeli governments has been a "two way" business.  On many occasions it has been clear to me that the Israeli government has been unable to "dictate" the terms of cooperation.

This appears to be one such case.  It is not a surprise to me that IDF intelligence (Aman) has within it, a variety of opinions concerning the possibilities in Syria.  That was always true in the past.  Why should the situation be different now?  I sense an opportunity for an agreement between Damascus and Tel Aviv.  Unfortunately for the two parties involved, their interests are being sacrificed in the pursuit of the "dreams," the bloody minded "dreams." pl

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/829441.html

A Phased UK Withdrawal

Wayne White is retired senior officer of the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research.  He has given me permission to post this.  pl

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

A point seemingly missed in much early coverage of the UK withdrawal from the south (that I have seen, at least) is the potential impact of that withdrawal on the eventual withdrawal of US forces.

There already has been discussion of how vital the Baghdad-Kuwait supply line is for ongoing US operations, and this concern is well-founded.  The south is not as has been portrayed in some upbeat UK and US official comments today.  Southern Iraq is a very much troubled region where most localities are dominated by militias (sometimes rival militias), governance (to the extent governance linked to Baghdad exists at all beyond the symbolic in large areas) is tenuous, security forces are in most cases far more loyal to militias (often local, semi-autonomous militia elements) than legal authorities (such as the mayor of Basrah), criminality (including large-scale oil & fuel smuggling) is endemic, and low-level assassinations of the relatively few Sunni Arabs still present there is ongoing.  When, late last year, British forces attempted to turn over a major base to the Iraqi military (and more bases are to be left behind as UK forces phase out), it was thoroughly looted.

Levels of overall violence are dramatically lower in the south only because of the area's relatively homogenous Shi'a population and its distance from Sunni Arab insurgent strongholds to the north, not significant advantages in governance and the deployment of security forces loyal to formal civil authority.  As British forces gradually pull out, the south will likely fall deeper into misgovernance, militia domination and crime.

The current problem of resupply from Kuwait aside, when US forces pull out of Iraq (and this is a "when," not an "if," by anyone's definition), it could prove difficult to move large numbers of personnel and millions of tons of weapon systems, equipment and supplies through this volitile area (an otherwise preferred route).   In addition, the seemingly inevitable damage to bases and airfields left behind by the British probably would further complicate the issue of withdrawal for the US.

If all this weren't enough, the current Baghdad surge (an iffy proposition to begin with) also may well be affected adversely.  For example, Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army has a large presence in the south--even near-control in some neighborhoods and localities.  To the extent Sadr's organization and its Mahdi Army are pressured in Baghdad, and with the British presence thinning in the south, many leaders and cadres can simply take refuge with even greater ease beyond the effective reach of US forces and what passes for a government in Baghdad for the duration of the surge.

Wayne White

Bureaucracy's Cost

Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC) is not a Veteran's Administration Hospital (VA).  It is a facility of the full time Army which is used to treat a varied population of patients;  active service members, retired service people and military families.  A VA hospital is quite different.  It treats inpatient and outpatient personnel who are eligible under US law for lifetime care for service connected disabilities.  Most of these people are former service members rather than retired service members.  The latter continue to be eligible for military medical care or for service connected health insurance.  The difference in kind between these two types of hospitals seems to be beyond the comprehension of the MSM.

There is a major general of the Army Medical Service who commands WRAMC.  He is a doctor. Like all Army officers he is responsible for all that his command does or fails to do.  Don't bother to tell me that this is an unreasonable standard.  The Army is not a "reasonable" calling, and it should not be.

The general responsibility for the provision of and policy supervision of the functions of the Army Medical Service falls on the Secretary of the Army, the civilian politician who is the departmental head of the Department of the Army.

IMO both of these men failed miserably in their duty, failed to the point of criminality and should be fired at once pending an investigation to see if criminal charges can be justified.

The present sociology of the enlisted force of the US Army and Marine Corps is such that there are a lot of people in the ranks who have no home but the Army or Marines.  When wounded and placed in a convalescent status requiring frequent outpatient care, many of them have no civilian home to go to, no disposable funds to deal with the additional expenses of maintaining aplace to live for such close family as they may have, and no one to care for them but the "big green machine."  That machine and the two men I named failed miserably in that "familial" responsibility.  They should pay for that failure toward those who had every right to expect to be cared for.

Why did they fail?  They failed because they had other priorities.  The base closing commission's (BRAC) decision to close Walter Reed was probably a factor.  A focus on budgetary problems in an atmosphere in which the costs of war are "sucking" so much money into the wars was probably a factor.  A stupefyingly bureaucratic approach to problem solving is now pervasive in the Army.  That was probably a BIG factor.  I am going to write more on that general problem.

Did Dana Priest and her colleague tell the commanding general of WRAMC about this problem before WAPO printed the story?  An interesting question, but it does not alter the situation. The general and the secretary are responsible.

That is Dr. Walter Reed's picture at the top.  He was a serious Army doctor.  He would have burned the hides off these people.

Imagine what George Marshall's reaction would have been if he had discovered something like this on his watch.  General cody, the Vice Chief of Staff of the army said that he thought it "reflected on him" that he had never been to building 18 at WRAMC.  Really?  pl

"More on Ideological Blinkers" Dr. Louis Cantori

Professor Louis Cantori has givn me permission to post the following comment on the site for the purpose of extending the discussion that has followed the appearance of my recent piece in "Foreign Policy" (on line).  Professor Cantori's remarks clarify much in the discussion to date.  pl

----------------------------------------------------------------------

"The argument of Lang, Habakuk , Chesterfield  and others about the American creed is an important one. It is important because it provides an intellectual explanation for the zealous, unreasoning  quality of American foreign policy. It is an argument that can be extended to include academic analysis as well and it is also an argument that can be expanded to include countries that possess a liberal political culture. America is not alone in this. It is perhaps simply more zealous."  Louis Cantori.

Download cantori_lang_liberalism.pdf

Habbakuk on Ideological Blinkers

Our friend DAvid Habbakuk writes from England to comment on my "Foreign Policy" piece.  pl

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Colonel Lang:

This is a brilliant piece: the argument about the roots of neoconservative success in widely held beliefs makes it an invaluable extension of the argument of the Drinking the Kool-Aid paper.

anna missed:

The argument that precisely because of its ethnic diversity the United States not only was but had to be held together by an ‘American creed’ based upon the notion of the equality was put forward by the English Catholic writer G.K. Chesterton back in 1922. An extract is online at http://www.libertynet.org/edcivic/chestame.html. If then the notion of equality becomes conflated with that of identity – and this is already hinted at in Tocqueville – one may end up on the horns of a dilemma. It may be that the beliefs which hold the United States together also make it difficult to – in Colonel Lang’s words – ‘deal with alien peoples on their own terms, and within their own traditions’, and tend to create a propensity to ignore reality in favour of the ‘dream versions’ to which he refers. This was hardly a problem in 1831 or 1922, but becomes a major one if the United States is attempting to be a hegemonic power in the world system – and particularly if in so doing it relies heavily upon military force.

The argument of Colonel Lang’s paper would also seem to suggest that, in exploring the questions about intelligence raised in his earlier ‘Bureaucrats and Artists …’ paper, one needs to look further at the roots of ideological blinkers created by ideology: our own, as well as that of those we attempt to interpret. This problem gets greater the closer one gets to government, because political leaders necessarily must talk in terms of ideological simplicities.

An article by Michael Vlahos in The American Conservative deals with some related matters – online http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_02_12/feature.html: although I rather feel that the sharp distinction he uses between modern and non-modern is part of the problem. It tends to lead to a view of everyone outside the bright lights of Western ‘modernity’ as hopelessly atavistic and thus essentially threatening; as well as a propensity grossly to exaggerate the extent to which our own societies actually fit the stereotypes of ‘modernity’.

Some excerpts from Chesterton – who was of course writing before the advent of ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘political correctness’:

“America is the only nation in the world that is founded on creed. That creed is set forth with dogmatic and even theological lucidity in the Declaration of Independence; perhaps the only piece of practical politics that is also theoretical politics and also great literature. It enunciates that all men are equal in their claim to justice, that governments exist to give them that justice, and that their authority is for that reason just ……

“Now a creed is at once the broadest and the narrowest thing in the world. In its nature it is as broad as its scheme for a brotherhood of all men. In its nature it is limited by its definition of the nature of all men. This was true of the Christian Church, which was truly said to exclude neither Jew nor Greek, but which did definitely substitute something else for Jewish religion or Greek philosophy. It was truly said to be a net drawing in of all kinds; but a net of a certain pattern, the pattern of Peter the Fisherman. And this is true even of the most disastrous distortions or degradations of that creed; and true among others of the Spanish Inquisition. It may have been narrow about theology, it could not confess to being narrow about nationality or ethnology …

“Now in a much vaguer and more evolutionary fashion, there is something of the same idea at the back of the great American experiment; the experiment of a democracy of diverse races which has been compared to a melting-pot. But even that metaphor implies that the pot itself is of a certain shape and a certain substance; a pretty solid substance. The melting-pot must not melt. The original shape was traced on the lines of Jeffersonian democracy; and it will remain in that shape until it becomes shapeless. America invites all men to become citizens; but it implies the dogma that there is such a thing as citizenship ….

“When we realize the democratic design of such a cosmopolitan commonwealth, and compare it with our insular reliance or instincts, we see at once why such a thing has to be not only democratic but dogmatic. We see why in some points it tends to be inquisitive or intolerant….

“This idea is not internationalism; on the contrary it is decidedly nationalism. The Americans are very patriotic, and wish to make their new citizens patriotic Americans. But it is the idea of making a new nation literally out of any old nation that comes along. In a word, what is unique is not America but what is called Americanization. And the process, as I have pointed out, is not internationalization. It would be truer to say it is the nationalization of the internationalized. It is making a home out of vagabonds and a nation out of exiles …

“.. the idealism of America, we may safely say, still revolves entirely round the citizen and his romance. The realities are quite another matter, and we shall consider in its place the question of whether the ideal will be able to shape the realities or will merely be beaten shapeless by them ….”"

David Habbakuk

"Late Edition" 11 February 2007

You can either read the transcript below or push the link and watch the whole thing.

Download cnn_discussion.wmv

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"BLITZER: Welcome back to "Late Edition." I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington.

New questions this week about intelligence before the war in Iraq, and now a new round of questions about intelligence concerning Iran. What is Iran doing right now and why?

Helping us sort all of this out, two guests: former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst Colonel Pat Lang, retired U.S. Army, has long experience in military intelligence and special forces; and Ray Takeyh, he's with the Council on Foreign Relations. He's also the author of a new book, "Hidden Iran: Paradox and Power in the Islamic Republic."

Gentlemen, thanks very much for coming in.

Let me ask you, Pat Lang, first, to comment on this briefing that reporters in Baghdad were given today, suggesting that Iranians -- whether the Iranian Republican Guard, the Quds division, whatever -- are providing the most sophisticated explosives that can take out an Abrams battle tank, all the armor, to Shiite militias in Iraq. And those explosives have already killed well more than 100 American troops.

PAT LANG, FORMER DIA ANALYST: Well, anyone who has been studying this knows that the Iranians are playing a significant role in Iraq, because they are interested in the political outcome there. And the combat situation, of course, directly effects what the political outcome will be.

I think there is not much doubt that they probably have been supplying materiel of one kind of another to the Iraqi Shia. I don't have a problem with believing that.

Bearden in the IHT

Milt Bearden is an old friend.  He is a retired CIA executive, a "field man's field man."  He is also several times a best selling author.  pl

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Download wrong_war_wrong_time.htm

Conflict Developing?

"In its report on Thursday, the acting inspector general, Thomas F. Gimble, found that the work done by the Pentagon team, which was assembled by Douglas J. Feith, a former under secretary of defense for policy, was “not fully supported by the available intelligence.”"  NY Times

-----------------------------------------------------

A damaging document like the Department of Defense Inspector General report on the misdeeds of the Office of Special Plans could not have been released without the express and personal permission of the Secretary of Defense.

That means that Bob Gates himself released the report in the certain knowledge that it would cause a furor in the media, in the Congress and in the White House.  At the same time a rebuttal of the IG's report has been prepared in the Pentagon.  This would be a normal precaution on the part of DoD hedging against the "blowback" that the bureaucracy knew would occur as soon as the IG report became public. 

Nevertheless, it is becoming clear that Mr. Gates is "dragging his feet" over making a propaganda case against Iran on the basis of the available evidence of Iranian interference in American operations in Iraq as well as its insistence on continuation of its nuclear program.  Gates is widely quoted as believing that everyone should calm down about Iran, and that the evidence of Iranian intractability has been overstated.

A book of "evidence" of Iranian malfeasance has been prepared for public release as part of the "information operation" (propaganda).  Those who have seen it (including Gates) think it is "weak."

For Gates to "drag his feet" in the midst of "the Year of Iran" (attributed to John Hannah - the VP's Middle East man) is a major problem for the Cheney/Bush Administration's goals in regard to Iran.

It will not be politically possible for Bush to fire Gates.  He will have to live with having chosen him.   How far will the drift toward disagreement over this proceed?  pl

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/10/washington/10feith.html?em&ex=1171256400&en=d3f38b78d0ae254d&ei=5087%0A

Ali on the Approaching Chaos

Our British friend "Ali" has contributed this cogent comment which I am glad to give pride of place.  pl

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I agree with Pat that Casey should not be in his job. Constantly offering light at the end of the tunnel when in fact a train is bearing down on the mission was a great error in Vietnam; it's been repeated here. It is the candor thing; he never faked sincerity well and has now obviously been as habitually cavalier with the truth as Rummie.

British soldiers do expect a CGS to be a wily politician fighting their corner. They know their generals are a slippery bunch of slim customers. Given the adversarial nature of British politics an institution as down trodden as their Army that needs such skills rather more than a poker backed exemplar. That said the current chap also plays the simple soldier rather well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dannatt

Marlowe above suggests: "In my opinion, men and women in the military should have resigned their commissions when they realized that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was a fraud sold to the world on false trumped-up reason"

In an ideal world perhaps but as a great many wars have an essentially fraudulent beginning this perhaps expecting too much. When a state moves to crush an enemy it's often for long term strategic reasons and a suitable provocation has to invented or exaggerated to achieve popular support. An event like Pearl Harbor is the exception the Gulf of Tonkin is more the rule. This isn't just an American habit it's universal. Aggressive wars are often a necessity and even the Romans felt the need to invent excuses for them.

In the case of the Iraq invasion itself I'm sure Marshall would have saluted and done his job. The isolationist US public was not the least bit kean on raising a finger against the Third Reich as it ravaged Europe in 39. I'm thankful Marshall worked for that great political dissembler FDR who sneakily aided the allies from the start of the war and not some rule bound boy scout. Deceit is not an issue that a responsible General will give up his stars for; that is simply how the politics often continues into war.

A greater question is should an army prosecute a war they have good cause to believe is against their national interest? Pearl Harbor is actually a good example. The Japanese Admiralty knew the attack was strategic folly; a desperate roll of the dice. Yet they obeyed their Emperor. Most militaries in the service of a modern state would do the same. The British military were always riddled with dissent over Iraq but nobody fell on their sword in protest.

From a US perspective Iraq can't even be placed in the obvious blunder category. The case presented for war to a willingly deceived US public was laughably thin. While in London the sandcastle muttered nervously and people took to the streets in their millions there was barely a whisper of protest in the US body politic, even the bastions of the "liberal" US media cried for war.

It really is not hard to see why the the brass would nod along knowingly with the Pentagon suits on this one. Saddam was an unresolved problem; a likely source of future wars. The Middle East is water poor and energy rich. The Persian Gulf is the greatest geopolitical prize in the world. The unipolar moment was upon us. Given the window of opportunity afforded by 9-11 the land of the two rivers was an obvious theater to demonstrate the efficacy of expensively purchased US military power. After a decade of sordid, enervating peacekeeping at last a lovely war of maneuver in open desert. The US military having trounced this foe before was absolutely certain of the success of the initial invasion. Dissent was expressed about troop levels to support an occupation and the operations costly difficulty but it would be a very eccentric soldier that resigns in these circumstances.

There was very little public mention in the US of the very obvious strategic problems of removing Iran's main impediment to expansion. But then a subtle soldier would calculate the immense diplomatic leverage the fall of Baghdad would offer DC. A blunter one might imagine the M1As storming Tehran by Autumn. Neither would have had a chance to fully appreciate the nepotistic incompetence and blinkered ideological foolishness of this administration. Au fond it's the rigidity of PNAC dogma that doomed this operation from the start.

Now we have Petraeus and his big brained clique bumped up. Instead of resigning they soldiered on as the brass dallied with big kinetic operations. Finally it looks like they'll be allowed to fight the war in manner they hope could win it. Too late; they know the odds are heavily stacked against them but its their job to go on trying until a merciful POTUS throws in the towel.

The American voter gave this luckless President a second term and a mandate despite his stubbornly uncorrected blunders. The truth was evident; they just balked at the bitter pill. It is there that civic courage failed."  Ali

"Inappropriate but not Illegal"

The Inspector General of the Department of Defence has issued a report which deals with the intelligence "review" efforts of the Office of the Secretary of Defense in the period before the intervention in Iraq.  It concludes that this effort produced reults and employed methods which were "inappropriate but not illegel."  This result is being received by those involved as vindication.  This morning a pair of TV cable news readers speculated on whether or not Douglas Feith, the man at the center of the "information" project was not being made a "scapegoat" in the report.  One wonders who suggested that line of thought to them.  It now seems that the people who twisted and twisted the available information until they could produce fabricated untruths to "feed" the American people are still protected and will "get away with it."

Douglas Feith has been variously described as the "dumbest" this or the dumbest that.  Dumb?  How?  He "got away with it" and now the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) employ him at Georgetown University in teaching the young how to be public servants at the School of Foreign Service.  How can that be?

I wrote the article "Drinking the Koolaid" in 2004.  In it, I described how this man and his friends distorted the truth in such a way as to deceive the American people and draw them into war.  Feith's neocon comrades ridiculed the article at the time.  It would seem that their criticism was "inappropriate but not illegal," nevertheless, they are clearly the winners in the public discussion of their infamy.

http://www.mepc.org/journal_vol11/0406_lang.asp

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/05/06/nyt.kristof/

Douglas Feith is now gone from the Pentagon but his spirit marches on there.  The "Iraq Project" is reborn with new goals.  We now have the "Iran Project."  pl

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/09/washington/09feith.html?_r=1&th=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=th&adxnnlx=1171024792-wh/jXPeFqP3LDkwi5+H7ZA

No! (to Casey)

• Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN)
• Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)
• Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
• Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA)
• Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
• Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
• Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO)
• Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY)
• Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
• Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK)
• Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR)
• Sen. John Sununu (R-NH)

These are the senators who voted against the confirmation of George Casey to be Chief of Staff of the United States Army.

The Chief of Staff of the Army is the institutional head of the Army.  Soldiers everywhere know that the Chief of staff should represent the ideal of an American soldier in terms of character, devotion to duty, soldierly virtue and devotion to the public good rather than his own interests.  The Chief of Staff by example sets the standard by which American soldiers judge themselves.

The Chief of Staff is also a member of the committee of the Joint Chiefs of Staff which advises the president as a body with regard to their collective and individual military judgment on issues of state.  Nevertheless, it as "Grand Master of the Order" that the Chief of Staff plays his greatest role.

George Casey is probably a fine man, a man of honor, a man deserving of many things, but in his consistent failure to accurately inform the Congress of the United States and the citizens of the United States of the real situation in Iraq he fails the "Marshall Test" for me.

George Marshall sets the standard. He built the US Army and Air Forces that won World War Two.  He was unafraid, modest, humble and without interest in currying favor with politicians.  He told Franklin Roosevelt, who appointed him Chief of Staff, that he should not call him George, even in private, because it might be necessary in the course of the war for Roosevelt to fire him and he did not want their personal relationship to be a problem if that were necessary.  When he was Secretary of State he rebuked Dean Rusk, his assistant, for not correcting him in public when he misspoke.  Rusk said that he had not wanted to "hurt Marshall's feelings."  Marshall replied that he "had no feelings other than those reserved for Mrs. Marshall."  He was absurdly libeled by the egregious Joe McCarthy, and never said or wrote a word in reply.  Never...  I could go on.

These twelve senators did the right thing.  I hope that those who voted the other way, supporting  the nomination of a man who "knew which way the wind blew" will not regret it.  pl

The Message in the Body Count

The message is clear in attacks like this.  The message is that we (the attackers) will persist until you Americans give up in disgust with the slaughter, the mindless (to you) inter-communal violence, the loss of life and limb on your side, the vast expenditures that could be spent on things like health insurance for the poor in the USA.  The specific message is variously that:

We Sunni Arabs will fight before, during and after your withdrawal to end up with at least a parity of power with the Kurds and Shia Arabs.  Our brothers "outside" will help us.  They will tell you Americans whatever you are gullible enough to believe about their relationship to us and to the the Israelis, but they will help us.  When you are gone we will fight the Shia, the Iranians, maybe the jihadis if they try to rule us, but we will fight.

The message from the Shia Arabs is that we will persist in our efforts to live in dignity and sovereignty in Iraq.  We, too, have friends.

The message from the jihadis is that "God Wills It," and we will persist in His path until all submit.  Death is nothing.

The message from all:  Who are you Americans to tell us that our struggles are "incomprehensible?"  Who are you?  pl

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200702/s1839727.htm

Unger on the Next Act

"Another serious development is the growing role of the U.S. Strategic Command (StratCom), which oversees nuclear weapons, missile defense, and protection against weapons of mass destruction. Bush has directed StratCom to draw up plans for a massive strike against Iran, at a time when CentCom has had its hands full overseeing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Shifting to StratCom indicates that they are talking about a really punishing air-force and naval air attack [on Iran]," says Lang.

Moreover, he continues, Bush can count on the military to carry out such a mission even without congressional authorization. "If they write a plan like that and the president issues an execute order, the forces will execute it. He's got the power to do that as commander-in-chief. We set that up during the Cold War. It may, after the fact, be considered illegal, or an impeachable offense, but if he orders them to do it, they will do it."

Lang also notes that the recent appointment of a naval officer, Admiral William Fallon, to the top post at CentCom may be another indication that Bush intends to bomb Iran. "It makes very little sense that a person with this background should be appointed to be theater commander in a theater in which two essentially 'ground' wars are being fought, unless it is intended to conduct yet another war which will be different in character," he wrote in his blog. "The employment of Admiral Fallon suggests that they are thinking about something that is not a ground campaign."

Lang predicts that tensions will escalate once the administration grasps the truth about Prime Minister Maliki. "They want him to be George Washington, to bind together the new country of Iraq," says Lang. "And he's not that. He is a Shia, a factional political leader, whose goal is to solidify the position of Shia Arabs in Iraq. That's his goal. So he won't let them do anything effective against [Muqtada al-Sadr's] Mahdi army." Recently, a complicated cat-and-mouse game has begun, with Maliki's forces arresting hundreds of Mahdi militiamen, including a key aide to Muqtada al-Sadr. But there are many unanswered questions about the operations, which could amount to little more than a short-term effort to appease the U.S."  Craig Unger

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/03/whitehouse200703