September 17, 2007
Bob Gates or Bob McNamara? Gen. Petraeus or Gen. Westmoreland? (Brent Budowsky)
In his book about the failures of the Vietnam War, Dereliction of Duty, H.R. McMaster writes of how the delusion and hubris of President Lyndon Johnson, combined with the failures in judgment
and political courage of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, created a devastating tragedy for the American
military and American security.
Some enterprising journalist might ask McMaster, who is close to Gen. Petraeus: Are we not making the same mistakes today?
For the last two months Gens. Petraeus, Odierno and Lynch, from Iraq, have been engaging in a systematic public relations and lobbying campaign to extend the escalation well into 2008.
For example, when Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) called for bringing 5,000 troops home by Christmas,
he was instantly criticized by Gen. Lynch, who claimed, falsely, that Warner's proposal was logically impossible and would hurt the mission if implemented.
First, it was utterly inappropriate for an active-duty commander to be engaging in naked politics and publicly debating a senator.
Second, let's give Gen. Lynch the benefit of the doubt and accept that he honestly believed what he said about Sen. Warner's proposal.
If so, his military judgment was incompetent, and his understanding of the logistics of troop rotations was ignorant, proven by the fact that Gen. Petraeus shortly thereafter proposed short-term withdrawals similar to, and beginning sooner than, Warner's.
Here are two examples, of many, that raise major credibility issues with Gen. Petraeus's performance in Washington.
In one of his famous charts, he refers to outside arms coming into Iraq. He draws major focus in the chart to arms coming into Iraq from Syria, but his chart says nothing about arms coming into Iraq from Saudi Arabia. The Syrian-arms focus is politically convenient for Bush and Petraeus;
Saudi-based arms into Iraq is not.
Second, one major reason that deaths in some areas have declined is that during the surge, or
more accurately the escalation, aggressive ethnic cleansing has been successfully finalized in a number of Iraqi communities.
If a neighborhood is mixed at the beginning of the escalation, and months later in that same neighborhood the Sunnis have been murdered by the Shiite militia, or forced out, or move into
exile, there are simply no more Sunnis left to kill. Of course violence in that neighborhood falls. Is Gen. Petraeus claiming credit for this? Why did he not discuss this in his testimony, or put it in one of his famous charts?
This has happened in both directions, Sunni and Shiite, yet it was barely mentioned in the hearings. There are various other examples illustrating how his presentation was grossly misleading, at best.
Let's return to McMaster. Everyone who follows the military, and knows the military, knows that
Gen. Petraeus's views are not supported by many in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, senior military commanders in the Army and Marine Corps, or by his boss, Adm. Fallon.
Yet Secretary Gates and Gen. Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated exactly the opposite in their press conference. They claimed, falsely, that the Petraeus view was unanimously agreed upon among the senior commanders beyond Petraeus.
We have reached the point where there is a moral duty of senior military leaders to speak publicly and honorably about what they privately believe. No doubt careers are being threatened and intimidation of military leaders has forced their silence, at great cost to our country and our troops.
Democratic leaders in Congress should call the 20 highest-ranking military officers in the nation, and ask them, clearly and publicly, for their military judgment and advice. There should be no more leaking their dissent and then issuing incoherent non-denial denials or untrue denials.
They should testify about the damage they believe the current course does to the mission in Afghanistan, the mission to kill Osama bin Laden, our global force structures around the world, our dangerously declining deterrent capability in trouble spots around the world and the cost of lowering recruitment standards as severely as they have been forced to do.
They should offer the Congress, and the people of the nation, their military judgment about what
many of them believe would be catastrophic damage that would follow if the president and vice president launch another pre-emptive war, this time against Iran.
What is needed is a serious, professional and honorable set of nationally televised hearings comparable to the Fulbright hearings during Vietnam to let all senior military officers state their own views, in their own way.
Let them take their stand with their best advice to the Congress and the country, and let them
accept their responsibility to the nation today, and the high court of history tomorrow, without fear or favor, without politics or public relations.
Our country and our troops deserve better than our leading military experts being subjected to, or willingly participating in, the failure to tell the truth, as they see it, to the nation.
Let them speak for themselves, and not let historians look back on their conduct today and compare Bob Gates to Bob McNamara, and compare Gen. Petraeus to Gen. Westmoreland, because the stakes are too high, and the damage too great, for our country to make that same mistake yet again.
13 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Comon Hugo, let's use one of your polls now. Who do the readers have more faith in on Iraq? General Petraeus or Brent Budowsky?
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — September 17, 2007 @ 12:35 pm
If Fallon is against the present situation, the only honorable thing to do is to come out and say it. It's incomprehensible to me that the only guy in the command chain between Bush and Petraeus is just sitting on his opinion other than in private, where he is quietly undercutting the effort. Either this is not true or the guy is dishonorable. Therefore Petraeus is the one to listen to.
Where are the statistics on the Saudi Arabian arms shipments? Are they flowing to Al Qaeda?
The job of the Join Chiefs is to staff the military properly and to have enough troops for any contingency. Petraeus's and Lynch's job is to win in Iraq. A year ago Iraq was descending into hell, in a way that was obvious to anyone, as a result of Al Qaeda bombing of the Golden Mosque in February. Today the Iraq situation is stable and improving. The GAO report was finished five weeks too early, to satisfy the Congressional deadlines. Let's give the best frontline generals we have a chance to win!
Comment by Igor R. — September 17, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
It is a huge quandry to me, in terms of how I feel about this subject. On the one hand, loyalty and duty in the military is all important. These are the bottom line defenders of the american people. On the other hand, it hurts to think that these officers are so career oriented that they would outright lie to the american people that they are supposed to be defending, to say nothing about turning their troops into cannon fodder, to advance that career.
Make no mistake, these guys are lying. The surge data is clearly fiction, which is the reason for the vehement PR effort by them. For that matter, most in the media are hesitant to call anyone out on this subject, witness the lying senile McCain on MTP yesterday. Kerry clearly outmatched McCain, but he had to deploy that same old comity, rather then affirm the lies. Mitt Romney did the same thing in the last GOP debate, when he tangled with McCain. He let it go.
War is hell, to spot an old cliche. Bush and Rove were right in 2000 when they said that McCain had been tortured into insanity at the Hanoi Hilton.
Yes, these officers need to retire to tell the truth, and we've seen so much of that. Like so many things in these last 7 years, the greatest country in history is suffering a great deal. 1.20.09
Comment by Chris Calbi — September 17, 2007 @ 3:32 pm
Hey Greenspan spilled the beans. We went into Iraq for oil and that is a war crime. Proof of this is that we voided the existing contracts in exchange for helping our oil companies steal from Iraq.
So it doesn't matter what happens in Iraq, because it is an illegal occupation and we need to leave yesterday.
Comment by Gary Anderson — September 17, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
Chris, I saw the "John's" debate on MTP and much as I often dislike McCain, he was in good fighting form and didn't exhibit any signs of senility.
It's hard to argue with the guy that in the history of warfare, no one has ever won a war by withdrawing troops. Kerry had no answer to that contention. His almost magical belief that refocusing the mission coupled with the flurry of diplomatic activity, especially getting the UN involved is absurd. From the UN rapists in Africa to the Hizbulla-fearing and excusing UN observers in Lebanon, they are incapable of achieving anything because there is no cause for them to risk their lives for in some ill-defined task.
"Refocusing the mission" is either a ruse or evidence of confusion as well. First of all Kerry claimed that the Iraqi government will get religion once it knows that America is about to withdraw. Now how can that make any sense to any sane individual? The Iran-loving Maliki, when left with only Iran and the Sunnis to deal with, and no US will somehow reach political reconciliation? The least one can do is to be like Obama and say that there will be genocide but that's ok for some reason. That's honest, but since I don't know what's inside Kerry's brain I will have to say that he is either lying or is given to magical thinking, where things take care of themselves just because one wants them to.
Comment by Igor R. — September 17, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
And catastrophic damage from the preemptive war with Iran? About this madman, or Iranian puppet ElBaradei, who is "negotiating" on behalf of the UN:
To his critics in the West, he is guilty of serious diplomatic sins — bias toward Iran, recklessness and, above all, a naïve grandiosity that leads him to reach far beyond his station. Over the past year, even before he unveiled his deal with Tehran, Western governments had presented him with a flurry of formal protests over his stewardship of the Iran case.
Even some of his own staff members have become restive, questioning his leadership and what they see as his sympathy for the Iranians, according to diplomats here.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/world/middleeast/17elbaradei.html?ei=5088&en=406506461fbd87bc&ex=1347681600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
To all those who worry about the harm to come from checking Iran's nuclear ambitions, can you address the harm that will come from Iran getting the bomb?
Comment by Igor R. — September 17, 2007 @ 5:49 pm
[...] Read more Politics [...]
Pingback by True Blue Liberal » Bob Gates or Bob McNamara? Gen. Petraeus or Gen. Westmoreland? — September 17, 2007 @ 7:35 pm
The French seem to think it's going to happen:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6997935.stm
Good. Letting a cancer grow unchecked is rarely a good strategy.
Comment by Igor R. — September 17, 2007 @ 8:13 pm
Iraq is not stabilized. It is disintegrating along ethnic and sectarian lines. The central government has no control — even al-Maliki's own Dawa party members resigned from Parliament. Iraq is ruled by tribal leaders and armed gangs.
Worse, a real humanitarian crisis is taking place. Millions are sick from cholera. Over 4 million displaced Iraqis are suffering. They are without access to food, clean water or medicine. It worsens by the day.
Duty bound by the Constitution and our nation's security General Petraeus abandoned those principles in order to please the president and the above is the result thereof.
Comment by serena1313 — September 17, 2007 @ 8:37 pm
Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret., National Commander, The Patriots, wrote an open letter to the new generation of military leaders about Iraq:
"Many of us at the time spoke out vehemently that such an attack would be an impeachable offense, a war crime against the people of Iraq , and treason against the United States of America . But our voices were drowned out and never reached the ears of the generals in 2003. I now regret that I never sent a letter such as this at that time, but depended on the corporate media to carry my message. I must not make that mistake again.
Further he reminds them that:
"Our oath of office is to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Might I suggest that this includes a rogue president and vice-president? Certainly we are bound to carry out the legal orders of our superiors. But the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) which binds all of us enshrines the Nuremberg Principles which this country established after World War II (which you are too young to remember). One of those Nuremberg Principles says that we in the military have not only the right, but also the DUTY to refuse an illegal order. It was on this basis that we executed Nazi officers who were “only carrying out their orders.”
"The Constitution which we are sworn to uphold says that treaties entered into by the United States are the “highest law of the land,” equivalent to the Constitution itself. Accordingly, we in the military are sworn to uphold treaty law, including the United Nations charter and the Geneva Convention.
"Based on the above, I contend that should some civilian order you to initiate a nuclear attack on Iran (for example), you are duty-bound to refuse that order. I might also suggest that you should consider whether the circumstances demand that you arrest whoever gave the order as a war criminal."
He even suggests:
"Also in hindsight, President Bush could be court-martialed for abuse of power as Commander-in-Chief. Vice President Cheney could probably be court-martialed for his performance as Acting Commander-in-Chief in the White House bunker the morning of September 11, 2001."
Read in full here:
http://thepatriots.us/
Also, here is Bowman's website:
http://www.bowman2008.com/
Bush & Cheney's escalating rhetoric against Iran is disturbing. It has been reported that the military has drawn up plans to strike as many as 2000 targets inside Iran within 6 - 8 months. They want to destroy the entire country possibly even using nukes. Which suggests why Bush is determined to keep US forces in Iraq.
Moreover El Baradei, head of the IAEA has made progress with Iran, but the US threatens to unravel it thus end months of hard work and progress. We know Iran does not have nuclear weapons nor to date the capability. In view of the fact the military has drawn up hitting 2000 targets is evidence that this is not about nuclear plants; it is the desire to crush a nation that has not attacked us nor can their missiles hit the US.
Should the US go forward with this the potential scenarios will be worse than the situation in Iraq. Iran will not sit idly by without retaliating. While their missiles cannot reach the US, Iran's missiles can reach Israel, the Green Zone, US military bases, etc. and anywhere our soldiers are located in the whole region so we can expect US deaths on a massive scale.
Furthermore if Lebanon's Hezbollah perceive this as an attack on all Shiites worldwide they will launch rockets and missiles into Israel. In turn Israel will retaliate. The Strait of Hormuz, the corridor for 20% of the world's oil supply, controlled by Iran would shut it down. That will cause an economic world crisis. Oil would skyrocket, the US dollar would crash against the Euro. It will further destabilize Pakistan's huge Shiite majority.
Russia, China, India, Cuba, Venezuela, Syria, Lebanon and other countries would not only side with Iran, they will become our enemies. The potential scenarios would devastate the entire Middle-East and even possibly start WW3.
Comment by serena1313 — September 17, 2007 @ 8:39 pm
Another excellent post.
By the way, here's Robert McNamara's lessons from Viet Nam, published in his book "In Retrospect", in which McNamara writes: "We were wrong, terribly wrong". Well guess what, the US is "terribly wrong" once again. The lessons were unlearned.
Gates is turning out to be the same sort of boot-licking lackey that McNamara was. Ray McGovern was right–he predicted it last November.
McNamara's 11 Lessons from Vietnam:
1. We misjudged then — and we have since — the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries … and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions.
2. We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience … We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.
3. We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.
4. Our judgments of friend and foe alike reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.
5. We failed then — and have since — to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces and doctrine.
6. We failed as well to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.
7. We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement … before we initiated the action.
8. After the action got under way and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course … we did not fully explain what was happening and why we were doing what we did.
9. We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.
10. We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action … should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.
11. We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions … At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world.
Comment by Don Bacon — September 18, 2007 @ 12:27 am
serena, oh just cut the whining. Yes, it's stabilized compared to a year ago. You want to cure cholera by killing a couple of million people? You're right, the central government has no power. Iraq has become a patchwork conglomeration of domiciles, but the Americans are the glue that is keeping it from falling apart. It's obviously not a strong centralized democracy, but it's not a homicidal morality tale either. And a lot better for the US than either Saddam or Iran in control.
Comment by Igor R. — September 18, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
myspace [url=http://acc.csueastbay.edu/~csrm/kwiki/plugin/attachments/ITiCSE07csrmWG/Myspace.html#471824945]myspace[/url] http://acc.csueastbay.edu/~csrm/kwiki/plugin/attachments/ITiCSE07csrmWG/Myspace.html 1169499328
Comment by myspace — September 21, 2007 @ 2:53 pm