Blood In The Water baby

[Gary Sisco]

and the sharks are circling -- and zeroing in on precisely the right target, for once. Astute readers will note that The Economist (noted pinko rag) has a cover article headlined: Resign, Rumsfeld. But the real shit is right here, from another noted pinko rag, The Military Times, and yet another, The Washington Post. So none of you kneejerking flagwavers need take anything from me, if you want, but I'd like to hear you wriggle out the same news direct from the horses' mouths.

Military Times, official editorial:

Editorial: A failure of leadership at the highest levels



Around the halls of the Pentagon, a term of caustic derision has emerged for the enlisted soldiers at the heart of the furor over the Abu Ghraib prison scandal: the six morons who lost the war.
Indeed, the damage done to the U.S. military and the nation as a whole by the horrifying photographs of U.S. soldiers abusing Iraqi detainees at the notorious prison is incalculable.

But the folks in the Pentagon are talking about the wrong morons.

There is no excuse for the behavior displayed by soldiers in the now-infamous pictures and an even more damning report by Army Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba. Every soldier involved should be ashamed.

But while responsibility begins with the six soldiers facing criminal charges, it extends all the way up the chain of command to the highest reaches of the military hierarchy and its civilian leadership.

The entire affair is a failure of leadership from start to finish. From the moment they are captured, prisoners are hooded, shackled and isolated. The message to the troops: Anything goes.

In addition to the scores of prisoners who were humiliated and demeaned, at least 14 have died in custody in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Army has ruled at least two of those homicides. This is not the way a free people keeps its captives or wins the hearts and minds of a suspicious world.

How tragically ironic that the American military, which was welcomed to Baghdad by the euphoric Iraqi people a year ago as a liberating force that ended 30 years of tyranny, would today stand guilty of dehumanizing torture in the same Abu Ghraib prison used by Saddam Hussein’s henchmen.

One can only wonder why the prison wasn’t razed in the wake of the invasion as a symbolic stake through the heart of the Baathist regime.

Army commanders in Iraq bear responsibility for running a prison where there was no legal adviser to the commander, and no ultimate responsibility taken for the care and treatment of the prisoners.

Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, also shares in the shame. Myers asked “60 Minutes II” to hold off reporting news of the scandal because it could put U.S. troops at risk. But when the report was aired, a week later, Myers still hadn’t read Taguba’s report, which had been completed in March. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also failed to read the report until after the scandal broke in the media.

By then, of course, it was too late.

Myers, Rumsfeld and their staffs failed to recognize the impact the scandal would have not only in the United States, but around the world.

If their staffs failed to alert Myers and Rumsfeld, shame on them. But shame, too, on the chairman and secretary, who failed to inform even President Bush.

He was left to learn of the explosive scandal from media reports instead of from his own military leaders.

On the battlefield, Myers’ and Rumsfeld’s errors would be called a lack of situational awareness — a failure that amounts to professional negligence.

To date, the Army has moved to court-martial the six soldiers suspected of abusing Iraqi detainees and has reprimanded six others.

Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, who commanded the MP brigade that ran Abu Ghraib, has received a letter of admonishment and also faces possible disciplinary action.

That’s good, but not good enough.

This was not just a failure of leadership at the local command level. This was a failure that ran straight to the top. Accountability here is essential — even if that means relieving top leaders from duty in a time of war.

— Military Times editorial, May 17 issue

[Gary Sisco]

Washington Post:

Dissension grows in senior ranks on strategy
Some officers say U.S. may be winning battles in Iraq, losing war

Khalid Mohammed / AP
A U.S. Army Apache helicopter overflies a burning car after a two-car convoy came under attack in Baghdad, Iraq, Saturday.

By Thomas E. Ricks

Updated: 1:31 a.m. ET May 09, 2004
Deep divisions are emerging at the top of the U.S. military over the course of the occupation of Iraq, with some senior officers beginning to say that the United States faces the prospect of casualties for years without achieving its goal of establishing a free and democratic Iraq.

advertisement

Their major worry is that the United States is prevailing militarily but failing to win the support of the Iraqi people. That view is far from universal, but it is spreading, and being voiced publicly for the first time.

Army Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., the commander of the 82nd Airborne Division, who spent much of the year in western Iraq, said he believes that at the tactical level at which fighting occurs, the U.S. military is still winning. But when asked whether he believes the United States is losing, he said, "I think strategically, we are."


• More news from Iraq


Army Col. Paul Hughes, who last year was the first director of strategic planning for the U.S. occupation authority in Baghdad, said he agrees with that view and noted that a pattern of winning battles while losing a war characterized the U.S. failure in Vietnam. "Unless we ensure that we have coherency in our policy, we will lose strategically," he said in an interview Friday.

"I lost my brother in Vietnam," added Hughes, a veteran Army strategist who is involved in formulating Iraq policy. "I promised myself, when I came on active duty, that I would do everything in my power to prevent that [sort of strategic loss] from happening again. Here I am, 30 years later, thinking we will win every fight and lose the war, because we don't understand the war we're in."

The emergence of sharp differences over U.S. strategy has set off a debate, a year after the United States ostensibly won a war in Iraq, about how to preserve that victory. The core question is how to end a festering insurrection that has stymied some reconstruction efforts, made many Iraqis feel less safe and created uncertainty about who actually will run the country after the scheduled turnover of sovereignty June 30.

Inside and outside the armed forces, experts generally argue that the U.S. military should remain there but should change its approach. Some argue for more troops, others for less, but they generally agree on revising the stated U.S. goals to make them less ambitious. They are worried by evidence that the United States is losing ground with the Iraqi public.

Strategic, tactical blunders
Some officers say the place to begin restructuring U.S. policy is by ousting Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, whom they see as responsible for a series of strategic and tactical blunders over the past year. Several of those interviewed said a profound anger is building within the Army at Rumsfeld and those around him.

A senior general at the Pentagon said he believes the United States is already on the road to defeat. "It is doubtful we can go on much longer like this," he said. "The American people may not stand for it — and they should not."

Asked who was to blame, this general pointed directly at Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz. "I do not believe we had a clearly defined war strategy, end state and exit strategy before we commenced our invasion," he said. "Had someone like Colin Powell been the chairman [of the Joint Chiefs of Staff], he would not have agreed to send troops without a clear exit strategy. The current OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense] refused to listen or adhere to military advice."

Like several other officers interviewed for this report, this general spoke only on the condition that his name not be used. One reason for this is that some of these officers deal frequently with the senior Pentagon civilian officials they are criticizing, and some remain dependent on top officials to approve their current efforts and future promotions. Also, some say they believe that Rumsfeld and other top civilians punish public dissent. Senior officers frequently cite what they believe was the vindictive treatment of then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric K. Shinseki after he said early in 2003 that the administration was underestimating the number of U.S. troops that would be required to occupy postwar Iraq.

Wolfowitz, the Pentagon's No. 2 official, said that he does not think the United States is losing in Iraq, and said no senior officer has expressed that thought to him, either. "I am sure that there are some out there" who think that, he said in an interview yesterday afternoon.

"There's no question that we're facing some difficulties," Wolfowitz said. "I don't mean to sound Pollyannaish — we all know that we're facing a tough problem." But, he said, "I think the course we've set is the right one, which is moving as rapidly as possible to Iraqi self-government and Iraqi self-defense."

Wolfowitz, who is widely seen as the intellectual architect of the Bush administration's desire to create a free and democratic Iraq that will begin the transformation of the politics of the Middle East, also strongly rejected the idea of scaling back on that aim. "The goal has never been to win the Olympic high jump in democracy," he said. Moving toward democratization in Iraq will take time, he said. Yet, he continued, "I don't think the answer is to find some old Republican Guard generals and have them impose yet another dictatorship in an Arab country."

'Some good signals'
The top U.S. commander in the war also said he strongly disagrees with the view that the United States is heading toward defeat in Iraq. "We are not losing, militarily," Army Gen. John P. Abizaid said in an interview Friday. He said that the U.S. military is winning tactically. But he stopped short of being as positive about the overall trend. Rather, he said, "strategically, I think there are opportunities."

The prisoner abuse scandal and the continuing car bombings and U.S. casualties "create the image of a military that's not being effective in the counterinsurgency," he said. But in reality, "the truth of the matter is . . . there are some good signals out there."

Abizaid cited the resumption of economic reconstruction and the political progress made with Sunni Muslims in resolving the standoff around Fallujah, and increasing cooperation from Shiite Muslims in isolating radical Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr. "I'm looking at the situation, and I told the secretary of defense the other day, I feel pretty comfortable with where we are," he said.

Even so, he said, "There's liable to be a lot of fighting in May and June," as the June 30 date for turning over sovereignty to an Iraqi government approaches.

Commanders on the ground in Iraq seconded that cautiously optimistic view.

"I am sure that the view from Washington is much worse than it appears on the ground here in Baqubah," said Army Col. Dana J.H. Pittard, commander of a 1st Infantry Division brigade based in that city about 40 miles north of Baghdad. "I do not think that we are losing, but we will lose if we are not careful." He said he is especially worried about maintaining political and economic progress in the provinces after the turnover of power.

Army Lt. Col. John Kem, a battalion commander in Baghdad, said that the events of the past two months — first the eruption of a Shiite insurgency, followed by the detainee abuse scandal — "certainly made things harder," but he said he doubted they would have much effect on the long-term future of Iraq.

But some say that behind those official positions lies deep concern.

Boost troops or withdraw
One Pentagon consultant said that officials with whom he works on Iraq policy continue to put on a happy face publicly, but privately are grim about the situation in Baghdad. When it comes to discussions of the administration's Iraq policy, he said, "It's 'Dead Man Walking.' "

The worried generals and colonels are simply beginning to say what experts outside the military have been saying for weeks.

In mid-April, even before the prison detainee scandal, Peter Galbraith, a former U.S. ambassador to Croatia, wrote in the New York Review of Books that, "patience with foreign occupation is running out, and violent opposition is spreading. Civil war and the breakup of Iraq are more likely outcomes than a successful transition to a pluralistic Western-style democracy." The New York Review of Books is not widely read in the U.S. military, but the article, titled "How to Get Out of Iraq," was carried online and began circulating among some military intellectuals.

Likewise, Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), a former Marine who is one of most hawkish Democrats in Congress, last week said, "We cannot prevail in this war as it is going today," and said that the Bush administration should either boost its troop numbers or withdraw.

Larry Diamond, who until recently was a senior political adviser of the U.S. occupation authority in Iraq, argued that the United States is not losing the war but is in danger of doing so. "I think that we have fallen into a period of real political difficulty where we are no longer clearly winning the peace, and where the prospect of a successful transition to democracy is in doubt.

"Basically, it's up in the air now," Diamond continued. "That's what is at stake. . . . We can't keep making tactical and strategic mistakes."

He and others are recommending a series of related revisions to the U.S. approach.

Like many in the Special Forces, defense consultant Michael Vickers advocates radically trimming the U.S. presence in Iraq, making it much more like the one in Afghanistan, where there are 20,000 troops, and almost none in the capital, Kabul. The U.S. military has a small presence in the daily life of Afghans. Basically, it ignores them and focuses its attention on fighting pockets of Taliban and al Qaeda holdouts. Nor has it tried to disarm the militias that control much of the country.

In addition to trimming the U.S. troop presence, a young Army general said, the United States also should curtail its ambitions in Iraq. "That strategic objective, of a free, democratic, de-Baathified Iraq, is grandiose, and unattainable," he said. "It's just a matter of time before we revise downward . . . and abandon these ridiculous objectives."

Instead, he predicted that if the Bush administration wins reelection, it simply will settle for a stable Iraq, probably run by former Iraqi generals. This is more or less, he said, what the Marines Corps did in Fallujah — which he described as a glimpse of future U.S. policy.

Wolfowitz sharply rejected that conclusion about Fallujah. "Let's be clear, Fallujah has always been an outlier since the liberation of Baghdad," he said in the interview. "It's where the trouble began. . . . It really isn't a model for anything for the rest of the country."

But a senior military intelligence officer experienced in Middle Eastern affairs said he thinks the administration needs to rethink its approach to Iraq and to the region. "The idea that Iraq can be miraculously and quickly turned into a shining example of democracy that will 'transform' the Middle East requires way too much fairy dust and cultural arrogance to believe," he said.

Finally, some are calling for the United States to stop fighting separatist trends among Iraq's three major groups, the Shiites, the Sunnis and the Kurds, and instead embrace them. "The best hope for holding Iraq together — and thereby avoiding civil war — is to let each of its major constituent communities have, to the extent possible, the system each wants," Galbraith wrote last month.

Even if adjustments in troop presence and goals help the United States prevail, it will not happen soon, several of those interviewed said. The United States is likely to be fighting in Iraq for "at least" another five years, said an Army officer who served there. "We'll be taking casualties," he warned, during that entire time.

'The price has gone very high'
A long-term problem for any administration is that it may be difficult for the American public to tell whether the United States is winning or losing, and the prospect of continued casualties may prompt some to ask of how long the public will tolerate the fighting.

"Iraq might have been worth doing at some price," Vickers said. "But it isn't worth doing at any price. And the price has gone very high."

The other key factor in the war is Iraqi public opinion. A recent USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll found that a majority of Iraqis want the United States to leave immediately. "In Iraq, we are rapidly losing the support of the middle, which will enable the insurgency to persist practically indefinitely until our national resolve is worn down," the senior U.S. military intelligence officer said.

Tolerance of the situation in Iraq also appears to be declining within the U.S. military. Especially among career Army officers, an extraordinary anger is building at Rumsfeld and his top advisers.

"Like a lot of senior Army guys, I'm quite angry" with Rumsfeld and the rest of the Bush administration, the young general said. He listed two reasons. "One is, I think they are going to break the Army." But what really incites him, he said, is, "I don't think they care."

Jeff Smith, a former general counsel of the CIA who has close ties to many senior officers, said, "Some of my friends in the military are exceedingly angry." In the Army, he said, "It's pretty bitter."

"The people in the military are mad as hell," said retired Army Col. Robert Killebrew, a frequent Pentagon consultant. He said that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, should be fired. A spokesman for Myers declined to comment.

A Special Forces officer aimed higher, saying that, "Rumsfeld needs to go, as does Wolfowitz."

Asked about such antagonism, Wolfowitz said, "I wish they'd have the — whatever it takes — to come tell me to my face."

He said that by contrast, he had been "struck at how many fairly senior officers have come to me" to tell him that he and Rumsfeld have made the right decisions concerning the Army.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

[Gary Sisco]

I've been accused and abused all along for issuing "dire warnings" and etc not only about the horrors of warring on a country's population but also -- and repeatedly -- and in advance -- about the utter lack of any strategical thinking whatsoever on the part of the leadership, never mind political thinking. They don't even have a military strategy -- only tactics. Exactly the case as in Vietnam, on that level, and Rumseld is playing his Alfred E Newman role as Robert McNamara -- the second time as farce but a horrifyingly brutal farce. The only strategy they seem to know -- and which has proven again and again to be wrongheaded -- is maximum firepower, in any situation.

But they can't get out of this one that way. This shit is sticking to their shoes, this time.

I said in advance that an American invasion of Iraq would go on for years and mean thousands of American casualties (which there are already) and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian casualties (which there are already). The response? I'm in the habit of issuing "dire warnings." It'll be a cakewalk. A few weeks of combat and the population will run cheering into the street, waving American flags and demanding bubble gum, just like the liberation of Paris and yak yak.

Not.

It's not that I'm in the habit of issuing "dire warnings." I'm just not in the habit of accepting whatever any moron, particularly a civilian bureaucratic thug moron like Rumselfowitz, never mind a draft-dodging deserter moron like Junior Bush, has to say automatically just because he's the Party Leader establishing the Party Line (every other second, as it continually changes, faster than it does in *1984*).

Chew on the articles above, Monte et al. Who will eat the crow, now? Sisco or Rumsfeldowitz, Inc?

[Uli]

Originally Posted by Rainman

Who will eat the crow, now? Sisco or Rumsfeldowitz, Inc?

My guess is, that you will eat crow, especially from your friends. For pasting articles instead of posting links. But I am not putting any money on that.

[Gary Sisco]

There is also, already, a letter writing campaign, launched by me mom (a Korea vet, former Navy officer) among VT veterans demanding that the court martials not be limited to the "six morons" they've already hauled up. They want the court martials to all the way up the chain of command as far as possible and include any and all responsible, regardless of rank or position. And nearly every one of them involved in their campaign is a WW2 or Korea vet, babies. The greatest generation taking charge again. The only ones who seem to have an idea of what it means to be a citizen of a democratic republic -- and the only ones who seem to have any desire of not just celebrating it but *keeping it* -- by acting like citizens, not party hacks and apparatchiks. Nearly every one of them is a Repub through and through, and I salute them, one and all.

[clinthopson]

The outcry gets louder every day.

Bush and Cheney should be impeached and convicted for getting us into an unjustified, unnecessary war. The commanders should be court martialed.

This is our national shame.

[Gentle Giant]

Originally Posted by clinthopson

The outcry gets louder every day.

Bush and Cheney should be impeached and convicted for getting us into an unjustified, unnecessary war. The commanders should be court martialed.

This is our national shame.

That would make Colin Powell president, wouldn't it, in the presidential succession line as outlined in the Constitution? Were it not for the radical right, Republicans might want to consider tossing the chum overboard.

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by Gentle Giant

That would make Colin Powell president, wouldn't it, in the presidential succession line as outlined in the Constitution? Were it not for the radical right, Republicans might want to consider tossing the chum overboard.

Nope. You have to get past Dennis Hastert (Speaker) and Ted Stevens (Speaker pro-tem) first.

[clinthopson]

No, I believe it would be Dennis Hastert, SPeaker of the House.

Not my first choice, for sure.

[Root Doctor]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

Nope. You have to get past Dennis Hastert (Speaker) and Ted Stevens (Speaker pro-tem) first.

And it's a mighty long journey around the svelte Mr. Hastert.

[Dr Dave]

Rummy is not stepping down. Forget it! He's "Superb."

[Gary Sisco]

Uli -- Forgive me for handing you some crow for your own plate, but I'll forgive you, since English -- even plain English -- isn't your native language. If Americans must be provided with "links" to find articles from The Economist, never mind those that are clearly and evidently copyrighted by the likes of The Military Times and The Washington Post, they are even more illiterate and stupid than I've thought all along. Geez, I wonder what the URLs might be? What in the world did we ever do without "links"? Duh?

A population that stupid couldn't even wage a civil war without getting its ass kicked.

[Gary Sisco]

It's a federal felony today in this here free country for me to even articulate what I think needs to be done with Rumsfeldocheneywitz, Inc. So I won't. I mean, more accurately, I can't.

So much for the 1st Amendment.

And that's exactly why I stand on the 2nd as the most important.

[graypencil]

Originally Posted by clinthopson

The outcry gets louder every day.

Bush and Cheney should be impeached and convicted for getting us into an unjustified, unnecessary war. The commanders should be court martialed.

This is our national shame.

The only trouble with that Clint, is that even if the proceedings would get started, it would take longer than November to complete a process we could do ourselves ..if enough people get off their asses and vote these dangerous motherfuckers out of office!

It won't happen, but what I'd love to see is to have the GOP dump DUBBya the dildo and his cronies at the convention this summer ..

..and nominate John McCain to replace him ..

[Ron Thorne]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

Nope. You have to get past Dennis Hastert (Speaker) and Ted Stevens (Speaker pro-tem) first.

You do not want Ted Stevens to be our commander-in-chief, trust me. This hothead would likely have us in a nuclear face-off or something equally disturbing in no time.

[Gary Sisco]

For the footnote and "link" people who can't do their own web searches, here's a link with enough bad news to keep you busy for a while, and it's there everyday. Read it if you want, or don't. On any day you can read a digest of news militaire. Sometimes it helps to know what one's talking about, and not what one's political party leadership is talking about (or, more precisely, not talking about ... or trying not to talk about ... or wishing they didn't have to talk about ... or hoping that no one else talks about ....).

http://www.military.com/News/Home/0,13324,,00.html