A Response

A friend today sent around an email, apparently in support of the Iraq Invasion by George W. Bush, referring to an "Associated Press article this summer [that] revealed that our troops found 550 metric tons of yellowcake a few miles south of Baghdad in 2003 and kept it secret until recently. See: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/ " I replied as follows:

Interesting but fundamentally irrelevant when considering the manner in which the Bush/Cheney Administration cherry-picked and fabricated intelligence, failed to follow fundamental intelligence procedures of verification (For example: "Curveball") and, when necessary to support its preordained intention to invade Iraq, lied to the American people. The more egregious of these, in my opinion, were the statements, primarily by Cheney, asserting existence of unquestionable evidence of a direct and nefarious connection between Saddam and al Qaeda.

This "yellow cake" referred to in the article was stock existing in Iraq prior to 1991. The Bush Administration's repeated dire warnings were of then "current and continuing efforts" by Saddam to obtain uranium. Independent expert conclusions following the invasion and based upon evidence within Iraq (documents, interrogations and interviews) seem to be in agreement that Saddam had stopped efforts to build a WMD program in at least 1991.

We must beat the forces opposing us in Iraq and Afghanistan and, in a joint effort with nation-building assets from within our own government and from NATO countries, assist in establishing an allied front with the resulting governments against terrorism. When this is completed it will be almost solely the achievement of the United States military command and the military and intelligence forces on the ground. The decision to invade Iraq by Bush was the stupidest decision of any president in my lifetime. The fact that the proffered rationale for the necessity of invasion was false is wholly reprehensible and worthy of continuing condemnation whatever the outcome of the wars. But, that's just my humble opinion.

A letter to a classmate.

With all due respect, now, more than ever, is the time for such discussions. Your comment suggests that there had been an earlier conversation [about the Iraq War] among the class. I regret that I missed that opportunity. I believe that the conversation should have never ended. Our country is in an approach to a general election. Notwithstanding the cherry-picked issues of the candidates and the media during the primaries, the fundamental concern must be the character, competence and qualification of those who would be our elected leaders. The decisions of this present administration over the course of the past seven years now form the framework of what we as a nation have become and, to a great measure, define the position we maintain in each “crisis” situation around the world. Now is precisely the time, for example, to educate ourselves and discuss the events and actors that pulled us out of Afghanistan and put us into Iraq. Now is the time to discuss the competence, character and policies of the current administration and to apply those negative or positive lessons and value-judgments in our evaluation of which direction our country should now move.

I suggest that is it our duty, a duty greater than most other Americans, to the men and women now serving and who will serve over the next generation, to continue to educate ourselves and others about the leadership lessons of the Iraq war. One of my concerns has been that we as a nation will now blindly accept the status quo and not call to account the decisions and “deciders” that brought us to this point in Iraq. It is far too easy just to say “We are in Iraq so we need to support the troops.” I fully support the magnificent effort of the men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. We cannot pullout precipitously. However, the fact that this effort is finally being applied in a tactically sound, counter-insurgent manner with increasing success, should not, must not, cause us to ignore the nature and conduct of the leaders who brought us to this moment. These lessons should control the present, presidential political debate. Who knows, there may even be time to discuss the use of torture, Middle-East policy, the Fourth Amendment to the Bill of Rights, Habeas Corpus or even why the Army forgot the lessons our men died teaching us in Vietnam. Having graduated in the bottom five percent of our class I have always admired the intelligence of my classmates [including those few whose names are found after my own]. With the experience and education gained since June 1965 I think we might just have something to contribute.

U.S. Air Force Buildup in Iraq

According to an Associated Press report of July 15, 2007 as presented on Military.com: "BALAD AIR BASE, Iraq - Away from the headlines and debate over the 'surge' in U.S. ground troops, the Air Force has quietly built up its hardware inside Iraq, sharply stepped up bombing and laid a foundation for a sustained air campaign in support of American and Iraqi forces."

This raises a few questions.
1. Is the buildup part of a contingency for operations against Iran?
2. Is the buildup part of a strategic alternative for operations in Iraq necessitated by insufficient ground forces as is apparently the circumstance in Afghanistan?
3. If such a strategic alternative, how is it reconciled with the counter-insurgency imperatives of the Petraeus approach?
4. As stated by U.S. Air Force officers in the A.P. report, the Air Force expects to stay in Iraq to support Iraqi forces after any withdrawal of U.S. forces. If so, we can expect such U.S. installations to be protected by U.S. ground forces in the manner of DaNang Air Base, Vietnam 1965. Will the level of forces required for active installation security, support of Air Force operations, border interdiction, counter al-Qaeda initiatives, advisor support and training for Iraqi units, at a minimum, allow for any significant reduction of U.S. ground forces within the next five years?
5. With U.S. forces then removed from the primary responsibility of suppressing sectarian violence into these "limited" roles, will there be a significant reduction in U.S. casualties?

My view: 1. Yes. 2. Yes. 3. It cannot be reconciled. 4. No. 5. No.

Defund State

The United States Senate has begun again to debate the Iraq debacle. The preliminary speeches and sound bites have focused on our continuing military commitment. The President asks that we wait for the September assessment by General Patraeus. His opposition demands immediate planning for troop withdrawals. There had been talk about the congressional exercise of its control of funding to force a military closure. Our men and women in uniform are performing heroically and successfully. The generals now commanding them and commanding media attention are rightly driven by a sense of duty to accomplish the assigned mission. The tragedy within Iraq is not of their doing nor within their capability to correct. To focus on the military is to walk head long into the tree in a pine forest.

All emphasis should now be focused on forcing this President to implement recommendations of the Baker/Hamilton Report and begin immediately a strategic political initiative. This initiative must be open and direct, drawing in all concerned nations. This initiative must acknowledge the willingness of the United States to accept a reasoned and equitable resolution. If only implicitly, this President must acknowledge his administration's inability to command the respect of the other nations in reaching a diplomatic resolution and work to assemble a coalition of nations. The world is aware of the political climate within this country and would recognize the voice of our Congress as an assertion of the long-term will of the Nation. Congress is, frankly, out of its league in directing military matters but, if it can put aside partisan politics, it can speak forcefully both to this President and to the world.

Should the President fail to immediately act to begin such a strategic approach Congress might consider cutting funding for the Department of State. It is clear that the President, during the reign of Rumsfeld, had little if any use for the State Department. It is also clear now that the Department has no functional responsibility regarding this country's single most important international crisis. If Congress shuns the real issue and needs a plaything let it be State and not Defense.

Another General Speaks

I heard it up close and personal forty-five years ago. We could have used his strengths these past five years. Perhaps even his perceived weakness, his ego, would have been an effective counter force in pursuit of sound military strategy against incompetent civilian planning.

In this speech Gen. MacArthur continues to speak to the professional military officer. The conduct of the general officer ranks of the United States military in recent years can be judged against this code of Duty, Honor and Country. All Americans need to try to understand this ethic to help put into proper context the perspectives of the professional military man and woman. It is not the complete answer but it is an excellent introductory lecture.

http://www.aogusma.org/PUBS/Register/MacA.htm

"Gee, Mr. President, help us keep our jobs."

The front page heading on the New York Times websight reads "GOP Moderates warn Bush Iraq Must Show Gains." http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/washington/10cong.html?hp
"Moderate Republicans gave President Bush a blunt warning on his Iraq policy at a private White House meeting this week, telling the president that conditions needed to improve markedly by fall or more Republicans would desert him on the war."

Now after four years of obvious, escalating, gross negligence in the Bush administration's orchestration of the war in Iraq and the complicity of a neutered military command structure, do "moderate" Republican Congressmen tell the President that "conditions need to improve." Only now, in fear of the personal loss of political power, patronage and notoriety, do these hypocrites confront the President with a call for "improvements." During the Republican control of both houses of Congress they sat back as our efforts in Iraq and in the region were melded into the fiasco we now face. While over three thousand of our finest young women and men were dying, they sat back and repeated the same inane characterizations our President had memorized. They sat back when the Administration used blatantly unfounded fear tactics to win a national election. When the President took illegal actions against American citizens "to defend our American freedoms," they sat back because the Rove/Bush efforts were good for the Party. While the prestige, influence and power of the United States in the world were dangerously diminished, they sat back and memorized Bush's rhetoric; a rhetoric that was at times simply vacuous and at times blatantly and knowingly false. They sat back and never questioned.

These, "our representatives," have not shown themselves to be worthy of the office we have bestowed on them. They deserve no credit for confronting the President to save votes for their Party. When their time comes and they solicit votes in their district or beyond, I sincerely pray that the voters follow their lead and sit back and ignore their set of lies.

I do not suggest by silence that the Democratic Party is without comparable fault, however, I am sure that there will be ample opportunity to address their hypocrisy in the near future.

Briefing by Gen Petraeus April 2007

After watching the Pentagon briefing by Gen. Petraeus, I believe the General has presented contentions within two paradigms, one political and one military. The General candidly speaks of the “enormous,” long-term American resources that will be necessary in Iraq. From these assertions it seems clear that he understands that it would be appropriate at this juncture for another political decision by the civilian authority in this country. I believe that he understands that the American people and those in political authority did not anticipate the four year evolution of the war or approve the commitment he believes necessary at this time. By his delineation of needed accomplishments by the Iraqi government as well as his projections of time and manpower requirements of United States forces essential to the stabilization of an Iraqi nation he appears to make clear that a new political consensus should be reached in Washington.

In this regard, it is wholly appropriate, if not mandated, that a discussion in good faith take place between Congress and the President as to our effort within Iraq and as to Iraq in the broader Middle East. Party politics on this issue and legacies be damned when so many lives are at stake.

General Petraeus has also presented a candid, balanced assessment of the strategic and many of the tactical military objectives within Iraq. He presents a view of how, in the context of security provided by the “coalition” and Iraqi forces, the development of Iraqi political control should progress. To be sure, arrogance and incompetence, among other reasons, at the highest levels of civilian and military authority in the United States has delayed the implementation of a reasoned, intelligent, coordinated military/civilian plan. However, Congress gave Gen. Petraeus its approval to begin an attempt to turn the situation around. Thousands of American’s have already invested their lives. Tens of thousands of Iraqi families have lost loved ones. Patraeus has an approach that appears worthy of support both as to its military viability and in the context of the political debate.

As a Vietnam veteran, I recoil at the way that the Vietnam War is twisted by some Democrats to fit a political argument about Iraq. As a formal federal prosecutor, I join the call for a thorough review, through an impeachment proceeding if necessary, of the motives and acts of those in this administration who created this unnecessary war and global turmoil. The bottom line is, however, that we assumed the responsibility for Iraq and must accept responsibility for the collateral consequences as well. We cannot honorably turn our backs and walk away.