Is wrong, unless you have to in order to cover-up for the incompetence of a Republican administration:
In his first detailed public statement since his nomination as defense secretary, Robert M. Gates criticized the Pentagon as failing to prepare adequately for securing Iraq after the invasion in 2003.
Asked in a questionnaire from the Senate Armed Services Committee what he would have done differently in Iraq if he had been defense secretary in the last six years, Mr. Gates responded: “War planning should be done with the understanding that postmajor-combat phase of operations can be crucial. If confirmed, I intend to improve the department’s capabilities in this area.”
He added that “with the advantages of hindsight, I might have done some things differently.”
You see- it is the military’s fault- those guys at the Pentagon just didn’t plan thoroughly enough. Time for the wayback machine:
In a contentious exchange over the costs of war with Iraq, the Pentagon’s second-ranking official today disparaged a top Army general’s assessment of the number of troops needed to secure postwar Iraq. House Democrats then accused the Pentagon official, Paul D. Wolfowitz, of concealing internal administration estimates on the cost of fighting and rebuilding the country.
Mr. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, opened a two-front war of words on Capitol Hill, calling the recent estimate by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki of the Army that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq, “wildly off the mark.” Pentagon officials have put the figure closer to 100,000 troops. Mr. Wolfowitz then dismissed articles in several newspapers this week asserting that Pentagon budget specialists put the cost of war and reconstruction at $60 billion to $95 billion in this fiscal year. He said it was impossible to predict accurately a war’s duration, its destruction and the extent of rebuilding afterward.
“We have no idea what we will need until we get there on the ground,” Mr. Wolfowitz said at a hearing of the House Budget Committee. “Every time we get a briefing on the war plan, it immediately goes down six different branches to see what the scenarios look like. If we costed each and every one, the costs would range from $10 billion to $100 billion.” Mr. Wolfowitz’s refusal to be pinned down on the costs of war and peace in Iraq infuriated some committee Democrats, who noted that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., the budget director, had briefed President Bush on just such estimates on Tuesday.
We’ll give Gates the benfit of the doubt and assume he was talking about Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and their cadre of obstinate fools who msiguided us into this mess. In that case, simply by taking Rumsfeld’s place, Gates is improving “the department’s capabilities.” It is pretty clear that the problem with the Pentagon was not the Pentagon itself, but the incompetent leadership from this administration that was foisted upon the military.
Steve
Rumsfeld threatened to fire anyone who brought him a plan for the postwar stage. I’d like to think Gates is blaming Rumsfeld while not naming names, as any version of history that blames his underlings at the Pentagon for failing to develop a plan is simply revisionist.
Tulkinghorn
There are hundreds of officers who plan, game out, develop and test and revise war plans. Of course there were plans for managing Iraq after conquering it. They were all left on the shelf as Rummy and Dick decided to make things up as they went along.
jg
The problem is that none of the war planning had anything to do with starting a war, winning it and going home. The whole point was only about declaring an enemy and scaring everybody into going along by showing that you’ll brand pacifists and anyone who disagrees with the party, as traitors to the country. Once everyone is on board it doesn’t matter what happens in the real world because anyone who discusses the real world is giving aid and confort to the enemy. Post war planning? Irrelevant if wars don’t end.
Edmund Dantes
I think you are wrong on one count. It seems as if the highest levels, the Joint Chiefs 4 stars etc, have become sychophants for the administration. They’ve been chosen more for their loyalty to certain ideals than their actual abilities. I wish I still had the quote from the one general talking about how Rumsfeld was so brilliant or something, and he was inspired by “God”. Any time you have military personnel believing in “faith based war” you have problems.
p.lukasiak
yeah, we can blame the Pentagon for “poor planning” of the intitial phases of the invasion — but don’t we also need to be blaming the Generals calling the shots on the ground for the last two years for the debacle that we are now experiencing?
We can blame Rumsfeld and Cheney all we want to, but ignoring the fact that Abizaid and Myers have cheerfully carried out those policies as if they make sense means that they should be considered equally — if not more — venal.
Jay
Sun-Tzu, The Art of War.
Punchy
I cannot be a doctor without going to med school. I cannot practice law without 3 years of law education. How, and why, Bush, Cheney, Wolfy, Hadley, Rice, (fill in about 100 other chickenhawks) are allowed to control the military despite ZERO combat experience is a huge requirement ommission in our Constitution. It surprises me not one bit that they clowns have no idea what they’re doing.
Gregory
Oh, well, this Administrations and its apologists would never stoop to that!
Dave
Dick Cheney
’nuff said.
James F. Elliott
The Pentagon was being run by Donald Rumsfeld, who – along with Cheney – has an over thirty-year history of trying to subordinate military leadership to civilian decision-making in all aspects of polciy and planning. If Gates isn’t talking about Rumsfeld and his cardre, then he needs to get booted from his nomination.
Dave
The problem is not that civilians run the military, or that they had never served (as far as I know FDR never served and WWII went pretty well). The problem is they did not listen to what the military brass was telling them, and apparently didn’t give a shit what they had to say.
Perry Como
The founding fathers never expected the US to have a standing military.
Zifnab
Rummy ran the military as one more wing of the mighty Republican Publicity Machine. Generals that disagreed with him got fired or retired. Generals that toed the line got promotions into positions of high visibility. Rumsfield didn’t foul up the Iraq Debacle on his own, but he did an excellent job of finding subordinates who would. He found a bunch of yes-men and backscratchers to show up on CNN and tell everyone what a cake-walk Iraq was going to be. And he cowed enough of the rest to shut the hell up when he was talking. The fact that the media obediently toed the Rumsfield line didn’t help one lick either.
But the problem is top-down and systemic. Gates won’t solve it. Maybe the next President will. I’m not holding my breath, though.
TenguPhule
Gates is just another Bush Bootlicker with his own unanswered Questions about Iran Contra.
With his confirmation, expect more troops to get screwed and blamed for his decisions.
The only way to clean the mess out is to fire all the Generals, Colonels and Majors, promote the Captains and start over.
Steve
Well, we could put a requirement of combat experience in the Constitution, but it would sorta suggest we never expect to see the day when America goes a generation or two without an armed conflict…
Mike
I hate to say it, but that does seem fairly likely at this point….
sglover
Echoing some of the above. Rumsfeld fucked up a lot of things, but let’s not fool ourselves. The Pentagon has at least as many self-seeking constituencies as any big-city political machine, with the big difference being that the city machine can’t squander nearly as much, and usually has to deliver some services reliably.
Salty Party Snax
In the aristocratic world that the Bush family travels in it is plainly understood that blame is something always assigned to the help.
Of course, there is a degree of denial here on Robt Gates’s part. After all, he is a hireling.
Tsulagi
Can be crucial? Ya think? Have no idea what would give you that impression given civil war in Iraq. Excuse me, “sectarian strife” I believe is still the preferred description. Factions in Iraq are simply strifing the shit out of each other.
Well now there’s cause for real optimism. He intends to be an upgrade from the current beyond-brain-dead civilian leadership in the Pentagon. How about just listening to your own Army War College a little bit more and to Bill Kristol types and Cheney a little less?
Let’s see, before Iraq, Cheney, Kristol, Rumsfeld, Wolfy, assorted retards et al were repeating bullshit like “we’ll be welcomed as liberators” and “I don’t think it’ll take more than six months.” While, among others with just a tad more intelligence and experience, the Army War College was saying…
But of course that kind of stuff isn’t near as much fun and base pleasing as the truly serious, vital planning needed for creating catchy slogans and setting up cool Mission Accomplished photo ops. That was what we really needed. Mission Accomplished. Stay the Course.
Zifnab
I honestly have a hard time coming up with a time before the beginning of the Cold War in which our Pentagon has actually made effective use of its budget. Since the Marshall Plan, I can’t think of any military endevour we’ve embarked upon that has gone well. Maybe Bosnia. We at least put a lid on that mess… for a little while.
But Korea and Vietnam were disasters. I’d say Gulf War I went well… except… we decided to come back. Afganistan could have been a clean sweep, but we let it go to shit.
I mean, imagine if the guys who ran our military decided to run our sewage system. We’d all be living knee deep in our own shit, telling everyone we could meet about how we’ve got the most powerful and effective waste management in the world.
sglover
For a little background, this U.S. Army official history describes how serious planning for the (hoped-for!) occupation of Germany began in 1942, when the notion of setting foot on European soil was still a wish. I’ve never seen anything to indicate that Bush or Cheney or Rumsfeld ever spent as much as a week thinking about the aftermath of their precious invasion.
There are no good options in Iraq, but no change is possible, absolutely none, while Bush and Cheney remain in office. If the Dems really want to get some kind of movement, they need to pursue criminal charges against the regime, to force it from office.
Tsulagi
Sorry, I call bullshit.
The day you start having top military commanders deciding which orders or policies from civilian leadership to carry out, which not, or to substitute their own courses of action is the day we become a banana republic. Or a Pakistan that has a military coup. Or any other country where real power is held by military commanders rather than those chosen by the population.
Even though I think Bush is less than or equal to propped up baby shit, I would say any general that fails to carry out a direct order from Bush to the best of their ability should be sacked. With of course the obvious caveat that wouldn’t extend to any order that could legitimately be considered a war crime.
Given that, that is why it is important not to have an obvious retard at the top of the organizational chart. Or in the case of Bush and Cheney, the Stupid First Couple on top of the cake.
srv
I smell a Medal of Freedom in Rummy’s immediate future.
No, with the advantage of having a CLUE, you would have had a plan. Why on earth does anyone think Gates is a professional if he thinks this is just hingsight?
Idiot.
sglover
I honestly have a hard time coming up with a time before the beginning of the Cold War in which our Pentagon has actually made effective use of its budget. Since the Marshall Plan, I can’t think of any military endevour we’ve embarked upon that has gone well. Maybe Bosnia. We at least put a lid on that mess… for a little while.
Errr…. I think you meant, “since the beginning of the Cold War”, right? Prior to WW II and the adoption of the permanent war economy as a way of life, the military was typically a pretty small presence in American society.
Otherwise I generally agree, with some caveats. To my mind, after several decades, South Korea has emerged as one of shining successes of Cold War interventionism. And the Cold War did end pretty much in our favor, without a civilization-ending war — something that few knowledgable people would have guessed in 1946, 1950, 1960. But in general, our military-centric foreign policy is yielding ever more diminishing returns every year. Before we leave Iraq, we’re going to piss away a trillion dollars, at least. This year alone we’re going to squander half- to three-quarter-trillion dollars on “defense”. Imagine what we could do, at home and abroad, with that kind of financial and technological investment! Ike’s military-industrial complex warning has seldom been more important.
Jay
Strange, I thought that’s what soldiers did. Obey orders I mean. Pvt. Beetle Bailey is always peeling potatoes when he screws up and he’s never been out of boot camp.
sglover
The day you start having top military commanders deciding which orders or policies from civilian leadership to carry out, which not, or to substitute their own courses of action is the day we become a banana republic. Or a Pakistan that has a military coup. Or any other country where real power is held by military commanders rather than those chosen by the population.
Oddly enough, in the beginning of his tenure Rumsfeld was pretty vocal about restoring civilian primacy to civil-military relations. Unfortunately, he bollixed it up with equal measures of ego, his own pet theories about strategy, and a unique management style that emphasized plausible deniablity and buck-passing.
If you think the military (including the sainted Colin Powell) was strictly subordinate to civilian authority during the Clinton years, I’ve got a painless Middle Eastern invasion scheme to sell you. I was in the navy during the first half of the 90’s, and I was astonished to see senior-level officers (in a Washington, DC facility!) loudly disparaging Clinton over the “don’t-ask-don’t-tell” dust-up. Note that I was a mere E-3/E-4 at the time. I’m pretty sure that bashing the President in front of the enlisted isn’t in the Officer’s Code of Conduct.
Zifnab
**Ahem.** Yes.
I’ll agree South Korea has prospered quite admirably, but I like to think that’s more because of the South Koreans than General McCarther. Likewise, the Cold War was a success specifically BECAUSE we didn’t run in guns a-blazing at every opportunity. The Pentagon was used less back then and for more good. But when some civilian commander or arm-chair general decides we need another $2 billion airplane… why? Is that worth all the body-armor we sacrificed for troops? How about all the VA-benefits we decided to not pay? Is it worth $40 for every person on social security in America? I mean, the waste is just epic.
TenguPhule
This doesn’t help as the entire Iraq invasion *was* and still *is* a War crime cheerfully carried out by frogstepping Generals who need to be shot out of a cannon into Iraq.
Niket
Reading the NYT article you linked to and another related article in the same newspaper, it seems that Gates was unhappy about the decisions of the civilian leadership at Pentagon. I do believe that this administration lost a narrow window of opportunity, just after Saddam’s fall, to bring peace to Iraq… primarily due to the unwillingness of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, and dare I say, President Bush to keep eyes and ears open and “change the course” as the situation on ground demands.
Having said that, if indeed this was a bungling by the miliraty officials, why would it be disrespectful to call spade a spade. I am not saying that the top military brass is to blame, especially bearing in mind that Rumsfeld did seem keen on hearing from someone having a contrary opinion. But just because it is an all-volunteer army does not mean that they should not be blamed when they are wrong.
Mike
Soldiers are NOT supposed to follow illegal orders. Ever.
pie
As long as we only take out Grenada, Haiti, or Hawaii, I’m all for it. Give our troops minimal casualties, plenty of sun, and chestfuls of medals. Even if, in the future, America is so weakened that we can only send out a flotilla of rowboats and rubber duckies as our “Navy,” I take consolation in the fact that there are islands in the Caribbean with no inhabitants whatsoever. Our mighty fleet will soon overwhelm the crab/seagull defenders, ensuring the combat experience the next generation needs to assume responsibility of America’s military and civilian functions.
Grenada went pretty well. So did Haiti. And Panama. While we haven’t had to invade Hawaii yet, we already have bases all over the place out there. I’m guessing we could really clobber those clowns if they tried anything too shifty, like embargo Hollywood celebrities or what have you.
Zifnab
The invasion of Iraq was ill-concieved, unjustified, and poorly managed, but it wasn’t illegal.
The abuse of intelligence was illegal. The money laundering and profiteering was illegal. The torturing was illegal. The various attrocities committed by ill-trained or uncontrolled soldiers was illegal. But the War, in and of itself, was as legal and law-abiding as any.
Of course, its all the caveats about Abu Garab and Halliburton that make this war so much more despised and villified than Afganistan or the First Gulf War. The Generals who frogstepped to waterboarding should be tossed out on their brass asses. But you can’t criminalize what was fully permitted and funded by a sitting Congress.
TenguPhule
Wanna bet? Reread that authorization for the use of force again.
Jay
Well, they missed that floor-to-ceiling window of opportunity before the invasion. The one that gave them a chance to decide starting a war based on false information wasn’t such a great idea after all. It’s no surprise they couldn’t find their way through any smaller holes created by their disaster.
sglover
The invasion of Iraq was ill-concieved, unjustified, and poorly managed, but it wasn’t illegal.
Well, I guess if Congress wants to continue abdicating its Constitutional role, that’s true. Somehow I don’t think it fits in with the Constitutional bit about war-making powers, though. But I’m sure some right-winger can come along and prove that I’m just splitting semantic hairs….
The Other Steve
True, on a technicality.
The Iraq war was a violation of the UN Charter which speaks against wars of aggression.
However, for it to be taken to a Criminal Court the Security Council would need pass a resolution proclaiming it as a violation, and that’ll happen when pigs fly.
The Other Steve
Congress abdicated it’s authority about 40 years ago with Vietnam.
Mike
Read the WW2 Congressional authorization of declaration of war upon Germany and then read the bullshit authorization they came up with for Iraq. Then read the Constitution and understand that the Iraq War IS both illegal and unconstitutional.
Tulkinghorn
Ohshit. Homework.
Is there a new ‘Lost’ on tonight?
CaseyL
Yes, the Iraq war was illegal, in that Congress never declared war. The AUMF is not, was not, and never will be, a declaration of war. A declaration of war is a formal thing, setting out who exactly we’re declaring war on, and why – the “why” being a specific, cited action.
“Terrorism” isn’t an enemy. Neither, for that matter, are countries vaguely grouped under an “Axis of Evil.”
But it’s also true that Congress abdicated its Constitutional duty during Vietnam, which was also never a declared war.
What’s hysterically funny, in a laugh-instead-of-cry kind of way, is the way Congress backed and filled by passing a Force Authorization act, which says the President – having already sent US military forces somewhere without a declaration of war – is, within 30 or 60 days, supposed to get an authorization from Congress to keep the forces wherever he sent them. This has led to amusing news reports of whether and when Congress would “invoke” the Act (as if there was some other step besides the President sending US troops off to fight that would trigger Congressional action) and whether the President would pay any attention if it didn’t.
Congress also abdicated even that responsibility re Iraq. It passed a bullshit AUMF, then put its collective hands over its eyes, ears, and mouth… pausing only long enough to hand over the nation’s wallet.
Bob In Pacifica
And it’s the VA’s fault ’cause they can’t put those arms and legs back on.
It’s the most wonderful time of the year.
Bob In Pacifica
And it’s the VA’s fault ’cause they can’t put those arms and legs back on.
It’s the most wonderful time of the year.
searp
I don’t agree completely. Shinseki did what a leader would do, but his followon apologists can now be seen in retrospect as the worst sort of careerists.
For senior uniformed leaders,the time to stand up and be counted is exactly when the civilian leadership is leading the country to ruin. Richard Myers has a lot of questions to answer, haven’t made up my mind about Pace, but I sure hope he believes every single word he says in public.
My own opinion is that Rumsfeld’s firing of Shinseki bifurcated the senior leadership; Rumsfeld promoted the part that was willing to go along with the Administration’s mendacious publicity campaigns and inept prosecution of the war.
p.lukasiak
Strange, I thought that’s what soldiers did. Obey orders I mean. Pvt. Beetle Bailey is always peeling potatoes when he screws up and he’s never been out of boot camp.
Generals (unlike private Beetle Bailey) have choices — they can choose to resign their commissions rather than carry out orders they disagree with.
Imagine, if you will, if (Powell and) a bunch of sensible top Generals had resigned rather than participate in the invasion of Iraq. They didn’t — which means that they are either incompetent, or venal, or both. Nixon wound up getting impeached because two men of character (Richardson and Ruckleshouse) resigned rather than follow Nixon’s order to fire Archibald Cox. It would not have taken that many resignations from the upper echelons of the Pentagon to jump-start a genuine debate on the wisdom of invading Iraq — but the generals lacked the character of Richardson and Ruckleshouse.
ThymeZone
My question now is, how many people will die while the disgraced American Potemkin government figures out a way to Run Away With Honor?
These deaths are entirely for the purpose of providing political cover for a failed American government and will serve to contribute exactly nothing to the future of Iraq and the Middle East. And given the breathtaking fecklessness and incompetance that we’ve see so far from these guys, one can only grimace in anticipation of the humanitarian disaster that will surely unfold when the end finally comes.
And … exactly what is the real story behind the macabre dos-a-dos going on between Bush and Maliki at this point? Watching them at this point feels a little like watching a gang slaying unfold in the prison exercise yard …..
Zifnab
Except (and I hate to use this hackneyed phrase, but I don’t know what else say), 9/11 changed everything. When your only two options as a General are fall in line or retire, and your country has just suffered the worst attack since Pearl Harbor, who can blame a guy for dragging his feet. Especially a veteran military man. The neo-cons did an excellent job of befuddling the issue with patriotism and “bipartisanship” and us-vs.-them mentality.
The Generals’ sins were not in failing to jump ship in protest, but in failing to protest. It took them 3 years to finally come out of the War Room Closet and voice their absolute disgust, and that was just about 3 years too long. The policy that military bows to a civilian leadership is a wise and sound one. The policy that military blindly and deafly follows civilian leadership is pure folly. This isn’t the raw recruit grunt questioning the orders of his sergant in the middle of a firefight. This is the battle-hardened veteran military man questioning the orders of his Pentagon beaurocrat thousands of miles away safely at home. Generals should be encouraged to voice their opinions, their predictions, and their warnings to anyone and everyone who will listen. Perhaps if they had, we’d have been slower on pulling the trigger in the stupid mad dash for Bagdad.
croatoan
http://www.lcnp.org/global/Iraqstatemt.3.pdf
The Other Steve
The Marine Commandant resigned over the Invasion of Vietnam.
Didn’t make much of a difference.
Hyperion
it did to him. i’m sure his conscience is clear.
there have been failures at many levels. but the lack of accountablility makes the future of our country seem very bleak.
we need to do better. we can do better. but it will take a strong and PRINCIPLED leader. any ideas where we can find one of those?
Decided FenceSitter
Are you sure Hyperion, I could easily speculate that he watched what happened, the good men and women who died, and wondered “If I stayed in could I have mitigated this, could I have improved a really bad situation to merely bad.”
If you retire, if you quit, you make a powerful political statement.
You also remove yourself from the game. You eliminate all the options that you had remaining to yourself. It is the final ultimantium of “I cannot do anything even if I was part of this event, therefore I remove myself from it in protest.”
And in doing so you leave behind the men who followed you, believed in you, and trusted in you to take care of them, when you resign in protest you are saying that the best thing you can do for your men is to leave publically and hope that it awakens the politicians and the public to what is going on.
And do you want to depend on the American populace as a whole for the salvation of your men?
ThymeZone
You also make yourself a target for attacks by those still in the game, who will be out to discredit you.
Nowadays, a large and powerful machine exists to carry out these attacks, and it is ruthless and efficient.
“You’re with us, or against us” isn’t just a Hallmark Card greeting for these people. They mean it literally.
Darrell
So according to lefties here, the UN should supercede the US constitution? That’s preciseley what that citation spells out.
If Iraq was an “illegal” war, so was Afghanistan, and the Balkans, and Vietnam.