Top military brass incensed over Bush war plan failures

America's leading retired military officials have been tearing the Bush administration's head off over its Iraq policy. Retired officers now say that not enough troops were deployed to prevent postwar chaos.

"I argued on the air during the war, that the coalition did not have enough troops to finish the conventional campaign against the Iraqi Army and simultaneously disperse to centers of regional and tribal power to establish the safe and secure environment needed to support reconstruction," says Gen. Meigs, a retired four star general, former commander U.S. forces in Europe who appeared on MSNBC during the war. "I think that position has been born out by events."

"Dismissing the entire Iraqi Army en masse after the war ... was a major mistake. We should have done what the Germans did with the East German Army after reunification [in 1990]. Send away all over the rank of major and sift through the rest for the ones that could be used to form a new Army, then use them to help maintain a secure environment as part of our effort."

Former drug czar (a losing general in the war on drugs :) Barry McCaffrey said

The more important and lasting errors made by the administration was the decision to disband the Iraqi Army and send its entire strength, including Republican Guard, fedayeen militia units and senior officers, back to their home villages without vetting them or creating POW camps.

"This is a 400,000 man army that disappeared into thin air, was never engaged or defeated on the battlefield," says McCaffrey. "That was a stupid thing to do. We should have kept every officer we captured; we should have kept every member of Republican Guard and every fedayeen until we could finger print and get a digital photo of them, releasing them knowing where they live. But we had no troops to guard and process them, just as we had insufficient troops to guard key buildings, to garrison key towns and to search for weapons of mass destruction."

"The war plan was pushed on Tommy Franks with insufficient forces for Rumsfeld?s own ideological reasons," says McCaffrey. "He personally sat on the army?s deployment schedule and made sure the four or five divisions that should have been deployed never got there. And he and his people denigrate the army and its top generals in a way that suggest they pay no attention at all to them."

Also retired Marine General and former mideast envoy Anthony Zinni said that

"I'm suggesting," Zinni said, "that either the [prewar] intelligence was so bad and flawed--and if that's the case, then somebody's head ought to roll for that--or the intelligence was exaggerated or twisted in a way to make a more convenient case to the American people."

Zinni raised the issue that Bush might have purposefully misled the public and not shared with it the true reason for the war: "If there's a strategic decision for taking down Iraq, if it's the so-called neoconservative idea that taking apart Iraq and creating a model democracy, or whatever it is, will change the equation in the Middle East, then make the [public] case based on that strategic decision....I think it's a flawed--like the domino theory--it's a flawed strategic thought or concept....But if that's the reason for going in, that's the case the American people ought to hear. They ought to make their judgment and determine their support based on what the motivation is for the attack."

Earlier in the month, he addressed a forum sponsored by the U.S. Naval Institute and the Marine Corps Association. There he let loose. Reflecting the views of high-ranking U.S. military officials who were dubious about launching a war against Iraq and skeptical about the occupation that would follow, Zinni accused the Bush crowd of having not been ready for the challenges to come after defeating the Iraqi army. "We're in danger of failing," he noted, because the Bush administration had not readied itself for what would follow the initial military engagement. "We fought one idiot here [in Iraq], just now," he said. "Ohio State beat Slippery Rock 62 to 0. No shit! You know! But we weren't ready for that team that came onto the field at the end of that three-week victory." He went on:

"Right now, in a place like Iraq, you're dealing with Jihadists that are coming in to raise hell, crime on the streets that's rampant, ex-Ba'athists that still running around, and the potential now for this country to fragment: Shi'ia on Shi'ia, Shi'ia on Sunni, Kurd on Turkomen. It's a powder keg. I just got back from Jordan. I talked to a number of Iraqis there. And what I hear scares me even more that what I read in the newspaper. Resources are needed, a strategy is needed, a plan. This is a different kind of conflict. War fighting is one element of it."

Zinni displayed little confidence in Bush and his aides. He said that their Iraq endeavor has landed the United States into the middle of assorted "culture wars" in the Middle East. "We don't understand that culture," he remarked. "I've spent the last 15 years of my life in this part of the world. And I'll tell you, every time I hear...one of the dilettantes back here speak about this region of the world, they don't have a clue. They don't understand what makes them tick. They don't understand where they are in their own history. They don't understand what our role is....We are great at dealing with the tactical problems--the killing and the breaking. We are lousy at solving the strategic problems; having a strategic plan, understanding about regional and global security and what it takes to weld that and to shape it and to move forward."

"When we put [our enlisted men and women] in harm's way, it had better count for something, It can't be because some policy wonk back here has a brain fart of an idea of a strategy that isn't thought out."

...Zinni practically counseled his audience to rebel against the Bush administration. U.S. troops, he said, "should never be put on a battlefield without a strategic plan, not only for the fighting--our generals will take care of that--but for the aftermath and winning that war. Where are we, the American people, if we accept this, if we accept this level of sacrifice without that level of planning? Almost everyone in this room, of my contemporaries--our feelings and our sensitivities were forged on the battlefields of Vietnam, where we heard the garbage and lies, and we saw the sacrifice. We swore never again would we do that. We swore never again would we allow it to happen. And I ask you, is it happening again? And you're going to have to answer that question, just like the American people are."

Powell runs from NY Times editorial meeting; CIA demands investigation of White House

The cookie is crumbling rapidly these days. The Friday Times editorial addressed those missing weapons that passed for a just cause.

If Iraq can be turned into a freer and happier country in coming years, it could become a focal point for the evolution of a more peaceful and democratic Middle East. But it was the fear of weapons of mass destruction placed in the hands of enemy terrorists that made doing something about Iraq seem urgent. If it had seemed unlikely that Mr. Hussein had them, we doubt that Congress or the American people would have endorsed the war.

This is clearly an uncomfortable question for the Bush administration. Yesterday, Secretary of State Colin Powell met with Times editors. Asked whether Americans would have supported this war if weapons of mass destruction had not been at issue, Mr. Powell said the question was too hypothetical to answer. Asked if he, personally, would have supported it, he smiled, thrust his hand out and said, "It was good to meet you."

Then there is the unfolding bombshell between the CIA and the White House. As some recall, after Ambassador Joseph Wilson exposed the lies of the Nigerian Yellowcake hoax, a 'senior administration official' told columnist Robert Novak that Wilson's wife was (truely) an undercover CIA agent. Novak published this, and whoever told him broke the law.

Now the CIA has determined that someone broke the law, and they want the Dept. of Justice to investigate, and catch them.

Joe Wilson laid it down at a public forum hosted by Rep. Jay Inslee, addressing the WMD issues and such. Wilson didn't mince words:

Audience Question: : Assuming that what Novak said was true, can we expect a full FBI investigation?

AJW: First, the CIA would perform an internal investigation. The results of that would be passed on to the Justice Department for professional investigation. I don't think this will be dropped. "At the end of the day, it's of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs. And trust me, when I use that name, I measure my words."

Yeeeee haw!

Investigative feature on Israeli settlements

For the Jewish new year, the Israeli paper Haaretz is publishing a lengthy and complex feature on the phenomenon of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza: funding, the outpost arrangements, the many activities of Ariel Sharon, international law, Palestinian reaction, the settlers' internet activites, taxes, settlement tourism, the Russian settler population, and so forth.

For the first time, an Israeli media outlet has tried to compile and expose the amount Israel has spent maintaining and constructing the settlements. How much has the boondoggle cost since 1967? What has been the result of this thirty year misadventure? The lead article:

The extra civilian price tag: at least NIS 2.5 billion a year

One of the most closely guarded secrets in Israel is the amount of funding that is channeled to the settlements. Budget items were built to conceal this information and no government report has ever been published on the subject. Now, for the first time, Haaretz is presenting a nearly complete picture of the additional cost of the settlements, which totals more than NIS 45 billion since 1967

The investments include: NIS 400 million for those willing to live in settlements in the Jordan Valley; the prime minister's approval for paving three roads in the West Bank at a cost of over NIS 150 million (the Keidar-Ma'aleh Adumim road, the Nili-Ofarim road, and the Yabed bypass road); a Housing Ministry decision to provide generous benefits (totaling some NIS 200 million) to those (mostly settlers) purchasing homes in areas designated as National Priority Areas A and B; and income tax breaks of 13 percent for 60 settlements (to be selected by the Defense Ministry).

...There is still no clear answer to the question of how many extra billions the State of Israel spends in the territories each year. Is it NIS 1 billion? NIS 2 billion? NIS 5 billion? More? In other words, the question is how much less the state would spend if the 231,000 settlers resided within the Green Line. And how much money has Israel allocated for Jewish settlement in the territories since they were conquered over 36 years ago: NIS 20 billion? NIS 30 billion? NIS 50 billion - or more? The Haaretz investigation, conducted during the past three months, attempts to answer these questions for the first time.

...No prime minister or finance minister, from either the Likud or Labor parties, has ever answered these questions. Most, or all, of them do not know the answers. There is a story at the treasury about a new finance minister, a friend of the settlements, who received the portfolio not that many years ago and invited the head of the Budgets Division for a confidential talk. When the door was closed, the minister implored, "Now tell me, finally, how many billions is the government spending in the territories each year?" The head of the division responded by giving the minister a two-hour lecture on government spending in the territories. During the entire lecture, he did not mention even a single number.

White House caught in a loop; Bush afraid newspapers will corrupt his reality

Damn it all to hell. Someone stole my old bike from in front of the house. What's too bad is that I just got the tires fixed on Sunday. I had that one for a very long time. Fortunately tonight I went around along the river. A good last time. It's a surprise it made it this far, all in all...

IN more entertainging news, we are in what could be called a feedback loop of foreign policy. Bush has been paralyzed and his polls are corkscrewing straight to the floor (at a rate of 9 points in 3 weeks). He's polling poorly against any Dem, even that newbie Clark!

Has anyone on this planet noticed that there is no public report about Iraqi WMD from the investigators?? That, in fact, the administration has suppressed the information to avoid political damage??

Here's something else: Bush is actually intimidated by bias in newspapers. That is, he cannot identify and understand their bias. Hence he must depend on his advisors for a portrait of the world. This is pretty amazing, actually. I think we should all wonder how nice it is to have a president who believes that reading through the Post in the morning, say, would endanger the integrity (perceived as accuracy) of his worldview. Erk.

This comes from the happy interview in the White House with FOX News' Brit Hume:

HUME: How do you get your news?
BUSH: I get briefed by Andy Card and Condi in the morning. They come in and tell me. In all due respect, you've got a beautiful face and everything. (????)
I glance at the headlines just to kind of a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves. But like Condoleezza, in her case, the national security adviser is getting her news directly from the participants on the world stage.
HUME: Has that been your practice since day one, or is that a practice that you've...
BUSH: Practice since day one.
HUME: Really?
BUSH: Yes. You know, look, I have great respect for the media. I mean, our society is a good, solid democracy because of a good, solid media. But I also understand that a lot of times there's opinions mixed in with news. And I...
HUME: I won't disagree with that, sir.
BUSH: I appreciate people's opinions, but I'm more interested in news. And the best way to get the news is from objective sources. And the most objective sources I have are people on my staff who tell me what's happening in the world.

How can we view this disaster? How about the Foreign Policy Moebius Strip, via the political cartoon This Modern World.

The cartoon goes well with the latest from Washington writer Josh Marshall who tells us of an administration like a robot that's caught in a loop.

People disagree over how much we should involve our allies or the United Nations in our various military and diplomatic forays abroad. But we?re beyond that now. It?s no longer a matter of which approach is better. The problem is that the White House seems incapable of choosing one over the other and now oscillates back and forth between the two on an almost weekly basis.

For the past six weeks we?ve watched the same sobering pattern recur again and again.

First, some major setback occurs in Baghdad. Next, the White House reacts with a newfound desire to broaden its coalition by bringing in the United Nations and our allies.

When the crunch comes, however, the White House can?t bring itself to make the hard decisions necessary to change the dynamic in Iraq or the United Nations. So everything falls back to the status quo ante until the next bomb blows up in Baghdad.

Last year, many in the administration genuinely did not care what the United Nations or the rest of the world thought about our venture into Iraq. But today, the White House pretty clearly wants some outside infusion of support. And yet the president cannot seem to muster more than insults and threats about U.N. irrelevancy when he speaks to the General Assembly.

Before the speech, when Fox News Channel?s Brit Hume asked the president whether he was willing to cede some political control to the United Nations in exchange for foreign assistance, Bush replied, "I'm not so sure we have to, for starters."

Many of us are familiar with the five stages of grieving identified three decades ago by the psychiatrist Elisabeth Kubler Ross. As individuals face death or any great loss they go through five stages: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. Those stages apply to the demise of major policy initiatives as well and we?re watching that happen now as the White House comes to grips with the collapse of its policy on Iraq. The administration keeps seeing what the problem is but cannot bring itself to take the cure.