Centerblue.org

So Rumsfeld sent a memo to Bush two days before his resignation calling for a drastic change of course in Iraq, along with 21 “ideas” on how to change course.

Where were these “ideas” prior to the election? Was it so important to cling to power that trying to win the election by “staying the course” of a sinking ship was more important than the thousands of lives and billions of dollars lost? Or is Rumsfeld simply so arrogant that he could only admit defeat by poo pooing the whole endeavor on his way out the door?

It’s not as if the “ideas” in the memo show any depth of analysis. They sound more akin to the kind of garbage you would put on powerpoint slides to bumbling, clueless corporate executives who have no knowledge of what’s going on underneath them, to give them the illusion that their shops are being creative and getting work done. Examples:

• “Announce that whatever new approach the U.S. decides on, the U.S. is doing so on a trial basis….This will give us the ability to readjust and move to another course, if necessary, and therefore not ‘lose.’ “
• “Recast the U.S. military mission and the U.S. goals (how we talk about them) — go minimalist.”
• “Begin modest withdrawals of U.S. and Coalition forces (start ‘taking our hand off the bicycle seat’), so Iraqis know they have to pull up their socks, step up, and take responsibility for their country.”

It’s pathetic that the US course on Iraq has come down to nothing more than feel-good “corporate speak” without any real analysis or thought given to how to implement them or to the consequences of delaying a change of course until it was more politically convenient.

As for Rumsfeld, he will probably go down in history as one of the most incompetent DoD Secretaries ever. If he really felt this way, that the course in Iraq was a bad one, he had a duty to himself, his troops and his country to make the case as soon as he felt it necessary. By withholding his opinion until he was shown the door demonstrates he was nothing but a spineless puppet who didn’t give a damn about the thousands of men and women who have given their lives in furtherance of this miserable adventure.

An upcoming Pentagon review of what to do in Iraq is likely to report on three major options, dubbed “go big,” “go long,” or “go home.” It is a review separate but likely to feed into the bipartisan Iraq Study Group review being put together by Congress.

The Pentagon review’s Option 1: Send in more troops. Option 2: reduce troops but stay longer. Option 3: pull out. The overall recommendation will be a short-term increase in troops and a long-term commitment to advise and train Iraqi forces.

There are no good options left in Iraq (even Henry Kissinger, architect of the Vietnam War, says Iraq is not winnable). Any of the three options will be met with harsh consequences. If we increase troops, we put more of them in danger with no guarantee that they will successfully stabilize the country given its current state. There’s also the question of where the troops would come from given the severely strained resources of the military (which is leading to Democrat Charles Rangel to call for re-instatement of the draft.) If we reduce troop numbers but stay longer we are likely to be totally ineffective, and the situation will become even more dangerous for the troops that remain. If we pull out we are ceding Iraq to terrorist groups like Al Qaeda in Iraq and possibly to ambitious neighboring countries. Put together it’s a disaster of unimaginable proportions.

Given the available menu of undesirable options, I agree with the overall recommendation likely to be given by this review. We have to try preventing Iraq from getting into the hands of Iran or terrorist groups, but we also can’t stay there forever. I would favor a temporary increase in forces, said increase to be accompanied by a definite timetable for complete withdrawal and by a clearly defined set of goals. No more of this giving a blank check to the President to send any number of troops for an indefinite duration and with no clear purpose.

Does such a proposal have to be accompanied by a draft? It’s a disturbing thought, especially for our 18-21 year olds. But Rangel is right: our country has sent our nation’s poorest kids into war without really thinking through the consequences, while the rest of American society goes on living blithely without having really been asked to sacrifice anything. If members of Congress had stood to have their own kids sent to Iraq they might have thought twice about endorsing this war, and we would not be where we are today.

Time will tell if such an option is necessary in light of the military’s current needs. The question of the draft may also shed light on the military’s “don’t ask don’t tell” policy of gays in the military–as it seems illogical to expel fully qualified men and women from serving on such an irrational basis especially when the military needs every body available.

Regardless, now that the election has passed it is time to come up with a definitive answer of how to get out of Iraq–and based on a preliminary understanding of the facts I think the panel is right in its recommendation. I suspect its findings will be mirrored by the Iraq Study Group as well.

When the Pentagon says it’s bad, you better believe it’s REALLY bad. In its quarterly report on Iraq to Congress, the Pentagon re-iterated the country’s increasing sectarian violence that threatens to plunge the country into civil war (and many including myself would argue Iraq is already there.) The report comes a day after a spasm of violence in Baghdad left over 70 people dead and over 230 injured in just a half hour despite widely advertised “increased security measures.”

I can’t imagine 70 people killed in a single day in a city. Could you imagine working in Baghdad’s morgue? It’s unfathomable. When will it ever end?

It must be worse than they’re telling us. Despite trying to put positive spin on the dire news delivered to Congress by Rumsfeld and military generals this week, President Bush and the Pentagon are preparing contingency plans should Iraq descend into a “full blown” civil war. What they would consider a “full blown” civil war remains unclear as compared to the massive killings and inter-group fighting going on now. Plans include attempts to prevent massacres but also involve withdrawal of troops. “If there’s a full-blown civil war, the president isn’t going to allow our forces to be caught in the crossfire,” said one Bush aide.

Um, our troops are already being caught in the crossfire and have been dying in alarming numbers for quite some time now. Why is it that when Democrats demand troop withdrawal that is “cut and run,” but when Republicans propose it it’s called “protecting our troops from the crossfire?”

Evidence is emerging that the Pentagon lied about the magnitude of its response (or lack thereof) on September 11th.

Suspicion about misrepresentations ran so deep among the 9/11 commission members that they considered turning the matter over to the Justice Department for a criminal investigation. In the end they only turned the allegations over to the inspectors general of the Defense and Transportation departments. DoD has since claimed that its mis-statements were due to problems with the Pentagon’s record-keeping.

For more than two years, the Pentagon claimed it had quickly scrambled jets to intercept the highjacked airliners. In the case of Flight 93, the military claimed it was preparing to shoot it down had the passengers not brought down the flight themselves. In fact this is not true.

The truth was that the military never had any highjacked flights in its sights and in one case even chased a phantom image of Flight 11 long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center. The military wasn’t even aware of Flight 93 until after it had crashed in Pennsylvania.

I find the truth of the matter pretty shocking, and only deepens my awe and respect for the heroes on Flight 93. Had it not been for their choice to try to take their destiny back in their own hands on that dreadful day we would have undoubtedly lost an entire branch of our government and a precious landmark given that the flight’s trajectory would have crashed it into the White House or the Capitol. They succeeded where our military and government failed us.