There's a great piece in the Sunday Post about the growing dissent among senior military officers. I remember on 9/11, after watching the second tower fall, I walked back to my desk at work, slumped into my chair, and felt an overwhelming grief about the inevitable consequences. I had these vague, poorly-informed ideas about the Soviet "occupation" of Afghanistan (those ideas remain vague and poorly-informed, I must admit). So we destabilize and dismantle a nation. Then what? When I protested against Bush's rush to war, it was with those consequences in mind.
A few choice snippets (the whole piece is a must-read):
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." . . .
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." . . .
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. . . .
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 Post article frequently cites Peter Galbraith's recent piece in the New York Review of Books, "How to Get Out of Iraq," which is a nice companion to The Nation's series of the same name. Poor Kerry — stuck in the middle with few options, and now Nader has enough of a platform to split the far left.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
« Home