Neocon Collapse In Washington

Do you suppose W is finally seeing a little light?

jf

No. He's just feeling a little heat.

this "neo-con" thing (a term created and used almost exclusively by the left) is a straw man. Much of what has been attributed to these certain individuals in this article and elsewhere is a fantasy, also created by the left. It seems strange that, of all these "neo-cons" who are mentioned in this article, all are still in their same positions today. The only one to have gone is the "realist" George Tenet. I am often amused by this sort of tea leaf reading by liberals.

There are those who are conservative, and those who are not.

I'm not aware of any other flavors.

Thomas Friedman was interviewed on NPR's Fresh Air yesterday. The theme of the show was outsourcing, but he had some choice words about Iraq and the mess that's been made there. This is most interesting, because he's been a hawk from day 1 of this war, very pro-invasion and optimistic about the democratization process. However, from day 1, he also expressed great worries about the preparedness of the Pentagon and particularly questioned the decision to send so few troops. Now in hindsight, he's thoroughly disgusted (as his well-documented trepidations all proved true!). One of the most interesting comments he made was that Rumsfeld's stubborn insistence on sending so few troops from the get-go was in direct defiance of Colin Powell, who he sorely wanted to dress down. Powell, of course, stood behind the doctrine of overwhelming force, while Rumdum wanted to prove the neo-con theory of shock and awe - that with high tech weaponry, the need for troops is a thing of the past. Yup, well - so much for that theory. It would be a fun little chess game if thousands of lives hadn't been sacrificed in the process.

Whether Tennet should go or not, I can't really say. But, if anyone should go (other than Bush, who will hopefully sing his swan song come November), it's Rumass.

JB, you obviously have not done much reading up on PNAC. Many of the staunch old rebublicans (Papa Bush included) have openly expressed disdain for their theories. Yet, the champions of PNAC are the very people W surrounded himself with when building his cabinet. You are in complete and total denial to dismiss this as a liberal concontion.

The Iraq war was a grand experiment. Had it succeeded, Bush may have gone down in history as some wonder president. I am sure that's what he and his advisers anticipated. The skeptics, however, saw too many gaping holes in the plan, including the rampant deception of the public in order to gain the necessary support to launch the war. So, here we are 15 months later, having been promised a short and swift victory. The skeptics are now bitter, and who knows - like Friedman said yesterday, he's not dismissing out of hand that eventually democracy will prevail in Iraq and things will take a turn for the good in the mid-East, but it sure as heck didn't go according to the game plan, and the price we're paying is collosal. Bush is a betting man - he made a huge bet, with the lives of our GIs and public coffer at stake, and he's lost.

It's time we had a more conservative person running the country.

Like I said. Pure fantasy. I will add to that, base conspiracy theories supported by nothing more than idle speculation.

you paint with a broad brush Kathyk..

I respect his opinion. I always read his columns and imagine you have hued his opinion with your colors... I don't know. My perspective is so different from yours it is hard to say.

Mr. Friedman is refreshingly original.. He is not afraid to express his opinion. As he said in an article entitled "Doing Right at Any Cost" published Sunday; "We would spell out that the war on terrorism is a long-term war on radical Isam - and that while force is necessary in that effort, it is not sufficient. We have to connect all of the above dots to strengthen Arab-Muslim moderates, because only they can take on their extremists. Unfortunately, the Bush team reacted to Sep, 11, as if all the old rules and methods had to go. I believe Sep. 11 was gigantic. But the old rule book - emphasizing allies, the Geneva Conventions, self-sacrifice, economic development, education, Arab-Israeli diplomacy - was and remains our greatest source of strength in the effort to promote gradual reform in the regions most likely to breed threats to our open society."

That just doesn't sound the Thomas I am used to.

How quickly you forget, or you haven't been listening. We were never promised any such thing. As a matter of fact, we were promised exactly the opposite.

Here's just one thing GW had to say near the start of this (11/21/01):

"Afghanistan is just the beginning on the war against terror. There are other terrorists who threaten America and our friends, and there are other nations willing to sponsor them. We will not be secure as a nation until all of these threats are defeated. Across the world and across the years, (italics mine) we will fight these evil ones, and we will win.

Great causes are not easy causes. It was a long way from Bunker Hill to Yorktown. It was a long way for the 101st from Normandy to final victory over fascism in Europe. When wronged, our great nation has always been patient and determined and relentless. And that's the way we are today. We have defeated enemies of freedom before. And we will defeat them again."

Staunch old republicans don't do the tax flip the way Papa Bush did. Fortunately his apple fell a bit further from the tree.

Don't bet on it Jack. This is a ruthless, unscrupulous bunch who will do whatever it takes to hold on to the power they now have.

Look back at Mr. Bush's most basic campaign promises last time: changing the tone in Washington, no nation building, a humble foreign policy, fair and equitable tax policies, etc. etc. All were gone within about two months of the inauguration.

Watch the behind the scenes stuff. Mr. Bush may be sounding a bit more multilateral and "stateman-like" these days, a bit more willing to work with people. But he is also saber rattling over Syria, Iran and Cuba.

Mr. Bush's policies over the past four years are leading him right to defeat -- the polls have shown this for 2-3 mnths ago. And what do we find? Sunddenly, the UN is no linger irrelevant, but central to Iraq. There is no longer an Old Europe and a New Europe, but allies to cooperate with. Blah, blah, blah.

The neocons are true believers. True believers of any stripe are dangerous people because they will do whatever it takes to enforce their beliefs. True believers arrogantly assume they are right and all others are wrong and only they can save us from our ignorance. True believers see themselves as messiahs.

Listen to what they are saying even with the defeat in Iraq. Criticism yes, but they still believe American Imperialism is the proper course -- if it is only done right. And why did Iraq go bad? Not because it was a bad policy, but because Mr. Bush caved into those who did not understand how ruthless he had to be. He spent too much time atr the UN. He was afraid oif criticism. All the excuses one gets form true believers.

Since they can never do it exactly like they want, they always blame those who made them veer a little off their predetermined path for whatever failures they have.

Watch what they are doing in areas not heavily covered -- Iran, Syria, Cuba, etc. -- and you will see them setting the stage for where they will go as soon as the President can stop pandeting to the ingorant masses after the election and get back to doing what the neocons know must be done.

Don't bet on it Jack. This is a ruthless, unscrupulous bunch who will do whatever it takes to hold on to the power they now have.[/b]

Sounds more like liberals to me.

Look back at Mr. Bush's most basic campaign promises last time: changing the tone in Washington, no nation building, a humble foreign policy, fair and equitable tax policies, etc. etc. All were gone within about two months of the inauguration.[/b]

Actually, it took eight months. September 11 happened.

Up here we call them the Liberal Party of Canada.

Apple, take a listen.

Fresh Air with Friedman

Yes, thousands. We're up to or almost up to 1,000 GIs, then you have the uncounted contractors and all the Iraqis, which I know you don't care to count - their number is well over 5,000 by modest accounts.

The reason we don't care to count the Iraqis is that, at the rate Saddam was kiling them, far more would be dead today if he were still in power.

It is easy to sit back in the comfort of hindsight and say that less troops would have been killed if we had more over there. It could just as easily be argued that there would have been more targets of opportunity for insurgents and the casualty rate would be even higher. There certainly have been no cases where our forces were overwhelmed in any conceivable way. Indeed, in all combat engagements so far our military has overwhelmingly (and lopsidedly) dominated.

Oh, but we were promised a swift victory. The quotes you give above reference the fight against terrorism, in general - which I believe, everyone will agree is going to be an ongoing fight. No, sirre, let's not be revisionist, Lindy. When Iraq was sold to Congress, ergo the American people, this is exactly what was promised.

ON THE eve of Gulf War II, Mr Richard Perle, who was then chairman of the Pentagon's Defence Policy Board, predicted that unseating Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein would be 'a cakewalk'.

'Two days!' predicted Mr Bill O' Reilly, a conservative television pundit (based on the rosy forecasts of Bush's war planners , who became dubbed the cakewalk brigade)

Rumsfeld, according to military analyst Ralph Peters, downplayed the role of ground troops and argued that shock-and-awe air attacks together with efforts by small Special Operations groups would secure a swift victory in Iraq.

Here's a good synopsis from Slate of dissecting Bush's pscyho-pathology in the context of how this war has developed, starting with his twisted view that we did get swift a victory - we toppled Saddam's government; it's not his fault that all of Iraq turned us. Gee - I guess it turned out to be "shucks and awwwwww."

Magical History Tour

kathyk,

Invading and occupying Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein was essentially a cakewalk. The problems we are experiencing now are in the transition from a headless state to a new government. These problems were clearly not unanticipated. Even I saw that this would be the most difficult phase long before the invasion and I am not smarter than the people we have in our State and Defense Departments.

Actually, the Iraq War was one of the most decisive blitzkrieg style attacks ever mounted, by any nation.

Read a little military history KathyK...it'll do ya good.

Our State Department anticipated the problems and put together a plan for the transition. Rum-nut and Cheney thought it was not necessary and threw it aside. There may be a few people smarter than you in the government, but I do not count Rum-nut and Cheney among them.

jf

Where are you getting this information? I would be surprised (astonished, in fact) to see it accurately documented that Cheney and Rumsfeld just "cast aside" plans for the post-invasion and thought that such plans were unnecessary. You just cannot be serious about this.

I was talking to my brother-in-law about this -- a recently retired Marine officer who worked in requisitioning (getting the troops supplied). I asked him why they can't just put out the call now and get a bunch of people to enlist in the armed forces.

He said they could, but it wouldn't solve their current troop strength problems. He figures it would take one year from the date the military decided to expand to recruit, train and equip new forces and have them in Iraq (or anywhere else).

Which means that if the Defense Department had *listened* to those who warned that the troop strength forecasts were too low before we invaded, we would now have fresh, trained troops ready to deploy and we wouldn't have to resort to stop-loss and some of the other unfortunate moves that are now being made.

Interesting.

Cindy -- who thinks JB *is* smarter than the knuckleheads who planned this war

Article here

The article is dated, which makes it interesting reading in hindsight. It also details some of the issues surrounding Chalabi even many months ago.

An excerpt....

As one example, the Pentagon planners ignored an eight-month-long effort led by the State Department to prepare for the day when Saddam's dictatorship was gone. The "Future of Iraq" project, which involved dozens of exiled Iraqi professionals and 17 U.S. agencies, including the Pentagon, prepared strategies for everything from drawing up a new Iraqi judicial code to restoring the unique ecosystem of Iraq's southern marshes, which Saddam's regime had drained.

Virtually none of the "Future of Iraq" project's work was used once Saddam fell.

The first U.S. administrator in Iraq, retired Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, wanted the Future of Iraq project director, Tom Warrick, to join his staff in Baghdad. Warrick had begun packing his bags, but Pentagon civilians vetoed his appointment, said one current and one former official.
Meanwhile, postwar planning documents from the State Department, CIA and elsewhere were "simply disappearing down the black hole" at the Pentagon, said a former U.S. official with long Middle East experience who recently returned from Iraq.

Archaeological experts who were worried about protecting Iraq's immense cultural treasures were rebuffed in their requests for meetings before the war. After it, Iraq's museum treasures were looted.

Responsibility for preparing for post-Saddam Iraq lay with senior officials who supervised the Office of Special Plans, a highly secretive group of analysts and consultants in the Pentagon's Near East/South Asia bureau. The office was physically isolated from the rest of the bureau.
Air Force Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, who retired from the Near East bureau on July 1, said she and her colleagues were allowed little contact with the Office of Special Plans and often were told by the officials who ran it to ignore the State Department's concerns and views.

"We almost disemboweled State," Kwiatkowski said.
Senior State Department and White House officials verified her account and cited many instances where officials from other agencies were excluded from meetings or decisions.


...and if you Google 'State Department plans for post-war Iraq" you will find many many more.

jf

JF, can you post the article?

Click on the link that says "Article here"

jf

Liberals and Pacifists shouldn't try to figure out military strategy. It's an oxymoron.

....and another multi-faceted look at the State Department / Defense Department rivalry and how it affected planning for this misadventure...


Frontline article here


and another...


Christian Science Monitor artice here


jf

Larry, I think the point is that we needed more than military strategy in Iraq and that work was never done...or more accurately, was rejected by the military planners.

jf

kathyk, you are correct that the quote I posted from GW was aimed at our long term committment to defeating terrorism (and not a direct quote about Iraq), but the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror.

We did achieve a swift, stunning tactical victory. All of the references you posted in your reply seem to be addressing exactly that -- a tactical victory. I don't think it's a surprise to anyone that the strategic part is taking longer. The "Mission Accomplished" picture that so many people seem to gleefully / mockingly post was a reference to exactly that, and nothing more, as much as some would like us to think it was.

I view the situation in Iraq -- at least in part -- as an ongoing fight against terrorism. Right now the area does seem to be attracting terrorists (and wannabes) from other countries. Better there than here. In that regard, the quote I posted earlier from GW is right on.

jf,

I can see evidence of the Pentagon rejecting the State Department plans but I see no evidence that there was no plan. Indeed, the Miami Herald article states that the Pentagon had their own planning group. If refusal to accept State's vision for what should be done in Iraq post-invasion is to be interpreted as having no plan at all then I would have to say that that is faulty reasoning. Are we to assume that State and only State can have a valid plan ? Also, one of the examples cited in the Miami Herald article of failure of the post-invasion plans by the Pentagon is the looting of the Baghdad Museum. You don't really want to go there, do you?

I see nothing more here than the usual interagency conflicts between State and the Pentagon.