The Other War

I wrote a Current yesterday on Admiral Fallon's resignation, mostly focused on Iran. Now, though, it looks more like Iraq was the main issue with David Petraeus wanting to do a small-scale "de-surge" and then pause indefinitely, while Fallon, his commanding officer, wanted to withdraw troops more aggressively. But Bush agreed with Petraeus and so that's what you get.

This goes back to what I was saying yesterday about civilian control and double-standards. The military is a big organization and, of course, top officers disagree about stuff. Bush, because he's a Republican and because he's a hawk, has been able to get away with portraying "accepting the advice of officers who agree with Bush" as a form of letting policies be determined by commanders on the ground rather than politicians in Washington. A Democrat, by contrast, isn't going to get any benefit of the doubt from the press, isn't going to get any benefit of the doubt from the officers, and isn't even going to be able to count on the support of his own party's members of congress.

Comments

I agree. But this has nothing to do with civilian control of the military. If Fallon has problems with the administration's desired policy, he can be relieved from office. Now the media should recognize that in the particular case of Bush, he is really picky about this stuff, doesn't take advice from anyone outside of his circle, and so he owns our policy in Iraq completely. Of course, it will be treated differently if a Dem president tries this, but again, it's not a question of civilian control, just a political framing that what Republicans presidents want on foreign policy should be assumed to be good and what Democratic presidents want should be inherently distrusted. B/c a Republicans instincts should always be trusted over a Dems.

Posted by mpowell | March 13, 2008 2:04 PM

I disagree.

A Democratic president needs to put his foot down and assert his rightful authority over the military, not back down at the first sign of resistance like Bill Clinton. Once you show weakness, of course the officers and the press are going to walk all over you.

Posted by blah | March 13, 2008 2:07 PM

A Democrat, by contrast, isn't going to get any benefit of the doubt from the press, isn't going to get any benefit of the doubt from the officers

I'm no national security expert, but I suspect there's a not-insignficant faction of officers who are disgusted with republican policy and what it's doing to the military, especially the army.

The secret to success for a Dem will be to identify those officers and make sure they're in positions of command so that there is some institutional pushback against what you're describing.

In general, I do think you're right. The press and their Blue Dog enablers are not going to make it easy to do what most of the country wants to do.

Posted by flory | March 13, 2008 2:10 PM

Some brave, widely read or viewed iconic journalist needs to point out the obvious: Bush begs off stating what is needed militarily in Iraq by saying that's up to the military to decide. Then when the military decides and he doesn't like it he fires them and looks for sycophants to replace them. Is that so hard to point out? Couldn't Timmy spend 15 minutes some Sunday morning breaking that down for everyone?

Posted by steve duncan | March 13, 2008 2:15 PM

Yeah, imagine. If Presidents insisted on setting policy over the objection of the military professionals, why, anything could happen. Truman might have relieved General MacArthur, for example.

Posted by Charlie (Colorado) | March 13, 2008 3:07 PM

Well, I can imagine making this point with folks who disagree on the issue, and I could see them saying it isn't so much about the commander-in-chief making commander-in-chief decisions that's bad, it is the CInC making decisions for Colonels, Lieutenants, picking bombing targets, etc. He's just saying, look, this guy has a different vision than I do, and I'm going to find someone who has the same approach to the problem that I do, then I'll let them pick targets, etc.

A better example might be the first battle of Faluja, where, IIRC, the attack was unadvised but the pres said do it anyway, and then the withdrawl was unadvised, but the pres said do it anyway.

Posted by Chuck | March 13, 2008 3:37 PM

Has Bush gotten off the hook for his horrible short and longterm strategy? Maybe the press has caved, and maybe the general have caved, but 2/3 of the American public knows the guy is a dipshit.

Posted by jvoe | March 13, 2008 3:57 PM

A CiC has to avoid micromanaging the military while leading it.

The best modern Presidents, in the opinion of the military, were Harry Truman for recognizing the Communists had to be confronted with a robust military and the peacetime Draft, and Reagan for firm leadership & restoring the US military. The worst was Carter, who crippled intelligence and micromanaged.

Bush will not be rated highly as a military commander because of how badly he and Pentagon civilian leadership failed in Iraq. Civilian military leadership, not the generals and admirals, made a series of catastrophic decisions in 2003. The 1st Battle of Fallujah that Chuck mentions was significant, but dwarfed in impact by lack of a postwar plan, dissolving the whole Iraq military, sticking with mediocre commanders like Ricardo Sanchez, ROE that have killed hundreds of soldiers needlessly, and most importantly - failing to recognize that the military was cut back too much after the Soviets fell and refusing to spend on buildup when the country would have supported it because Bush elected to keep his tax cuts for the wealthy.

The military hated Rumsfeld. A group of senior officers told me after he was fired that the only thing worse would have been the dishonored Kerry as CiC.

Posted by chris ford | March 13, 2008 4:00 PM

What's "a Current"?

Posted by Don | March 13, 2008 4:24 PM

I disagree. This business about it not being about Iran is just spin.

Fallon made the public statement - even though he now denies it - that "a war with Iran will not happen on my watch." He was asked explicitly what that meant, and he replied, "Well, I have options" - meaning he would resign and go public with his opposition.

I've heard nothing from him publicly about resigning or speaking publicly about the "pause" in the Iraq draw down. And even if he did resign or speak publicly about the "pause", who would seriously care? It would be just one more disagreement between the Pentagon and the White House over Iraq. It's not like we haven't had any before.

However, if on the eve of an attack on Iran, he resigned and publicly declared the war to be a disaster waiting to happen, that might have seriously impacted the White House's attempts to gain public and Congressional support for the action.

So I have to assume that he was fired because of the recent article about him which again raised the issue of Iran.

Bush and Cheney intend to attack Iran before they leave office, no matter how they have to do it. They intend to tie the hands of the incoming Administration for the benefit of their cronies in the military-industrial complex, the oil companies, and the Israelis. The Israelis are pushing for them to do it, and so are the neocons.

They are going to do it. For a while there, it looked like Pakistan might derail that, but Pakistan seems to be on a back burner again, so I believe the Iran war is now on the front burner again.

The moves recently made with US warships near Lebanon and Syria indicate a general preparation for Israeli military action in the near future. Scott Ritter believes April is the most likely time for a US attack on Iran.

Also, with the Republican nomination sewn up by McCain, it is clear that the Republicans want to use a "war boost" to beat the Democrats in an election year. I thought they would try this back in 2006 since Josh Bolten explicitly said, "The Democrats will lose over Iran." So I think this really is the plan for the Presidential election.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 14, 2008 4:56 AM

Although I agree with most of what chris ford wrote above, I can't imagine that any officers who know how Truman actually conducted the war in Korea think much of his leadership. Firing MacArthur was about the only thing he got right there.

As late as 1949 it was official US policy that Korea was of no strategic value, and was properly seen to be in the Soviet sphere of influence. Dean Acheson made a formal policy address that year that described our defensive perimeter against communism as running from the Aleutians through Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines, pointedly excluding Korea (and, fwiw, Vietnam).

In 1950, Truman changed his mind on the spur of the moment, and threw soft, ill-equipped occupation troops from Japan in front of the Soviet-equipped North Korean invaders. The resulting catastrophe, including the total destruction of the Eighth Army which was our biggest defeat since the Battle of the Bulge, killed about 40,000 GI's.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 14, 2008 4:58 AM

Since there is absolutely no support for an attack on Iran in the Pentagon, Congress, or with very few exceptions, the entire US population, dire predictions of an eminent strike should be judged on the credibility of those making the predictions.

It is my sincere hope that by January, there having been no strike against Iran, such hysterics will draw the appropriate lesson and stop making predictions based on propaganda.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 14, 2008 5:09 AM

This might be a good time to bring up the crushing victory of reform forces over Achmadinejad's faction in this week's Iranian elections.

Posted by P S | March 14, 2008 9:43 AM

Re Richard Steven Hack

Mr. Hack cites his favorite child molester, Scott Ritter as his authority on possible US actions via Iran. Well, at least Mr. Ritter never held up a bank.

Posted by SLC | March 14, 2008 1:06 PM

SLC, stop being disgusting. Stop being sickening. Stop lying.

Posted by Jennifer | March 14, 2008 1:26 PM

Ritter is a valuable source, primarily in the way he discredits his supporters. He, and others of course, was all over the media in 2002-03 describing in great detail the shambles Iraq's wmd's program was in at that point, proving that all the folks who believe to this day that everyone was hypnotized by Bush lies and hidden information have selective memories, if any.

When it came out after the invasion that he was on Saddam's payroll, he moved right up there with George Galloway in the Collaborator's Hall of Shame.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 14, 2008 2:04 PM