Early in the Clinton administration, UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright sat in a meeting with General Colin Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, discussing Bosnia. Ms. Albright suggested sending in American troops.
“What’s the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?” she asked. General Powell, later wrote that he nearly had an aneurysm. “American GIs,” he wrote, “were not toy soldiers to be moved around on some sort of global game board.” General Powell went on to write that when using armed force to resolve a political dispute, the military force involved has to be commensurate with the political interests at stake.
General Powell is now Secretary of State Powell; I wonder how his aneurysm is doing. We now have a military commitment in Iraq and we have a political agenda, but instead of being linked by a word like commensurate, they seem to be working at cross purposes.
Are American soldiers in Iraq to fight terrorism, to find and disarm weapons of mass destruction, to change the Iraqi political regime or to bring democracy to the Middle East? How much military commitment is commensurate with any – or all – of those goals?
This is the problem an administration gets into when it only listens to things it wants to hear. If the Bush administration couldn’t explain its rationale before the war started, it’s not likely to get any easier from here on out. Professional soldiers, like Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki, have publicly stated that we will need a significant number of troops to win a war in Iraq and then stabilize the country. General Shinseki was contradicted by Paul Wolfowitz and Don Rumsfeld, who want to sell this war to the public and are not interested in having the public hear about large long-term commitments of troops and money. Instead of military-political commensuration, the Bush administration has locked politics and the military into an inverse relationship. Because the president wants us to think this war can be won without sacrifice, our troops may now be called on to make unnecessary sacrifices.
The “shock and awe” campaign – the big roll of the dice – didn’t work out as hoped, Saddam’s regime did not spontaneously collapse. Our forces are now overextended, drawn out and dog-tired and the Iraqis are starting to play hit-and-run. For some reason, the Iraqi army did not consent to march out into the desert and sit still while we blasted them to bits with our superior firepower. Why is this surprising to people in Washington?
Mr. Rumsfeld appears at press briefings to complain the Iraqis are not playing fair. Their troops appear to surrender, then attack, they exchange uniforms for civilian clothes, they hide among civilian populations. Deplorable tactics, I agree, but are they surprising? When the United States has pledged itself to the destruction of the Iraqi regime, can we reasonably expect that regime to abide by the rules?
The Iraqi commanders, it seems, have read Colin Powell’s book. They grasp the military-political connection and seem determined to use it to their advantage. By adopting the tactics they have, the Iraqis have thrown the Americans onto the horns of this dilemma: either U.S. forces continue to fight under the rules of engagement so far adhered to, which means we will take significant casualties, thus presenting George Bush with the political catastrophe of soldiers coming home in coffins while the war drags on – or – the American military can adopt more aggressive tactics, which will result in significant casualties among Iraqi civilians, thus presenting George Bush with the political catastrophe of even more virulent anti-American sentiment across the globe, particularly in Muslim nations. Not a great way to fight terrorism.
Which brings us back to the Powell question of military-political commitment. Americans, by and large, had no interest in displacing Saddam Hussein. Brutal tyrant though he is, he was not a threat to our nation. The only political interests George Bush could serve by launching this war were those of the oil companies and the loony empire-builders at the Pentagon.
Military analysts call the Iraq war a “war of choice,” except most Americans didn’t choose it and we won’t get to choose what comes next.
A War of Choice
Early in the Clinton administration, UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright sat in a meeting with General Colin Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, discussing Bosnia. Ms. Albright suggested sending in American troops.
“What’s the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?” she asked. General Powell, later wrote that he nearly had an aneurysm. “American GIs,” he wrote, “were not toy soldiers to be moved around on some sort of global game board.” General Powell went on to write that when using armed force to resolve a political dispute, the military force involved has to be commensurate with the political interests at stake.
General Powell is now Secretary of State Powell; I wonder how his aneurysm is doing. We now have a military commitment in Iraq and we have a political agenda, but instead of being linked by a word like commensurate, they seem to be working at cross purposes.
Are American soldiers in Iraq to fight terrorism, to find and disarm weapons of mass destruction, to change the Iraqi political regime or to bring democracy to the Middle East? How much military commitment is commensurate with any – or all – of those goals?
This is the problem an administration gets into when it only listens to things it wants to hear. If the Bush administration couldn’t explain its rationale before the war started, it’s not likely to get any easier from here on out. Professional soldiers, like Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki, have publicly stated that we will need a significant number of troops to win a war in Iraq and then stabilize the country. General Shinseki was contradicted by Paul Wolfowitz and Don Rumsfeld, who want to sell this war to the public and are not interested in having the public hear about large long-term commitments of troops and money. Instead of military-political commensuration, the Bush administration has locked politics and the military into an inverse relationship. Because the president wants us to think this war can be won without sacrifice, our troops may now be called on to make unnecessary sacrifices.
The “shock and awe” campaign – the big roll of the dice – didn’t work out as hoped, Saddam’s regime did not spontaneously collapse. Our forces are now overextended, drawn out and dog-tired and the Iraqis are starting to play hit-and-run. For some reason, the Iraqi army did not consent to march out into the desert and sit still while we blasted them to bits with our superior firepower. Why is this surprising to people in Washington?
Mr. Rumsfeld appears at press briefings to complain the Iraqis are not playing fair. Their troops appear to surrender, then attack, they exchange uniforms for civilian clothes, they hide among civilian populations. Deplorable tactics, I agree, but are they surprising? When the United States has pledged itself to the destruction of the Iraqi regime, can we reasonably expect that regime to abide by the rules?
The Iraqi commanders, it seems, have read Colin Powell’s book. They grasp the military-political connection and seem determined to use it to their advantage. By adopting the tactics they have, the Iraqis have thrown the Americans onto the horns of this dilemma: either U.S. forces continue to fight under the rules of engagement so far adhered to, which means we will take significant casualties, thus presenting George Bush with the political catastrophe of soldiers coming home in coffins while the war drags on – or – the American military can adopt more aggressive tactics, which will result in significant casualties among Iraqi civilians, thus presenting George Bush with the political catastrophe of even more virulent anti-American sentiment across the globe, particularly in Muslim nations. Not a great way to fight terrorism.
Which brings us back to the Powell question of military-political commitment. Americans, by and large, had no interest in displacing Saddam Hussein. Brutal tyrant though he is, he was not a threat to our nation. The only political interests George Bush could serve by launching this war were those of the oil companies and the loony empire-builders at the Pentagon.
Military analysts call the Iraq war a “war of choice,” except most Americans didn’t choose it and we won’t get to choose what comes next.