House of M.

‘[I]t kept failing to solve any problems the Navy had,’ Lowell said. ‘It looked at first as if it might have some merit. But we found out quickly it didn’t really solve the problems. And the company wasn’t very responsive and wasn’t very robust. . . . It was living entirely’ on grants from Congress.” The WP examines Project M, a Pentagon research project kept alive on congressional earmarks (to the tune of $37 million) well past its potential usefulness. “Once begun, promising but speculative programs like Project M are hard to kill, sustained by members of Congress who want to keep jobs in their districts, military officials who want to keep their options open and businesspeople who want to keep their companies afloat.

Update: In a related story, the Post finds Rumsfeld at the switch when it comes to the Pentagon’s antiquated military procurement system. “‘DOD is simply not positioned to deliver high-quality products in a timely and cost-effective fashion,’ the comptroller general of the United States, David M. Walker, said in a little-noticed April 5 critique. The Pentagon, he said, has ‘a long-standing track record of over-promising and un-delivering with virtual impunity.’

Paging William Fulbright.

“‘The current debate over our national security by a series of retired generals — some critical, some supportive of the present leadership in the Department of Defense — is an important exercise of the right to freedom of speech,’ he said. ‘Another valued tenet is the right of the president to select the members of his own Cabinet.'” Senate Armed Service Committee chairman John Warner (R-VA) makes noise about holding Senate hearings on Rumsfeld. I’ll believe it when I see it.

Torture…again.

US officials find repeated instances of detainee abuse at six more Iraqi prisons, and — unlike last time — are not removing all the tortured prisoners from their place of custody, thus violating a promise made by Joint Chiefs chairman Peter Pace last November. “Pace said at a news conference Nov. 29 with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, ‘It is absolutely the responsibility of every U.S. service member, if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to intervene to stop it.’ Turning to Pace, Rumsfeld responded: ‘I don’t think you mean they have an obligation to physically stop it; it’s to report it.‘” Now, why make that distinction, Rummy?

Everywhere is War.

“This plan details ‘what terrorists or bad guys we would hit if the gloves came off. The gloves are not off.’” The Pentagon’s Special Operations Command (SOCOM) devises a new and classified campaign to fight the war on terror, one that apparently relies heavily on special forces getting involved around the world. “[I]n a subtle but important shift contained in a classified order last year, the Pentagon gained the leeway to inform — rather than gain the approval of — the U.S. ambassador before conducting military operations in a foreign country, according to several administration officials. ‘We do not need ambassador-level approval,’ said one defense official familiar with the order.

Moloch whom I abandon! Wake up in Moloch!

“Ginsberg once called the poem ‘an emotional time bomb that would continue exploding in U.S. consciousness in case our military-industrial-nationalist complex solidified.’ So it has been.Slate‘s Stephen Burt ruminates on the fiftieth anniversary of Allan Ginsberg’s Howl.

His Cup Rummeth Over.

“Secretary Rumsfeld’s energetic and steady leadership is exactly what is needed at this critical period. He has my full support and deepest appreciation.” In response to the growing calls for Rumsfeld’s resignation among retired top brass, Dubya chooses instead, as per his usual M.O., to hug Rummy tighter to his breast. (full text.) And, in related news, Salon‘s Michael Scherer and Mark Benjamin argue that Rumsfeld was “personally involved” in at least one questionable interrogation at Gitmo in 2002.

General Discontent.

“It’s an odd thought, but a military coup in this country right now would probably have a moderating influence. Not that an actual coup is pending; still less is one desirable. But we are witnessing the rumblings of an officers’ revolt, and things could get ugly if it were to take hold and roar.” Fred Kaplan assesses the considerable contempt of US military leaders for Donald Rumsfeld. Update: While Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace attempts damage control, more retired generals pile on: Maj. Gen. John Batiste, former commander of the 1st Infantry Division (2004-2005), and Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack, former head of the 82nd Airborne (also an Iraq war veteran.)

Kellogg, Brown, and Loot.

A new report by Rep. Henry Waxman discloses some of Halliburton/KBR’s billing shadiness in Iraq. “In one case, the government’s contracting officials reported that KBR attempted to inflate its cost estimates by paying a supplier more than it was due. In another, KBR cut its cost estimates in half after it was pressed on its true expenses. In a third, KBR billed for work performed by the Iraqi oil ministry.

Duke of Deceit.

As Randy “Duke” Cunningham faces sentencing today, federal investigators take a closer look at his connections to the Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA), “the Pentagon’s newest and fastest-growing intelligence agency.” “In pre-sentencing documents filed this week, prosecutors said that in fiscal 2003 legislation, Cunningham set aside, or earmarked, $6.3 million for work to be done ‘to benefit’ CIFA shortly after the agency was created. The contract went to MZM Inc., a company run by Mitchell J. Wade, who recently pleaded guilty to conspiring to bribe Cunningham.Update: 8 years, 4 months.

Fight Club.

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.” That flaming liberal Dwight Eisenhower’s somber farewell address to the nation is the historical and thematic anchor for Eugene Jarecki’s documentary Why We Fight, a sobering disquisition on American militarism and foreign policy since 9/11. In essence, Why We Fight is the movie Fahrenheit 9/11 should have been. Like F911, this film preaches to the choir, but it also makes a more substantive critique of Dubya diplomacy and the 9/11-Iraq switcheroo, with much less of the grandstanding that marred Moore’s earlier documentary (and drove right-wing audiences berzerk.)

Sadly, the basic tale here is all-too-familiar by now. Ensconced in Dubya’s administration from the word go, the right-wing think-tank crowd (Wolfowitz, Perle, Kristol, etc.) used the tragedy of 9/11 as a pretext to enact all their neocon fantasies (spelled out in this 2000 Project for a New American Century report), beginning in Iraq. Taken into consideration with Cheney the Military-Contractor-in-Chief doling out fat deals to his Halliburton-KBR cronies from the Vice-President’s office, and members of Congress meekly signing off on every military funding bill that comes down the pike (partly because, as the film points out, weapons systems such as the B-1 or F-22 have a part built in every state), it seems uncomfortably clear that President Eisenhower’s grim vision has come to pass.

To help him rake this muck, Jarecki shrewdly gives face-time not only to learned critics of recent foreign-policy — CIA vet Chalmers Johnson, Gore Vidal (looking unwell) — but also to the neocons themselves. Richard Perle is here, saying (as always) insufferably self-serving things, and Bill Kristol glows like a kid in a candy store when he gets to talk up his role in fostering Dubya diplomacy. (Karen Kwiatkowski, a career military woman who watched the neocon coup unfold within the corridors of the Pentagon, also delivers some keen insights.) And, when discussing the corruption that festers in the heart of our Capitol, Jarecki brings out not only Charles Lewis of the Center for Public Integrity but that flickering mirage of independent-minded Republicanism, John McCain. (In fact, Jarecki encapsulates the frustrating problem with McCain in one small moment: Right after admitting to the camera that Cheney’s no-bid KBR deals “look bad”, the Senator happens to get a call from the Vice-President. In his speak-of-the-devil grimace of bemused worry, you can see him mentally falling into line behind the administration, as always.)

To be sure, Why We Fight has some problems. There’s a central tension in the film between the argument that Team Dubya is a corrupt administration of historical proportions and the notion that every president since Kennedy has been party to an increasingly corrupt system, and it’s never really resolved satisfactorily here. Jarecki wants you to think that this documentary is about the rise of the Imperial Presidency across five decades, but, some lip service to Tonkin notwithstanding, the argument here is grounded almost totally in the Age of Dubya. (I don’t think it’s a bad thing, necessarily, but it is the case.) And, sometimes the critique seems a little scattershot — Jarecki seems to fault the Pentagon both for KBR’s no-bid contracts and, when we see Lockheed and McDonnell-Douglas salesmen going head-to-head, for bidding on contracts. (Still, his larger point is valid — As Chalmers Johnson puts it, “When war becomes that profitable, you’re going to see more of it.“)

Also, the film loses focus at times and meanders along tangents — such as the remembrances of two Stealth Fighter pilots on the First Shot Fired in the Iraq war, or the glum story of an army recruit in Manhattan looking to turn his life around. This latter tale, along with the story of Wilton Sekzer, a retired Vietnam Vet and NYPD sergeant who lost his son on 9/11 and wants somebody to pay, are handled with more grace and less showmanship than similar vignettes in Michael Moore’s film, but they’re in the same ballpark. (As an aside, I was also somewhat irked by shots of NASA thrown in with the many images of missile tests and ordnance factories. Ok, both involve rockets, research, and billions of dollars, but space exploration and war are different enough goals that such a comparison merits more unpacking.)

Nevertheless, Why We Fight is well worth-seeing, and hopefully, this film will make it out to the multiplexes. If nothing else, it’ll do this country good to ponder anew both a president’s warning about the “disastrous rise of misplaced power,” and a vice-president’s assurance that we’ll be “greeted as liberators.”