“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.)
Tag: Fred Kaplan
Iraq, Year Four.
“If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is.” As the war in Iraq enters its fourth year (US casualities) and civil war appears increasingly likely on the ground, Dubya and Cheney trod out the same stale talking points we’ve been hearing since “Mission Accomplished” (while Rummy attempts variations on a theme.) Update: Slate‘s Fred Kaplan surveys the mistakes.
Hearing Loss.
“Leave it to Rumsfeld to invoke memories of Vietnam as others in the administration are trying to dispel such comparisons. Leave it to the Senate to miss the slip-up.” In yet another sad example of the AWOL Senate of late, Slate‘s Fred Kaplan watches the Appropriations Committee flub a hearing with Rumsfeld and Rice on Iraq.
Secret Garden.
“It is also worth noting that much of this reclassification is being conducted by junior officers, or in many cases private contractors who know nothing about the historical context of these documents and nothing about whether the contents are sensitive or innocuous. One military historian told me that some of these junior contractors have been instructed simply to reclassify anything bearing the words ‘atomic’ or ‘restricted data,’ regardless of what else the documents might or might not contain.” Fred Kaplan offers up more info on the highly suspect re-classifying program currently underway at the National Archives.
“Axis” & Allies.
“The bigger problem is that U.S. funding will discredit the very people we seek to encourage. Many Iranians, perhaps even a majority, despise their rulers. They yearn for democracy. To a degree unmatched in any other Middle Eastern nation besides Israel, they even like the United States. However, as anyone who knows anything about Iran’s history would emphasize, these same Iranians deeply distrust outsiders — including American ones — who try to interfere in their domestic affairs…By openly calling for regime change and backing it up with money (however trifling a sum), the Bush administration is playing into Ahmadinejad’s hands.” Slate‘s Fred Kaplan assesses the Dubya administration’s new Iran strategy, and finds that they’re repeating the same amateurish tone-deafness that helped propel Ahmadinejad into office in the first place. (Perhaps Dubya might get it if someone reminded him of the Guardian‘s experiment in Ohio in 2004.)
Nuclear Chess, or Nuclear Chicken?
“So, here’s the big question: If diplomacy is the only rational solution to this problem yet the Iranians just want nukes — in other words, if there is no deal (or at least no deal that the United States would realistically offer) that would compel them to give up their dream — what’s the next step?” Slate‘s Fred Kaplan admits to being stymied on the troubling question of Iranian nukes.
Eleventh-Hour Strategery.
“It is symptomatic of everything that’s gone wrong with this war that, after two and a half years of fighting it (and four years after starting to plan it), the White House is just now getting around to articulating a strategy for winning it.” Fred Kaplan surveys yesterday’s Dubya speech, one full of sound and fury about winning the war but, apparently, signifying nothing.
Mission Accomplished (Again)?
“In short, Bush could pull a win-win-win out of this shift. He could pre-empt the Democrats’ main line of attack against his administration, stave off the prospect of (from the GOP’s perspective) disastrous elections in 2006 and ’08, and, as a result, bolster his presidency’s otherwise dwindling authority within his own party and among the general population.” Slate‘s Fred Kaplan argues that, despite the administration’s demagogic attacks of the past few weeks and recent reports of faith-based blinders, Dubya may well bow to reality and announce a phased withdrawal from Iraq in a speech tomorrow.
Update: Dubya sets the stage: “‘We will make decisions about troops levels based upon the capability of the Iraqis to take the fight to the enemy,’ Bush said in El Paso, Texas. ‘I will make decisions on the level of troops based upon the recommendations of commanders on the ground.'”
Update 2: Dubya makes his speech, and, in keeping with his usual MO, it’s basically just “stay-the-course” for now. Although, as suspected, he did argue that Iraqi forces have made great strides of late, which leaves the door open for withdrawal by Election Day 2006, as Murtha, Kaplan, and others have predicted.
Murtha’s Law.
“It almost doesn’t matter whether withdrawing or redeploying the troops is a good idea; it’s simply going to happen because there is no way for it not to happen (short of a major act of political will, such as reviving the draft or keeping troops on the battlefield beyond reasonable endurance). This is what Murtha meant when he told Russert, ‘We’re going to be out of there, we’re going to be out of there very quickly, and it’s going to be close to the plan that I’m presenting right now.'” Cutting through the congressional anger and the “cut and run” cheapshots, Slate‘s Fred Kaplan explains exactly what John Murtha called for last week, and why. “John Murtha’s proposal leaves open a lot of questions, but — seen for what it really says, not for how it’s been portrayed — it’s a start.”
Shading the Truth (Again).
“President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that independent commissions have determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence. Neither assertion is wholly accurate.“ Update: Slate‘s Fred Kaplan parses Dubya’s speech further.