First, the supreme, most far-reaching act of judgment that the statesman and the commander have to make is to establish the kind of war on which they are embarking, neither mistaking it for, not trying to turn it into, something that is alien to its true nature. This is the first of all strategic questions and the most comprehensive.
-- Carl von Clausewitz
Two U.S. soldiers guard the road to Kirkuk in April Copyright 2003 Christopher AllbrittonIn a publication from the "Strategic Studies Institute":http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/index.html, the U.S. Army's "think tank for the analysis of national security policy and military strategy," titled "Bounding the Global War on Terrorism":http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/Files/bounding.pdf (PDF file), the United States' conflating of the threat from al Qaeda with Iraq has led to "an unnecessary preventive war of choice against a deterred Iraq that has created a new front in the Middle East for Islamic terrorism and diverted attention and resources away from securing the American homeland against further assault by an undeterrable al-Qaeda." Strong stuff. It's authored by "Dr. Jeffrey Record":http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/bios/jrecord.html, a visiting research professor. The opening of the executive summary is even more biting of the Bush plan for combating terrorism and defending America from attack:
In the wake of the September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda terrorist attacks on the United States, the U.S. Government declared a global war on terrorism (GWOT). The nature and parameters of that war, however, remain frustratingly unclear. The administration has postulated a multiplicity of enemies, including rogue states; weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferators; terrorist organizations of global, regional, and national scope; and terrorism itself. It also seems to have conflated them into a monolithic threat, and in so doing has subordinated strategic clarity to the moral clarity it strives for in foreign policy and may have set the United States on a course of open-ended and gratuitous conflict with states and nonstate entities that pose no serious threat to the United States. Of particular concern has been the conflation of al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq as a single, undifferentiated terrorist threat. This was a strategic error of the first order because it ignored critical differences between the two in character, threat level, and susceptibility to U.S. deterrence and military action. The result has been an unnecessary preventive war of choice against a deterred Iraq that has created a new front in the Middle East for Islamic terrorism and diverted attention and resources away from securing the American homeland against further assault by an undeterrable al-Qaeda. The war against Iraq was not integral to the GWOT, but rather a detour from it. Additionally, most of the GWOT’s declared objectives, which include the destruction of al-Qaeda and other transnational terrorist organizations, the transformation of Iraq into a prosperous, stable democracy, the democratization of the rest of the autocratic Middle East, the eradication of terrorism as a means of irregular warfare, and the (forcible, if necessary) termination of WMD proliferation to real and potential enemies worldwide, are unrealistic and condemn the United States to a hopeless quest for absolute security. As such, the GWOT’s goals are also politically, fiscally, and militarily unsustainable.Record recommends:
- Deconflate the threat, by treating rogue states (such as the former Iraq) as separate from terrorist organizations and separate those groups that are at war with the U.S., such as al Qaeda, from those that are not, such as Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines. Record makes the point that al Qaeda is undeterrable while North Korea, for the moment, is. By lumping all groups and rouge states together as "terrorism," the United States will make enemies of those groups with which it has no quarrel. "Terrorism may be a horrendous means to any end, but do the Basque E.T.A. and the Tamil Tigers really threaten the United States?" he writes
- Substitute credible deterrence for preventative war as a means of dealing with rogue states' attempts to acquire WMD. By this, he means shift the focus from stopping rogue states from acquiring WMD to deterring rogue states from using WMD. Iraq was deterrable; Saddam was deterred from using chemical and/or biological weapons in the 199s Gulf War in no small part because Secretary of State James Baker threatened the use of tactical nukes. A policy of preventive war encourages acquisition of WMD, anyway, as rogue states -- such as North Korea -- decide they have to arm up to deter the United States. Besides, using preemptive, preventative war as the overall tool in the foreign policy toolkit places too many strains and stresses on the military and intelligence agencies to be exact. The failure to find WMD in Iraq is Exhibit A here.
- Refocus the GWOT on al Qaeda, its allies and defense of the American homeland. Hands up, who attacked the U.S. on 9/11? Right, al Qaeda and _not_ a rouge state. Who is still conducting terror attacks against U.S. interests around the globe? Al Qaeda again. "The war against Iraq was a detour from, not an integral component of, the war on terrorism." And spend more money and effort on homeland security. First responders are "woefully undertrained and underfunded":http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/000418.php#000418 to the tune of approximately $98.4 billion. How much as Operation Iraqi Freedom cost? About $150 billion has already been authorized and requested.
- Find some other way other than war to effect regime change in rogue states. It's expensive, risky and ties down 100,000+ American troops, creating a huge drag on the armed forces. Iran, North Korea and Syria have little reason to fear the 82nd is about to occupy the presidential palaces in Tehran, Pyongyang or Damascus. They're too busy in Iraq!
- Settle for stability rather than democracy in Iraq and international control rather than American control. Democracy in Iraq would be great. I'm all for it. But Record thinks that lowered expectations in Iraq would be better if the transition to democracy turns into a messy, chaotic and violent affair, which it might if the Kurds keep "pushing hard for Kirkuk.":http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/01/11/MNG5047PP01.DTL While it would truly suck to have an Egyptian-style autocracy, the United States may have to settle for that if democracy leads to a government hostile to American security requirements. This one is -- and should be -- a bitter pill to swallow. I hope it's not a necessary one.
- More troops, more peacekeeping and more nation-building. Record notes that Americans seem to have forgotten Clausewitz's dictum that war is an extension of politics and instead seem to substitute war for politics. The American vision of war posits the enemy as "target sets"; if one destroys enough of the target set, the enemy will surrender and American goals will be achieved. He quotes Frederick A. Kagan as saying that this vision ignores the importance of "how, exactly, one defeats the enemy and what the enemy's country looks like at the moment the bullets stop flying." Troops must do more than break things and kill people. They must secure population centers and infrastructure, keep the civilian populace safe and prevent humanitarian disasters. And that takes a lot of boots on the ground. It also takes a realization by the U.S. military that regime change is inextricably tied to nation-building and peacekeeping, and that those must be factored into initial planning for war. "The only hope for success in the extension of politics that war is to restore the human element to the transformation process."
Thanks for the excellent summary - I haven’t yet had time to read the whole paper.
This is all keenly interesting: an honest and critical report from the army itself - let’s watch people try to threaten THE ARMY with treason charges and exile in Iraq for daring to speak this.
I’m astonished that such disclosures are being made. Isn’t it also amazing how quickly the feds are scrambling to investigate a possible classified document which may have been shown on Mr. O’Neill’s tv appearance? (And how long have they been searching for Osama bin Who?)
First there is this disclaimer taken from the SSI website.
“The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.”
The War College hasn’t slammed anyone. This is one individual that is expressing his opinion as a “visiting research professor”
And secondly, by now the “O’Neill” thing has by now been completly debunked as the rambleings of a “former” employee. His new revelations date to e Clinton and the 1998 Congress that passed the “Iraqi liberation act.” There after the “oust Saddam” policy became official US policy that GWB continued.
Yeah, but the forward is offered by Douglas C. Lovelace Jr., director of the SSI, which he says is “pleased to offer this monograph as a contribution to the national security debate over the aims and course of the war on terrorism.” And boilerplate disclaimers are just that: boilerplate.
As for the L’Affair O’Neill, it’s a little early to say it’s completely debunked.
it’s not all that impacting. i know everybody is trying, but’s there’s not much here.
[Quote] ABC News Jan. 13— President Bush ordered the Pentagon to explore the possibility of a ground invasion of Iraq well before the United States was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, an official told ABCNEWS, confirming the account former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill gives in his new book.
The official, who asked not to be identified, was present in the same National Security Council meetings as O’Neill immediately after Bush’s inauguration in January and February of 2001.
“The president told his Pentagon officials to explore the military options, including use of ground forces,” the official told ABCNEWS. “That went beyond the Clinton administration’s halfhearted attempts to overthrow Hussein without force.” [End Quote]
“Halfhearted” may be a proper characterization. “Legal” might be another. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 specifically prohibits the use of American armed forces in anything other than a training capacity. The budget was limited to 97 million dollars. What Rumsfeld is making policy in early 2001 according to the O’Neill memoir is an innovation, and it’s an allegation not challenged by the White House on fact.
For further harsh judgement on the Bush Administration and its ideology, read James Fallows “Blind into Baghdad” in The Atlantic this month.
Will most voters care if Bush was gunning for Saddam from the beginning? I bet a lot of people wanted that ever since Desert Storm.
What I find most interesting is the fact the Bush isn’t really disputing what O’Neill is saying. What Bush is really doing is what he does best: trying to blame Bill Clinton.
The NYTimes article talks about Bush toeing the line of “existing national policy of promoting a change of government in Iraq” when the neo-cons in control would NEVER, under any circumstances actually continue something Bill Clinton had started.
I think Bush (read Cheney) is worried that O’Neill might have some actual proof, such as a tape recording, of that NSC meeting in January 2001 in which the invasion of Iraq for no good reason was first brought up.
Jeffrey Record is not just “one individual” working as a “visiting assistant professor” — his analyses are well known and respected in the strategic community, even by many who disagree with him. The disclaimer is boilerplate stuff; the Army War College isn’t expected to take positions on political matters as an organization, and it’s not supposed to. The really insulting thing is that the Pentagon spokesman declared that the report wouldn’t be on his reading list if it disagreed with official policy.
Jeffrey Record’s article at the Army War College is outstanding— so nuanced, insightful, and detailed that it’ll probably become a classic of strategic analysis. Perhaps most importantly, Record notes the disastrous error of conflating Saddam Hussein with al-Qaeda. In addition to Record’s comments, I might add that Saddam was a secularist along with his Baath Party; it’s the Islamists and al-Qaeda who pose the true direct threat to the US and supply the legions of suicide bombers.
The whole hunt for Saddam was a moronic sideshow from the outset. His capture hasn’t diminished the guerrilla insurgency even slightly (in fact, there are some indications that it’s now swelling with Shiites in its ranks). Worst of all, the resistance in Iraq is now taking shape as a nationalist, Islamic insurgency, which is almost impossible to defeat. Record thoroughly backed up what many have been saying for quite a while— this attack on Iraq has been a diversion from the real enemy of al-Qaeda. I will acknowledge that the attack on Iraq has helped to drain a festering wound by allowing us to lift the Iraqi sanctions and withdraw troops from Saudi Arabia. However, the categorical and insufferably arrogant manner in which the Administration proceeded with the war preparations and the war itself has caused the USA permanent damage. And al-Qaeda has a free recruiting poster in the form of the “ugly American” occupier in Iraq. Even though IMHO our soldiers are acting professionally and working very hard to aid in reconstruction, it’s impossible to look very good in the midst of such a painful and messy occupation and guerrilla war. Our soldiers in Iraq are like sitting ducks to Islamists who are able to target them in their own backyard.
The only way to confront our Middle Eastern headaches long-term is to wean ourselves from our reliance on oil! Many renewable energy sources are already near the point of economic competitiveness with petroleum, and a more accurate examination of the costs of fossil-fuels would take into account the tremendous geopolitical expense of accessing oil from such volatile regions— the “real cost” of oil is already much higher than that of renewable energy. We have the talent and the technical resources— this needs to be the big technological drive of this decade. If we continue to subsist on the teat of foreign oil, we’re gonna experience a nationwide “failure to thrive,” and the Pax Americana will decline inexorably— and our great country along with it.