![](/imagelib/sitebuilder/layout/spacer.gif)
|
![](/imagelib/sitebuilder/layout/spacer.gif)
|
Elsewhere, in The New Master Narrative, there is a discussion of all these retired generals, the big guns, publicly calling for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
to resign, or for the president to fire him. Four of them. Obviously this is extraordinary, and it's hard to recall anything
like this. Of course Harry Truman fired Douglas MacArthur in April of 1951 - but that was because MacArthur was insubordinate,
not just making strategic decisions on his own, but showboating as he did. MacArthur wasn't terribly subtle - he seemed to
enjoy implying the president was an unqualified fool in way over his head. What did MacArthur expect to happen? So late in
the month, that same April, MacArthur gave his famous retirement speech to congress (audio here) about "just fading away." And that he did.
This April, fifty-five years later, none of these generals show any sides
of fading away at all. But unlike MacArthur, they don't seem to have political ambitions (MacArthur ran for president in 1952).
They seem to be angry at how badly things in Iraq are going.
Do they want things to go better, or do they hope when
all this is analyzed and assessed - how we took over Iraq and didn't quite manage to force the stunned Iraqis to form a secular,
western-style democracy with a free-market, deregulated economy, and that was friendly to us - they won't get blamed? Or are
they just angry at the waste and the death of the men they led there in good faith? Maybe it's a mix of all that.
But
the note, on the four generals calling for Rumsfeld to just go away so someone who actually knew what he was doing could take
over, was a note on the state of play mid-week, late Wednesday night in Los Angeles. Thursday, April 13th the four became
six - "Two more retired generals called for Rumsfeld's resignation on Thursday. Retired Army Major Gen. John Riggs told National
Public Radio that Rumsfeld fostered an 'atmosphere of arrogance.' Retired Army Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack told CNN that Rumsfeld
micromanaged the war. 'We need a new secretary of defense,' he said."
Something is up. Many of course are pointing
back to one of Rumsfeld's Rules, those "How to Succeed in Washington" insights that got a lot of play in early 2000 when he took his post. The one people
now point to is this - "Be able to resign. It will improve your value to the President and do wonders for your performance."
That's not going to happen, as we see here –
The White House came
to the aid of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld yesterday, rebuffing calls from several retired generals for his resignation
and crediting him with leading the Pentagon through two wars and a transformation of the military.
"The president
believes Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a very fine job during a challenging period in our nation's history," White House press
secretary Scott McClellan said at a briefing. He went on to read long quotations from the nation's top military officer, Marine
Gen. Peter Pace, praising Rumsfeld's dedication and patriotism.
But what will Peter Pace
say when her retires? He knows better than to say anything about his civilian boss right now. You don't trash your boss, at
least publicly.
Of course no one is questioning Rumsfeld's dedication and patriotism in the slightest. The problem
seems to be his judgment, and his way of managing a giant organization. Perhaps Pace is being subtle, and one day will be
the seventh general to say the man is useless when he's not dangerous. Or not.
There are a lot of odd dynamics here.
Some might worry that having generals, even if they are retired, having some say in who the civilian boss should be, is dangerous,
although this seems to be a call for just a set of minimum criteria for the job. But it's troubling. We don't want the military
to run the country, do we? That's not how we do things. And, on the other hand, since the secretary of defense serves at the
pleasure of the president, and does what the president wants (or what he's been told he wants), who are these generals, the
workers really, to question even the details of the implementation of national policy that is set by those far above their
pay grade? That's not their job. Thirdly, since the military implements the strategic decisions of the civilian leadership,
for some who see the military as, obviously, the armed portion of the Republican Party, at least the neoconservative wing
of the party, this is maddening. Next there will be people in the armed services, here and there, who actually vote for Democrats.
As unlikely as that seemed before, there's something in the air.
What's in the air? People aren't doing what that
should. In the run up to the Iraq war the administration could feed a few tidbits to their plant at the New York Times,
Judy Miller, and there'd be that story about Saddam's chemical weapons, or his efforts to build a nuclear weapon or three
(Miller was big mainly on the chemical thing). Cheney and Rice and Powell could then go on the Sunday talk shows and say we
really, really, really had to go to war immediately - even the liberal Times was reporting on the obvious danger to
us all, after all. Cool. Very clever. And the rest of the news media fell in line - the Times is the nation's most
authoritative paper after all. And too, you had to report such things, or re-report them, as those who questioned some of
what was said were "on the side of the terrorists" or "hated America" and all that. Investigative reporting, the examination
of all the facts, was left to the foreign press, and the Knight-Ridder papers. The curious and inquisitive, who wanted to
know all of what was going on, and the skeptical, and the left, ended up on the net reading The Guardian (UK) and the
Philadelphia Inquirer, but you never mentioned that to your friends at work - too dangerous. And God help you if you
logged onto Al Jazeera to see what they were saying about things.
But times have changed.
Now the press
isn't playing along, and the planted stories are just not getting traction any longer.
Well, the evidence is meager,
but there is evidence for that.
The administration seems to be beating the drum for the next war, the one where we
take out Iran's nuclear sites with tactical nuclear weapons. Of course they may just be sending a "don't toy with us" massage
and would never launch an unprovoked nuclear strike on a nation without nuclear weapons and still in compliance with the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty they did sign, even if they do bluster a lot. But it sure feels like a repeat of the first time around,
even down to the "we don't want war" and "we want a diplomatic solution" stuff. Been there, done that - got the t-shirt. Here
we go again.
And the methods are the same.
Early Thursday, April 13th, if you went to Matt Drudge's site,
Drudge Report, the giant headline was "Could Iran Produce A Nuclear Bomb In Just 16 Days?" Alarming, but this was the guy who broke the
Monica Lewinsky story that got Clinton impeached, so he does get a scoop now and then.
Drudge's source was this, carried in Bloomberg News - Stephen Rademaker, the assistant secretary of state for international security and nonproliferation
(John Bolton's old job before Bolton became our UN ambassador), tells reporters in Moscow that Iran could "produce enough
highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in sixteen days." All they need is 50,000 centrifuges.
Sixteen days?
It must be time to use the nukes for the first time since Nagasaki. We don't want to see Tel Aviv a radioactive pile of rubble
before the month is out.
So did that item get screamed across the pages of the American press?
Not exactly.
Peter Baker at the Washington Post decided to look at the numbers here - Iran's big claim is that they now have a network of one hundred sixty-four centrifuges working together now, perfectly,
enriching uranium to 3.5 percent. That needs to be ninety percent to be useful, and they're a tad short of equipment. Of course
they do say within a year they hope to have three thousand centrifuges all humming along in harmony, and one day they may
have 54,000, but in the Post Parker notes getting all 54,000 working together, perfectly synchronized, is "no small
feat." So start your sixteen days when they get all that worked out.
And over at the New York Times, William
J. Broad, Nazila Fathi and Joel Brinkley work on exorcizing the ghost of Judy Miller with this, saying Iran just does have the materials to build the centrifuges themselves - "It took Tehran 21 years of planning and
seven years of sporadic experiments, mostly in secret, to reach its current ability to link 164 spinning centrifuges in what
nuclear experts call a cascade. Now, Tehran has to achieve not only consistent results around the clock for many months and
years but even higher degrees of precision and mass production. It is as if Iran, having mastered a difficult musical instrument,
now faces the challenge of making thousands of them and creating a very large orchestra that always plays in tune and in unison."
You have to love the musical comparison, even if Judy Miller is probably seething.
So the press is not falling
in line, at least on this one. It's details and facts this time around? Seems so.
But when you cannot use the "news"
sections of the papers, you still can use the op-ed pages - there you need not deal with pesky facts. The Post editorial
the same day has this - "Some in Washington cite a U.S. intelligence estimate that an Iranian bomb is 10 years away. In fact the low end of that
same estimate is five years, and some independent experts say three."
No facts there. Just "be afraid, be very afraid."
The editors don't seem to read their own paper, or they know it's still not safe to seem "soft" on the bad guys by
citing facts - they're worried about their circulation figures if they question this wildly popular president, or worried
the White House will say bad things about them and stop giving them inside scoops? Or they still think it's 2002 or something.
They should drop by the newsroom more often and glance at the copy, and read the polling on this wildly popular president,
and consider what those leaks, that great insider access, did for the reputation of their great rival, the New York Times.
But we seem to be on the path to war again, no matter what the news media do this time around. And this time we probably
will use nukes, at least that was the import of the New Yorker item Seymour Hersh stunned everyone with last weekend
(the item is here and a summary here).
Some people are upset we'd launch a nuclear war "on speculation" and others wonder what it is with the president
- all that messianic stuff and his saying he wants "to bomb Iran to secure his legacy" a legacy as the only president with
the guts to stop the fundamentalist madmen for developing nuclear weapons they could use to... start a war for no good reason
when they we're attacked? It seems the man is a bit dangerous. And what people say, and what the press reports with all its
facts, just doesn't matter.
Here's an odd view. Matthew Yglesias thinks it's not Bush –
Rather, there's a widespread
view on the American right that it's always a mistake to reach diplomatic agreements with "evil" regimes. There's also a widespread
view on the American right that, contra the examples of Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong, nuclear deterrence won't work against
"crazy" leaders. At the intersection of those two opinions is the conclusion that we ought to be very, very, very, very willing
to use unilateral preventative military force against countries that have nuclear weapons programs or that we merely vaguely
suspect of having nuclear weapons programs. Both of those ideas are foolish and dangerously wrong, but they're also widespread
- not private oddball notions of Bush's. If liberals want to push this country's foreign policy in a better direction over
the next five-to-ten years, we need to attack the whole network of ideas (including a non-trivial number of ideas whose origins
are inside the Democratic coalition) that gave us the Iraq War and that threaten to give us the Iran War.
Bush's poor
leadership skills have made and continue to make things worse than they might otherwise be, but the basic problems here are
much bigger than the man himself.
Yep, it's the whole ideology,
and the Democrats too afraid to question it, for fear of losing the votes of the "we need no facts" patriots.
Digby
at Hullabaloo has this –
There has been a substantial
amount of brainwashing done on the American public that needs to be immediately countered. These ideas have been floated in
the media as American policy for years now. It doesn't sound in the least bit jarring or inappropriate to many of the public.
... Iran is a member of the axis 'o evil. It is, therefore, already presumed to be batshit crazy and the new president
has certainly helped with his holocaust denial and loony rhetoric. It will not be that difficult for Bush and his minions
to transfer their earlier madman images to Iran.
The idealistic portion of the neocon fantasy has probably been discredited:
creating democracy from the ground up through unilateral invasion and occupation is now seen as a non-starter by everyone
but George W. Bush. But the dark side of the PNAC wet dream is alive and well. They are still convinced that there is only
one way for America to maintain its hegemony (and by God it must be maintained) and that is for it to militarily dominate
the world. Furthermore, they believe that they must constantly demonstrate American military might to sustain the world's
belief in its overwhelming power. After out little boo-boo in Iraq, it may now be important to these people that we demonstrate
our awesome, unmatched air power. Eventually a little nuke action might be necessary too. The only way to protect America
from the boogeyman is to prove over and over again that we are willing and eager to use force.
We may very well have
a president named John McCain after 2008, or some other Republican with a chip on his shoulder. They don't have to be card
carrying neocons to buy into this notion. The Bush administration is still busily dismantling the post WWII system and Pax
Americana, so far, is the only thing ready to take its place.
Democrats have a lot of good ideas, but until they develop
a cogent narrative to counter the dominant neocon story, we are going to be in danger of this "madman" rhetoric rearing its
ugly head every time the Republicans need a little boost in the polls or feel it's time to show some muscle and remind everyone
who's in charge.
And there's Greg Saunders
here –
If you're a Democrat,
you might want to figure out how you're going to vote in the Iranian War Resolution of 2006. "What war resolution?" you might
ask, but don't be so naive. We all know that from a marketing standpoint you don't introduce a new product in August... I
mean, April. Right now we're in the viral part of the marketing campaign. Just like you can't sell floor cleaner to someone
who doesn't think they have a dirty floor, you're not going to convince people to nuke Iran without making an argument that
they've got it coming.
Seriously, how would Democrats respond to a use of force resolution against Iran? The obvious
answer would be to oppose it on the grounds that the Bush Administration has already shown itself to be dishonest and incompetent
with Iraq, but do the Democrats in D.C. have the guts to vote against a war resolution, especially when it concerns a country
that, in contrast to Saddam Hussein's caginess, is openly flaunting its nuclear technology? Considering that it was a Democratic
Senate that gave Bush the authorization to invade Iraq in 2002, I have my doubts about whether the current slate would be
willing to risk looking weak on national security in order to do the right thing.
Things look peachy for the Democrats
right now, seven months out from the midterm elections, but let's not confuse disgust with the GOP with an infatuation for
Dems. Even now with all of the troubles the GOP has had, I'd be willing to bet they're a scare tactic away from regaining
their strength in the polls. If the Democrats want to win in November, they need to start connecting the dots for the American
people before they get put on the spot. It's not enough to wring your hands in public and hope for the best, you've got to
make the case again and again that Republicans are wrong for the country and that they can't be trusted with another war.
If you must, make jokes like "The Bush Administration wants to bring their Hurricane Katrina style of leadership to Iran,"
but do something. Please.
Why not? The press is waking
up. And the polling shows this next war will be a hard sell. The public isn't buying the scare tactics this time - this will have to be really,
really scary this time around.
It might be time to slow this all down.
You might check out "William M. Arkin
on National and Homeland Security" in the Post with his latest –
The U.S. Central Command
(CENTCOM) has been conducting theater campaign analysis for a full scale war with Iran since at least May 2003, responding
to Pentagon directions to prepare for potential operations in the "near term."
The campaign analysis, called TIRANNT,
for "theater Iran near term," posits an Iraq-like maneuver war between U.S. and Iranian ground forces and incorporates lessons
learned from Operation Iraqi Freedom.
In addition to the TIRANNT effort and the Marine Corps Karona invasion scenario
I discussed yesterday, the military has also completed an analysis of Iran's missile force (the "BMD-I" study), the Defense
Intelligence Agency has updated "threat data" for Iranian forces, and Air Force planners have modeled attacks against "real
world" Iranian air defenses and targets to establish new metrics. What is more, the United States and Britain have been conducting
war games and contingency planning under a Caspian Sea scenario that could also pave the way for northern operations against
Iran.
... The President of the United States insists that all options are on the table while the Secretary of Defense
insists it "isn't useful" to discuss American options.
... I think this sends the wrong message to Tehran. ...The
United States military is really, really getting ready, building war plans and options, studying maps, shifting its thinking.
It is not in our interests to have Tehran not understand this.
And there's this - on the orders of Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and bypassing the State Department (pissing them
off no end), the terrorist group Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) is being used for special ops in Iran to pave the way for a military
strike.
According to all three
intelligence sources, military and intelligence officials alike were alarmed that instead of securing a known terrorist organization,
which has been responsible for acts of terror against Iranian targets and individuals all over the world - including US civilian
and military casualties - Rumsfeld under instructions from Cheney, began using the group on special ops missions into Iran
to pave the way for a potential Iran strike.
"They are doing whatever they want, no oversight at all," one intelligence
source said.
There's much more here, but the game is afoot. And the press may be changing sides, and the generals too, and maybe even one or two Democrats.
It's
the realists versus the idealists. This time it may be a fair fight.
|
![](/imagelib/sitebuilder/layout/spacer.gif)
|
![](/imagelib/sitebuilder/layout/spacer.gif)
|