What are the Appropriate Parameters of "Force Potection"

The military has broad ability to act proactively against perceived threats. The concept seems quite commonsensical and prudent. However, as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, a threat, too lies in the eyes and minds of those charged with protecting the military. In the post-9/11 world it appears that the perception of what constitutes a "threat" has apparently expanded. They are now operating under the belief that the Patriot Act broadened their authority to engage in investigations within the US. This includes most notably the surveillance of various groups engaged in peaceful protests against the war. This to light when a Vermont church group was subjected to defense department surveillance. Shockingly, Big "Swingin' Dick" Cheney finds these expanded efforts legal and no threat to civil liberties. I don't know about you, but Cheney's assertion assuages all my concerns.

Much to the chagrin of the CIA, the defense department has also expended its intelligence gathering activities overseas. This was an initiative pushed strenuously by former Secretary of State Rumsfeld, whose disdain for the CIA is well-chronicled.

I'm Gonna Listen to My Generals . . .except . . .

when they have the audacity to speak their mind. The well-worn claim by the President that he was following the advice of his generals as it relates to Iraq has been exposed for what it is/was - horse shit.

According to multiple reports, including today's lead in the WaPo, the Joint Chiefs is unanimous in its opposition to President Bush's apparent intent to increase forces in Iraq by 20,000 or more. The Joint Chiefs, seemingly buoyed by the sacking of Donald Rumsfeld, apparently are strenuously opposing the plan to increase US forces in Iraq. Note that Tony Snow deftly attempted to dismiss the story, but he did not go as far as to say the underpinnings of the story were untrue.

The Joint Chiefs' failure to stand up to the authoritarian rule of Rumsfeld has been well documented in books like, State of Denial, Hubris, Chaos and Cobra II. They seem, at least momentarily, empowered by Rummy's sacking. Bush is desperate to prove that despite all data to the contrary, Iraq isn't a lost cause in the short term.

The fact is not only is GWB intellectually lazy, he's intellectually dishonest.

Rummy - The Unrepentant Warrior

Rummy fell on his sword for the Bush administration. Even in leaving the stage, he was the same arrogant, self-consumed SOB. In his last words , he protested that we the public and the leaders (other than GWB) we have chosen simply are incapable of understanding what he, the warrior Christ, has seen. What a crock of horseshit. He is incapable of contrition or humility. Leadership is not simply knowing the right path, it is more about successfully conveying the nature of the challenge.

The most interesting thing about Rumsfeld's departure is that someone within the president's inner circle contemporaneous to this announcement leaked that the VP didn't agree with this decision. Not only did the VP supposedly oppose the sacking of Rummy, but once he accepted the reality of Rummy's departure, he suggested ideologically similar replacements. The president rejected both suggestions according to the detailed leak and named a GHWB acolyte, Robert Gates. A significant departure from what has been standard operating procedure

Hubris - Initial Thoughts

I'm 150 pages into Isikoff & Corm's book on the run up to the Iraq war, Hubris. On the heels of Woodard's book, differences in style and depth are readily apparent. Hubris is thick with reporting. While I think Woodward's book is a must read for a US policy wonk like me due to his unique access to Administration leadership and the careful sourcing of his reporting, Isikoff and Corn get their hands dirty in the details and it's fascinating. I have some empathy for Isikoff's comments at a press event following the publishing of Woodward's book where he bemoaned all the attention given to State of Denial. Reports had it that Isikoff scoffed at Woodward's book, essentially calling it tired drivel and almost unreadable(he later sought to render those (alcohol-induced?) comments off-the-record with a phone call the next day to no avail).

Based on my reading of Hubris thus far, I have to agree with him. It is a much more detailed account. I'll render a highlight blog on it when I'm done, but q couple of quick hits. In October, 2002 just prior to the vote to authorize force against Iraq, polls showed 52% of Americans supported the notion of going to war against Iraq. I must be developing Alzheimer's, I simply don't recall such a narrow split amongst the populace. It might be that my recollection is influenced by the circles I run in. Morris County, New Jersey bleeds Republican red so there was little doubt regarding the Administration's case for the seriousness of the Iraqi threat. Moreover, my memory also might be dulled because I'm more conscious of the ease with which the authorization passed in Congress. While there was Democratic opposition to the authorization, such opposition was more ceremonial than it was a serious threat. Bully politics - propose divisive, yet often consequential legislation just prior to elections - was effectively utilized to minimize debate and intimidate feckless politicians who stand for little more than job security - their own!

Secondly, Dick Armey, former Congressman from Texas and number two at the time in the House leadership, is apparently a primary source as to the political machinations of the Administration. He is quoted as being deeply troubled regarding his role - effectively silently assenting to an ill-conceived policy constructed upon intel that was far less substantive than the Administration (and the CIA) was leading the public to believe. His mea culpa is that, I should've known better, a position shared by many of the contributors to this book. More to follow.