Panetta States the Obvious

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta made big news by stating the obvious on a visit to Iraq. He told troops stationed there,

“The reason you guys are here is because on 9/11 the United States got attacked,” Panetta told the troops. “And 3,000 Americans — 3,000 not just Americans, 3,000 human beings, innocent human beings — got killed because of al-Qaeda. And we’ve been fighting as a result of that.”

For some reason this statement made the front page in multiple newspapers, and Panetta had to issue a clarification. Anyone with the slightest clue understands that 9/11 provided the impetus for the Iraq War. Political acceptance of the idea of preemption arose in the aftermath of the attacks on the U.S. It is highly unlikely that there would have been widespread support for invading Iraq, let alone a Congressional authorization, had 9/11 never taken place. Only an idiot would take Panetta's remarks to mean that he believed we went to war in Iraq because of the presence of Al Qaeda in that country at the time. Front-page stories about his statement appear to be an effort to manufacture a controversy.

Recent Happenings in Iraq

The Iraq War receded into the background as the War in Afghanistan expanded. Unless you are looking for it, you don't hear that much out of Iraq lately. But Strategy Page has an interesting article up called, "The Age Of The Assassin," which looks at recent events in that country. For example,

U.S. and Iraqi forces captured al Qaeda leader Mahmoud al Obiedi, and two of his key aides. This is believed one of the aftereffects of the raid on Osama bin Laden's Pakistani compound on the 1st. In addition to the death of bin Laden, much data was seized, which was immediately gone over for leads to other prominent al Qaeda personnel. Al Qaeda threatened retaliation for the death of bin Laden, but nothing unusual has happened yet. Most Iraqis cheered the death of bin Laden, including many Sunni Arabs.

Leftists Still Pushing the War for Oil Conspiracy Theory

Elements of the anti-American left are still convinced that the U.S. went to war in Iraq to seize its oil, despite all evidence to the contrary, and the many other reasons for war. But that's what happens when your entire outlook is colored by a crude version of Marxist economic determinism, your overall knowledge of history is minimal, your familiarity with military history is non-existent, and you reflexively look for reasons why any exertion of U.S. power must be based on evil motives.

The British newspaper, The Independent, revealed that BP held secret talks with the UK government before the war. BP asked the government to lobby the U.S. in favor of British oil interests, regarding post-war division of oil contracts. Now to most people, this might be normal behavior for any large company worried about protecting its economic opportunities in the face of the dramatic changes that a war would cause, and against fierce foreign competition. But to some on the left, this reinforces their grand conspiracy theory.

The Independent reveals what we’ve always known: the Iraq War was about oil. Or rather, there were significant discussions in Fall 2002–the period when the US and UK were busy lying us into war–about who would get Iraq’s oil. ... it wouldn’t take a smarty pants to worry about Americans seizing Iraq’s fields. Only very naive people believed the Iraq War was not about oil.

You have to laugh at this level of ideological blindness -- it recalls Ronald Reagan's great quote about liberals. Consider this passage from the Independent article,

Last week, Iraq raised its oil output to the highest level for almost decade, 2.7 million barrels a day – seen as especially important at the moment given the regional volatility and loss of Libyan output. Many opponents of the war suspected that one of Washington's main ambitions in invading Iraq was to secure a cheap and plentiful source of oil.

We sure are getting all kinds of cheap and plentiful oil from Iraq aren't we? As of this moment, oil prices stand at over $108 a barrel. Don't worry, anti-American leftists can easily give you another conspiracy theory about why we went to war for oil but somehow didn't get it.

"Feminizing" the Medal of Honor?

I was skimming Memeorandum and came across one of the more bizarre articles I've seen in awhile. Bryan Fischer, writing at a blog called "The Moral Liberal," argues that the Medal of Honor has become "feminized" because we aren't awarding it to people for killing the enemy.

we used the think of our boys storming the beaches of Normandy under withering fire, climbing the cliffs of Pointe do Hoc while enemy soldiers fired straight down on them, and tossing grenades into pill boxes to take out gun emplacements. ...That kind of heroism has apparently become passe when it comes to awarding the Medal of Honor. We now award it only for preventing casualties, not for inflicting them. ...So the question is this: when are we going to start awarding the Medal of Honor once again for soldiers who kill people and break things so our families can sleep safely at night? I would suggest our culture has become so feminized that we have become squeamish at the thought of the valor that is expressed in killing enemy soldiers through acts of bravery.

How many things are wrong with this argument? Let's see. First, it's idiotic. The reason the majority of Medal of Honor's (MOH) are posthumous is that they are often awarded for amazing acts of self-sacrifice, such as falling on a grenade. This is not something new. In what way is throwing yourself on a grenade to save your comrades "feminine"?

By his use of "feminized" as a pejorative, Fischer takes an idiotic argument and combines it with misogyny. But not only is Fischer's argument a blend of stupidity and misogyny, it's also factually incorrect. Here's part of the MOH citation for Sergeant First Class Paul Smith, for actions during the Iraq War.

Sergeant First Class Smith quickly organized a hasty defense consisting of two platoons of soldiers, one Bradley Fighting Vehicle and three armored personnel carriers. As the fight developed, Sergeant First Class Smith braved hostile enemy fire to personally engage the enemy with hand grenades and anti-tank weapons, and organized the evacuation of three wounded soldiers from an armored personnel carrier struck by a rocket propelled grenade and a 60mm mortar round. Fearing the enemy would overrun their defenses, Sergeant First Class Smith moved under withering enemy fire to man a .50 caliber machine gun mounted on a damaged armored personnel carrier. In total disregard for his own life, he maintained his exposed position in order to engage the attacking enemy force. During this action, he was mortally wounded. His courageous actions helped defeat the enemy attack, and resulted in as many as 50 enemy soldiers killed, while allowing the safe withdrawal of numerous wounded soldiers.

Like many MOH winners, Sgt. Smith not only sacrificed his life, he inflicted major casualties on the enemy. In other words, unlike what Fischer believes, part of the reason Smith won the MOH was because he effectively killed the enemy. It seems clear that Fischer has never bothered to read through the MOH citations available online. If he had, maybe he could have saved himself the embarrassment of posting such a ludicrous column.

Thoughts on the Latest Wikileaks Documents

I haven't had anything to say about the latest Wikileaks document release because the material that has gotten the most attention is the least interesting. A huge amount of information was released, so I'm sure there are plenty of things to note. But the big stories are no great surprise to anyone who has paid attention and knows anything of war and military history.

First up is the Iraqi torture story. Is anyone surprised at all the the Iraqis have been abusing prisoners? How many countries in the region don't abuse prisoners? The only reason this story has been pushed is to create some anti-American propaganda, and to pretend that the U.S. is somehow responsible. The U.S. is damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we kept tighter control over the Iraqis it would be used as evidence that we were running a puppet government, imperialism and all the other things enemies of America at home and abroad already accuse us of.   Given the scale of the problem, there'd probably still have been abuses. And even nation-building proponents tend to recognize some limits on nation-building. Once you grant a new government sovereign rights, you have to let them exercise them.

Then there are the civilian casualties. Civilians die in wars. When it's an irregular war where identification of enemies is difficult, people switch sides, terrorists deliberately target civilians and the war itself is primarily fought in heavily-populated areas, many civilians are going to die. Because of the nature of the war there are going to be all sorts of accidents and incidents where the wrong people are killed. Focusing on the civilian deaths and various incidents is used by anti-American propagandists to obscure the fact that the U.S. military has bent over backward to minimize civilian casualties -- to the point of putting it's own forces at far greater risk. But there's only so much you can do given the nature of this sort of warfare.

Some on the right have also seized on the Wikileaks documents to pretend that since we found some WMD in Iraq, this justified the prewar intelligence assessments and the Bush administration's assessment of the potential threat. Let it go people. The Wikileaks revelations are nothing new in this area. We already knew that there were some WMD found in Iraq. But left-over, aging chemical artillery shells were definitely NOT what U.S. intelligence and the Bush administration expected. The U.S. military went into Iraq fully expecting to face a significant chemical weapons arsenal. What we actually found did not in any way match the prewar intelligence estimates. The estimates were so far off that it is unreasonable to pretend that what we did find in any way validates them.

One final point... Control of information and propaganda are important components of warfare, particularly irregular wars in which the U.S. is not employing its full military might. I've seen people actually arguing that we shouldn't classify things just because they might be embarrassing to the U.S. That's exactly why they should be classified. When we are fighting a war, we want our spin on events to prevail as much as possible. The same people who think secrets should be revealed would be happy to admit that the Abu Ghraib scandal seriously hurt the U.S. war effort. They'd talk about how it was a recruitment tool for the enemy, and so forth. It wouldn't have been, had we been able to keep it secret. Ugly incidents and even justifiable actions that can be spun a certain way to attack the U.S. are going to happen in warfare, especially over a years-long irregular conflict. Having secrets dumped into the open is a massive propaganda coup for the enemy.Those doing the dumping are directly aiding our enemies, regardless of whatever their particular motives might be.

The U.S. Did Not Overreact to 9/11

Here on the anniversary of 9/11, we are regularly reminded that many people have basically forgotten the event. They've forgotten the reaction and mood of the country at the time, and the horror that gripped most people as they watched the news on television. They've forgotten the complete shutdown of the civilian air transport system and the fear of follow-up attacks. They've forgotten the resolve of most Americans that this time we had to strike back hard against terrorism, instead of just launching a few cruise missiles and going about our business. And they've forgotten the strong consensus that we should stop waiting around to be attacked, and instead eliminate threats before they reached the potential to cause another 9/11.

As the years after 9/11/2001 passed, there has been an ongoing effort to minimize the attack, to pretend that it just wasn't that bad, and to argue that the U.S. overreacted. The contention that the U.S. overreacted to a devastating surprise attack on its greatest city is both idiotic and historically ignorant. Far from overreacting, the U.S. unleashed a limited, measured war in Afghanistan. It even identified elements within Afghanistan that it could work with, rather than holding the entire country collectively responsible for hosting Al Qaeda -- which would have been standard procedure in earlier eras. Even with the desire for vengeance fresh, and with America largely united behind the president, we did not exert anywhere near the full power of the U.S. military. Instead we took great pains to protect the innocent and minimize collateral damage.

And then there was Iraq. Iraq under Saddam Hussein was an open enemy of the U.S. Regime change in Iraq was supported by major figures and presidents from both parties well before 9/11. Before 9/11 we were conducting an aerial blockade of Iraq, and bombing targets in the country on a regular basis. Attacking Iraq was not only not a overreaction to 9/11, it was a reasonable decision based on intelligence at the time, the fact that Iraq was already an enemy of the U.S., and the aforementioned consensus that the U.S. needed to act in order to eliminate threats before it was too late.

Mistakes, bad assumptions, and all the hindsight about whether different strategies should have been pursued, whether or not Iraq could have been contained without war, and the wisdom of nation-building do not equal an overreaction. If the U.S. had reacted in similar fashion to another lethal surprise attack, Pearl Harbor, there would now be millions of dead Afghans and Iraqis, cities burned to ruins, and huge U.S. armies occupying the region. Pakistan might have millions more dead, and might be dismembered and partially occupied. Iranian interference would have been met with overwhelming force. Syria would probably have been bombed and intimidated into complete cooperation. Here at home, security restrictions would be far tighter; the press would be censored; a draft would have been reinstated; Arab-Americans and other predominantly Muslim minorities would be sitting in internment camps. That's what something that might reasonably be called an "overreaction" might look like -- and that's not even considering the possible use of America's nuclear arsenal.

Obama's Iraq Speech

I didn't hear it live, but I read the transcript. I was prepared to offer a translated version of his remarks as I've done with prior speeches, but I don't think that's necessary this time. It's not full of lies, highly partisan or outright laughable. In other words, it was a decent speech for a change. I think its a sham to pretend that our combat operations in Iraq are done when we still have 50,000 troops in the country, but most people seem willing to indulge that fiction. My expectations for Obama are extremely low, but he exceeded them with this speech. I was impressed by what he said about former President Bush and those who supported the war.

I am mindful that the Iraq War has been a contentious issue at home. Here, too, it is time to turn the page. This afternoon, I spoke to former President George W. Bush. It’s well known that he and I disagreed about the war from its outset. Yet no one could doubt President Bush’s support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security. As I have said, there were patriots who supported this war, and patriots who opposed it. And all of us are united in appreciation for our servicemen and women, and our hope for Iraq’s future.

The greatness of our democracy is grounded in our ability to move beyond our differences, and to learn from our experience as we confront the many challenges ahead.

That should drive the Bush Derangement Syndrome crowd crazy. I know Obama will get criticism from the right for not mentioning the surge, but I think he deserves significant credit for the passage I quoted. When you consider the raving, lunatic hatred for George Bush and for so-called "neocons" still present amongst much of the Democratic base, Obama's statement is greater than it might seem to those wanting something more substantive. Overall I found Obama's speech unobjectionable, and actually generally positive.

Iranian Incursions in Iraq

The New York Times has an article up regarding recent Iranian incursions into Iraqi territory, actions taken ostensibly to strike at Iranian Kurdish rebels taking refuge in Iraq. This isn't the first time for such a cross-border incident.

The shelling here continues a trend of Iranian border incursions during the past 13 months that have included a helicopter attack on Kurdish villages in northern Iraq last May, and the occupation by Iranian soldiers of part of the Fakka oil field in southeastern Iraq for three days last December.

This sort of Iranian provocation, along with other incidents, should never have been tolerated by the U.S. At this point with the U.S. in withdrawal mode, the Iraqi government no doubt fears major problems with Iran, and probably wouldn't thank us for intervening. But Iran has been interfering in Iraq for a long time. It should never have been permitted, particularly when the U.S. was still primarily responsible for Iraqi security.

One of the main reasons for Iran's aggressive rogue state behavior is that it has been able to get away with all sorts of hostile actions, with no serious response by the U.S. Weakness -- in this case self-imposed -- encourages aggression. That has been demonstrated time and time again by Iran. The very first time an Iranian aircraft violated Iraqi airspace it should have been intercepted and destroyed. The very first time Iranian ground forces entered Iraq, they should have been annihilated, and the border post they staged from should have been destroyed with maximum loss of life. That would have been the sort of clear message that the rulers of Iran understand -- that force will be met with superior force. Because that was not done, and many other provocations also went unanswered, Iran has grown bolder and more arrogant, confident that it can do what it wishes without significant consequence. Iraqi Kurds, the ethnic group most closely allied to the U.S., and the most pro-American, are now paying for our failure to act.

Bush Speaks

I've been pretty critical of former President Bush, who I regard as an incompetent leader who badly mismanaged Iraq & Afghanistan, committing us long-term to major nation building projects that aren't necessarily in the U.S. interest. And as the leader of the GOP, Bush was a miserable failure. He more than anyone cost Republicans control of Congress. He is reason number one that we are now stuck with Obama as president. Without the failures of the Bush era, it's unlikely that a minimally-qualified, relatively unknown Democrat on the liberal fringe of Congress could have ever successfully run and won the presidency. But he did, and now we are all paying for it, thanks largely to George Bush. Having said all that, so far Bush is at least proving to be a class-act as a former president. Although his former vice president has relentlessly attacked the current administration, Bush himself has remained quiet, despite being regularly slammed and blamed for everything by the classless & clueless Obama.  He spoke today about some of his decisions.

"Yeah, we waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed," the former president told a business audience in Grand Rapids, Michigan. "I'd do it again to save lives." ...  Bush also defended the decision to go to war with Iraq in 2003. He said ousting Saddam Hussein "was the right thing to do and the world is a better place without him".

I was glad to see Bush speak out on these issues and defend them. As I've written many times, intelligence was critical in the aftermath of 9/11. Refusing to take necessary actions to extract information from the attack mastermind would have been incredibly irresponsible -- putting the welfare of a foreign terrorist enemy above protecting the U.S. For all his other mistakes, Bush did the right thing in ordering the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and he would have been justified in ordering more extreme measures should they have been necessary. I hope if we ever face a similar situation, another president will have the same resolve to put the welfare & safety of the U.S. above the non-existent rights of a foreign terrorist leader.

The decision to attack Iraq is less clear-cut in my opinion, but it was still a reasonable and defensible action given the circumstances at the time and our mistaken intelligence regarding Iraq's supposed possession of weapons of mass destruction. Much of the criticism of Bush's decision rests on convenient hindsight.

There is another thing that Bush said that I want to comment on, since I'm sure it will be picked up and exaggerated, especially by my fellow atheists who are on the left.

Bush also talked about the role of religion in his life. "I prayed a lot. I really did. I prayed before every major speech. I prayed before debates. It was a very important experience."

Much has been made of Bush's religiosity, and similar comments have been seized upon to portray him almost as someone who thought he was being given personal revelations from God -- a religious crazy who acted because he believed he was on some sort of divine mission. I think that interpretation is ridiculous, and demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding the language used by many religious people. Since prayer doesn't actually do anything, and there aren't any answers from God, when most people pray for guidance they still have to think for themselves, weigh their options, and come to a decision, just as someone who doesn't pray. And when they say things such as, I prayed about it and God led me in the right direction, or I believe it's God's will that I do this, they aren't claiming that God spoke into their ears. They are giving their own considered decision a religious veneer. There are of course people who are genuinely irrational, and who really do believe that God speaks directly to them in a real way, and tells them what do to. I've seen no convincing evidence that Bush is such an individual.

The U.S. in the Middle East: A Bleak Picture

There is an article in Asia Times by Spengler called, "General Petraeus' Thirty Years War." It offers a bleak picture of U.S. Middle East policy and wars, and takes a negative view of the efforts of General Petraeus -- sacrilege to many on the right. Here are some key excerpts. First Iraq:

Starting with Iraq, the American Military has militarized large parts of the Middle East and Central Asia in the name of pacification. And now America is engaged in a grand strategic withdrawal from responsibility in the region, leaving behind men with weapons and excellent reason to use them.

He sees the same thing happening in Afghanistan, and even in Palestine.

under General Keith Dayton, ... America is pouring money - which is to say weapons - into disputed areas ... and building the core of a Palestinian army. The latter's mission is to impose a pro-Western Palestinian government on a population of whom two-thirds oppose the two-state solution. It more likely will end up fighting Israel.

Overall, here's how he describes our policies.

Having armed all sides of the conflict and kept them apart by the threat of arms, the United States now expects to depart leaving in place governments of national reconciliation that will persuade well-armed and well-organized militias to play by the rules. It is perhaps the silliest thing an imperial power ever has done. The British played at divide and conquer, whereas the Americans propose to divide and disappear. ... At some point the whole sorry structure will collapse, and no-one knows it better than Petraeus.

There's much more. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it is definitely interesting reading. I think his analysis is certainly valid as a worst-case scenario, and also as an argument about why we shouldn't be in too big of a hurry to withdraw. But shaky constructs don't always collapse. Sometimes they can be reinforced and turned into strong, lasting structures. I'm generally skeptical of predictions of doom in foreign policy, especially when presented as some sort of foregone conclusions. I'm also highly skeptical of Spengler's conspiracy theory-ish treatment of General Petraeus. But having said that, I still think the article is worth a look.

Thoughts on Afghanistan

Anyone reading this blog may have noticed that I haven't taken a strong position on the Afghanistan strategy debate. This is unusual for me, as I almost always have a clear viewpoint on major foreign policy issues, particularly ones that involve military affairs. So I thought I'd write something about why Afghanistan is an exception.

I thought the original "light footprint" approach of the Bush administration was the correct one, and initially it was highly successful. We worked in conjunction with the locals to drive out the Taliban & Al Qaeda, and put a friendly regime in power. Unfortunately, as with much the Bush administration did, rather than sticking to clear, achievable objectives, we then embarked on a grandiose nation-building project that involved not only trying to democratize and unify a backward society of feuding tribes, but a massive rebuilding & investment process. Afghanistan is further complicated by the presence of a multi-national coalition, in which only a few members actually pull their weight, and most importantly of all, the situation in neighboring Pakistan.

The current debate on what to do now is basically split between two camps, those who favor a counterinsurgency strategy, similar to that pursued by General Petraeus in Iraq. and those who advocate what has come to be called a counterterrorism strategy. Outside those main camps are those who would like to see a U.S. withdrawal. Here's how I see it, and why I haven't taken a strong position either way. 

The Bush administration basically backed the U.S. into a corner in Afghanistan. It committed our power and prestige to the nation-building process. Any withdrawal before we stabilize the situation in some way would be seen as a major defeat and would lead to all sorts of consequences. I dismiss the notion of withdrawal out of hand under the current circumstances. My instinct tells me to favor the counterterrorism strategy. Things have not gone well in the last eight years in Afghanistan. From what I have seen, the attempt to build a central state with an effective military is failing. The Karzai government has less legitimacy than ever before, is uncooperative in many areas, and horribly corrupt. The situation on the Pakistani border, combined with the internal conditions in Pakistan, appear to make the border an unsolvable problem for the foreseeable future. I am predisposed to favor a strategy that minimizes the use of U.S. troops, and simply kills the enemy wherever we can find him. I oppose wasting U.S. resources on the corrupt and ineffective Afghan government. I don't care in the slightest about promoting democracy in Afghanistan, and believe our policy should be predicated on U.S. interests, not Afghan ones. So why am I not a big advocate of the counterterrorism strategy? 

My hesitation about the counterterrorism strategy stems from two main things. First, I don't see it as a solution. Because of the situation on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, and because of the nature of the Afghan government, it seems to be a recipe for an endless U.S. involvement. I think that building up the Afghan military while we concentrate on striking terrorists is, at this point, a pipe-dream for reasons I already mentioned -- primarily the inherent weakness of the central government. In other words, I think that the counterterrorism strategy is a method of trying to manage the situation, rather than one which aims toward some sort of victory or solution to the many problems we face. Secondly, my experience with the Iraq surge gives me pause. I was highly skeptical of the surge when it was proposed, but its obvious success gives me greater inclination to consider a counterinsurgency strategy for Afghanistan, despite the differences in the overall situation of the two countries. It seems to offer the only real hope for stabilizing Afghanistan, or at least improving our position. But I'm still skeptical, because Afghanistan isn't Iraq. 

Wolfowitz on NPR

While I was driving today I listened to NPR's All Things Considered.  They had an interview with former Bush administration Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz -- if you could call it that. Wolfowitz evaded most of the questions, and basically repeated his mantra that U.S. promotion of democratic principles doesn't have anything to do with what happened in the Iraq War. 

I'm not sure what Wolfowitz's purpose was in even doing this interview. He didn't want to talk about Iraq, refused to give specifics on anything he was asked, and basically had very little to say. And he sounded defensive the whole time. The interviewer was obviously frustrated and came off like he was badgering, but I don't blame him since his subject was so unresponsive. I don't even agree with Wolfowitz on his main foreign policy views, and I could have defended them better than he did. Read the interview and see what you think. It doesn't look quite as bad in writing, but it was pretty grating to hear.

Here's my unsolicited advice for Paul Wolfowitz. If you do an interview, be prepared to defend or explain your decisions before & during the Iraq War. And don't pretend that your prior record is unrelated to anything you might have to say today. If you'd rather not do that, stick to writing and stay away from live interviews.