Monday, April 10, 2006

"We have been fooled again"

Lt. General Mark Newbold was the Pentagon's top operations officer leading up to the war in Iraq. Four months before the war began, he resigned in protest against what he saw as a flawed rationale for the invasion of Iraq. In the upcoming issue of time, he goes public with his criticism. Here are a few select passages:

From 2000 until October 2002, I was a Marine Corps lieutenant general and director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. After 9/11, I was a witness and therefore a party to the actions that led us to the invasion of Iraq -- an unnecessary war.
I am driven to action now by the missteps and misjudgments of the White House and the Pentagon, and by my many painful visits to our military hospitals. In those places, I have been both inspired and shaken by the broken bodies but unbroken spirits of soldiers, Marines and corpsmen returning from this war. The cost of flawed leadership continues to be paid in blood. The willingness of our forces to shoulder such a load should make it a sacred obligation for civilian and military leaders to get our defense policy right. They must be absolutely sure that the commitment is for a cause as honorable as the sacrifice.
To those of you who don't know, our country has never been served by a more competent and professional military. For that reason, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's recent statement that "we" made the "right strategic decisions" but made thousands of "tactical errors" is an outrage. It reflects an effort to obscure gross errors in strategy by shifting the blame for failure to those who have been resolute in fighting. The truth is, our forces are successful in spite of the strategic guidance they receive, not because of it.

What we are living with now is the consequences of successive policy failures. Some of the missteps include: the distortion of intelligence in the buildup to the war, McNamara-like micromanagement that kept our forces from having enough resources to do the job, the failure to retain and reconstitute the Iraqi military in time to help quell civil disorder, the initial denial that an insurgency was the heart of the opposition to occupation, alienation of allies who could have helped in a more robust way to rebuild Iraq, and the continuing failure of the other agencies of our government to commit assets to the same degree as the Defense Department. My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions--or bury the results.
A few of the most senior officers actually supported the logic for war. Others were simply intimidated, while still others must have believed that the principle of obedience does not allow for respectful dissent. The consequence of the military's quiescence was that a fundamentally flawed plan was executed for an invented war, while pursuing the real enemy, al-Qaeda, became a secondary effort.
Ouch. I don't know enough about military policy to commenet on the validity of any of his arguments, but I can say this. Of those military officers who have retired since the war began, very few have come out in support of the President's or the Pentagon's decisions.

2 Comments:

At April 10, 2006 4:07 PM, Blogger Mr. Anthrope said...

It's nice when people who are credible to conservatives come out and speak the truth like that. I'm impressed.

 
At April 10, 2006 4:30 PM, Anonymous American Patriot said...

One's duties as a general entails strategic planning and oversight of operations to ensure a quick and successful victory. It is not a general's job to make policy but rather that of the President of the United States.

Despite initiating the war in Iraq, a majority of Americans came out in 2004 and voted for George W. Bush to be our Commander in Chief - chief of operations and chief of policy.

If General Mark Newbold should blame anyone for the so called "disaster" in Iraq, he should blame officers like himself. Instead of pointing fingers, he should be pointing guns at our enemies.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home