Those fighting to end this sucking chest wound of a war have just been given a very useful tool and we've been given it by the Pentagon's National Institute for Strategic Studies.
Choosing War: The Decision to Invade Iraq and Its Aftermath is the modern day equivalent of the Pentagon Papers, the in-house summation of the Vietnam war ordered in 1967 by Defense Secretary Robert McNamara. Leaked to the press by Daniel Ellsberg in 1971, they helped swing majority sentiment in the US more strongly against the war.
It's important to understand what Choosing War is and isn't. Like the Pentagon Papers, it's an effort by the high command to figure out how things went so drastically wrong. Like the Pentagon Papers, it isn't a critique of the motivation or morality of the occupation, or the rationale presented for it. But like the Pentagon Papers it casts a sharp and a beady eye on what happened, to try and keep it from happening again.
The document, authored by a former aide to Rumsfeld and Feith, front end loads its summation of the occupation, opening bluntly:
Measured in blood and treasure, the war in Iraq has achieved the status of a major war and a major debacle. As of fall 2007, this conflict has cost the United States over 3,800 dead and over 28,000 wounded. Allied casualties accounted for another 300 dead. Iraqi civilian deaths—mostly at the hands of other Iraqis—may number as high as 82,000. Over 7,500 Iraqi soldiers and police officers have also been killed. Fifteen percent of the Iraqi population has become refugees or displaced persons. The Congressional Research Service estimates that the United States now spends over $10 billion per month on the war, and that the total, direct U.S. costs from March 2003 to July 2007 have exceeded $450 billion, all of which has been covered by deficit spending. No one as yet has calculated the costs of long-term veterans’ benefits or the total impact on Service personnel and materiel.
The war’s political impact also has been great. Globally, U.S. standing among friends and allies has fallen. Our status as a moral leader has been damaged by the war, the subsequent occupation of a Muslim nation, and various issues concerning the treatment of detainees. At the same time, operations in Iraq have had a negative impact on all other efforts in the war on terror, which must bow to the priority of Iraq when it comes to manpower, materiel, and the attention of decisionmakers. Our Armed Forces—especially the Army and Marine Corps—have been severely strained by the war in Iraq. Compounding all of these problems, our efforts there were designed to enhance U.S. national security, but they have become, at least temporarily, an incubator for terrorism and have emboldened Iran to expand its influence throughout the Middle East.
One major use for this document in this election year should be obvious. Every candidate, and not just those running for the presidency, should be asked and asked repeatedly, "Do you agree with the Pentagon that this war is a debacle? Do you agree that it has damaged our standing in the world? Do you agree that it has severely strained our military? Do you agree that it has bred terrorism? And precisely what do you propose to do about it?"
To make full use of Choosing War, read it. It's short. You can download it here. The author, Joseph J. Collins, who served under Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz in the early days of the Iraq disaster, is no anti-war activist. Neither were the people who compiled the Pentagon Papers, when they started out.
Unfortunately, this has been published as an official document of the National Defense College, not leaked in the teeth of a savage legal and covert coverup like that directed at the Pentagon Papers. It might have attracted more attention that way.
But I am not in the least surprised that the brass is putting it in circulation now, as an "Occasional paper" of the National Defense University. I think it is intended as one more roadblock the High Command is putting in the way of any last ditch Bush/Cheney bid to launch an attack on Iran. Choosing War's conclusions about the costly unwisdom of plunging into a "war of choice" with half-assed plans couldn't be clearer.