NYT: Army Officers Debate, What if it Happens Again?

The New York Times has just put up an article by Elizabeth Bumiller At Army Base, Officers Are Split Over War, describing interviews she was permitted to conduct at Fort Leavenworth, the 'intellectual center' of the United States Army.

Are these field-grade officers (majors and colonels) debating whether mistakes were made in Iraq? Hardly! As Bumiller puts it, the question is

[W]ho bore more responsibility for mistakes in Iraq — the former defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld, or the generals who acquiesced to him[?]

But wait! It is even more significant, I think, that

Discussions ... focused on where young officers might draw a "red line," the point at which they would defy a command from the civilians — the president and the defense secretary — who lead the military.

Savor that, then join me below the fold ...

In what seems unprecedentedly open discussion with the reporter, officers express their dissatisfaction with what has occurred in the past 5 years. Major Timothy Jacobsen, for instance, asks

"How do you define what is truly illegal, immoral or unethical? At what point do you cross that threshold where this is no longer right, I need to raise my hand or resign or go to the media?"

For the sake of argument, a question from the reporter was posed: If enough four-star generals had done that, would it have stopped the war?

"Yeah, we’d call it a coup d’etat," [an Army instructor] said.

In the light of General Sanchez's outburst reported yesterday, these comments by senior army officers presage some of the comments here and here and here on DailyKos

Some of the young officers were unimpressed by retired officers who spoke up against Mr. Rumsfeld in April 2006. The retired generals had little to lose, they argued, and their words would have mattered more had they been on active duty. "Why didn’t you do that while you were still in uniform?" Maj. James Hardaway, 36,asked.

On the other hand, Major Hardaway said, General Shinseki had shown there was a great cost, at least under Mr. Rumsfeld. "Evidence shows that when you do do that in uniform, bad things can happen," he said. "So, it’s sort of a dichotomy of, should I do the right thing, even if I get punished?"

Read that last line again:

[I]t’s sort of a dichotomy of, should I do the right thing, even if I get punished?"

Bumiller ends her article with this devastating report:

One question that silenced many of the officers was a simple one: Should the war have been fought?

"I honestly don’t know how I feel about that," Major Powell said ...

"That’s a big, open question," General Caldwell said after a long pause.

[General Caldwell 'was the top military aide from 2002 to 2004 to the deputy defense secretary at the time, Paul Wolfowitz'. Major Powell was a company commander during the invasion, according to Bumiller.]

I have to wonder if the Army permitting a reporter this kind of access, especially in light of the opinions expressed, is not intended to send a message to those who would start another adventure of this sort, like, next spring?

•  Whatchamacallit thingamabobby

  You know what to do.

  by Clem Yeobright on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 09:36:43 AM PDT

  •  I agree: That fact that the article was done at

    all overshadows what was in the article. The message was the article, whether read or unread.

    by daliscar on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 09:49:06 AM PDT

  •  This American Life: Center for Lessons Learned

    Leavenworth is a hotbed for deep thinking about war, and I wonder why more journalists haven't tapped that brain trust.

    Not that I'm an authority, but I did listen to a podcast of this Memorial Day episode of This American Life.

    The story starts slow, describing Fort Leavenworth's Center for Lessons Learned, a sort of historical archive and library reference desk that soldiers in the field can call on their cell phones to ask questions about battlefield, pacification and nation-building operations. Of course, Rumsfeld could have done the same thing for those big-picture situations that he screwed up so badly.

    It's clear by the end of the episode that the soldiers quoted are very frustrated with the Iraq war, and they're wondering why so many mistakes were made when so much useful info was so readily available advising actions other than those taken by the Pentagon and White House.

    by overlander on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 12:42:26 PM PDT

    •  Listening to it now. Thank you! n/t

      by Clem Yeobright on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 04:51:24 PM PDT

•  The article provides some important insight

  and gives some idea of the internal deliberations that I don't think the greater public appreciates.  Worth a full read by everyone.

  (That said, I wish someone different than Bumiller had done it, and that it was a New Yorker-length piece.  There's a lot there to chew on.)

  by Sui Juris on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 09:44:09 AM PDT

  •  Ya takes what ya can gets, I think

    It's a pretty stunning article, and you have to believe that she reported fairly accurately (unless she was admitted to the pre-coup midnight planning sessions).

    The quote from Gen Caldwell makes me want to cry.

    by Clem Yeobright on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 09:49:53 AM PDT

    •  This is the one that gets me -

      There's a discussion of crossing that "red line", which is then immediately followed by this:

      General Caldwell, who was the top military aide from 2002 to 2004 to the deputy defense secretary at the time, Paul Wolfowitz, an architect of the Iraq war, would not talk about the meetings he had with Mr. Wolfowitz about the battle plans at the time. "We did have those discussions, and he would engage me on different things, but I’d feel very uncomfortable talking," General Caldwell said.

      Seriously, what in the world was Wolfowitz proposing that even got near this line?

      by Sui Juris on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 09:53:38 AM PDT

      •  What might have made the General uncomfortable?

        Perhaps just the "Shinseki effect", to coin a term, on his career of participating fully with Wolfowitz in any discussion of subjects of that nature?

        by watercarrier4diogenes on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 10:25:28 AM PDT

•  It is strange.

  Kremlinologists ... we need some Kremlinologists to decode the meaning of the access-granting and citation-publishing.

  (OT:  is is possible "portend" is not the word you mean to have used?  (to say nothing of Major Hardaway's miscue w. "dichotomy" -- it's just a dilemma, Major -- a moral dilemma which you are supposed to be trained to know the answer to without recourse to ratiocination).)

  by Yellow Canary on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 09:51:04 AM PDT

  •  Kremlinologists: brilliant!

    And help me out here: 'Portend' is indeed heavy, but the concept is 'pre-echo', since the officers' comments temporally precede the DK comments. What's the word I want?

    by Clem Yeobright on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 09:55:54 AM PDT

    •  Presage? Prescient? n/t

      by kestrel9000 on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 09:58:14 AM PDT

      •  Done. Thanks! nt

        by Clem Yeobright on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 10:03:57 AM PDT

    •  Presage? n/t

      by Catte Nappe on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 09:58:34 AM PDT

      •  Thanks. All my diaries are team efforts. :) nt

        by Clem Yeobright on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 10:04:30 AM PDT

•  As a boomer who grew up

  hating the armed forces, I am consistently struck by these times when those in the military seem to be the most honorable among us. I'm glad to hear these folks worrying about illegal orders now, we may need them in the future.

  by Tenn Wisc Dem on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 09:56:17 AM PDT

  •  The military has always been filled with

    decent and honorable people.  This is not new.

    by Sui Juris on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 10:03:48 AM PDT

    •  Nope, not at all new.

      Most recently, we even had a President who was a Naval Academy graduate.

      Who, you say?  Well, we know it wasn't Dumbya, don't we.

      by watercarrier4diogenes on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 10:30:32 AM PDT

      •  And he was certainly among the most honorable

        Jimmy Carter, USNA grad, may have had a difficult presidency for several reasons, but a lack of personal integrity, compassion and wisdom was not among the problems -- as has become crystal clear in the years since he lost his re-election bid.

        by twcollier on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 11:43:42 AM PDT

        •  You win the Gold Medal, twcollier!

          And you highlight another gripe I have about how elections are bought with advertising dollars.  He definitely didn't suffer a lack of any of those character traits, we, the voters, did.

          by watercarrier4diogenes on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 11:36:30 PM PDT

  •  Naw, most of the guys in the military are,

    for the most part, normal people. But they take their job seriously, as they should. If the order is given to attack Iran... I'm hoping that they draw the red line.

    by bhagamu on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 10:34:26 AM PDT

•  They're not going to invade initially.

  They're going to bomb, bomb, bomb.

  by nupstateny on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 09:56:49 AM PDT

  •  She'd better hie to the Air Force base, then

    What is the USAF equivalent to Fort Leavenworth? It has to be San Antonio somewhere ...

    by Clem Yeobright on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 10:06:50 AM PDT

    •  I think it's in Alabama

      Maxwell AFB

      by Catte Nappe on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 11:10:50 AM PDT

•  Different debates

  There are differences between what they are debating and what we are usually debating.

  Their discussion is not about "should we have attacked Iraq" ("or should we attack Iran"). They are not talking about the fact that it was done, but how was it done. Not enough troops or equipment, unrealistic expectations of how long they would be there, etc.

  by Catte Nappe on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 10:01:12 AM PDT

  •  Ya think?

    I read two distinct themese in the article: One about the 'mistakes' but another about the immorality of the invasion.

    Would this 'discussion' be happening if Iraq had been a 'cakewalk'? If Garner had been allowed to manage the occupation?

    I'm sure we agree it would not.

    by Clem Yeobright on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 10:12:31 AM PDT

    •  Here's a twist on the Dumbya & Co assumption...

      that they were holding the moral high ground against "evil dictator of their own creation" in invading:

      http://www.dailykos.com/...

      I noticed when returning to it for the link that you've already posted a comment in it.  You go, Clem!

      by watercarrier4diogenes on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 10:37:05 AM PDT

      •  It's believing two impossible things

        before breakfast, these days.  I'm having to replace the batteries in the old bullshit detector twice a day now ...

        by Clem Yeobright on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 10:47:52 AM PDT

    •  I'll reread later, when I have more time to focus

      I got the sense the "immorality" wasn't the invasion, it was the lack of preparedness. As one noted early in the article as officers they are constantly concerned with adequate training and safety, and not getting their men killed. To send your men into a situation without adequate manpower/training/equipment that increases the chances of them getting killed could be viewed as immoral. Likewise, criticising the higher ups for allowing them to be put in that position.

      Would this discussion happen if we had gotten flowers and candy, and came home for Christmas? No.
      One mentioned having not had this number of losses in other recent conflicts (Iraq 1, Kosovo, etc.) That the relatively large numbers killed and wounded is what is driving the soul searching and questioning. Again, not the mission but the conduct of the mission.
      (It really made me wonder what was the talk in the lunch room during Vietnam?)

      by Catte Nappe on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 10:39:58 AM PDT

      •  To a certain extent

        America's dominance in post-WWII geopolitiks has led to our military having unrealistic expectations regarding war.  Like, getting it over before dinner and not having to write any of those damned letters to the next-of-kin (of course, the latter has now been taken over by a special PR unit so the officers don't have to agonize over them any more).  Like, you know, Granada.  Or snatching the President of a small Central American republic and carting him off to be tried for crimes committed with the full knowledge and assistance of the CIA.

        Military officers are supposed to care about their men, and consider their welfare, and try to keep them in their best shape, and basically, be like the Pater Familias to the troop.  But when you come down to it, it's a rather distorted state of affairs, when career military people don't expect to have people get killed and wounded.  Our military has gotten to the point of being a precision-built, carefully oiled-and-cleaned fighting machine that is just too delicate to take into any real fighting.

        by cynndara on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 04:57:27 PM PDT

•  I am much more worried by the

  ultra-christianistic Air Force. I don't think they have moral qualms about anything, just certainties.  That's what scares me silly.

  The army will just be left to pick up the pieces-- with survivors shooting at them.

  by samddobermann on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 10:16:02 AM PDT

  •  Do you know anyone in the Air Force?

    Seriously, this is like saying "It's those Muslims I'm worried about - they'll cut off anyone's head!"

    It's a breathtakingly ignorant statement.

    by Sui Juris on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 10:26:44 AM PDT

    •  I'm a little worried about the Air Force

      although, my impression after serving over a decade in the Air Force is that it's the most enlightened of the services.  But I also think that they are afraid for their budgets, since they have been spending way too much money on fairly useless airplanes.  This is the issue that I worry about the most, and that might color their judgement into making a bad decision about Iran.  Curtis Lemay hasn't been dead that long.

      I don't know about the wingnut Christian theory of Air Force management.  I'm thinking that the very bad situation at the Academy has been tainted the entire service with a reputation that it probably doesn't deserve.  There are wingnut Christians in all the services, and they get out of control at times.

      by unterhausen on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 11:53:30 AM PDT

      •  Enlightened in What Sense?

        You might want to try reading a book done as a RAND Corporation research study by Carl Builder called "The Masks of War:  American Military Styles in Strategy and Analysis" if you can find it out of a library.  It was first published in 1989 and I believe has long been out of print.  It presents in a very defined fashion the different command styles of the various services and how it affects their world outlook.

        The Air Force has an enlightened policy with regard to managing its own internal resources, but it really is comprised of geeks.  It likes "whiz bang" gadgets which promise victory without loss.  It is not terribly good at dealing with post-violence strategic situations.  It's good at breaking eggs but lousy at making omelets, scrambled eggs or anything else with the resulting yolks.  

        Worse, it still believes deep in its soul in Douhet's dictums from the 1920s despite their demonstrated failures over the last eighty years.  Bombing alone does not work and the Air Force refuses to give up on that ideology.  Of course, without it, their budgets would be slashed to the bone.  

        by PrahaPartizan on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 12:20:53 PM PDT

        •  Enlightened in

          this sense.

          ;)

          by Sui Juris on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 01:11:35 PM PDT

      •  I'm 43. but I've got some old school pals

        who are still in the Air Force.  Don't worry, they're not fundies.  And a couple are in pretty prestigious jobs...prestigious enough that they're untouchable, even if they tell a fundie to go get bent.  

        by Ice Blue on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 03:42:58 PM PDT

      •  I live within spittin' distance

        of Wright-Pat, Air Force Logistics Command, etc.  I see no evidence in our neck of the woods for red-eyed foaming-at-the-mouth Christian evangelists running the show.  I think they'd have to get rid of a LOT of technocrat-engineers in order to have an open field for that.

        Although the shoot-em-up fighter-pilot mentality gets a lot of publicity, the majority of the Air Force is still made up of highly-edjicated geeks.  They're far more dangerous because of their unrestrained passion for playing with toys that simply shouldn't ever be built, than for having express designs to use them on little brown people far away.  Probably the most dangerous thing about them is that as engineers and scientists, they just haven't the foggiest notion of what real, evil people might really DO with their neat toys.  Being pure in their intellects, they don't comprehend the existence of radical Evil, or the nature of corrupt humanity.

        by cynndara on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 05:06:09 PM PDT

•  this is fucking terrifying

  Sure, if I could pick my cases, I'd love for the military upper command to refuse unlawful orders.

  But I would be terrified to live in a US, with the world's way most deadly military ever, where the generals DON'T follow civilian orders.

  All laws and customs are as the grass. The Constitution ain't nothing but a piece of paper when it comes down to it. The real problem is that we've gotten to a point where there are civilians in power capable of giving such egregiously stupid, illegal, and immoral commands.

  by theloniously on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 10:22:36 AM PDT

  •  Yes, and who's fault is that?

    The American people's fault, ultimately.

    by Sui Juris on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 10:27:30 AM PDT

    •  Yup.

      It's a crying shame our military has to get to that red line.  That's not their job.  We failed them.  

      by Strawberrybitch on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 11:52:58 AM PDT

•  and we don't impeach! n/t

  by samddobermann on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 10:24:06 AM PDT

•  Great catch

   

  For the sake of argument, a question from the reporter was posed: If enough four-star generals had done that, would it have stopped the war?

     "Yeah, we’d call it a coup d’etat," [an Army instructor] said.

  I hate that the military is even discussing the idea of (effectively) mutinying against the CiC. And I really hate that it might be the right decision.

  by corwin on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 10:34:51 AM PDT

  •  They aren't considering it

    They aren't discussing it.
    As the guy said when asked, it would be a coup d'etat. And I believe the same guy goes on to explain why we don't want to do that.

    by Catte Nappe on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 11:07:52 AM PDT

•  Elizabeth Bumiller is a bushco sycophant.

  No doubt that is the reason she was given access.  If I was one of those people interviewed, I would have refused to answer because my career would probably be over.  This applies mainly to the captains and majors who are on their way up.
  As for Sanchez, he is another who is too late with too little.  He could have spoken out at the time and honorably resigned.  He chose to keep his mouth shut and what good did it do him?  He was replaced anyway.

  by oibme on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 11:53:47 AM PDT

  •  Worse things can happen

    than being replaced.

    by ljm on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 12:11:31 PM PDT

•  I don't trust military compromised by fundies n/t

  by Visceral on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 12:22:46 PM PDT

•  I voted No WAY

  because no matter what CheneyCo. want to do, there are real limits to manpower and material.  The forces are already stretched beyond their capacity.  Things are going to start BREAKING DOWN in another six months.  So there's no way in heqq we're going to be invading Iran in the spring.

  The generals might not laugh at the order outright.  They might not refuse the order outright.  And the Air Force might go ahead and do some bombing, because they aren't the ones carrying the brunt of the work in Iraq and Afghanistan and they still have some spare people and planes (which will change if they start bombing Iran, where they WILL get shot back at).  But if BushCheney tries to start a physical invasion in Iran, it will simply get so bogged down in logistical insufficiencies that it won't go anywhere Very Slowly.  And those insufficiencies will start from the very bottom of the chain of command with soldiers missing busses and having cars break down on the way to their deployment, to supplies not getting corralled and on boats, to Necessary Equipment being held up here and thither and yon ... the military is quite capable of preventing utterly stupid orders from being implemented without anyone standing up and saying NO in bold typeface.  It'll be more like a gazillion emails being sent back for clarification fifteen times.  In triplicate.  And with a request for five additional signatures.

  by cynndara on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 05:13:56 PM PDT