Billmon:
Back to Main
October 31, 2006
WB: I Didn’t Do It +
Comments
From talking to people involved, I perceive that “planning guidance” from our national leadership to the military focuses altogether on excluding any thought that there is a possible outcome other than a complete victory in Iraq, “victory” being defined as complete achievement of President Bush’s goals in that country and in the region.
Planning guidance like that effectively prevents contingency planning for future events that would be severe reverses. An interruption of the lines of supply would be such a reverse. A hostile entry into combat of one or more of the Shia factions would be another.
Given the current mentality of the civilian government and consequently of the military command in Iraq, I would bet a lot of my own money that there are no serious and detailed plans anywhere in the command structure designed to cope with a massive and adverse series of events in Iraq.
Apparently US generals aren’t the only ones with new-found voices:
Afghanistan war is ‘cuckoo’, says Blair’s favourite general
Posted by: Alamet | Oct 31 2006 18:00 utc | 2
The Brit High-Command was early on record with its denunciation of Blair and Bush. General Sir Michael Rose gave Blair a smackdown with a “hidden” threat: if any in the military are charged with war crimes over Iraq, then the civilian leadership will go down with them for having driven beyond reason to get their war on Saddam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Michael_Rose
(Check at the end: Opposition to Tony Blair)
Posted by: SteinL | Oct 31 2006 18:57 utc | 3
And doesn’t it seem as if it was ages ago that Rumsfeld crowed over the low casualties resulting from the attack on Iraq.
He had set 1200 as acceptable, and rejoiced that the job was done with just over 200 soldiers lost …
But then he’s also on record as having said: “I don’t do quagmires.”
Posted by: SteinL | Oct 31 2006 18:59 utc | 4
Post script…… I bet he looks at Iran maps on The Google to plan his campaigns.
Posted by: Cloned Poster | Oct 31 2006 20:19 utc | 7
Lt. Gen. Keith KELLOG, worried about . . . future criticism that they tried to SUGARCOAT events in Iraq, he said.
Posted by: Anonymous | Oct 31 2006 20:26 utc | 8
That would be “Rice Krispies” anonymous.
Pun or what?
Posted by: Cloned Poster | Oct 31 2006 20:35 utc | 9
Once aFuturist always a futurist:
Ledeen:
…but all the great scholars who have studied American character have come to the conclusion that we are a warlike people and that we love war . . . What we hate is not casualties but losing…
Ledeen seeks to define the american character through the cultural prism of (Italian) futurism, which eshewed restraint, reflection, and retrospect, and idolized war as the iconic mechanism to defeat them.
Posted by: anna missed | Oct 31 2006 20:36 utc | 10
Holy crap! Does Ledeen think this is a fucking Nascar race?!?
Posted by: Dr. Wellington Yueh | Oct 31 2006 22:21 utc | 11
So Billmon, as we approach our Stalingrad, who gets to deliver the “Totalen Krieg” speech?
“I ask you: Do you want total war? If necessary, do you want a war more total and radical than anything that we can even imagine today?”
“Nun, Volk steh auf, und Sturm brich los!” (Now, people rise up and let the storm break loose!)
Total War Speech
Posted by: mmack | Nov 1 2006 5:23 utc | 12
A couple of weeks back during the l’affaire Dannatt, there was a radio report on BBC5 Live from Hugh Sykes to the effect that no-one, no-one in the British Army supports the Bliar govt on Iraq, and Sykes was roundly laughed at by senior military personnel when he suggested otherwise.
As a couple of correspondents to The Guardian today point out, this is a lamentable state of affairs:
Parliament is about the only place in the world where a majority still backs this illegal war. It no longer reflects the will of the people – and in a democracy this is unacceptable. Voter disillusionment quite rightly breeds contempt of politicians.
and
The public has the right to know what criteria our elected representatives use when deciding whether or not to go to war. In March 2003 the decision in parliament to invade was based on Iraq’s supposed failure to disarm. It was said that this was within international law because Iraq had WMD. Since it became clear that Iraq had in fact disarmed 10 years previously, the invasion has been “rebranded” a number of times, as a humanitarian intervention, an action to democratise Iraq, and to avoid Iraq becoming a failed state – though Iraq is more of a failed state now. An inquiry into the invasion would have been an opportunity for our political leadership to clarify when, where and why it thinks the UK should go to war. The failure to hold an inquiry leaves the public still in the dark. It is a risky situation when parliament cannot reconcile its actions with international law.
Democracy my arse. If this is what we are trying to inflict on the Iraqis, then god help us all.
Posted by: Dismal Science | Nov 2 2006 18:02 utc | 13