CORRUPTION UPDATES 121
Posted: October 15, 2007
Previous Page: Page 120 All Archives Next page: Page 122
Contact Us: Committeefordemocracy.org
1) The Articles linked below were Abstracted from the sources cited. After the abstract there's analysis and commentary, links to related articles, and a link to the database with suggested search terms.
Ex-general calls Iraq a 'nightmare'
Security remains a big concern four years after
the US-led invasion [EPA]
Aljazeera, OCTOBER 13, 2007
7:06 MECCA TIME, 4:06 GMT
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F6BB44CE-96E6-4890-A02A-A7EC076AB582.htm
A former top US military commander in Baghdad has described the war in Iraq as "a nightmare with no end in sight".
In the bluntest assessment of Iraq by a former senior Pentagon official yet, retired Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez also lambasted US political leaders as "incompetent, inept, and derelict in the performance of their duty".
Addressing a meeting of military correspondents and editors in Arlington, a Virginia suburb of Washington, Sanchez said: "There is no question that America is living a nightmare with no end in sight."
He said the current White House strategy will not achieve victory in Iraq.
Bush assailed
Sanchez blasted the "surge" strategy of George Bush, the US president, that calls for maintaining more than 160,000 US troops in Iraq until the end of the year in the hope of reducing sectarian violence.
"Continued manipulations and adjustments to our military strategy will not achieve victory," he said. "The best we can do with this flawed approach is stave off defeat."
Sanchez retired from the military in November 2006, part of the fallout from a scandal over abuse of detainees by US military personnel at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad.
Reacting to Sanchez's comments, the White House evoked a September report to congress by General David Petraeus, the current US military commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador .
"We appreciate his service to the country," Trey Bohn, White House spokesman, said.
"As General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker have said, there is more work to be done, but progress is being made in Iraq. And that's what we are focused on now."
'No hope'
Sanchez, however, had a starkly different view. "There is nothing going on today in Washington that would give us hope," he insisted.
According to Sanchez, US politicians in both the administration and congress have too often chosen loyalty to their political party above loyalty to the constitution because of what he called "their lust for power".
"There has been a glaring, unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders," the retired general complained.
"In my profession, these type of leaders would immediately be relieved or court-martialled."
Time Line
Military assault
March 2006: Major General Paul Eaton, in charge of training the Iraqi army, describes Donald Rumsfeld, former US defence secretary, as "not competent" to lead the armed forces.
April 2006: Major General John Batiste, formerly head of the US army's First Infantry Division, says the government had "repeatedly ignored sound military advice."
September 2007: General Sir Mike Jackson, the head of the British army during the invasion of Iraq calls the US strategy "intellectually bankrupt".
September 2007: Major General Tim Cross, a senior British officer involved in post-war planning, describes US policy in Iraq was "fatally flawed"
Ex-Iraq Commander Says Bring Troops Home
By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/11/21/national/w143636S01.DTL
(11-21) 18:04 PST WASHINGTON, (AP) --
Retired Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top commander in Iraq shortly after the fall of Baghdad, said this week he supports Democratic legislation that calls for most troops to come home within a year.
Critical assessments on the war from former Pentagon brass are nothing new. But Sanchez's newfound alliance with Democrats is particularly noteworthy because he was directly in charge of combat operations in Iraq, from 2003 to 2004.
He also is somewhat controversial. The Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal happened under his watch, and some have pointed to leadership failures as a contributing factor. While he was not charged with any misconduct, Sanchez said upon retiring from the military in November 2006 that his career was a casualty of Abu Ghraib.
In October, the three-star general told a group of reporters that the U.S. mission in Iraq was a "nightmare with no end in sight." He also called Bush's decision to deploy 30,000 extra forces to Iraq earlier this year a "desperate attempt" to make up for years of misguided policies in Iraq.
1b) The Articles linked below were Abstracted from the sources cited.
US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack
Michael Smith and Sarah Baxter, Washington
times on line, February 25, 2007
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1434540.ece
SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.
Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.
“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”
A British defence source confirmed that there were deep misgivings inside the Pentagon about a military strike. “All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them.
The threat of a wave of resignations coincided with a warning by Vice-President Dick Cheney that all options, including military action, remained on the table. He was responding to a comment by Tony Blair that it would not “be right to take military action against Iran”.
Iran ignored a United Nations deadline to suspend its uranium enrichment programme last week. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insisted that his country “will not withdraw from its nuclear stances even one single step”.
A second US navy aircraft carrier strike group led by the USS John C Stennis arrived in the Gulf last week, doubling the US presence there. Vice Admiral Patrick Walsh, the commander of the US Fifth Fleet, warned: “The US will take military action if ships are attacked or if countries in the region are targeted or US troops come under direct attack.”
But General Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said recently there was “zero chance” of a war with Iran. He played down claims by US intelligence that the Iranian government was responsible for supplying insurgents in Iraq, forcing Bush on the defensive.
Pace’s view was backed up by British intelligence officials who said the extent of the Iranian government’s involvement in activities inside Iraq by a small number of Revolutionary Guards was “far from clear”.
Hillary Mann, the National Security Council’s main Iran expert until 2004, said Pace’s repudiation of the administration’s claims was a sign of grave discontent at the top.
1c) The Articles linked below were Abstracted from the sources cited.
Why Iraq Was a Mistake
By Lieut. General Greg Newbold (Ret.)
time, Sunday, Apr. 09, 2006
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1181629,00.html
Two senior military officers are known to have challenged Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the planning of the Iraq war. Army General Eric Shinseki publicly dissented and found himself marginalized. Marine Lieut. General Greg Newbold, the Pentagon's top operations officer, voiced his objections internally and then retired, in part out of opposition to the war. Here, for the first time, Newbold goes public with a full-throated critique:
In 1971, the rock group The Who released the antiwar anthem Won't Get Fooled Again. To most in my generation, the song conveyed a sense of betrayal by the nation's leaders, who had led our country into a costly and unnecessary war in Vietnam. To those of us who were truly counterculture--who became career members of the military during those rough times--the song conveyed a very different message. To us, its lyrics evoked a feeling that we must never again stand by quietly while those ignorant of and casual about war lead us into another one and then mismanage the conduct of it. Never again, we thought, would our military's senior leaders remain silent as American troops were marched off to an ill-considered engagement. It's 35 years later, and the judgment is in: the Who had it wrong. We have been fooled again.
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. Inside the military family, I made no secret of my view that the zealots' rationale for war made no sense. And I think I was outspoken enough to make those senior to me uncomfortable. But I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat--al-Qaeda. I retired from the military four months before the invasion, in part because of my opposition to those who had used 9/11's tragedy to hijack our security policy. Until now, I have resisted speaking out in public. I've been silent long enough.
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.
With the encouragement of some still in positions of military leadership, I offer a challenge to those still in uniform: a leader's responsibility is to give voice to those who can't--or don't have the opportunity to--speak. Enlisted members of the armed forces swear their oath to those appointed over them; an officer swears an oath not to a person but to the Constitution. The distinction is important.
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.
Flaws in our civilians are one thing; the failure of the Pentagon's military leaders is quite another. Those are men who know the hard consequences of war but, with few exceptions, acted timidly when their voices urgently needed to be heard. When they knew the plan was flawed, saw intelligence distorted to justify a rationale for war, or witnessed arrogant micromanagement that at times crippled the military's effectiveness, many leaders who wore the uniform chose inaction. 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.
There have been exceptions, albeit uncommon, to the rule of silence among military leaders. Former Army Chief of Staff General Shinseki, when challenged to offer his professional opinion during prewar congressional testimony, suggested that more troops might be needed for the invasion's aftermath. The Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense castigated him in public and marginalized him in his remaining months in his post. Army General John Abizaid, head of Central Command, has been forceful in his views with appointed officials on strategy and micromanagement of the fight in Iraq--often with success. Marine Commandant General Mike Hagee steadfastly challenged plans to underfund, understaff and underequip his service as the Corps has struggled to sustain its fighting capability.
To be sure, the Bush Administration and senior military officials are not alone in their culpability. Members of Congress--from both parties--defaulted in fulfilling their constitutional responsibility for oversight. Many in the media saw the warning signs and heard cautionary tales before the invasion from wise observers like former Central Command chiefs Joe Hoar and Tony Zinni but gave insufficient weight to their views. These are the same news organizations that now downplay both the heroic and the constructive in Iraq.
The troops in the Middle East have performed their duty. Now we need people in Washington who can construct a unified strategy worthy of them. It is time to send a signal to our nation, our forces and the world that we are uncompromising on our security but are prepared to rethink how we achieve it. It is time for senior military leaders to discard caution in expressing their views and ensure that the President hears them clearly. And that we won't be fooled again.
Failed War-Failed State
Iraq's failure was preordained from the moment Bush attacked Iraq.
(Originally written for CU 79_1, on June 13, 2007.)
The great ignored fact of our era is that middle eastern nations will no longer accept foreign-sponsored dictatorships. Reciprocally, no American Administration, Dem or Repug, will stop supporting our Arab Dictatorships.
Another unstated fact is that the interests of the Arabic nations and their peoples have diverged from American Interests. We are learning body by body in iraq that the era of western backed middle eastern dictators has come to a close. No new dictators need apply, and the remaining dictatorships are getting very nervous, and increasingly vulnerable and unreliable.
The Arabs are calling us Criminals, and will no longer pump more oil when we tell them to.
The winds of independence and freedom are sweeping across middle eastern deserts, blowing across Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. The United States have chosen an upwind course.
The rise of a post colonial world has been fought by the US since the end of World War II, first under the disguise of the Cold War, and is now being pursued by Bush under the thin cover of "the war on terror."
Behind Bush's Iraq plan was the desire to counter the emergence of independent middle eastern nations. The plan was simple: crush Saddam and replace him with an American Dictator, under the banner of the "War on Terror." This would also be sold as "promoting democracy" in the middle east.
Bush's foolish plan envisioned containing Iran's expanding influence, while reinforcing our wobbling dictatorships in Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. The Iraq invasion would make up for our loss of the Shah in Iran, and restore America's declining influence and power in the middle east.
Bush's Plan would assure we would maintain control of the global oil markets. This would assure us of the energy required double our population during the next 40 years, as we have during the last 40.
Bush's "WMDs in Iraq" and "war on terror" deceptions did not fool our corporate press or our Congress. Both were willing participants in perpetuating Bush's deceptions. Now they are finding that they have opened a box they are incapable of closing. Bush, Congress, and our Corporate Press fooled no one in the middle east.
This was Bush's Opium Dream, and was only possible because generations of Dem and Repug politicians had slowly eroded the political restraints of our Constitution, and replaced its terms of legitimacy with corporate cash.
The resulting catastrophe has only just begun.
Bush's invasion of Iraq is stoking the fires of Arabic independence, while inflaming and spreading deep hatred for America across the middle east. Bush's invasion has strengthened Iran, and further destabilized our Saudi, Egyptian, and Jordanian dictatorships.
Domestically, the Bush administration has openly revealed the direct relationship between corporate wealth, power, and both political parties. Bush has outted the political structure of of bribery and corruption that has rendered our government illegitimate.
In the meantime, Iraq has become the global focus point for a century of hatred against colonial rule, the fires of its destruction drawing Arabs from every middle eastern country, and forging them into dedicated fighters against foreign interference in all the Arabic lands.
We destroyed Iraq, but in return Iraq has destroyed our power, influence and credibility in the middle east, in the United States, and the world.
Other Generals
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: Shinseki fired as Chief for honest analysis of Iraq war plans
Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Lt. Gen Newbold (Ret.), time, Apr. 09, 2006
Would Pace Attack Iran if Bush Ordered It? commondreams.org, 2-22-07
US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack, Washington times on line, February 25, 2007
General Paul Eaton, International Herald Tribune, 3-20-07, Gen, Eaton's Criticism of Bush Policies Masked under Criticism of Rummy, "For his failures, Rumsfeld must go"
Corruption Updates 45 , 1st article, 3-28-07, "McCaffrey Paints Gloomy Picture of Iraq"
A failure in generalship, Lt. Col. Paul Yingling, Armed Forces Journal, May 2007
Corruption Updates 49 , 1st article, 4-11-07, "3 Generals Spurn the Position of War 'Czar'"
NY Times, 5-13-07: Batiste: Army Career Behind Him, General Speaks Out on Iraq: General Warns of Incompentence of Bush's War, Bush
Abu Ghraib: Taguba fired for Probing too Deeply, nyt, 6-17-07
Pace fired for disputing attack on Iran? stwr 9-19-07
Ex-general Sanchez calls Iraq a 'nightmare,' Aljazeera, OCTOBER 13, 2007
Sanchez: Ex-Iraq Commander Says Bring Troops Home, ap, November 21, 2007
US had No Post-War Plan for Iraq, BBC, Oct 27, 2007
Bush fires fallon: Attack on iran next? esquire, 3-11-08
Bush fires fallon: Attack on iran next? aljazzera, 3-11-08
condition of iraq
Corruption Updates 25, 2nd article on page, December 8, 2006, “GOP senator says war may be 'criminal'”
Corruption Updates 25, 4th article on the page, "ENGLISH LORD COMPARES HITLER'S INVASION OF POLAND WITH IRAQ WAR"
Corruption Updates 58, 6th article on page, "War-torn Iraq 'facing collapse'"
Corruption Updates 67, 1st article on the page, "'03 Iraq reports warned Bush: Bush is an Irresponsible Idiot"
Corruption Updates 79, 1st article on page, "Iraq Ranks No. 2 of Failed States"
Corruption Updates 91, 5th article on the page, Iraq: CIA Reports Instability "Irreversible"
Corruption Updates 97, 5th article on the page, Oxfam Reports Growing Humanitarian Crisis in Iraq: Failed War-Failed State
Search the Corruption Database under
Generals
Iraq War
Speak your Mind here! Send your Comments about the Topic Above for Posting!
Please limit comments to 400 words, unless you write really well! Remember to include the Corruption Updates page number, and the article number on the page. Example: (82_1.)
2) The Article linked below was Abstracted from the source cited.
For his failures, Rumsfeld must go
Iraq
International Herald Tribune, March 20, 2007
General Paul Eaton
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/19/opinion/edeaton.php?page=2
FOX ISLAND, Washington: During World War II, American soldiers en route to Britain before D-Day were given a pamphlet on how to behave while awaiting the invasion. The most important quote was: "It is impolite to criticize your host; it is militarily stupid to criticize your allies."
By that rule, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is not competent to lead America's armed forces. First, his failure to build coalitions with U.S. allies from what he dismissively called "old Europe" has imposed far greater demands and risks on American soldiers in Iraq than necessary. Second, he alienated his allies in the U.S. military, ignoring the advice of seasoned officers and denying subordinates any chance for input.
In sum, he has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically and is far more than anyone else responsible for what has happened to America's mission in Iraq. Rumsfeld must step down.
In the five years he has presided over the Pentagon, I have seen groupthink become dominant and a growing reluctance by experienced military men and civilians to challenge the notions of the senior leadership.
I thought we had a glimmer of hope last November when General Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, faced off with Rumsfeld on the question of how U.S. soldiers should react if they witnessed illegal treatment of prisoners by Iraqi authorities. (Pace's view was that U.S. soldiers should intervene, while Rumsfeld's position was that they should simply report the incident to superiors.)
Unfortunately, the general backed down, giving the impression that America's senior man in uniform is just as intimidated by Rumsfeld as was his predecessor, General Richard Myers.
Rumsfeld has put the Pentagon at the mercy of his ego, his Cold Warrior's view of the world and his unrealistic confidence in technology to replace manpower. As a result, the U.S. Army finds itself severely undermanned - cut to 10 active divisions but asked by the administration to support a foreign policy that requires at least 12 or 14.
Only General Eric Shinseki, the army chief of staff when President George W. Bush was elected, had the courage to challenge the downsizing plans. So Rumsfeld retaliated by naming Shinseki's successor more than a year before his scheduled retirement, effectively undercutting his authority. The rest of the senior brass got the message, and nobody has complained since.
It is all too clear that Shinseki was right: Several hundred thousand men would have made a big difference then, as we began Phase IV, or country reconstruction. There was never a question that we would make quick work of the Iraqi Army.
Paul D. Eaton, a retired U.S. Army major general, was in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004.
Eaton Still Holding Back
Alex Wierbinski, Berkeley, Ca., October 15, 2007
There are two striking unstated facts that underlie Eaton's essay. First, Eaton is using Rummey to criticize what Bush has done with every executive branch department: Running roughshod over the professional career staffs to achieve highly partisan goals.
The same political pressures were exerted on the CIA and the State Department to roll over and rubber stamp herr Bush's crazy war plans. The Bush Administration has disreguarded the professional staff, and in many cases the law, in managing every Executive Branch department.
This has been especially disturbing as this unjust and incompentent war has been used by Bush to "authorize" the CIA to kidnap and torture, the FBI to conduct illegal searches, and the NSA to monitor every digital communication of Americans.
Second, Eaton was using Rummey as a red herring, as his criticisms are actually aimed at the commander in chief. Rummy was acting in close concert with Cheney and Bush, and all were doing everything they could to launch an illegal, incompentent attack on Iraq.
Eaton is hesitant to place the blame where it really lays, on the President of the United States.
Link List about Iraq War, Generals
Search the Corruption Database under
Iraq War
Please limit comments to 400 words, unless you write really well! Remember to include the Corruption Updates page number, and the article number on the page. Example: (82_1.)
3) The Article linked below was Abstracted from the source cited.
Ex-Commander Says Iraq Effort Is ‘a Nightmare’
By DAVID S. CLOUD
NY Times, October 13, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/13/washington/13general.html?_
r=1&oref=slogin&ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=print
WASHINGTON, Oct. 12 — In a sweeping indictment of the four-year effort in Iraq, the former top commander of American forces there called the Bush administration’s handling of the war “incompetent” and said the result was “a nightmare with no end in sight.”
Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, who retired in 2006 after being replaced in Iraq after the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, blamed the Bush administration for a “catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan” and denounced the current addition of American forces as a “desperate” move that would not achieve long-term stability.
“After more than four years of fighting, America continues its desperate struggle in Iraq without any concerted effort to devise a strategy that will achieve victory in that war-torn country or in the greater conflict against extremism,” General Sanchez said at a gathering of military reporters and editors in Arlington, Va.
He is the most senior war commander of a string of retired officers who have harshly criticized the administration’s conduct of the war. While much of the previous condemnation has been focused on the role of former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, General Sanchez’s was an unusually broad attack on the overall course of the war.
“There has been a glaring and unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders,” he said, adding that civilian officials have been “derelict in their duties” and guilty of a “lust for power.”
“The administration, Congress and the entire inter-agency, especially the State Department, must shoulder responsibility for the catastrophic failure, and the American people must hold them accountable,” he said.
THE COMMITTEE SAYS:
Failed War-Failed State
Iraq's failure was preordained from the moment Bush attacked Iraq.
Link List about Iraq War, Generals
Search the Corruption Database under
Iraq War
Generals
Please limit comments to 400 words, unless you write really well! Remember to include the Corruption Updates page number, and the article number on the page. Example: (82_1.)
4) The Article linked below was Abstracted from the source cited.
A failure in generalship
By Lt. Col. Paul Yingling
Armed Forces Journal, May 2007
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/05/2635198
For the second time in a generation, the United States faces the prospect of defeat at the hands of an insurgency. In April 1975, the U.S. fled the Republic of Vietnam, abandoning our allies to their fate at the hands of North Vietnamese communists. In 2007, Iraq’s grave and deteriorating condition offers diminishing hope for an American victory and portends risk of an even wider and more destructive regional war.
These debacles are not attributable to individual failures, but rather to a crisis in an entire institution: America’s general officer corps. America’s generals have failed to prepare our armed forces for war and advise civilian authorities on the application of force to achieve the aims of policy. The argu¬ment that follows consists of three elements. First, generals have a responsibility to society to provide policymakers with a correct estimate of strategic probabilities. Second, America’s generals in Vietnam and Iraq failed to perform this responsi¬bility. Third, remedying the crisis in American generalship requires the intervention of Congress.
...
America’s generals not only failed to develop a strategy for victory in Vietnam, but also remained largely silent while the strategy developed by civilian politicians led to defeat. As H.R. McMaster noted in “Dereliction of Duty,” the Joint Chiefs of Staff were divided by service parochialism and failed to develop a unified and coherent recommendation to the president for prosecuting the war to a successful conclu¬sion. Army Chief of Staff Harold K. Johnson estimated in 1965 that victory would require as many as 700,000 troops for up to five years. Commandant of the Marine Corps Wallace Greene made a similar estimate on troop levels. As President Johnson incrementally escalated the war, neither man made his views known to the president or Congress. President Johnson made a concerted effort to conceal the costs and consequences of Vietnam from the public, but such duplicity required the passive consent of America’s generals.
Having participated in the deception of the American peo¬ple during the war, the Army chose after the war to deceive itself. In “Learning to Eat Soup With a Knife,” John Nagl argued that instead of learning from defeat, the Army after Vietnam focused its energies on the kind of wars it knew how to win — high-technology conventional wars.
...
Failures of Generalship in Iraq
America’s generals have repeated the mistakes of Vietnam in Iraq.
Having spent a decade preparing to fight the wrong war, America’s generals then miscalculated both the means and ways necessary to succeed in Iraq. The most fundamental military miscalculation in Iraq has been the failure to commit sufficient forces to provide security to Iraq’s population. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) estimated in its 1998 war plan that 380,000 troops would be necessary for an invasion of Iraq.
Prior to the war, President Bush promised to give field commanders everything necessary for victory. Privately, many senior general officers both active and retired expressed serious misgivings about the insufficiency of forces for Iraq. These leaders would later express their con¬cerns in tell-all books such as “Fiasco” and “Cobra II.” However, when the U.S. went to war in Iraq with less than half the strength required to win, these leaders did not make their objections public.
Given the lack of troop strength, not even the most bril¬liant general could have devised the ways necessary to sta¬bilize post-Saddam Iraq. However, inept planning for post¬war Iraq took the crisis caused by a lack of troops and quickly transformed it into a debacle. In 1997, the U.S. Central Command exercise “Desert Crossing” demonstrated that many postwar stabilization tasks would fall to the mili¬tary. The other branches of the U.S. government lacked suf¬ficient capability to do such work on the scale required in Iraq. Despite these results, CENTCOM accepted the assumption that the State Department would administer postwar Iraq. The military never explained to the president the magnitude of the challenges inherent in stabilizing postwar Iraq.
After failing to visualize the conditions of combat in Iraq, America’s generals failed to adapt to the demands of coun¬terinsurgency. Counterinsurgency theory prescribes providing continuous security to the population. However, for most of the war American forces in Iraq have been concentrated on large forward-operating bases, isolated from the Iraqi people and focused on capturing or killing insurgents. Counterinsurgency theory requires strengthening the capabili¬ty of host-nation institutions to provide security and other essential services to the population. America’s generals treated efforts to create transition teams to develop local security forces and provincial reconstruction teams to improve essen¬tial services as afterthoughts, never providing the quantity or quality of personnel necessary for success.
After going into Iraq with too few troops and no coherent plan for postwar stabilization, America’s general officer corps did not accurately portray the intensity of the insurgency to the American public. The Iraq Study Group concluded that “there is significant underreporting of the violence in Iraq.” The ISG noted that “on one day in July 2006 there were 93 attacks or significant acts of violence reported. Yet a careful review of the reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence. Good policy is difficult to make when infor¬mation is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals.”
...
To reward moral courage in our general officers, Congress must ask hard questions about the means and ways for war as part of its oversight responsibility. Some of the answers will be shocking, which is per¬haps why Congress has not asked and the generals have not told.
. Current oversight efforts have proved inadequate, allowing the executive branch, the services and lob¬byists to present information that is sometimes incomplete, inaccurate or self-serving. Exercising adequate over¬sight will require members of Congress to develop the expertise necessary to ask the right questions and display the courage to follow the truth wherever it leads them.
...
Finally, Congress must enhance accountability by exercising its little-used authority to confirm the retired rank of general officers. By law, Congress must confirm an officer who retires at three- or four-star rank. In the past this requirement has been pro forma in all but a few cases. A general who presides over a massive human rights scandal or a substantial deterioration in security ought to be retired at a lower rank than one who serves with distinction. A general who fails to provide Congress with an accurate and candid assessment of strategic probabilities ought to suffer the same penalty. As matters stand now, a private who loses a rifle suffers far greater consequences than a gen¬eral who loses a war. By exercising its powers to confirm the retired ranks of general officers, Congress can restore accountability among senior military leaders.
Mortal Danger
This article began with Frederick the Great’s admonition to his officers to focus their energies on the larger aspects of war. The Prussian monarch’s innova¬tions had made his army the terror of Europe, but he knew that his adversaries were learning and adapting. Frederick feared that his generals would master his system of war without thinking deeply about the ever-changing nature of war, and in doing so would place Prussia’s security at risk. These fears would prove prophetic. At the Battle of Valmy in 1792, Frederick’s successors were checked by France’s ragtag citizen army. In the four¬teen years that followed, Prussia’s gener¬als assumed without much reflection that the wars of the future would look much like those of the past. In 1806, the Prussian Army marched lockstep into defeat and disaster at the hands of Napoleon at Jena. Frederick’s prophecy had come to pass; Prussia became a French vassal.
ARMY LT. COL. PAUL YINGLING is deputy commander, 3rd Armored Calvary Regiment. He has served two tours in Iraq, another in Bosnia and a fourth in Operation Desert Storm. He holds a master’s degree in politi¬cal science from the University of Chicago. The views expressed here are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of the Army or the Defense Department.
Search the Corruption Database under
Generals
Iraq War
Please limit comments to 400 words, unless you write really well! Remember to include the Corruption Updates page number, and the article number on the page. Example: (82_1.)
5) The Article linked below was Abstracted from the source cited.
Pentagon Review Faults Bank Record Demands
Pentagon and NSA using “Nat Sec Lets” to illegally spy on Americans
By MARK MAZZETTI and ERIC LICHTBLAU
NY Times, October 14, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/washington/14letter.html?hp=&pagewanted=print
WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 — An internal Pentagon review this year found systemic problems and poor coordination in the military’s efforts to obtain records from American banks and consumer credit agencies in terrorism and espionage investigations, according to Pentagon documents and interviews.
The problems at the Pentagon that are described in the documents appear to mirror some of those confronted by the F.B.I., where an internal investigation this year into the bureau’s use of thousands of national security letters found widespread problems and little oversight in the way the demands for records were issued.
The newly disclosed documents, totaling more than 1,000 pages, provide additional confirmation of the military’s expanding use of what are known as national security letters under powers claimed under the Patriot Act.
The New York Times first disclosed the military’s use of the letters in January, and senior members of Congress and civil liberties groups criticized the practice on grounds that it seemed to conflict with traditional Pentagon rules against domestic law enforcement operations. Vice President Dick Cheney, however, defended the practice as a “perfectly legitimate activity” used to protect American troops and investigate possible acts of terrorism and espionage.
The documents raise a number of apparent discrepancies between the Defense Department’s internal practices and what officials have said publicly and to Congress about their use of the letters. The documents suggest, for instance, that military officials used the F.B.I. to collect records for what started as purely military investigations. And the documents also leave open the possibility that records could be gathered on nonmilitary personnel in the course of the investigations.
...
numerous internal memos and policy guidelines issued by Defense Department agencies on their use of the letters made no such distinction and, in some cases, seemed to encourage the gathering of records on nonmilitary personnel. A 2003 memo from the naval investigative service on the Navy’s use of the national security letters, for instance, said in reference to the leader of the Sept. 11 hijackings: “If the target of a terrorism investigation is Mohammed Atta, an N.S.L. may be issued for the records of Atta, as well as others, if those records are relevant to the investigation of Atta.”
Civil liberties advocates said recent controversy over the Department of Defense’s collection of information on antiwar protesters made them suspicious of the assertion that the letters had been used exclusively to focus on military personnel. “We are very skeptical that the D.O.D. is voluntarily limiting its own surveillance power,” said Melissa Goodman, a staff attorney for the A.C.L.U.
The documents also include a potentially significant discrepancy on the question of when the military works with the F.B.I. in issuing records demands. The F.B.I. has broader authority to issue national security letters; its demands are, by definition, mandatory and, unlike the Defense Department, it collects phone and Internet records as well as financial documents.
The Pentagon indicated to Congress earlier this year in one memo that it used the F.B.I. to issue national security letters only in cases where there was a joint investigation by the two agencies—usually, officials said, when the target was someone outside the Defense Department.
But the military’s internal documents appear to contradict this assertion. The military review prepared this year says that the bureau had been issuing some national security letters on behalf of the military in cases that were strictly military investigations, with no joint role by the F.B.I.
This is significant, said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the A.C.L.U., because the military’s legal authority to demand records is much narrower than that of the F.B.I. “If the Defense Department is using the F.B.I. as its lackey to get information it could not get on its own,” Mr. Romero said, “they’re conspiring to evade the limits placed by law.”
Pentagon Using National Security Letters to Illegaly Spy on Americans
Alex Wierbinski, Berkeley, Ca., September , 2007
HOW DO YOU SAY ILLEGAL SEARCH? “NATIONAL SECURITY LETTER”
Written March 21, 2007, for CU 41_5
What is a “Patriot Act?” In the twisted logic of our corporate politicians, acting “patrioticlly,” means attacking one of the core values in our Constitution, our right to be SECURE in our Persons, Houses, Papers, and Effects. Today's Patriot is yesterday's traitor, and tomorrow's fool.
The Patriot Act is an attack on the rights that the Patriots fought and died for. It is an act of traitors, not patriots. Beware of politicians and media outlets who speak benignly of illegal governmental powers, in terms of acceptability.
Searches without warrants are criminal acts, even when approved by Congress, and carried out by the President, the FBI, or the government as portrayed by network television police and CIA dramas.
Congress, the President, and Network television believe that if they invoke “Terror,” they can justify doing anything with unlimited governmental power.
“National Security Letters” are abuses of power, a criminal misuse of political office, and insults to our Constitution.
Corruption Updates 41, 5th article on the page, "FBI Violations May Number 3,000, Official Says: HOW DO YOU SAY ILLEGAL SEARCH? “National Security Letter"
Corruption Updates 88, 6th article on the page, Bush Authorized Domestic Spying: Bush is a Criminal, and an Enemy of our Constitution
Corruption Updates 88, 7th article on the page, Spying on the Home Front
Corruption Updates 97, 2nd article on the page, "Executive privilege touchy for presidential hopefuls: Just a Reminder of why Bush is Out of Control"
The final Solution: Congress passes illegal Domestic Spying law authorizing warrantless NSA searches within the US
New Illegal Domestic Spying Law gives President Unlimited Searching Powers
Corruption Updates 122, 1st article on the page, Phone Utilities Won’t Give Details About Eavesdropping
Search the Corruption Database under
Illegal Searches (44 abstracts)
Please limit comments to 400 words, unless you write really well! Remember to include the Corruption Updates page number, and the article number on the page. Example: (82_1.)
6) The Article linked below was Abstracted from the source cited.
Lawmakers Raise Concerns Over Call for Investigation of C.I.A. Watchdog’s Work
By SCOTT SHANE and MARK MAZZETTI
NY Times, October 13, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/13/washington/
13intel.html?ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=print
WASHINGTON, Oct. 12 — The top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee joined Democrats on Friday in expressing strong concern about an unusual inquiry into the work of the Central Intelligence Agency’s inspector general, John L. Helgerson, saying the review could undermine Mr. Helgerson’s role as independent watchdog.
The inquiry was ordered by the C.I.A. director, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, in response to complaints about aggressive investigations by Mr. Helgerson’s office into the agency’s counterterrorism programs.
“The C.I.A. has a track record of resisting accountability,” Senator Christopher S. Bond, the Missouri Republican who is the committee’s vice chairman, said in a statement.
Mr. Bond said the inspector general had done “great work,” adding, “I will be watching carefully to make sure that nothing is done to restrain or diminish that important office.”
The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times reported Friday that General Hayden had directed a small team of top agency officials to examine Mr. Helgerson’s performance.
The team is led by Robert L. Deitz, a close aide to General Hayden at the C.I.A. who also served under him as general counsel of the National Security Agency. Mr. Deitz agreed before Friday’s news reports to brief the Senate and House Intelligence Committees next week about the inquiry, officials said Friday.
Some current and former agency officials said the inquiry was improper because it could be viewed as an effort to influence investigations. Mr. Helgerson is finishing several reports on detention, including one on the practice of seizing terrorism suspects and delivering them to foreign prisons, officials who have followed his work said.
But Representative Silvestre Reyes, the Texas Democrat who is chairman of the House committee, called the inquiry troubling, noting that the inspector general’s independence is written into the law.
In a letter, Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, asked Mike McConnell, director of national intelligence, to instruct General Hayden to drop the inquiry.
“I just don’t want to see I.G.’s intimidated,” Mr. Wyden said in an interview. He added, “People who know they’re doing the right thing are not afraid of oversight.”
Mr. Helgerson, who joined the C.I.A. in 1971, was named inspector general by President Bush in 2002. He reports to General Hayden and to Congress and can be removed only by the president.
Tensions arose over the inspector general’s examination of the shooting down of a missionary plane in Peru in 2001 based on the C.I.A.’s mistaken identification of the aircraft. Mr. Helgerson raised questions in 2004 about the legality of the agency’s interrogation methods for Qaeda suspects and in 2005 issued a blistering report on the agency’s failure to prevent the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Mr. Wyden said General Hayden “fought very, very hard” to prevent the inspector general’s 9/11 report from becoming public. Ultimately, Congress passed legislation requiring its release, and it was made public in August.
One former C.I.A. official said Friday that another flash point in relations between the agency and Mr. Helgerson was a report on a botched case in which, because of a name mix-up, a Lebanese-born German citizen was seized in Macedonia, beaten and imprisoned in Afghanistan.
Criminal Administration Moves against CIA IG to Cover their Crimes
Alex Wierbinski, Berkeley, Ca., October 15, 2007
A pattern has emerged from the chaos of the Bush wars. Oversight does not exist, and where it appears, it is punished.
Yes, rather than punishing crime, we punish those who expose the crimes. Then we promote those who oversee the crimes, as Gonzales' promotion as the Attorney General, and Shenseki's firing as the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff well proves.
Bush's program has a distinct character, a distinct history, distinct goals and methods, and of course, a clear end point.
Search the Corruption Database under
Illegal searches
Please limit comments to 400 words, unless you write really well! Remember to include the Corruption Updates page number, and the article number on the page. Example: (82_1.)
7) The Article linked below was Abstracted from the source cited.
Republican Sen. Domenici to announce plan to retire
Shailagh Murray,Chris Cillizza, Washington Post
Thursday, October 4, 2007
(10-04) 04:00 PDT Washington –
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/04/MNPNSJBAC.DTL
Senate Republicans are bracing for another potentially costly 2008 retirement, with veteran Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., expected to announce today that he will not seek a seventh term.
Dominici Sparked US Attorney Scandal by Triying to Obtain Federal Prosecutions of Political Enemies
Alex Wierbinski, Berkeley, Ca., September , 2007
“Rove's role in firings is focus,” Corruption Updates 39, 3rd article on page
GOP official urged Rove to fire prosecutor, Corruption Updates 39, 5th article on page
Search the Corruption Database under
domenici
us attorney
Please limit comments to 400 words, unless you write really well! Remember to include the Corruption Updates page number, and the article number on the page. Example: (82_1.)
8) The Article linked below was Abstracted from the source cited.
Citigroup Acknowledges Poor Risk Management
By ERIC DASH
NY Times, October 16, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/16/business/16citi.html?adxnnl=1&ref=business&
pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1192507585-GHMKQCW1byT8WnFTIWCUyQ
Citigroup acknowledged yesterday that its risk management models did not function properly during this summer’s credit crisis, contributing to the company’s 57 percent drop in third-quarter profit.
The bank suffered heavy blows to its fixed-income business, causing it to write off $3.55 billion from deteriorating securities prices, leveraged loans and bad trading bets. It also set aside an additional $2.24 billion to cover future losses from failing mortgages and consumer loans, indicating that its reserves had been substantially depleted and that it anticipated worsening economic conditions.
Alex Wierbinski, Berkeley, Ca., September , 2007
Search the Corruption Database under
Please limit comments to 400 words, unless you write really well! Remember to include the Corruption Updates page number, and the article number on the page. Example: (82_1.)
9) The Article linked below was Abstracted from the source cited.
Banks May Pool Billions to Avert Securities Sell-off
By ERIC DASH
NY Times, October 14, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/business/14bank.html?ref=business&pagewanted=print
Several of the world’s biggest banks are in talks to put up about $75 billion in a backup fund that could be used to buy risky mortgage securities and other assets, a move designed to ease pressure on a crucial part of the credit markets that threatens the broader economy.
Citigroup, Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase, along with several other financial institutions, have been meeting to come up with a plan to create a fund that could prevent a sharp sell-off in securities owned by bank-affiliated investment vehicles. The meetings, which began three weeks ago, have been orchestrated by senior officials at the Treasury Department, and the discussions have intensified in the last few days.
The proposal echoes the 1998 bailout of the hedge fund Long Term Capital Management, when a group of big banks came together to prevent the fund from collapsing after it made a series of bad bets. And the current round of crisis-driven collaboration illustrates the heightened level of concern among both government and financial players.
Alex Wierbinski, Berkeley, Ca., September , 2007
Search the Corruption Database under
Please limit comments or essay to 400 words, unless you write really well! Remember to include the Corruption Updates page number, and the article number that you are referring to. Example: (82_1.)
10) The Article linked below was Abstracted from the source cited.
Stark Differences on Arms Threaten U.S.-Russia Talks
By THOM SHANKER and STEVEN LEE MYERS
NYT, October 10, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/washington/10russia.html?ref=todays
WASHINGTON, Oct. 9 — Growing disagreements over how to carry forward arms control treaties threaten to bog down meetings in Moscow this week between top-level Americans and their Russian counterparts that are intended to seek a compromise on missile defense.
The talks, in Moscow, are becoming both the latest indication of the troubled state of relations between the White House and the Kremlin and one of the last opportunities for President Bush and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to overcome the deepening distrust that has strained the relationship.
Mr. Bush is sending to Moscow his two most powerful cabinet members, Secretaryof State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.
The Bush administration’s approach, part of a legacy of disdain for formal binding treaties negotiated over years, gives the administration what it contends is greater ability to maneuver to forward its national security interests.
Russia has demanded a legally binding accord to formally replace verification requirements in the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or Start, which expires in 2009.
The Bush administration is offering only to preserve some parts of the nuclear accord to guarantee inspections and verification of the nuclear weapons reductions it set in motion — but in a still undermined format far less formal than a major treaty.
One senior Bush administration official referred disdainfully to Start as a “telephone-book-size document” that both sides now considered outdated. “It’s not surprising that there are some parts of it both sides would not like to continue,” the official said.
The Russians see it differently.
“Unfortunately we have very serious disagreements,” Anatoly I. Antonov, an arms-control official at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, told the official Russian Information Agency last month. “They concern the essence of the future accord. We have not agreed yet on the nature of the accord either. We have not yet succeeded in convincing the U.S.A. that the new document must be legally binding."
Bush, Fool of the Ages, Continues to Abuse Treaties, the Rule of Law, and Russia
Alex Wierbinski, Berkeley, Ca., October 15, 2007
Search the Corruption Database under
Russia
Limit comments to 400 words, unless you write really well! Remember to include the Corruption Updates page number, and the article number on the page. Example: (82_1.)
Previous Corruption Updates: Page 120 Next Corruption Updates: Page 122
Contact Us: Committeefordemocracy.org
The Generals
1) Sanchez: Yet another General tells the truth AFTER retiring
1b) Generals will quit if bush orders iran attack
1c) Gen newbold condemns political, military, and media for failed war
2) General Paul Eaton's criticisms of Rummy, 3-07
3) NY Times article quotes Sanchez's condemnations of Bush more precisely than Al Jazeera
4) Lt. Col. Paul Yingling, Iraq: A failure in generalship
Other acts of corruption
5) Pentagon, Like FBI and NSA, using National Security Letters to illegally spy on Americans
6) CIA trying to Kill IG Investigations into Criminal Kidnapping, Torture, and other Crimes
7) Dominici the Criminal to Retire
8) Citigroup profits Plunge 57%
9) Banks forming Crisis Pool of Money to maintain values of rotten securities
10) Fool Bush Disdains Treaties