A Choice We Don't have

Thomas Friedman and Maureen Dowd both call for Rumsfeld's resignation. Thomas Friedman asks which you would rather have, Iraq II or a Nuclear Iran? His answer is that he would prefer a third choice, diplomacy backed by a credible threat of force, but that option is not available so long as Rumsfeld remains in charge at the Pentagon:

Iraq II or a Nuclear Iran?, by Thomas Friedman, Commentary, NY Times:  If these are our only choices, ... a nuclear-armed Iran or an attack on Iran's nuclear sites that is carried out and sold to the world by the Bush national security team, with Don Rumsfeld at the Pentagon's helm ... I'd rather live with a nuclear Iran. ... I have zero confidence in this administration's ability to manage a complex military strike against Iran, let alone the military and diplomatic aftershocks. ...[T]he level of incompetence that the Bush team has displayed in Iraq, and its refusal to acknowledge any mistakes or remove those who made them, make it impossible to support this administration in any offensive military action against Iran. ...

Do I wish there was a third way? Yes. But the only meaningful third way would be ... face-to-face negotiations about all the issues that divide us: Iraq, sanctions, nukes. Such diplomacy, though, would require two things. First, the Bush team would have to make up its mind ... Does it want a change of regime in Iran or a change of behavior? If it will settle only for regime change, then diplomacy has no chance. ... Second, ... the ... only way Iran will strike a grand bargain with the U.S. is if it thinks America has the support at home and abroad for a military option (or really severe sanctions.)

The main reason Mr. Rumsfeld should leave now is because we can't have a credible diplomatic or military option ... when so many people feel ... that in a choice between another Rumsfeld-led confrontation and just letting Iran get nukes and living with it, we should opt for the latter.

It may be that learning to live with a nuclear Iran is the wisest thing under any circumstances. But it would be nice to have ... the option of a diplomatic deal ... but that will come only with a credible threat of force. Yet we will not have the support at home or abroad for that threat as long as Don Rumsfeld leads the Pentagon. No one in their right mind would follow this man into another confrontation — and that is a real strategic liability.

Maureen Dowd makes a different argument for Rumsfeld's resignation and reflects the distrust Friedman wrote about:

The Decider Sticks With the Derider, by Maureen Dowd, Commentary, NY Times: At first Rummy was reluctant to talk about the ... rebellious retired brass complain[ts] that the defense chief was contemptuous of advice from his military officers and sabotaged the Iraq mission with willful misjudgments... But seconds later, he let loose a river of ruminations, a Shakespearean, or maybe Nixonian, soliloquy that showed such a breathtaking lack of comprehension that it was touching, in a perverse way.

He flailed and floundered through anecdotes from his first and second stints at the Pentagon, arguing that he drew criticism because he was a change agent, trying to transform the lumbering military bureaucracy. ... When you yank the military from the 20th-century industrial age to the 21st-century information age, Rummy said, you're bound to cause "a lot of ruffles." ...

The secretary made it sound as if the generals want him to resign because he made reforms. But they really want him to resign because he made gigantic, horrible, arrogant mistakes that will be taught in history classes forever. ...

Just as with Vietnam, when L.B.J. and Robert McNamara were running the war, or later, when Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger took over, we now have leaders obsessed with not seeming weak, or losing face. Their egos are feeding their delusions.

Asked by Rush Limbaugh ... about progress in Iraq, Rummy replied, "Well, the progress has been good." He said that if you always listened to critics about war, "we wouldn't have won the Revolutionary War" or World War I or World War II, and America would have been a different country "if it existed at all."

But the conscience-stricken generals are not critics of war. They are critics of having a war run by a 73-year-old who thinks he's a force for modernity when he's really a force for fantasy. It's time to change the change agent.

Comments

[camille roy]

One of the few times I have agreed with Friedman. He's joined the reality-based crew. It's not about the fantasy war we could wage in Iran, it's about the debacle and death of Iraq scaled up an order of magnitude. If these guys go for it, indeed they are maniacs.

[Movie Guy]

Friedman nor Dowd mention word one about Israel in what Mark Thoma has shared in his post. Only a puppy would gloss over the issue of Israel on this issue.

Friedman nor Dowd acknowledge that President Bush will not allow Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to step down, nor will the President be bullied into sacking the Secretary of Defense. It will not happen.

Friedman nor Dowd demonstrate any macro to micro competency in understanding the U.S. strategies package and ordering of such for the Middle East, Central and South Asia, and Iran.

Friedman nor Dowd demonstrate any credibility on the numerous negotiations that are involved, as demonstrated by their failures to acknowledge the G-8, EU-3, and UN negotiations which have been underway with Iran for over three years. Japan is now dealing with Iran, and President Bush will again address the matter with the leader of China this week.

Friedman and Dowd are spitting in the wind.

[ilsm]

Movie Guy,

You said:

"Friedman nor Dowd demonstrate any macro to micro competency in understanding the U.S. strategies package and ordering of such for the Middle East, Central and South Asia, and Iran."

You have no idea what Dowd and Friedman understand, you see their disagreement. Neither of them are misunderstanding.

You should not begin debate by assailling those who disagree as incompetent.

Rummy does with his generals or is the term insubordinate? Anyway Rummy fires, ignores or marginalizes those but cannot stop Dowd.

Their disagreement has nothing to do with having to go along and understand stupidity, perfidy and incompetence.

I rebutted the "strategy package" the other night.

As to Israel, their calculus is better than Bush's.

I suspect their high level people are concerned as much about the loose cannons on the Potomoc as the mullahs in Tehran.

[anne]

There is no question that the criticism of the Secretary of Defense is warranted; after all, beyond fostering a needless war against a nation that was contained and no threat to America, the war which might have been over in weeks was turned to a needless occupation that has torn at Iraq and been destructive to America for 3 years. The lunacy of the war and occupation, has set Iran as the policy arbiter of the Middle East. Iran however will be countered by rough diplomacy, for there is international interest in containing Iran, and is of less concern than Iraq. The immediate need is for America to leave Iraq to gain a proper focus on and to afford an innovative Middle East diplomacy.

[anne]

What is of most concern is that we immediately leave Iraq, then we can effectively turn to diplomacy in several areas to restore our international image while restoring our strength. Imagine a President and Secretary of Defense who have managed to turn a 3 week needless war to 3 years of demoralizing America. We must leave Iraq immediately, but the leadership of a peace movement that a Martin Luther King would have brought is not there.

[anne]

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/04/18/nyregion/18nyc.html

April 18, 2006

Acknowledging the Conscience of a Nation
By CLYDE HABERMAN

On Christianity's most sacred day, when the infinite possibilities of renewal are affirmed, death cast its tireless shadow across Riverside Church.

Even on a joyous Easter morning, some churchgoers had to find their tentative way through the early stages of grief. Death had spared them no more than it does anyone else. From his pulpit, the Rev. James A. Forbes Jr., Riverside's senior minister, read a short list of such people, those who had been close to Sue Julien and to Henry Maddicks, to Sheila Everett and to Eleanor Hyatt, all gone now.

Those names, with full respect, probably meant little to most of the hundreds of worshipers who filled the church. The list of the dead contained one other name, though. Surely, almost everyone there recognized it: the Rev. William Sloane Coffin Jr.

He had been Dr. Forbes's predecessor as senior minister of the interdenominational church. But those sitting in the pews on Sunday knew that he was more than that. He was also once the chaplain at Yale University. But he was more than that, too.

He was a national conscience.

Not everyone agreed with Dr. Coffin, that is for sure. But there is no denying that his was a clarion voice in the land. It shaped opinions across two generations, from his appeals for racial justice to his calls for nuclear disarmament, from his protests to end the war in Vietnam to his pleas that the war in Iraq not even begin.

He was a man, Dr. Forbes told the Easter worshipers, who believed in "lifting up the mandate of the kingdom of God for peace, justice and compassion."

Dr. Coffin died in Vermont last week. He was 81. There will be a funeral service at Riverside Church on Thursday. His life will no doubt be replayed at length.

But it was impossible for Easter Sunday to pass with no acknowledgment of his death from the pulpit.

The Rev. R. Scott Colglazier, a Riverside minister, praised Dr. Coffin for "his eloquence of word, his insight of mind, his joyfulness of spirit and his courageous embrace of life." Dr. Forbes quoted Joseph C. Hough Jr., the president of Union Theological Seminary, just around the corner from the church.

"Bill was one of God's chosen prophets," Mr. Hough said, adding words that could apply to many whose lives are given to dissent: "He was a great patriot who loved his country too much to leave it alone." Dr. Coffin himself described his frequent attacks on America's policies as amounting to "a lovers' quarrel."

In a way, his death underlined striking differences between the antiwar protests of the Vietnam era and those of today.

Almost every movement, whether it is deemed just or wrongheaded, needs recognizable leaders to gain strength and to grow. The Vietnam years had no shortage of such people, from moral forces like Dr. Coffin and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to court jesters of the Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin variety.

Who's there now for opponents of the Iraq war? ...

[anne]

Well, we are there for ourselves and for those about us this too is the lesson of peacemakers past. We must ask ourselves whether we will represent peace or war from here, for though the truth of war has been masked so often for us these last years we must have seen enough beyond the mask to know we must stand for peace no matter the lunatic rationales for continuing our occupation of sad Iraq.

[c roast]

What if, for the sake of argument, one were to make the assumption that the Iraq war has been a fabulous success and US military intervention in Iran would be the absolute capstone to that success?
After all, Iraq is fragmenting into warring factions, and at least in the near term, will present a threat to no one in the area. Of course, the Turks and Iranians will feel an elevated sense of threat from the Kurds, but this is nothing that they haven't been dealing with for decades if not centuries. However, on balance, Iraq is destitute and prostrate and strengthens their hands in the area, so all the better.
Of course Iran, with the possible exception of the Iranian wackos in power, will probably not take too kindly to an extensive US bombing campaign. All the immediate neighbors will officially tut-tut the bombing but will be able to relax a bit in the aftermath. The Saudi ruling clique will be nervous and shaky and the can’t relax…nothing new here, the simply have a longer way to fall.
Now, the one most likely to make this assumption regarding this fabulous success would be a ruling member of our little Israeli Protectorate. He can go on delightfully unimpeded with West Bank colonization, Palestinian ethnic cleansing and the creation of more and more apartheid Bantustans. Rising hatred of America throughout the world? Hey man, this is not a public relations campaign…this is realpolitik at its fineist.

[bakho]

Ronald Reagan capitalized on public dislike for Mutually Assured Destructrion in order to promote his ineffective Star Wars Missile Defense. Star Wars still does not work and we still rely on MAD. NK now has nukes and they are not attempted to use them because of MAD. The American People did not support the use of nukes in even a limited military sense against the FSU because of the threat of MAD.

Just as Mr Bush has used the fear of terrorist attack to win re-election in spite of wide-spread dislike of most of his policies, so the Iranian hardliners are using fear of the US to fuel popular support of home in spite of wide-spread dislike of most of their policies, especially by the Iranian youth. Ratcheting up the rhetoric may be counterproductive in this case. No matter what Iran does with nuke development, the US and the rest of the world will be relying on MAD to prevent the use of nukes well into the future. MAD will ensure that the Iranians (or anyone else) does not use nukes

Building a nuclear arsenal is expensive with detrimental economic and environmental affects that necessarily accompany the production of those weapons. For these reasons alone, Iran would be wise to to go nuclear. At the same time, Iran now has a nuclear neighbor across the border (Pakistan) and they may see nukes as a less expensive option of preventing a US attack than conventional military forces or avoid nuclear blackmail.

Iran has another trump card, the ability to significantly decrease the amount of oil on the world market, which they could probably do by conventional means. Since nukes are really only useful as collateral in diplomatic negotiations and largely useless as tactical weapons, does it make sense for the Iranians to pursue the nuke option given other cards they have to play and the huge cost to developing and maintaining a nuke program?

Given these disincentives to build nukes, why is it not possible to negotiate this issue? The big picture is the wholesale abandonment of international rules and the commitment to building international institutions by the Bush Administration. The willingness of the US to act unilaterally limits the willlingness of many nations to enter negotiations with the US. Certainly the Iranians fear that the US may destroy their country the same way we have destroyed Iraq. Unfortunately, Bush is unlikely to abandon his unilateralist philosophy. So we are stuck at the brink and probably will remain so until Bush is out of office and a more reasonable approach to international relations can be reinstituted.

[calmo]

bakho restoring balance and perspective as usual...but for a little negation in this following line, no?

For these reasons alone, Iran would be wise to to go nuclear.

[Richard]

MG,

Rather than listing a "strategies package", could you list the political and economic reasons why an intervention in Iran would make sense?

In Iraq, our intervention created, at the very least, a political fragmentation of a traditional Sunni bulwark against Iran (and don't minimize that bulwark status: loans from other Sunni countries, as well as loan guarantees from the U.S. and Europe, underwrote supplies to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war). Part of the intervention into weak states such as Sudan and Afghanistan have been defended on the basis that weak states provide excellent harbors for terrorists. Yet we may well have created such harbors in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we currently support a very weak state which has both nuclear weapons and strong Islamic undercurrents in Pakistan. Destabalizing or further radicalizing Iran might well create a similar environment in Iran in the future.

Rather than listing military strategies, could you provide an argument that attends to those legitimate economic and political concerns?

[Bruce Wilder]

MG:

Are current conditions in Iraq:

1.) the desired outcome of well-formed U.S. planning, correctly executed;
2.) the unfortunate result of a good plan, badly executed;
3.) the unfortunate result of a bad plan, well-executed;
4.) an accumulation of losses in a long and continuing series of gambles, planned and anticipated, but with an insufficient allocation of resources or technical capacity to control outcomes or ensure favorable odds.

Me, I lean toward 4.)
but I would be interested in which of these four (or any other alternative you choose) would best characterize the current state of things, in relation to past and current U.S. strategies and plans.

[bakho]

Good catch Calmo.

Bruce Wilder seems to have an MC question with no correct answer. The current situation in Iraq was my best guess of the most likely outcome back in 2002 when it was being discussed. I believed that the US would quickly dispose of the Iraqi military to be followed by an insurgency war. The insurgency could only have been avoided had the US withdrawn by the end of 2003, let the Iraqis hold elections and use money to create jobs.

[ilsm]

Bruce Wilder,

Some only know the tool they have.

The tool is war, there are a lot of us who loved it, made good careers at it, and profited from it.

We went in to Iraq for a fool, used our favorite tool for profit or whatever. Paid the military industrial complex and hangers on.

There was no chance to make Iraq a liberal democracy, never was a chance, no plan, hell we have destroyed the concept in America.

When you only know the hammer, you use it to dig a hole.

This society, for whatever, reason only knows the hammer of war.

Maybe it is limited to the current regime.

Ike was right.

The power of the military industrial complex, even though controlling only 5% or so of demand, is such there is enough skim to corrupt the congress, and to ruin our democracy.

"“Defending democracy” sounds fine…but to defend democracy by military means, one must be militarily efficient, and one cannot become militarily efficient without centralizing power, setting up a tyranny, imposing some form of conscription or slavery to the state. In other words the military defence of democracy in contemporary circumstances entails the abolition of democracy even before war starts."

— Aldous Huxley (1894–1963)

[john i]

does anyone know if it is possible to download the conference Rums gave this past week?

if so, where? thanks.

[Movie Guy]

Here is the full transcript of Tuesday's briefing by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and General Pace, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Department of Defense.

DoD News Briefing with Secretary Rumsfeld and General Pace from the Pentagon

1:05 PM, Eastern Time
April 18, 2006

[Movie Guy]

Bruce Wilder,

I would select the following of those listed on your list.

"4.) an accumulation of losses in a long and continuing series of gambles, planned and anticipated, but with an insufficient allocation of resources or technical capacity to control outcomes or ensure favorable odds."

I would add that if reviewed within the context of what I perceive are the overall U.S. strategies for the Middle East, Central and South Asia, and Iran, the outcomes thus far in Iraq should have been anticipated. Of course, insurgent forces and AQ type terrorists flowed into Iraq. Of course, they want a democratic form of government in the Middle East to fail. Of course, they are willing to put up a big fight to oppose all such changes.

I am not convinced that the Iraq campaign, if viewed in the long term, will fail. I believe it has many opportunities to succeed once the national government is in operating, and if the U.S. provides adequate levels of training in concert with logistical support. National building initiatives will likely be spread across a much larger global base of support once Iraq demonstrates the ability to govern its own affairs.

The Iraq campaign, in its current state, have relieved some of the initial concerns by the Gulf Cooperation Council nations (5 small nations). But the terrorists and insurgents can not be afforded endless opportunities to operate successfully outside of Iraq. That would prove to be a disaster.

Overall, the democratic initiatives in the Middle East, with the notable exceptions of Iran and perhaps Syria, are advancing. Supporting information is available from some of the national web sites for the nations concerned.

I am, though, comfortable in selecting number 4 on your list. That's a good fit. Oddly, though, I do not believe that a larger allocation of funding or troops in Iraq would have changed very much. The errors made on the front end, primarily not requiring a formal surrender and imposition of a short term use governing constitutional document and basic policies, were of such magnitude that what we are seeing is what you get under the circumstances. I spread that blame across the U.S. Executive Branch and U.S. Allies which failed to grasp the need for quick execution of such tasks.

The overall strategies that the U.S. has undertaken in the Middle East, Central and South Asia, and Iran are bold initiatives implemented over a short period of time. Achieving a 50-70 percent rate of success may be an acceptable benchmark for these types of initiatives. If the U.S. can hold the line on what has been undertaken thus far, I will be reasonably impressed. Can the U.S. do so? Perhaps not with the level of U.S. dissent married with some of the usual suspect opposing elements in the Middle East, and Central and South Asia. As far as I can ascertain, those two opposing groups are serving as co-dependent anchors working in concert to bring down the current Administration's efforts on a number of fronts. I have to wonder what would be happening if the same initiatives had been undertaken by a Democrat Administration. Just a thought...

[Movie Guy]

Richard,

Your points are well taken.

Most of the strategies that I outlined are not primarily military strategies. That's why I selected the U.S. State Department information sources to discuss the strategies which I believe represent primary U.S. goals and objectives for the Middle East, Central and South Asia, and Iran.

Such considerations apply to most if not all of the nations involved. I recommend another look at the strategies listed. It appears to me that the desired political and economic outcomes are either stated clearly or implied strongly in many of the supporting document links.

The U.S. strategies posts are located among the last five comment posts at The U.S. Considers Using Nukes Against Iran - April 08, 2006 (or in the middle of this thread, Paul Krugman: Yes He Would - April 10, 2006).

[Movie Guy]

bahko -- "Given these disincentives to build nukes, why is it not possible to negotiate this issue?"

A good question to be directed to the EU-3, UN, and G-8.

You probably wouldn't like their answers...

[Movie Guy]

ilsm - "You have no idea what Dowd and Friedman understand, you see their disagreement. Neither of them are misunderstanding."

Their current writings on the subjects of Iraq and Iran are, at best, quasi-amateur presentations in my judgment and that of friends who discussed them at length this week. There are some quality articles and column pieces available now on the subjects of Iran, Iraq, and the TV Generals, but I do not count Dowd's and Friedman's hidden behind the pay firewall stuff as representing comparable research and quality pieces of work. They're not even breaking a sweat to crank out that stuff, let alone applying extensive thought or research to such efforts.

ilsm - "I rebutted the "strategy package" the other night."

I read your comment post and three issues at the thread, What's Our Next Move? - April 16, 2006.
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/04/whats_our_next_.html

Where are your alternate courses of actions or replacement strategies, objectives, goals, initiatives, and actions which would take the place of U.S. efforts, past, present, and future?

You only touched on three little elements out of two strategy groupings.

[Movie Guy]

Lee A. Arnold,

I responded to your question on the thread, Revolt of the Ex-Generals, April 16, 2006.
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/04/revolt_of_the_e.html#comment-16401392

[ilsm]

Movie Guy,

You ask: "What's Our Next Move?"

We have lost the struggle on the home front, if you fail to hold the home front you lose the war.

We have given up liberty and our democracy, to save the republic, which was not all that threatened, sold policy on unfounded fear rather than any process to achieve an objective, and chose security at the expense of our own freedom.

We have lost any semble of achievement in the ill conceived "war" the Rumsfeld Cheney Bush triumvirate has pursued.

Homeland security for terrorism. Forward defense is liebensraum redux, will cause the US to punch itself out and end up wasted.

Think point and perimeter defense, particularly when you cannot kill all the potential attackers.

Nuke Iran is not inevitable but it is something we can abide with and far better than several regret scenarios around military action to "deny" it.

You want action plan, tell them we 'nuke em til they glow' if a 'nudet' ever occurs and we, as any physicist in the world knows, identify the isotopes to their reactors. The Israelis can assure the same stand off.

Democracy building is a false crusade, they all know about Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and hanging chads. My strategy here is to get rid of the corruption in the US government, show the world a liberal, responsible democracy; one that does not use failed colonial processes nor revert to the use of force as a first resort.

I posted a quote from Napolean: A form of government that is not the result of a long sequence of shared experiences, efforts, and endeavors can never take root. Napoleon Bonaparte

Building democracy where there has only been dictators and theocracy is a hard sell, even when they do not view you as godless infidel.

You just cannot kill enough of them to change their minds.

If you try you risk growing an SS culture like that we destroyed in 1945.

[anne]

The only sane and saving move would be to leave Iraq immediately, but of course that is not to be and we will continue to harm ourselves and Iraqis by this needless terrible attempt at colonization.