War Stories

Here are several commentaries on the war in Iraq and and the potential war in Iran. This report is on the forged claims about Iraq's attempt to acquire uranium. A memo has been declassified providing new information:

State Department Memo: '16 Words' Were False, by Jason Leopold, t r u t h o u t: Eleven days before President Bush's January 28, 2003, State of the Union address in which he said that the US learned from British intelligence that Iraq had attempted to acquire uranium from Africa ... the State Department told the CIA that the intelligence the uranium claims were based upon were forgeries, according to a newly declassified State Department memo.

The revelation of the warning from the closely guarded State Department memo is the first piece of hard evidence and the strongest to date that the Bush administration manipulated and ignored intelligence information in their zeal to win public support for invading Iraq. ...

Moreover, the memo says that the State Department's doubts about the veracity of the uranium claims may have been expressed to the intelligence community even earlier. Those concerns, according to the memo, are the reasons that former Secretary of State Colin Powell refused to cite the uranium claims when he appeared before the United Nations in February 5, 2003, - one week after Bush's State of the Union address...

The memo does not say that the State Department alerted the White House on January 12, 2003, about the bogus uranium claims.

But the memo's author, Carl Ford, said in a previous interview that he has no doubt the State Department's reservations about the Niger intelligence made its way to President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

One high-ranking State Department official said that when the department's analysts briefed Colin Powell about the Niger forgeries Powell met with former Director of the CIA George Tenet and shared that information with him.

Tenet then told Vice President Dick Cheney and then-National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice and her former deputy, Stephen Hadley, that the uranium claims were "dubious," according to current and former State Department and CIA officials who have direct knowledge of what Tenet discussed with the White House at the time.

The White House has long maintained that they were never briefed about the State Department's or the CIA's concerns related to the Niger uranium claims. ...

Many career State Department officials interviewed Monday said they were upset that the so-called "16 words" made their way into the State of the Union address and they are pleased that the INR memo has been declassified so as to prove that their colleagues sounded early warnings about the dubious Niger intelligence. ...

"This was the very first time there was written evidence - not notes, but a request for a report - from the State Department that documented why the Niger intel was bullshit," said one retired State Department official.

"It was the only thing in writing, and it had a certain value because it didn't come from the IAEA. It came from State. It scared the heck out of a lot of people because it proved that this guy Wilson's story was credible. I don't think anybody wanted the media to know that the State Department disagreed with the intelligence used by the White House. That's why Wilson had to be shut down."

Next, this from David Broder on phone calls he's received from the Pentagon supporting John Murtha and how it relates to his thoughts on recent calls from retired generals for Rumsfeld to resign:

Listen to the Brass, by David Broder, Commentary, Washington Post: Several months ago, when Rep. John Murtha, the Marine Corps veteran and longtime Democratic advocate for military preparedness, spoke out on the Iraq war, I received an interesting phone call from the Pentagon. ... The unsolicited caller from the Pentagon identified himself by name and rank, then said, "This is a private call. I am not speaking officially. But I read your column, and I think it is important for you to know that Jack Murtha knows us very well and speaks for many of us." ... Don't dismiss Murtha's misgivings ... He has allies in the uniformed military who cannot speak out themselves.

I've thought back to that conversation as a succession of retired generals have come forward in the past few weeks to express their disagreement and dismay at the conduct of the war and to call for the resignation of its architect, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Seeing these senior officers take this public stand is unprecedented; even in Vietnam... The ... case the generals are making is as serious as it is passionate. To take but one example, ... retired Marine Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold, the former director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, lists six separate areas in which he saw failure on the part of the civilian leadership of government...

Gen. Newbold makes it plain that he is not advocating immediate withdrawal from Iraq unless the Iraqi political factions fail to form a government and fall into civil war. But he insists new leadership is needed in the Pentagon. ...

Rumsfeld and President Bush insist that the manpower and strategy have been exactly what the commanders in the field thought best, but now general after general is speaking out to challenge that claim. The situation cries out for serious congressional oversight and examination; hearings are needed as soon as Congress returns. These charges have to be answered convincingly -- or Rumsfeld has to go.

But a Washington Post editorial says the ex-generals are setting "an ugly precedent" if their attempted ouster is successful:

The Generals' Revolt, Editorial, Washington Post: ...Half a dozen senior retired generals have publicly criticized Mr. Rumsfeld, touching off another damaging and distracting controversy at a critical moment in the war. Thanks in part to his previous misjudgments, Mr. Bush has no easy way out. Mr. Bush would have been wise to accept Mr. Rumsfeld's resignation when he offered it nearly two years ago. ...

The president's signal failure to hold his defense chief accountable no doubt has helped to produce the extraordinary -- and troubling -- eruption of public discontent from the retired generals. ... Much of their analysis strikes us as solid -- but the rebellion is problematic nonetheless. It threatens the essential democratic principle of military subordination to civilian control -- the more so because a couple of the officers claim they are speaking for some still on active duty. ... If they are successful in forcing Mr. Rumsfeld's resignation, they will set an ugly precedent. Will future defense secretaries have to worry about potential rebellions by their brass, and will they start to choose commanders according to calculations of political loyalty? In our view Mr. Rumsfeld's failures should have led to his departure long ago. But he should not be driven out by a revolt of generals, retired or not.

If decisions by a defense secretary are costing lives, reputation, and treasure needlessly, I hope people with serious disagreements will speak out rather than offer the acquiescence that comes with silence.

Maybe it doesn't matter because Rumsfeld says it will all pass anyway:

Rumsfeld Says Calls for Ouster 'Will Pass', by Thom Shanker and David S. Cloud, NY Times: Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld predicted Monday that calls from retired generals for him to step down would fade away, and he dismissed the criticism as a standard part of the history of American combat since the Revolutionary War. "This, too, will pass," Mr. Rumsfeld said during an interview with Rush Limbaugh, the conservative nationally syndicated radio host. ...

In his radio interview, Mr. Rumsfeld said that those who had spoken out against him represented "the same kinds of criticism that occurred in the Revolutionary War and World War I and World War II and the Korean War, Vietnam War; it's not new."

While acknowledging that "wars are terrible things," Mr. Rumsfeld added, "On the other hand, if every time there were critics and opponents to war, we wouldn't have won the Revolutionary War and we wouldn't have been involved in World War I or II, and if we had, we would have failed, and our country would be a totally different place if it existed at all, if every time there were some critics that we tossed in the towel." ...

This editorial says Rumsfeld is just a scapegoat. Bush is the one to hold responsible. He also disagrees that the ex-generals speaking out is a threat to civilian control of the military and finds a silver lining:

Roots of the Uprising, by E. J. Dionne Jr., Commentary, Washington Post: Making Donald Rumsfeld the scapegoat for all that has gone wrong in Iraq is a way for other members of the administration to dodge responsibility for a misguided policy. ... President Bush is the commander in chief. Vice President Cheney is on record as having made outlandishly optimistic predictions before the war started about how swimmingly everything would go. Rumsfeld is Bush's guy... Indeed, the rebellious generals have not confined their criticism to the secretary of defense. ...

It's amusing to hear the administration's supporters worry that these courageous former generals are a threat to civilian control of the military. The claim reflects this administration's willingness to muster any argument it can put its hands on to silence opposition.

It's also hypocritical. Recall the opposition to President Bill Clinton's proposal to allow gays to serve in the armed forces. A certain head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff named Colin Powell publicly broke with his commander in chief in 1993 in arguing that allowing gay men and lesbians to join would undermine "good order and discipline." Far from speaking up on behalf of Clinton's rights as the military's civilian leader, Republicans in Congress lined up with Powell and the brass. Rep. Tom DeLay said that allowing gays to serve "undermines the effectiveness of the military." (He also said it "creates health problems.") ... Sen. John McCain challenged Clinton ... "This president has not one day of military experience," McCain said, "so, clearly, he does not have the expertise on this issue." ...

And that may be the silver lining in the current cloud over Rumsfeld and our Iraq policy. Some smart and patriotic generals are telling us that a policy is not wise or respectful of our troops just because it is put forward by politicians on the right end of our political spectrum. We may be witnessing the weakening of partisanship in the top echelons of the military. That would be very good for our republic.

Finally, this commentary says using nuclear weapons against Iran makes little sense:

Iran's Sitting Duck, by Michael Levi, Commentary, NY Times: There has been a lot of debate over reports that the United States is exploring the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iran. Setting aside the question of whether military action is wise — and there are strong arguments for focusing on nonmilitary options — one thing is clear: the nuclear option makes little sense.

Discussion focuses on Natanz... Those plants are buried underground, leading many to conclude that only a nuclear weapon could destroy them. That conclusion is wrong. In general, there are three intertwined reasons military planners might consider using nuclear weapons against an underground target: uncertainty about the target's location, concern that the depth makes conventional weapons impotent, and a need to destroy the target near-instantaneously. None of these apply in the case of Iran. ...

[T]he precise locations of the underground chambers at Natanz are well known ... The ... depth of the Natanz facility — reports place the ceiling roughly 30 feet underground — is not prohibitive. ... Natanz poses no imminent threat — the worst-case prediction is that, in several years, the Iranians might produce enough material for a nuclear bomb... In the end, the nuclear option makes little sense...

If only making little sense was enough to stop this administration from a course of action.