By USinKorea on September 18th, 2008 at 3:18 am

Woodward vs Franks….

• Liz
  11:37 pm on September 17th, 2008 1

  I don't think those quotes contradict each other, myself. We had been in a low level air war over Iraq, occupying sixty percent of its airspace, for over a decade. And they were shooting at our jets with recurring frequency, and their aim was suspiciously improving.

  We must have had plans of some kind other than to circle over indefinitely.

• USinKorea
  5:45 am on September 18th, 2008 2

  Yes, there were plans. Franks called it "Desert Storm II" and said it was dated and was in the process of revision.

  And yes, those plans were in revision "months" before 9/11 – my gut guess probably going back into the Clinton presidency.

  But, Woodward is arguing in this section that the war planning for Iraq was in high gear months before 9/11.

  That is crucial.

  It is one thing to have basic contingency plans laying around.

  It is another to have your military leadership making plans for a war you plan to implement in the near future (1 to 2 years).

  Personally, I would have no problem if one of Bush's first objectives as president was the removal of Hussein and the establishment of a new regime even if it meant war. The no fly zones were ridiculous. "Regime change" had been US policy for years under Pres. Clinton, but we did nothing tangible to activate that policy. Instead, we had in effect a limbo policy I couldn't stand. I was glad to see the US make the decision to either end the no fly zones or actually do something to end the problem.

  So, for me, information that Bush had the military working hard to prepare an invasion prior to 9/11 would not be a bad thing.

  But, what Gen. Frank's clearly shows is that — the military was not kicked into high gear to prepare for war with Iraq "months" before 9/11.

  So, Woodward can't be right.

• Gaetano Calabresi
  7:51 am on September 18th, 2008 3

  Here's what USinKorea, somebody who blogs on a US soldier's blog about Korea, says about the Iraq war:

  "Personally, I would have no problem if one of Bush’s first objectives as president was the removal of Hussein and the establishment of a new regime even if it meant war. The no fly zones were ridiculous. “Regime change” had been US policy for years under Pres. Clinton, but we did nothing tangible to activate that policy. Instead, we had in effect a limbo policy I couldn’t stand. I was glad to see the US make the decision to either end the no fly zones or actually do something to end the problem."

  Then here's what George H.W. Bush's former national security advisor and former Air Force general Brent Scowcroft has to say:

  "I was mostly worried about what I saw as an increasing rush to decision. I’ve already talked about nuclear weapons. Even if Saddam had a program, he was a long way from a weapon. We had plenty of time for that. The other was his role with Al Qaeda and Osama Bin laden. The accusations that he was supporting them seemed fundamentally counterintuitive to me. Osama Bin Laden is a religious fanatic. Saddam Hussein was a secularist…So I thought we needed to sort this out, and fundamentally I had the same view that I had in 1991, that going into Iraq was an easy adventure, but once we got there…This is a very troubled land that was not about to be turned into a democracy. That we had a huge problem if we went in.

  Saddam, in fact, was quite well contained. And we had a big problem following 9/11 in dealing with this greater threat of terrorism. I thought going into Iraq would be fundamentally a diversion from our efforts to deal with terrorism. So my position was basically a plea: ‘Let’s talk about this.’…Slow down because, you know, war rarely solves problems. War has a momentum of its own. Just the fact of making war creates a new environment, which may be favorable, may be unfavorable. But it’s frequently different from what anyone can anticipate. Therefore, one shouldn’t engage in it without a careful analysis of the consequences."

  (Quoted from: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/stevecoll/2008/09/...

  I'll leave it readers to decide who to give credence to.

• USinKorea
  10:39 am on September 18th, 2008 4

  Yeah. And I'll let readers decide who is throwing out tangents and who isn't.

  Think before you attack, please.

  Liz missed the point of the post: it wasn't arguing the rightness or wrongness of the war. It was contrasting two different quotes from two different authors.

  So, I made clear my own personal opinion about the war so it would be clear where I stood on that issue – then refocused the discussion back onto the main point — that Woodward and Franks depict two different ideas about how the plans for war with Iraq evolved over time.

  Then what does Calabresi offer? Nothing but a quote – which argues the rightness or wrongness of the war itself —– again failing to deal with the point of the post.

  But, let's go ahead and do some thinking about the quote Calabresi offers – which again — fails to address the main point of the post I wrote…but I'll go off on the tangent with him anyway….

  Basically, Scrowcroft is giving the Powell vision — the same vision that led Bush Sr. and the US to leave Hussein in power in the first place. The same vision that came up with No Fly Zones for a decade.

  If Calabresi likes that option, fine. He can legitimately aruge its pros and cons.

  I think it adds up to bullshit.

  How much time have we had and do we have with Iran? How much time did we have with North Korea? How much time did we have with Pakistan and India? We've got years and years to talk. Get the UN to pass some resolutions that result in harsh letters being written which Hans Blix can deliver. —- We've got time for all of that….

  "Osama Bin Laden is a religious fanatic. Saddam Hussein was a secularist…"

  That right there shows idiocy. Or something that is mind-blocking the thinker. Because it is laugh out loud ridiculous.

  How many totalitarian dictators have Western democracies worked with/still work with?

  Didn't the Taliban and fanatics in Afghanistan in the 1980s deal with the US – the Great Satan?

  You really expect me to listen to someone who offers this kind of weak thinking? Dismiss the idea Hussein might have worked with Bin Laden because Bin Laden is religious and Hussein is secular……….

  Reminds me a little of the people early after 9/11 who dismissed the possible participation of some of the hijackers because witnesses had seen them drinking alcohol at a tittie bar….."Surely a religious fanatic would never do such a thing. Nope. Can't be one of the terrorists…."

  "fundamentally I had the same view that I had in 1991, that going into Iraq was an easy adventure, but once we got there…This is a very troubled land that was not about to be turned into a democracy."

  Fair view. So, we do nothing. Nothing effective. Put up some No Fly Zones. Hope we can delay for a couple of decades the next time he wants to invade a neighbor. Cross our fingers and hope he isn't funding terrorist groups — besides those that kill Israelis – which he openly supports to win favor with the Muslim Middle East……

  How is dismantling of those reactors in Iran and North Korea coming?

  See. Waiting and talking to Syria accomplished a lot in getting rid of their secret North Korea-aided reactor —- (or was that Israeli bombs? I forget)….

  Speaking of North Korea helping build a Syrian nuclear reactor — both – they sure have paid the price for that one haven't they. If we only had a Powell or Scowcroft still in the UN — both those stinging resolutions would be flying out and those nasty letters jumping hot off the presses….

  "Saddam, in fact, was quite well contained." Minus a few dozen Israelis….give or take….

  His oil for food money was well contained too. I'm sure we knew where all of that was going. And if he'd tried to transfer it to terrorists — besides those working for the Palestinians — I'm sure we'd have jumped all over it — like we've done so well over the years with North Korea's illegal flows of money. Nope. Hussein was in a box. No way possible for him to be connected to terrorists (besides those killing Israelis).

  "Slow down because, you know, war rarely solves problems. War has a momentum of its own. Just the fact of making war creates a new environment, which may be favorable, may be unfavorable. But it’s frequently different from what anyone can anticipate. Therefore, one shouldn’t engage in it without a careful analysis of the consequences.”"

  Yep. War rarely solves problems. Just look how Nazism is showing such longevity. Totalitarian Japan too – of which Korea is still a province.

  Look at those Bosnians and Kosovoans slaughtering each other…..my my….

  I bring up WWII for another reason than just being a smartass — it is forgotten now, but there were intellectuals in the US and Western Europe who thought unconditional surrender was immoral. They made arguments not too far from what Scowcroft and Powell and others offer — the Fear of the Unknown Argument and The Costs Argument and the morality one too.

  If the government had been in charge of men like that – like these – German de-Nazifiction would likely have never happened. A pacifist Japan would likely never have occurred. Korea could honestly still be a part of Japan….

  …..and NK would have nukes (well, it does) and Iran – which will – and Syria and maybe Libya.

  This is basically the "Cross your fingers and hope for the best" school of international relations.

  Some people like it a lot.

  But — to return to the point of my post — which had nothing to do with whether going into Iraq was a good idea or not —-

  Woodward, in the quote and section I quoted, argues that the planning for the war in Iraq was in high gear months before 9/11.

  Franks, in the quotes and section I offered, clearly says the planning for war with Iraq did not kick into high gear until 2 months after 9/11.

  Calabresi's quote does diddle to address that point.

• USinKorea
  10:50 am on September 18th, 2008 5

  I want to add — if we look back at the couple of years before 9/11, there was mounting, significant pressure to end the No Fly Zones and sanctions. Iraq was backed by — guess who — France and Germany and Russia on that front – two important players in the UN and Security Council. They, along with intellectual supporters in the US, were pushing for a final end to the Gulf War.

  So, Scowcroft's "in the box" can technically only hold much water factoring in how much the 9/11 attacks set France, Germany, and Russia back in pulling the pressure off Iraq.

  How many years of talking would it have taken those three nations to get conditions back to where they were pre-9/11???

• Rob
  12:34 pm on September 18th, 2008 6

  The Pentagon continuously works on military contingency plans, so the fact that they were working on one for Iraq prior to 9/11 is really no surprise. After 9/11, I assume they took what they had off the shelf, dusted it off, and started planning for the post 9-11 liberation of the Iraqi people.

• Gaetano Calebrisi
  1:19 pm on September 18th, 2008 7

  I'm well aware of the point of your post, USinKorea. In fact, I don't give a shit either way who the hell you believe, Woodward or Franks.

  I was going go ahead and let you do your usual cringe inducing song and dance till you made another one your breathlessly maladroit comments. Yes, you spelled out your personal opinion about the war and I provided a source that indicated the many ludicrous aspects of that opinion. Let me ask, what the hell is wrong with taking issue about one aspect of your commentary?

  Futhermore, if you believe so strongly about the US taking a more bellicose and martial stance with regards to certain national security and diplomatic problems, wouldn't it behoove you, USinKorea, to perhaps maybe enlist yourself. You know, actually take part in this great enterprise to rid the world of all "evil doers", instead of asking others to risk their own lives while you sit comfortably in your chair tapping away at a keyboard.

• Kalani
  1:39 pm on September 18th, 2008 8

  USinKorea,

  First I agree with your point on disparity of the timelines. Woodward has an agenda and needs to make his book saleable — therefore, as the number four dart-throwing book in the series, he can be expected to make some of these claims…and then "qualify" them afterwards if they draw heat.

  Second, I think when you went afield and ripped up Scrowcroft's OPINION, you went overboard a bit. Remember Scrowcroft was there to give an opinion — that was his job. Whether we agree with it or not, it was his job. As a soldier who has seen war, he would have naturally tried to find any and all reasons to NOT go to war. War is not a game that Bill Clinton turned it into — shoot some cruise missiles and go home. It is a bloody mess where young men die — and Scrowcroft did what a good soldier should have done.

  But with that said, when the Commander-in-Chief makes a decision, good soldiers like Gen Franks and Scrowcroft put aside their opinions, salute, put on their combat boots and go to war. That's how it is.

  Thus I can find no fault with the comments of Scrowcroft. I, of course, would have defined "secularist" as "bloody butcher who kills anyone who stands in the way of his desires and will use any and all means to achieve his ends without scruples or morals." Of course, I also define Osama Bin Laden as a "religious fanatic" using the same definition. So I would have had a problem with his opinion as well…but the fact remains that as an advisor, it was his job to give that opinion. It was Bush that made the decision.

• USinKorea
  6:14 pm on September 18th, 2008 9

  Kalani,

  I agree. It was his job. I just disagree with his opinion and I blame the type of person who favored options like that for failing to deal adequately with the string of attacks going back a couple of decades (and more) which eventually caught up and cost us too much on 9/11. And when I see these people of power who had a hand in shaping our response to that string of terror attacks – advancing their position using arguments like the secular-religious one — it annoys me.

  And that is where I part with the "Scrowcroft did what a good soldier should have done" idea. War is terrible. But – and here I'm exaggerating to make a point – if being in a war and seeing its horrors prohibits a man from ever advocating the use of the military again – then the chickenhawks will make better leaders for the nation.

  (Perhaps) it was an over emphasis on the horrors of war that led some intellectuals and others in the 1940s to argue in the public discourse that a peace deal should be cut with a still-Nazi Germany and totalitarian Japan once their militaries had been effectively crushed and they could not hope to win the war — instead of paying the cost in blood and tears that fighting until unconditional surrender was achieved.

  I can honestly say that true feelings of pacifism or similar like that are noble – just wrong in the world we live in. It was wrong even after the massive horrors of trench and modern warfare of WWI. Which is something we understood after WWII happened but which we seem to have lost sight of. Truman – a man who fought in WWI and was a man of power in WWII – understood that when he threw American troops into the meat grinder of the Korean War in order to strengthen the birth of the United Nations. (And look what the UN became……..)

  But – there are a good number of valid arguments that can be made against or for the US moving against Iraq with military force.

  Historians will be arguing back and forth about it for a few decades.

• USinKorea
  6:45 pm on September 18th, 2008 10

  Here are parts of a letter the poet Robert Lowell wrote to President Roosevelt in 1943 taken from this site http://www.dialoginternational.com/dialog_interna…

  The feelings it are noble – but very wrong – and ultimately deadly.

  The Letter:

  Dear Mr President: I very much regret that I must refuse the opportunity you offer me in your communication of August 6, 1943 for service in the Armed Force. I am enclosing with this letter a copy of the declaration which, in accordance with military regulations, I am presenting on Septer 7 to Federal District Attorney in New York. [...} You will understand how painful such a decision is for an American whose family traditions, like your own, have always found their fulfillment in maintaining, through responsible participation in both the civil and military services, our country's freedom and honor.

  Because we glory in the conviction that our wars are won not by irrational valor but through the exercise of moral responsibility, it is fitting for me to make the following declaration which is also a decision.

  Like the majority of our people I watched the approach of this war with foreboding. Modern wars had proved subversive to the Democracies and history had shown them to be the iron gates to totalitarian slavery. On the other hand, members of my family had served in all our wars since the Declaration of Independence: I though – our tradition of service is sensible and noble; if its occasional exploitation by Money, Politics and imperialism allowed to seriously discredit it, we are doomed.

  When Pearl Harbor was attacked, I imagined that my country was in intense peril and come what might, unprecedented sacrifices were necessary for our national survival. In March and August of 1942 I volunteered, first for the Navy and then for the Army. And when I heard reports of what would formerly have been termed atrocities, I was not disturbed: for I judged that savagery was unavoidable in our nation’s struggle for its life against diabolic adversaries.

  Today these adversaries are being rolled back on all fronts and the crisis of war is past. But there are no indications of peace. In June we heard rumors of the staggering civilian casualties that had resulted from the mining of the Ruhr Dams. Three weeks ago we read of the razing of Hamburg, where 200,000 noncombatants are reported dead, after an almost apocalyptic series of all out air-raids.

  This, in a world still nominally Christian, is news. And now the Quebec Conference confirms our growing suspicious that the bombings of the Dams and of Hamburg were not mere isolated acts of military expediency, but marked the inauguration of a new long-term strategy , indorsed and co-ordinated by the our Chief Executive.

  […] Our rulers have promised us unlimited bombings of Germany and Japan. Let us be honest: we intend the permanent destruction of Germany and Japan. If this program is carried out, it will demonstrate to the world our Machiavellian contempt for the laws of justice and charity between nations, it will destroy any possibility of a European or Asiatic national autonomy; it will leave China and Europe, the two natural power centers of the future, to the mercy of the USSR, a totalitarian tyranny committed to a world revolution and total global domination through propaganda and violence.

  […] With the greatest reluctance, with every wish that I may be proved in error, and after long deliberation on my responsibilities to myself, my country and my ancestors who played responsible parts in it is making, I have come to the conclusion that I cannot honorably participate in a war whose prosecution, as far as I can judge, constitutes a betrayal of my country.

  [end quote]

  I wish I could locate the full letter online, because there is a section in the book where he compares the ongoing destruction of Germany and Japan to what the North did to the South in the US Civil War…

  ….which amazed me…

  If you can't get behind a total defeat of Nazism and totalitarianism and slavery —- well — what can you say……???…..

• USinKorea
  6:52 pm on September 18th, 2008 11

  I should have added — the section on the Civil War more clearly defines his position of being aghast at the price that unconditional surrender was inflicting on Germany and Japan and on the Allies.

• Pete
  9:08 pm on September 18th, 2008 12

  Scrowcroft sounds like every other armchair quarterback general (reitred). In their opinion they are never wrong and when something goes wrong they try to divert the blame. If he was part of the administration he is either part of the problem or part of the solution. Leadership preaches accountability but never wishes to take it.

• Korea Beat
  2:38 am on September 19th, 2008 13

  I think the way to read the Woodward quote is that there were plans for an Iraq war before 9/11, and that after 9/11 that war was re-conceived as part of the war on terror. It's like if I wrote this about Babe Ruth –

  "The Yankees for years had been looking for a star player who could revive the team and sell lots of tickets. Once Ruth became available, any future plans had to involve him."

  Obviously I wouldn't be implying that the Yankees had been wanting Ruth for years, just as Woodward was not implying that the Bush administration had been conceiving of a war on terror prior to 9/11.

• USinKorea
  6:20 am on September 19th, 2008 14

  That's an ok interpretation, and that is probably what he had in mind, but what he wrote says Bush's team started working hard on a plan to take care of Iraq months before 9/11 – meaning very early in his term.

  That's the rub. A direct (kinda) statement that the actually planning – not just the desires – was well underway before 9/11 – and a statement from Franks showing it wasn't.

• Rob
  12:30 pm on September 19th, 2008 15

  You guys should read Against All Enemies by Richard Clarke.

RSS feed for comments on this post | TrackBack URI