Why Iraq Was a Mistake
By Lt. General Greg Newbold (USMC, Ret.)
Time Magazine, April 17, 2006
A military insider sounds off against the war
and the "zealots" who pushed it.
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 Lieutenant 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.
Before the antiwar banners start to unfurl, however, let me make clear -- I am not opposed to war.
I would gladly have traded my general's stars for a captain's bars to lead our troops into Afghanistan to destroy the
Taliban and al-Qaeda. And, while I don't accept the stated rationale for invading Iraq, my view
-- at the moment -- is that a precipitous withdrawal would be a mistake. It would send a signal,
heard around the world, that would reinforce the jihadists' message that America can be defeated, and thus increase the
chances of future conflicts. If, however, the Iraqis prove unable to govern, and there is open civil war,
then I am prepared to change my position.
I will admit my own prejudice: my deep affection and respect are for those who volunteer to serve our nation
and therefore shoulder, in those thin ranks, the nation's most sacred obligation of citizenship.
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.
So, what is to be done? We need fresh ideas and fresh faces.
That means, as a first step, replacing Rumsfeld and many others unwilling to fundamentally
change their approach. 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.
Colin Powell Criticizes Rumsfeld on Iraq
Tuesday, April 11, 2006 11:03 a.m. EDT
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell has joined the list of prominent figures speaking out bluntly against
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s handling of the war in Iraq.
Addressing the annual conference of the National School Board Association in Chicago on Saturday, Powell said:
"We made some serious mistakes in the immediate aftermath of the fall of Baghdad.
"We didn't have enough troops on the ground. We didn't impose our will. And as a result, an insurgency
got started and ... got out of control."
Powell was behind failed U.S. efforts to get the United Nations Security Council to endorse a resolution for the 2003
invasion of Iraq. After retiring in 2005, he expressed anger that the intelligence he presented at the time turned out
to be largely incorrect, the New York Sun reports.
Since returning to private life, Powell has devoted much of his time to the Colin Powell Policy Center at the City College of New York, his alma mater.
A number of Powell’s old colleagues have already gone on the record voicing their concerns about the war in Iraq.
On April 2, the former general in charge of central command, Anthony Zinni, called on Rumsfeld to resign because of a "series of disastrous mistakes."
Former Lt. General Greg Newbold, who resigned from the military in 2002 in large part due to his opposition to the Iraq war, writes in this week’s issue of Time magazine that the conflict is "an unnecessary war” and calls for, "as a first step, replacing Rumsfeld and many others unwilling to change their approach.”
In mid-March, a third retired general, Paul Eaton – who was in charge of training Iraqi troops – wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times also calling on Rumsfeld to resign.
The neoconservative Weekly Standard first called on Rumsfeld to step aside in 2005 because of his decision to run the occupation of Iraq with what the Standard maintains were too few troops.
If our Defense Department (and Congress/President) will not provide our soldiers
with proper equipment, then it is up to patriotic Americans everywhere to stand up !
John Kerry's outspoken leadership in calling for a new course on Iraq is drawing fire from Republicans. In back to back speeches, Bush and McCain attack Kerry's call for a new path forward on Iraq.
It's obvious that the President and the Republicans in Congress are afraid of John Kerry's bold call for a new path forward on Iraq and his plan to start bringing home troops from Iraq by the end of this year. Over the past few days, President Bush and 2008 Republican presidential hopeful John McCain have both attacked Kerry's honest assessment of the President's mishandling of Iraq, attacked his patriotism, and in the case of the President, tried to dodge responsibility for misleading our country into a war that he has no plan to win.
Kerry's Iraq plan, introduced at a speech at Georgetown and introduced as legislation last week, lays out a comprehensive new strategy to complete the mission in Iraq and bring our troops home. Its goal is to undermine the insurgency by simultaneously pursing both a political settlement and the draw down of American forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks - beginning with the draw down of 20,000 troops after successful Iraqi elections in December. If followed, the process will be completed in 12-15 months.
John Kerry has continued to lead the fight in recent weeks to improve benefits
for veterans, military families and better intelligence gathering capabilities for the US.
Excerpts from the
Sign-Up Page.
America can no longer tolerate the Bush administration's failed "stay as long as it takes" approach to the war in Iraq. It is time for Congress to demand and for George W. Bush to deliver a clear, concrete plan.
As a first critical step in that direction, I am calling on the Bush administration to respond to the completion of December elections in Iraq by withdrawing 20,000 troops over the holidays.
The way forward in Iraq is not to pull out precipitously or merely promise to "stay as long as it takes." To undermine the insurgency, we have to simultaneously pursue both a political settlement and the withdrawal of American combat forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks.
|
The draw down of troops should be tied not to an arbitrary timetable, but to a specific timetable for transfer of political and security responsibility to Iraqis and realignment of our troop deployment. That timetable must be real and strict. The goal should be to withdraw the bulk of American combat forces by the end of 2006.
If George W. Bush refuses to produce a concrete plan for Iraq, then, at the start of 2006, we will demand that Congress acts to take the decision out of his hands. And, if the Republican Congress fails to call the Bush administration to account, we will use the 2006 elections to take the decision out of their hands. We won't stop until we succeed.
Below please find excerpts from Kerry's recent responses to Bush and McCain's attacks
KERRY'S RESPONSE TO BUSH WHO ATTACKED
VETERAN JOHN KERRY DURING A VETERANS DAY SPEECH:
"I wish President Bush knew better than to dishonor America's veterans by playing the politics of fear and smear on Veterans Day....This administration misled a nation into war by cherry-picking intelligence and stretching the truth beyond recognition. That's why Scooter Libby has been indicted. That's why a statement in the State of the Union Address was retracted. Today they continue the same games hoping Americans forget the mess they made in Iraq that's cost over 2,000 Americans their lives and their failure to find Osama bin Laden. Americans will not forget, and neither will those of us who defend our country by asking tough questions and demanding a new course in Iraq."
KERRY'S RESPONSE TO MCCAIN WHO CALLED KERRY PLAN
a "PATH TO DISASTER"
"The path forward in Iraq must defeat the insurgency and keep faith with our troops, rather than be driven by the politics of the Republican base or rigid adherence to President Bush's aimless course. The plan I have offered would correct our course. The speech Sen. McCain delivered does not... The way forward in Iraq is not to pull out precipitously or merely promise to stay 'as long as it takes.' To undermine the insurgency, we need to pursue both a political settlement and the withdrawal of American combat forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks - beginning with the completion of successful December elections. ...It's essential if we want to correct our course and do what's right for our troops instead of repeating the same mistakes over and over again. No matter what anyone says, providing a better course isn't a road to disaster, it's patriotism."
|
Senator Kerry’s Speech at Georgetown University
Excerpts of remarks as prepared for delivery
“A few weeks ago I departed Iraq from Mosul. Three Senators and staff were gathered in the forward part of a C-130. In the middle of the cavernous cargo hold was a simple, aluminum coffin with a small American flag draped over it. We were bringing another American soldier, just killed, home to his family and final resting place.
The starkness of his coffin in the center of the hold, the silence except for the din of the engines, was a real time cold reminder of the consequences of decisions for which we Senators share responsibility."
Click here,
to send a soldier a "4th of July" postcard !
|
The first definition of patriotism is keeping faith with those who’ve worn the uniform of the United States of America. Our obligation is to keep faith with the men and women of the American military and their families-whether they are on active duty, in the National Guard or Reserves, or veterans.
We must be mindful of what America has always asked of our servicemen and women. It takes a special individual to see your buddy get hit, and put yourself between him and incoming fire so that medics can tend to him. It takes a special person to work day by day in an environment where it is impossible to distinguish friend from foe.
But they do it. And they do it well.
They are sustained by the bonds they share within their unit, and by the love and strength they draw from home-from their families, their spouses, their children, their parents. Military families are unsung heroes who receive neither medals nor parades-giving everything they can to the men and women they love, men and women who have been called to war. They answered the call. And so must we-with a new commitment to smarter defense policies and better care for military families.
Those who have stood for us should know that we stand with them, today and always. Each of us here today can do something to ease their burden – but truly supporting our troops requires that we act not just as individuals, but as a nation. We owe our troops the opportunity to serve in the best-planned, best-equipped, and best-led military force in the world, and we owe them the peace of mind that comes from knowing that they and their families will be taken care of if they sacrifice life, limb or the ability to sleep without war’s nightmares. We owe our veterans the honor and respect of a grateful nation. We owe the men and women of the American military and their families not just thanks and best wishes, but action, and action in our nation’s capital. In today’s ever-changing and perilous world, there is not a moment to lose.
|
|
