Marble Composition

Who, Me?

Something that has stuck in my craw for a long time is how a number of Bush administration officials, including Bush himself, have said, "we'll give the commanders on the ground in Iraq all the troops they think they need." I'm paraphrasing here, but they've said that or something like it numerous times since the insurgency has kicked into full gear. The big problem is that's not how it's supposed to work. Campaigns are supposed to be executed by the military, but they're supposed to be run by the civilian leadership, starting with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and ultimately by George Bush. Surely, civilian leaders consult with the military about these matters, but the big decisions are supposed to be made by the suits. (How little these particular suits listened to their advisors in uniform is a different story, but the evidence strongly suggests they repeatedly rejected their advice.)

Here's what may be a crude example. Let's say the North Koreans launch an unprovoked conventional missile strike on South Korea. Having their hands full at the present time, to say the least, are the commanders on the ground in Iraq supposed to start making decisions about what to do next? About what would mostly be a naval response? I think you get the point. It's not up to them. It's up to Donald Rumsfeld, and of course, your Commander In Chief. You know him, he told Tim Russert of NBC News, "I'm a war president".

Here's a little more from Matt Yglesias over at the American Prospect:

At the end of the day, the view expounded by the president that officers on the ground were responsible for force-size decisions was an absurd abdication of responsibility on his part. The question of how many resources should be devoted to one military undertaking is properly seen as a very big-picture strategic issue. You need to take in mind not only the mission at hand, but all of the military's other missions as well as missions they may need to undertake in the near future. You need to consider the long-term impact on military readiness and recruiting. You need to consider the economic consequences at home and the diplomatic consequences around the world.

Absurd abdication indeed. By the way, this provides the administration with a neat little sleight of hand; they're not to blame for any wrongdoings in Iraq. It's the Generals' fault that they don't have enough troops, body armor, up-armored HUMVEES, you name it. They'll never say that, but that's part of the ploy. Move along, nothing to see here.

Now we learn, via Matt's post, and from Time magazine, that they've been lying to us about it all along. In a closed meeting with the Chairman and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, frontline battalion commanders shared this:

According to two sources with knowledge of the meeting, the Army and Marine officers were blunt. In contrast to the Pentagon's stock answer that there are enough troops on the ground in Iraq, the commanders said that they not only needed more manpower but also had repeatedly asked for it. Indeed, military sources told TIME that as recently as August 2005, a senior military official requested more troops but got turned down flat.

In total, what they've been telling us is, "we never bothered listening to the military experts in the first place, and, really, why should we start now. But if things go to shit, we sure know where to point the finger." If this isn't criminal use of our military, then it sure as hell comes close to bordering on it.

posted by FuzzFinger @ 11/25/2005 05:02:00 PM