The arrogance of the Bush administration is astounding. Never have I seen such sorry leadership in Washington. Never have I witnessed such a complete lack of accountability. It’s disturbing. In the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, and with the grossly undermanned Iraqi occupation, not one high-level military or civilian official has been held responsible for security and planning failures – across the board, not one.
Before accusing me of being a bleeding heart liberal, know this: I’ve been a life-long conservative Republican and am a U.S. Army veteran of the Persian Gulf War. I also voted for George W. Bush in 2000.
In the late ’80s and early ’90s, when I served, our leaders placed the highest premium on integrity and personal responsibility. That was our culture.
Recall that after the ’93 debacle in Somalia, when we lost 18 soldiers, the demand for then-Secretary of Defense Les Aspin to resign was enormous. President Bill Clinton responded by quickly announcing Aspin’s resignation. That’s accountability – something President George W. Bush doesn’t think applies to his administration. His neoconservative cabal makes Nixon’s Watergate crew look like college pranksters.
In the run-up to the invasion, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld refused to listen to experienced combat veterans retired Gen. Anthony Zinni and Gen. Eric Shinseki, who warned we would need a much larger invasion force. Shinseki testified before Congress that at least 200,000 troops would be needed to establish security.
In direct contrast, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz – who never served in the military a day in his life – testified that to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein, only 48,000 troops would be needed. To use his own words (criticizing Shinseki’s view), Wolfowitz’s estimate has proven to be “wildly off the mark.”
The strategy of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz has been a complete fiasco. Our troops and innocent Iraqis are suffering miserably due to the instability caused by the troop shortage. For that alone, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz should be fired.
A direct result of their flawed vision was the killing and capture of soldiers in Pvt. Jessica Lynch’s unit. Had the Powell Doctrine been employed, as in the Gulf War (750,000 troops), her unit would have been well-protected. In the race to Baghdad, the insufficient number of troops left trailing supply convoys – including Lynch’s – unnecessarily vulnerable to attack.
Support personnel cannot do their jobs if they’re coming under constant attack. And, although every soldier goes through basic combat training, the men and women of Lynch’s unit were cooks, supply personnel and mechanics, not front-line fighting troops. There is a difference.
Sunday night, CBS correspondent Steve Kroft asked Zinniif he thought those responsible for planning the invasion, including Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, should resign. “I believe that they should accept responsibility for that,” said Zinni. “If I were the commander of a military organization that delivered this kind of performance to the president, I certainly would tender my resignation. I certainly would expect to be gone.”
To me, supporting the troops means balancing policy with ensuring that our men and women in uniform are deployed wisely, and not for foolish adventures in nation-building and pre-emptive warfare. This is stretching them and their families beyond their limits. That’s tantamount to abuse.
They deserve better.
For me, the most unsettling aspect of this is that Bush still has such a large amount of public support, even in light of the continuing unrest in Afghanistan, the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal and escalating violence in Iraq. How can that be?
I have a pretty good idea why: Many Americans still get their news from the three big networks and Fox News.
The coverage is mostly shallow and, at times, misleading. For the most part, the networks simply parrot the White House line. For example, last Thursday ABC News reported Bush’s comments on why he isn’t willing to tap into the nation’s petroleum reserve. He claimed that since we’re at war in Iraq, such action would leave America vulnerable to terrorism. Two words jumped out at me: Iraq and terrorism.
You’ve got to love that subliminal trick. A great number of people watching that ABC report probably absorbed that linkage as fact. Joseph Goebbels would be proud.
Even now, after the notion that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were in cahoots has been soundly disproved, Vice President Dick Cheney continues to push that fallacy in his speeches. He and his fellow neocons live in a bizarre parallel universe where night is day and white is black.
We now know there were no weapons of mass destruction. The recent find of a few Iran-Iraq War-era shells seeping decayed chemicals is no smoking gun. Reports of mobile labs found are questionable, too. There was no Saddam-bin Laden terror nexus, and Iraq was effectively contained.
It would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic.
Copyright 2004 Charlotte Observer. Reprinted with permission of the author.
