Dr. Frank's What's-it

Diane "Letter from Gotham" E.

Diane "Letter from Gotham" E. once speculated that Andrew Sullivan might have some kind of "B-chip" in his head which prevented him from uttering anything less than favorable about GWB. If so, the administration's backpedaling on Iraq appears to have shaken it loose a bit:

Dreadful news today that the president may be wavering in his intent to destroy the Iraqi regime. If true, then those of us who have supported the war on terror need to revise our assessment of this president. He told the German press yesterday that there is no plan to invade on his desk. He said it almost proudly. His military leaders, in a sign of their determination to risk nothing and achieve nothing, are now leaking to the Washington Post that they have all but scotched a serious military option in Iraq. The arguments they are using sound like they might come from a Gore administration.

Well, there's the other B-chip (stands for "Bill") kicking in. Actually, there's no need to imagine what might have been the rhetoric of an imaginary administration: the arguments take us back to GHWB as much as Clinton, and sound like they could have come from Baker, Eagleburger, Scowcroft and Powell. The Clinton administration's problem was never a lack of bellicose "arguments," but rather a lack of follow-through and perhaps of seriousness-- which, of course, is the worry here as well. It comes to the same thing, whether the President's last name is Bush or Clinton. However you slice it, it's proof that rumors of the richly-deserved death of the "Powell Doctrine" have been greatly exaggerated.

The Washington Post story that Sullivan links to describes this "secret briefing" at the White House:

during the meeting, [Tommy] Franks told the President that invading Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein would require at least 200,000 troops, far more than some other military experts have calculated. This was in line with views of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who have repeatedly emphasized the lengthy build-up that would be required, concerns about Hussein's possible use of biological and chemical weapons and the possible casualties, officials said.

Sound familiar? Here's Robert Kagan's description of the Powell Doctrine at work (from his review of David Halberstrom's War in a Time of Peace):

The Vietnam-era generals had not asked often enough the key question, "What if?" "What if the Vietcong do not collapse under American bombardment?" And so Powell took the opposite tack. For Powell, the question was always "What if?" And as his civilian colleagues learned, the answer to one "What if?" led always to another "What if?" and then to another. The Vietnam-era generals had lied to their commander-in-chief by insisting that they could win with fewer men than they actually believed were necessary. Powell lied by telling his superiors that he needed more men than he actually believed were necessary. As Halberstam records,

When the top civilians asked what it might cost to intervene militarily, Powell would show his lack of enthusiasm by giving them a high estimate. One reason he had always put the number of troops needed to do the job so high--over two hundred thousand--was not necessarily that he felt it would take that many. It was a test for the civilians: How much do you really want this, how high a price are you willing to pay?

The Vietnam War had been fought without sufficient public understanding and support. From that dubious judgment Powell concluded that the American people would never support any war. In opposing a war against Iraq in 1991, Powell argued that "the American people do not want their young dying for $1.50 a gallon oil." He was so determined to avoid another Vietnam that he was willing to embrace national paralysis.

I don't know how many troops it would take to invade Iraq successfully. Of course they should ensure they have a solid, well-thought-out plan for which we are adequately prepared. There may even be other, better, options, and if so they should be pursued. But if Saddam Hussein is half the danger he's cracked up to be (and I believe he's at least twice that) we can't afford all that much national paralysis right now. There's something a bit odd about the military brass citing concerns about chemical and biological weapons as a reason to avoid conflict with Iraq. Isn't that why we have a military? Anyway, even the most risk-averse Powell-ite must realize that these threats can only increase with delay. And once Saddam has a real "deterrent," (i.e., a nuclear weapon) then we'll really see some "national paralysis."

Sullivan's post concludes with what I suppose is classic British understatement: "if [Bush] balks, it will be worse than his father's betrayal on taxes..." Boy, I'll say. Who cares about taxes? I just don't want to be blown up before my time.

Posted by Dr. Frank at May 24, 2002 10:44 AM | TrackBack