The Osterley Times: The Right Wing's Answer to the Generals

God, they are so predictable.

As I reported here, in an unprecedented step during a time when the US is at war, six ex-Generals have stepped up to the plate and called for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld.

Let me say it again, this is unprecedented.

One would imagine that the very fact that this has never happened before would render it newsworthy and, certainly, worthy of serious consideration and debate.

Pffft!

The Republican attack dogs have moved in immediately to snuff out any such notion.

The Generals are apparently attempting to "sell their books" in what the right have already termed a "dead end debate". A dead end debate meaning that there is no real value in even considering the notion, indeed, to do so would mean that you are in some way being unpatriotic. (That's a familiar Republican theme isn't it?)

I'm actually unaware of whether any of these Generals are trying to sell any books, rather than simply offering the US a way out of the quagmire that they currently find themselves in, by identifying the man who got the country into this mess - by employing too few troops to do the job - and the man who seems to have no vision to get the country out of this current nightmare, other than to stick to the present course that has proven so disastrous.

Dragging up WWII comparisons, as Republicans love to do, the rant goes on to say:

Imagine that, as we crossed the Rhine, retired World War II officers were still harping, in March, 1945, about who was responsible months during Operation Cobra for the accidental B-17 bombing, killing, and wounding of hundreds of American soldiers.

Now, to compare the situation in Iraq to World War Two is simply delusional. In WWII Hitler had fashioned the largest army the world had ever known and had embarked on a mission of world domination. It took the combined armies of the US, Britain, Russia, Australia and all the others five years to bring him to heel.

Saddam Hussein had been under punitive sanctions for twelve years and was defeated in less than three weeks. The fact that the US has been unable in three years to bring order to that nation should be a matter of public concern. Indeed, when one looks at what was achieved in the first three years of World War Two:

Germany suffered setbacks at Stalingrad and El Alamein which both marked historic turning points and ensured Hitler's eventual defeat.
American naval victory at Battle of Midway, in June, marked turning point in Pacific War.

it makes the under achievement in Iraq even more scandalous.

Having started with ludicrous comparisons to WWII, that highlight the failings of the administration he seeks to defend, Victor David Hanson (for it is he who wrote the article that I've linked to) then leaves the realms of fantasy and begins to trade in outright lies:

First of all, whatever one thinks about Iraq, the old question of whether Iraq and al Qaeda enjoyed a beneficial relationship is moot — they did.

You'll note that he offers no proof to substantiate this enormous fantasy, he simply states it as a given. He ignores that fact that bin Laden is on record as calling Saddam "an apostate, an infidel and a traitor to Islam", indeed, he ignores the fact that Saddam offered the Saudi Arabian government his services in driving Iraq's army out of Kuwait. An offer that was refused and caused the current rift between Saudi Arabia and bin Laden.

But, as Victor David Hanson allows himself to be so glib, I'll allow myself the same glibness to reply: they didn't.

He then brings up the most serious charge against Rumsfeld, and the subject which has caused so much hostility between Rumsfeld and the Generals - namely, how many troops were needed to maintain peace in the region - and describes the argument as "fossilized":

Equally fossilized is the "more troops" debate. Whatever one's views about needing more troops in 2003-5, few Democratic senators or pundits are now calling for an infusion of 100,000 more Americans into Iraq.

He then rather subtly moves the reason for this failing on to the shoulders of "Democratic Senators" who are not willing, I presume, to risk their future electoral chances on calling for further troops deployments to clear up a mess created by Bush. Well, shame on them, eh?

He then dismisses the genuine need for more troops with a spectacular rationalisation:

More troops might have brought a larger footprint that made peacekeeping easier — but also raised a provocative Western profile in an Islamic country. More troops may have facilitated Iraqization — or, in the style of Vietnam, created perpetual dependency.

Oh, yeah, 'cos the present footprint in Iraq isn't remotely "provocative" and after three years of training the invisible Iraqi army there's no sign at all of Iraqi "dependency" on US involvement. Is this guy for real?

The argument of the right is as dishonest as it is delusional. He goes on:

So we know the nature of these weary debates. Both sides offer reasonable arguments. Fine. But let us not fool ourselves any longer that each subsequent "exposé" and leak by some retired general, CIA agent, or State Department official — inevitably right around publication date — offers anything newer, smarter, or much more ethical in this dark era that began on September 11.

You'll notice that, apart from the dreary recalling of 9-11 to stir some collective pain in your soul and further end debate, his main point here is to dismiss anything the Generals said as offering "anything newer (or) smarter". The points made by the Generals are to be ignored without consideration as something without merit. The only course is the present course. He concludes:

What we need, then, are not more self-appointed ethicists, but far more humility and recognition that in this war nothing is easy. Choices have been made, and remain to be made, between the not very good and the very, very bad. Most importantly, so far, none of our mistakes has been unprecedented, fatal to our cause, or impossible to correct.

On this point I fundamentally disagree. Fatal mistakes have been made and the war in Iraq has been lost. And one day there will be a reckoning for this. And, on that day, Donald Rumsfeld will be held accountable for his shortcomings. And, true to form, rightists like Victor David Hanson will immediately explain why Rummy was forced by crazed Democrats to embark such a suicide course.

Until then, Rumsfeld will remain in his position, the war in Iraq will drag on. Young men and women will continue to die in a war that need never have been fought.

If you dare to think that there might be fresh way to look at this problem, in they eyes of the Republicans, you are nothing less than another Neville Chamberlain.

Related Articles: