Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

Wolfowitz of Arabia

It is simply inexplicable that the U.S. Government doesn’t already have a plan in place for the Iraqi occupation. Why is this being done on the fly? Didn’t anybody in the administration have the job of putting a scheme together before we launched the invasion? (And, isn’t Wolfowitz stretched just a little bit thin?)

I am hard pressed to name even one thing this administration has done without screwing it up. Gawd help us. If the occupation goes as badly as the planning for it, I pity eveyone involved. This is an embarrassment.

KUWAIT, April 2 — Along a promenade of beachside villas, several hundred American government officials — from well-worn former generals to fresh young aid workers — are working at their laptops, inventing flow charts and examining maps of Iraq in what has become Potomac on the Persian Gulf.

This is the nucleus of the Bush administration’s new Iraqi government. One of the faraway masters, in the minds of many here, is someone known fondly, or not so fondly — depending on one’s political orientation — as Wolfowitz of Arabia.

The reference, of course, is to Paul D. Wolfowitz, the undersecretary of defense, who has dispatched some of his protégés here to prepare key Baghdad ministries for American management.

Mr. Wolfowitz is also passing judgment on others assigned here, making the transitory Potomac here as divisive and political as the permanent one at home, some participants say.

[…]

The overall boss of this Iraqi government-in-waiting, an operation that has been endowed with the Washington-speak title “Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance,” is retired Army Lt. Gen. Jay Garner…

Arrayed below General Garner is a group of former army officers, former and present American ambassadors, aid bureaucrats who give themselves away by their many-pocketed khaki jackets, a smattering of State Department officials, several British officials and a cluster known as the “true believers.”

[…]

Fairly predictably, State Department officials say, the Pentagon deemed the most senior State Department appointees as unsuitable for the enterprise, even though one of them, Timothy Carney, a former ambassador to Sudan, was invited to come here by Mr. Wolfowitz.

[…]

The politics of the Potomac aside, some of the officials acknowledge they have been handed complex jobs, the real complexity of which will not be known until they know how the war ends.

If there is a surrender by the Iraqi forces and Saddam Hussein is toppled, their jobs will be easier, they say. There could be a messier ending: perhaps some kind of festering war, with outbursts of urban fighting, that would make the Americans’ jobs much more precarious.

Another complexity is the role of the Iraqi exile groups that the Bush administration has been courting.

The State Department and the Pentagon hold profound differences on this question, and advocates in the administration say, a definition of the role of the exiles still awaits a decision by President Bush and his senior foreign policy advisers.

Ahmad Chalabi, the head of the Iraqi National Congress, has made it clear that he would not be satisfied with just an advisory position. The State Department has made clear it would prefer a diminished role for Mr. Chalabi. In recent days Mr. Chalabi has said through spokesmen that he wants the formation of a provisional government in which he would be a leading figure. In this he has backing in the Pentagon.

“The decision on the new political class in Iraq is very hot. It has yet to be made in Washington,” said one member of the Garner team here.

[…]

Many of the officials here rushed to Kuwait City in the belief they would be sent almost immediately to Baghdad. Now that the war has gone longer than they were led to expect, there is a lot of cooling of heels, and time for reading. Few of these people are Iraqi experts. But some have come armed with books and articles on the history of Iraq. The chapters on the mistakes of British rule are well underlined.

Well, gosh. What would be happening if we had already won the war under the rosy scenario? It sounds like they have absolutely no idea what they are going to do, yet.

There is no excuse for not planning this adequately before this war. They had months to work out plans for every contingency and have a team in place ready to go. Instead, they are infighting between State and Defense on this, as with everything else in Bush foreign policy.

When does this become the big story? The Pentagon and the State Department have been at each other’s throats since the beginning of Bush’s term. All the ups and downs of the past year with diplomacy and the UN and the alienation of our allies and the erratic and inconsistent lead-up to this war have been the result of the two factions of the Bush foreign policy team fighting for dominance.

Our vaunted Commander in Chief obviously cannot manage his way out of a paper bag. He has no control over his people and is drawn back and forth depending on who he talks to on a given day. His administration is incoherent because he is incoherent.

This occupation is going to be a trainwreck.

Bye, Bye, Bodine

I haven’t seen any play of this article from today’s NY Times. I think Rummy’s in trouble. The GOP congress refused to let him have a blank check on how the 75billion will be spent. And, now they’ve taken away the reconstruction project.

It’s a sad day when you have to depend on the Republican congress to hold back the megalomaniacal neocons, but it’s all we’ve got.

Three weeks before the war in Iraq began, Bush administration officials based their plans for reconstructing the country on what they called a “major assumption” — that military operations would end in 30 days, according to briefing documents circulated in the White House.

But now, some senior administraton officials involved in making plans for aiding the Iraqi people, rebuilding the country and creating a new government say that that assumption appears overly optimistic. They say that the American military will likely need to retain tight control over the country for longer than they anticipated.

[…]

Even as the plans are debated and rewritten, however, bureaucratic battles are breaking out over who will control the new government and the aid effort.

State Department officials, speaking on condition that they not be named, complain that the Pentagon is seeking greater control over the roster of American officials who will be appointed as liaisons to oversee the operation of major Iraqi ministries.

Several former ambassadors with long experience in the Mideast, including Barbara Bodine, the former ambassador to Yemen; Robin Raphel, the vice president of National Defense University; and Kenton Keith, a former ambassador to Qatar, were in line for key appointments under Jay Garner, a former general who will be directing the reconstruction effort. But their names have been pulled back.

State Department officials say they suspect that some of the more ideological Pentagon officials, including Douglas J. Feith, the undersecretary for policy, are seeking to fill the slots with like-minded former officials who have strong views about what a new Iraq should look like. Some at the Pentagon have pressed for those who have led the charge for the overthrow of Mr. Hussein, including R. James Woolsey, a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

A senior defense official said tonight that the issue was one of timing, not ideology. “The fact of the matter is that the State Department put up their list of qualified candidates before we got together a list of our own,” said the official. “We simply asked that we have some time to broaden the pool of candidates. It is in flux. Everyone’s talents will be used.”

On Capitol Hill, however, even the Republican-controlled appropriations committees of both the House and Senate voted today to take control of reconstruction out of the hands of the Pentagon, and give it to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell.

The committees voted to give the State Department and other agencies authority over the $2.5 billion in post-conflict aid that the Bush administration sought for the Pentagon under an emergency appropriation.

“The secretary of state is the appropriate manager of foreign assistance,” said Representative James Kolbe, an Arizona Republican. “Bottom line: reconstruction is a civilian role.”

Lesson Plan

David Neiwert shares this lovely e-mail making the rounds in Neanderthal circles:

With all of this talk of impending war, many of us will encounter “Peace Activists” who will try and convince us that we must refrain from retaliating against the ones who terrorized us all on September 11, 2001, and those who support terror. These activists may be alone or in a gathering… most of us don’t know how to react to them. When you come upon one of these people, or one of their rallies, here are the proper rules of etiquette:

1. Listen politely while this person explains their views. Strike up a conversation if necessary and look very interested in their ideas. They will tell you how revenge is immoral, and that by attacking the people who did this to us, we will only bring on more violence. They will probably use many arguments, ranging from political to religious to humanitarian.

2. In the middle of their remarks, without any warning, punch them in the nose.

3. When the person gets up off of the ground, they will be very angry and they may try to hit you, so be careful.

4. Very quickly and calmly remind the person that violence only brings about more violence and remind them of their stand on this matter. Tell them if they are really committed to a nonviolent approach to undeserved attacks, they will turn the other cheek and negotiate a solution. Tell them they must lead by example if they really believe what they are saying.

5. Most of them will think for a moment and then agree that you are correct.

6. As soon as they do that, hit them again. Only this time hit them much harder. Square in the nose.

7. Repeat steps 2-5 until the desired results are obtained and the idiot realizes how stupid of an argument he/she is making.

8. There is no difference in an individual attacking an unsuspecting victim or a group of terrorists attacking a nation of people. It is unacceptable and must be dealt with. Perhaps at a high cost.

We owe our military a huge debt for what they are about to do for us and our children. We must support them and our leaders at times like these. We have no choice. We either strike back, VERY HARD, or we will keep getting hit in the nose. Lesson over, class dismissed!

Another example of why homeschooling by idiots is a very bad idea. Let’s make this lesson a little bit more relevant to actual events, shall we?

With all of this talk of impending war, many of us will encounter “Pro-War” patriots who will try and convince us that we can keep America safe by exercising military force against anyone who we think might threaten us in the future. When you come upon one of these people, or one of their rallies, here are the proper rules of etiquette:

1. Listen politely while this fellow explains his views. Strike up a conversation if necessary and look very interested in his ideas. He will say that we will invade any country that even thinks of threatening us. He’ll shake his fist and get in your face. He’ll loudly proclaim that everyone in the crowd agrees with him. When a couple of his friends speak up and say that they really don’t agree, he’ll tell them to piss off and that he never liked them anyway. He will then smugly tell you that this is why working with allies weakens our country and leaves America unable to protect its citizens. He says the US can do anything it damn well pleases.

2. In the middle of his remarks, without any warning, punch him in the nose.

3. When the guy gets up off of the ground, he will be very angry and he will shove you to the ground. But then, for some reason, he’ll run into the crowd and coldcock that creepy guy from your old neighborhood who he beat up at the last rally and left with two broken legs.

4. Because he has been so rude, and his actions are so inexplicable, none of his friends will help him (except his brother-in-law, who works for him.) He’ll shout to his victim’s family (who the victim treats like shit) that he’ll give them money if they’ll help him but blood runs thicker than water. (And they can’t help noticing that he seems awfully interested in their valuable heirloom jewelry.)

5. Meanwhile, you sneak around the corner and lie low while he beats the weakened opponent into the ground. The boys from the old neighborhood get more and more angry that this guy is grabbing at the jewelry and roaring that he’s going to take down everybody they know unless they do what he wants. Gather them around you and tell them to go blow up his car, destroy his place of business and burn down his house.

6. When he sees his car explode and turns around looking alarmed and confused, sidle up from behind and hit him again, only harder.

7. Repeat steps 2-6 until the desired results are obtained and the idiot realizes that if you are going to fight back, it’s smart to fight the real enemy instead of invading a country that had nothing to do with attacking you. Keep doing it until he understands that it is stupid and counterproductive to rally everyone in the neighborhood to hate him with the same fervor as his attacker just so he can prove how tough he is.

8. There is no difference between an individual using the excuse of an unwarranted attack to attack someone who had nothing to do with it and a country using the excuse of a terrorist attack to invade a country that had nothing to do with it. It is unacceptable and results in a loss of moral authority, credibility and necessary allies in the fight against the real enemy.

We owe our military respect and must hope for as little bloodshed as possible in the current circumstances. But we must do everything in our power to vote out this administration so that these brave Americans are not asked to lay their lives on the line for a bunch of ivory tower think tank intellectuals who have always been much too willing to sacrifice others to fulfill their own dreams of imperial greatness. We either fight back VERY HARD and put these people out of power, or we will keep getting hit in the nose. Lesson over. Class dismissed!

NEWS RELEASE – April 1, 2003

Rengery Publishing wishes to announce publication on May 1, 2003, of the title:

“Brothers In Arms”

A novel of neocon love

by Lynn Cheney

In her first novel,”Sisters” Lynn Cheney gave us the sensual tale of Sophie Dymond, a beautiful, strong-willed widow who leaves New York to investigate her sister’s death in Wyoming, and finds herself in a world where wives were led to despise the marriage act and prostitutes pandered to husbands’ hungers . . . where the relationship between women and men became a kind of guerrilla warfare in which women were forced to band together for the strength they needed and at times for the love they wanted.

Now comes a story that blows the lid off the elite world of neocon think tanks and supply side salons. “Brothers In Arms” is a mid-life coming of age story about two young neocon hawks, Dick and Dick, who avoid the Vietnam war and spend the rest of their lives trying to prove their manhood. Married to high achieving women, superior in every way to their husbands, the two friends remain close, depending upon each other to reinforce their views of the world and reassure each other of their masculine prowess by saying “fuck” and driving drunk. In midlife, the boys attain the highest reaches of power and find that all the years of striving and conniving have left them feeling empty and unfulfilled. Whether it’s launching WWIII or bankrupting the federal government they can attain no satisfaction and no peace.

Until one night, desolate and lonely, they finally reach for one another in desperation and need to discover the love that dare not speak its name…

Full details are to be found at this Amazon listing

Wing-nuts Launch “Decapitation” Campaign Against Clark

When Coulter and Limbaugh both launch character assassinations on the same day, you know the word has gone forth. The Republicans are worried about General Wesley Clark. Rush says:

Wesley Clark Looks Really Bad

March 28, 2003

One of the Democratic Party’s supposed rising stars has been former NATO General Wesley Clark. After a recent appearance on Meet the Press, many Democrats salivated over Clark as “our Colin Powell.” CNN hired General Clark to use the occasion of the war as a platform for his presumed 2004 presidential bid. That was his strategy – and according to the London Spectator, it’s backfired.

“So much for the Democrats’ hope that retired general Wesley Clark was going to be their Colin Powell. ‘He’s more Benedict Arnold than anything else if you believe the mail we’ve been getting here,’ says the Democratic National Committee staffer, who only a month ago was touting Wesley Clark as his party’s answer to the military star power lined up with the Republicans.” They say Clark has pretty much peed away his chances on TV by bemoaning the Pentagon and General Tommy Franks for their strategy in the opening days of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

“While several other senior retired military men have made critical comments about the ongoing fighting, such as Barry McCaffrey – another former Clinton era official – Clark has by far been the most vocal critic of this administration. ‘It just looks really bad that he’s knocking the troops and the way we’re executing this war,’ said the staffer at the Democratic National Committee. ‘He’s taking hits everywhere – on TV and the newspapers, talk radio. People are furious at Wesley Clark. We can’t fund-raise off performances like this!'”

I have to laugh at that last part! “The only presidential candidate that would probably want to be seen with him right now is Howard Dean,” said this DNC informant. Prior to crashing and burning at CNN, the DNC had pegged the chief of the Kosovo campaign “for political stardom.” He even visited New Hampshire in his pre-presidential bid. Now the Democrats want him gone, because he’s so negative about the war effort it’s turning off the American people. This is great, folks. The Democrats thought Wesley Clark would be their Colin Powell, but he turned out to be their second George B. McClellan.

Sure. Lots of Democratic National Committee staffers talk to rabid right-wing newspapers and give them quotes like “We can’t fund raise off performances like this!” They wouldn’t make something like this up would they? And, how about this patented “put it in the british papers, circulate it to the Scaife funded press and the AM radio terrorists until it makes it into the mainstream press” gambit. The Wurlitzer remembers its favorite tunes.

Kevin Drum wonders why all the hoopla about Clark since we don’t know what his positions are. He’s a believer in just war theory, he’s pro-choice, he’s for affirmative action (he signed a friend of the court brief in the Michigan case). Now, that doesn’t give us any idea about his positions on trade or health care or any of the thousand issues we all care about, but it certainly gives me a good idea of where he stands on the political spectrum.

Unless a Democrat is so outside the mainstream that I think he’s worse than Bush, and I can’t actually think of one who would be, I will vote for the Democrat who has, in my opinion, the best chance of ousting the current administration. I suspect that whoever this is will probably not be channeling my every thought and will likely disagree with me on any number of issues. This is a big country and a big party. Within that party are a number of coalitions that span the center-left continuum. We’d better start negotiating amongst ourselves in a serious strategic way to get a Democrat elected to the presidency. I gave my reasons for thinking Clark can beat Bush in the post below.

It would be great if we could take back the congress, as well, and it is not beyond our grasp in any way. But, a true Democratic governing coalition is going to be much harder because of the red-state conservative Democrats who must function as de-facto Republicans on issues of taxes and national security. These Democrats will be turned into Republicans if we push them too hard which is not going to help our cause.

It is far better to focus on usurping Bush and capturing one branch of government in its entirety. We can take a long term view on this and try to make our consituency grow, but I think our current situation is sufficiently dire that we need to concentrate everything we have on turning back the radical Republican agenda immediately. At this point there are absolutely no checks and balances and it is rapidly hurtling out of control

So, I pick a Democrat who is a 4 Star General because I think he has the best chance to beat Bush if this perpetual war plays out the way the Republicans plan it. If we disagree on matters of funding for Head Start or Gays in the Military, I’m going to live with that.

I know, I know. I’m tired of making those sorts of compromises, too. But, the world is what it is and there’s no use in pretending that this issue of national security is going to fade away in a flood of concern about prescription drug coverage. The Republicans and media who are benefitting from it will not let that happen. So, we’d better face up to reality and try to form a coherent, common sense alternative to the radical path the Republicans are leading us down.

I’ll be writing more about this today. I have been working on a long overdue post on a very interesting survey of the peace marchers in NYC. There are some real surprises and some interesting things to work with if we can get the centrists and the liberals to be pragmatic and form a two pronged strategy.

Iraqis to Gitmo

I thought this might happen. They are thinking of shipping Iraqi paramilitaries to Guantanamo as unlawful combatants.

Suspects are being segregated from enemy prisoners of war, in part because they may have been tormentors of regular army soldiers now being held. The detainees will be treated like POWs, but without official status, until a hearing is held under Article 5 of the Geneva Conventions, officers said.

Such hearings, to be held in Iraq, will determine whether the detainees are released, held as POWs or declared illegal combatants. If they are labeled POWs, they will be held until the end of the war and then released along with other prisoners.

Any who are determined to have used civilians as human shields or otherwise violated the international covenants of war will be declared illegal combatants and sent to Guantanamo Bay or other holding facilities, to be detained with al Qaeda and Taliban fighters captured in Afghanistan, military officers said. “That guy’s going to get the full treatment,” said the senior officer.

Military lawyers said they were trying to decide how to hold the hearings and said they wanted to conduct them as quickly as possible to return any innocents caught up in the roundups to their homes, but they acknowledged they were ill prepared for the venture. “We’re still figuring this out,” said the senior officer, “because we thought we’d have mass surrenders, not this crap.”

I’m relieved that they’ll be able to separate all the innocents so easily before they send the guilty parties to Cuba to live in prison and legal limbo until George W. Bush decides what to do with them.

There is a standard way to deal with people like this. It’s called a war crimes trial. Yes, they get a lawyer and everything. But, it enforces the concept of the rule of law. Apparently, we now find that too inconvenient. I’m sure the captured US POW’s will be delighted to hear it.

Embedded

Read this amazing story about the battle of Nasiriya. This guy watched a group of marines turn from idealistic liberators into cynical warriors in a matter of a few days. Nobody deserves this, American marines or Iraqi civilians. Useless.

Command and Control

Reader Pi brings to my attention this post on Unintended Consequences that quotes a Stratfor article:

Ten days into the war, Iraqi command, control, communications, intelligence and information systems appear to be operational at all levels, including the national command authority. From the standpoint of U.S. war planning and doctrine, this should not be the case. The fact that it appears to be the case is shaping the war, as U.S. air power pounds these facilities in Baghdad. Clearly, the Iraqis have thought through the survivability of their systems and have made some adjustments. The United States must take down these systems. The difficulty coalition forces are having represents the first serious strategic crisis of the war. The problems the media have obsessed over are trivial

If this is so, the most basic objective of 3rd wave Information Warfare has not yet been met. It hasn’t just been a failure of the more kooky aspect of the plan — the clumsy psy-ops, “decapitation” and selective intelligence. It has not yet accomplished the one aspect of IW that everyone agrees is essential– eliminating the enemy leadership’s ability to communicate with their troops.

I’ve Been Leaning That Way Myself

Kos puts in a big plug for General Wesley Clark for president. He’s being seen by a lot of Americans for the first time on CNN and he’s been quite impressive. Perhaps that is why he opted to keep the CNN job rather than declare for President. An hour a night, 5 nights a week is a mighty good way to get some name recognition and public exposure.

I have been watching him for sometime and posted this analysis called General Dynamic about a month ago. People seem to believe that he is only viable as a VP, but I’m more and more convinced that the Democrats are going to need someone with the kind of sterling national security and demonstrated leadership credentials that someone like Clark could provide.

The fact that the heinous harpy Ann Coulter is already going after him by calling him “The Enemy Within” says that he is definitely on the GOP radar screen. I get the feeling he can take the heat.

Everyone’s been complaining about Rumsfeld and company not planning for the worst case scenario, yet the Democrats seem to be making the same mistake with 2004. We should be planning for the scenario that has the Cheerleader in Chief riding atop a wave of popularity for his handling of the “war,” which will be ongoing and ever more adventurous. If that is not happening and the war has left Bush with a weak hand, all the better. But, it would be wise for us to find somebody who can stand in a room with Bush and look like he’s got just as much experience leading this country in battle as he does. (In my opinion, that could be Anna Nicole Smith, but I realize I’m not a typical middle American.) Clark is a Democrat who is also a 4 star General. I just don’t see anybody who can match that profile.

My dream ticket would be Wesley Clark/Bob Rubin.

Incestuous Amplification

“defined by Jane’s Defense Weekly as ‘a condition in warfare where one only listens to those who are already in lock-step agreement, reinforcing set beliefs and creating a situation ripe for miscalculation.’”

Paul Krugman uses this military term today to explain the Bush administration’s reaction to the California energy crisis. By doing so, he also cleverly highlights the fundamental problem with the Republican establishment that runs Washington. They live in an intellectual echo chamber of insular think tanks, political operatives and partisan media.

But, war is not as controllable as the American political process.

Brad DeLong posts this article and rightly points out that 3 senior administration officials say that: “President Bush’s aides did not forcefully present him with dissenting views from CIA and State and Defense Department officials who warned that U.S.-led forces could face stiff resistance in Iraq.”

The New York Times explicitly stated this back on March 18th:

During a White House planning session with his top military advisers late last month, President Bush turned to Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with a pressing question: How long would war with Iraq last? But before General Myers could respond, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld put a hand on his arm and said, “Now, Dick, you don’t want to answer that.”

The exchange is recounted by senior officials at the White House and State Department, as well as the Pentagon, as a window into Mr. Rumsfeld’s complicated management style — and, indeed, it presents a Rorschach test to separate Mr. Rumsfeld’s detractors from his supporters.

Critics cite the meeting as evidence that Mr. Rumsfeld muzzles the military, as an effort by the defense secretary to prevent the nation’s highest-ranking general from performing his lawful duty to give his best military thinking, unvarnished, to Mr. Bush.

Keep in mind that this article was written before the current cover-your-ass operation began. They had no way of knowing at that time that the rose colored glasses scenario would not come to fruition, but there was obviously concern on the part of some that Junior was being managed by the IraqHawks, particularly the starry eyed neocons.

As DeLong noted, this “Sr” complaint can only come from a very limited number of people (my guess being Rove, Card and possibly Powell.) And most amazingly, in the March 28th article, they name Cheney and Rumsfeld as being the ones who misled the Commander in Chief. It’s possible that Rove is beginning to circle the wagons to protect Bush’s viability and as a result, Rummy (and Cheney?) are feeling a little heat coming from the inside.

This is very intriguing, if true. Much depends upon developments in the war over the next few days. If the troops remain dug in outside of Baghdad for any length of time (even if air power is being used relentlessly against the Republican Guard positions) there will be a news vacuum that might very well portend a continued drumbeat of complaint against Rumsfeld. If suicide bombings become common, he looks very bad indeed.

And, that might lead him to want to take a big gamble and push into Baghdad before the situation on the ground is optimal. The question then would be whether Bush’s true inner circle would start to lead Junior away from Rummy and toward the Generals. The only person, after all, who can stop Rumsfeld from ordering General Franks to take a wild unnecessary chance is Bush himself.

Rumsfeld’s problem is of his own making. There were many reports of friction between Rumsfeld and the pentagon staff from long before Iraq planning began in earnest. Daily Kos has a great post up about Robert Novak’s reporting on the dissention in the pentagon going back more than a year. Everyone chalked this up to the “transformation” that Rumsfeld was attempting and in typical Howie Kurtz style, it was

reported by most of the press as it interprets everything — as a high school turf battle. But, this goes way beyond that to a serious concern amongst the brass that Rumsfeld is actually endangering national security.

Perhaps the biggest issue is that he depends almost entirely upon a small group of advisors from Republican think tanks. His insistence on deploying a missile defense system that doesn’t work, his uncritical dependence on unproven theories like “effects based warfare” and most importantly, his refusal to allow for contingency battlefield planning are seen by many as not just bad management, but as reckless and dangerous at this particular time. We aren’t just playing any more, it isn’t theoretical, Rumsfeld is insisting on actually using untried military doctrine based upon pop futurist and techno dreamer scenarios. And he is so sure he is right that he refuses to fully consider back-up plans, instead seeing any deviation as a political concession and therefore without merit in its own right. Franks asks for extra time to adjust to the Turkey debacle and Rumsfeld grumbles that he already gave him 50,000 more troops, what more does he want?

Military planners and intelligence sources were all very aware that Iraq was a different situation than Afghanistan, as anyone with half a brain could see. But, in the tight world of right wing thinkers (remember, they fired all the moderates and liberals that had previously given the Defense Policy Board a variety of perspectives) it was time to put their long time theories into practice. They were not going to be dissuaded by a bunch of cowardly military officers or ossified state department careerists.

They had spent many years, from the Plan B group up through the back halls of the Reagan administration to the AEI/CSP/PNAC echo chamber refining their dreamy utopian vision of a world easily dominated by American technology, business and values and they were not going to let a bunch of cynical naysayers get in their way with nitpicking about how to get there.

We’ve made this mistake before, as The Pentagon Papers made clear. But, this time it is even worse. There is no rival superpower to keep us from completely destabilizing the world order and then having nothing tangible to replace it with besides the chimera of brute American force.

Despite all the hype and all the money, we are kidding ourselves if we believe that we can rule the world with our military power. The American people are not Spartans and we are not willing or able to take on that project. These people know that which is why they are depending upon this “projection” of power, “effects based” warfare, “3rd wave” information manipulation and fake missile defense to do the job for us. They believed that we would not really have to demonstrate our power because we can make people believe that they face sure defeat.

And remember, many of the people who have theorized this new world order have no personal experience with war, have learned all the wrong lessons from history and formulated many of their ideas from popular fiction, movie myths and half baked futurist proselytizing. These are not the smartest guys in the world. Remember, the two top planners of the war with Iraq came from the Ford administration. The intellectual neocon claque of Wolfowitz and Perle are slightly deranged from having spent their entire careers convinced that the Soviet Union was so all-powerful that any compromise was a defeat. Wolfowitz thought Gorbachev was a stooge and lobbied hard for the US to name Lithuania a US vital interest so as to put a US presence on the ground to prepare for our inevitable invasion of Russia. And, this was after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

They have always been wrong. Always. But events have now taken on a life of their own. We may just have to depend upon Karl Rove to pull Bush back from the brink. That is a very slender thread to hang on to but it looks like it’s all we’ve got.

Update: Josh Marshall also believes that this “3 senior officials” designation is significant also and may mean that there is some serious rumbling inside the administration.