"War & Weakness" - NYT article by Richard Clarke

[housewolf]

The Security Adviser
War and Weakness
By RICHARD A. CLARKE
Published: June 19, 2005

In Washington, people in government often communicate with one another and with the public in guarded, even coded statements. The mass media seldom detect, note or explain these messages. Lately one of those messages has been coming from senior American military officials, both on and off the record. Their message, decrypted, is that things in Iraq are not going well and may not do so for a while. Their corollary charge is that the American military has been seriously damaged.

The top man in the military is about to retire. Perhaps sensing the freedom of speech that comes with retirement, Gen. Richard B. Myers has let slip two interesting observations. First, he noted that the insurgency is about as strong now as it was a year ago. At a second appearance, he noted that insurgencies like the one in Iraq have lasted 7 to 12 years. It's not hard to see the message that we may well be fighting in Iraq in 2012, at the end of the next president's first term.

<snip>

In addition to the thousands of American and Iraqi casualties, one victim of this slow bleeding in Iraq is the American military as an institution.

<snip>

The Army is already the smallest it has been since the Second World War. If the current trend in volunteering for the Army continues for long, the Pentagon may have to consider disbanding units or requesting the reinstatement of the draft.

<snip>

more...
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/19/magazine/19ADVISER.html?

[Wetzelbill]

1. interesting article

[Yavin4]

2. We Don't Live in a World of Truth

We live in an world of hype and spin. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and almost 2,000 American service men and women all are dead because this Administration can get the media to lie to the American public on a daily basis.

Richard Clarke is one of the few men of integrity. He's one of the few that will stand up and tell the truth.

[wakeme2008]

3. the Army's equipment is falling apart.

Tanks, Humvees, copters etc are being worked in an environment they were never expected to be in.

And these items are not "Star Wars" and high on Rummy list of new equipment to buy. So the are being patched and bandaided over. This can only go on so long....

[Captain Hilts]

19. And the armor on Humvees is killing their transmissions.

And using C-5s for short lift duty between cities is killing them.

They are wearing out the military.

[enough]

4. The nuclear option --

snip>

The implications for the all-volunteer military are significant. With almost every unit in the Army on the conveyor belt into and out of Iraq, few units are really combat-ready for other missions. If the North Korean regime that is often called crazy were to roll its huge army the few kilometers into South Korea, significant American reinforcements would be a long time coming. This raises the possibility that the United States may have to resort to nuclear weapons to stop the North Koreans, as has been contemplated with increasing seriousness since the last Nuclear Posture Review in 2002.

snip>

[Larkspur]

6. Bush would love to drop nukes

Nukes are his viagra pills

[Strawman]

17. That's why he doesn't care about having troops in reserve

I get the impression he would have no qualms about dropping a big one on "the enemy" and unfortunately, I suspect that most of his supporters wouldn't care either. Drop the big one and call everyone who is against it traitor. He'd go on TV and appear to act reluctant and then months later you'd hear about some completely insensitive comments he made about the whole thing behind closed doors.

[wallwriter]

5. Terry Schiavo Terry Schiavo Terry Schiavo

Don't you people have any priorities.

Oh yeah. Guys kissing!!

[Lasher]

7. When I was Drafted

When I was drafted in 1969 I was not old enough to vote. You had to be 21 then. That was so wrong, being old enough to be forced against your will to kill and die in combat, but not old enough to vote.

If 18 year olds would have been able to vote then, things would have been different. 18 year olds can vote now.

For this reason and others, I have started to get my hopes up that we will win back the Senate next year. If so, Dubya and company will be exposed to real oversight for the first time. There is no way this administration could come out of that unscathed.

[More Than A Feeling]

8. One would think "supporting the troops"

would involve making sure that they actually are a part of a functioning army, and those who are criticizing things that are making the army dysfunctional would be "supporting the troops"

Not in this reality. Maybe not in this lifetime.

God forgive me, I don't feel like I should have to explain this to another blind neocon. My new response is going to be "Fuck you". It would be exactly as much respect as they have for the truth, and therefore what they deserve.

[roscoeroscoe]

9. big big dangerous fan...

zhit getting closer. can you hear it?

[Burried News]

12. And always go at em with your rubbers on.

Isn't it interesting how they never went after Clarke. Remember Frist said there could be charges of Perjury and then nothing happened.
He was one of the first to back them down. You have to wonder what else he has on them. He was in the right place to know DSM kinds of things.

Richard I don't think you are a guy who's easy to like but you sure have done this country a huge service.:patriot:

[Sparkly]

10. General Clark has said this, as well.

I keep hearing him say this blunder may "wreck the military." How great would that be for national security, Chimpy?

[Knight of Ni]

11. Speaking of Richard Clarke...

You want to get REALLY depressed about this Iraq situation? Read the excerpt from Clarke's "Against All Enemies" explaining how he would have approached the Middle East post-9/11 and how he would have campaigned for the hearts and minds of that region's citizens.

Then contrast that with the * Administration's ham-fisted clusterfuck approach and let the waterworks flow.

[cloudythescribbler]

13. the kind of draft that they are planning

Here's a letter to the editor of the NY Times that will see print a la vie:


To the editor:

Jim Calio, in "War's True Test: A Draft" (letters, June 16), he argues that, if the draft is reinstituted, draftees will vote with their feet and refuse to go. But the issue is not so simple as 'draft' v 'no-draft'.

President Bush has insisted he wants an all-volunteer army, leading many to believe he would therefore not reinstitute a draft. But there is a way to weasel out of the apparent contradiction, a route that becomes more likely by the day. A "National Service" requirement of two years, falling on 19/20 year-olds, could be used as a lever to 'encourage' voluntary recruits. The recipe: you start with lots of exemptions from national service (attendance in college, indispensable employee, family hardship, Peace Corps etc.). Then those stuck with this "nondraft" are given the option of going into the National Guard for a year and a half, or into the military, provided they are the most qualified candidates, for merely one year. The military deal is sweetened with a salary level and benefits like college tuition that those who don't "volunteer" don't get, in addition to the shorter term. Voila! The military recruitment machine would then be as happy as a clam having an orgasm -- and the Friedmanites could get their doubling of the 'boots on the ground' after all.

Isn't imperialism just wonderful?

[joytomme]

14. The US in Iraq for the long term

It's interesting that Richard Clarke assumes the next Prez will want the US to be in Iraq forever.

The American public, by and large, doesn't want us there now. We're there because the current administration wants us there.

There is no guarantee that the next President, whether Republican or Democrat, will keep on with this illegal and unnecessary war.

Just because liars and warmongers got us in this mess doesn't mean we have to stay in this mess. We don't have to honor some mythical antedeluvian mandate to "fight to the finish". Because there is no finish in Iraq, just as there was no finish in Vietnam.

We absolutely have the option to get the hell out. And if the American public feels we should get out, the next President may simply pull us out.

We are not obligated by anything to keep pouring money and the lives of men down the bottomless pit in Iraq. We were wrong to attack Iraq and the next President may take the position that we are wrong to stay in Iraq.

Joy Tomme
Ratbang Diary (http://ratbangdiary.blogspot.com)

[teryang]

15. The smallest Army since WWII

The largest defense budget since the peak of the Vietnam war. Just what happens to all that money?

[kliljedahl]

16. The last line is telling

Is it unpatriotic to ask if the major reason for the fighting in Iraq is that we are still there?


Keith’s Barbeque Central

[demo dutch]

18. Bin Laden's goal is to send the US into bankruptcy, if we don't stop

these goons at the WH, Bin Laden will have a good shot at it!
That's exactly what happened with Russia and the mujahedeen

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/