18 November 2005
SpectatorThe View from here
"Recipe for Disaster"? The Head Chefs are Generals
The Washington Post (Nov. 16) reports that an infantry commander in Iraq has called the proposal by congressional Democrats to set a timetable for withdrawal from the quagmire that is Iraq "a recipe for disaster." As much as the Spectator respects the ability of the military's top brass to recognize disaster while avoiding any complicity in it, the general, bluntly speaking, is full of shit.
Major Gen. William Webster also said that setting a withdrawal timetable would mean that the 200+ soldiers of the 3rd Infantry Division who were killed in Iraq will have died in vain. The Spectator would like to remind the general that those who died will always be recognized for courage and selfless heroism even as their commanders are recalled as fools and blundering, bombastic idiots. If Gen. Webster is so damned concerned about honoring the troops, why didn't he open his yap about the flaws in the plan that sent our men and women into harm's way? The Army issued its own study (NY Times, Feb. 3, 2005) of the rush to war and indicted itself for sending combat troops without adequate supplies and support. The report cited "a morass" of supply shortages including radios that couldn't reach the far-flung troops. How many of Gen. Webster's men died because of that SNAFU and what did the general say in response? The study also reported that tank engines desperately needed by armored units, sat in warehouses because no truck drivers were in theater to take them to the troops. The study also reported that Webster's own 3rd Infantry Division was within two weeks of being shut down by the supply problems. I don't remember a syllable of protest being uttered by Webster then.
The Marines issued their own report in the summer of 2005 detailing shortages of machine guns for the troops. Yep - Marines without machine guns! What the hell kind of war is this?
Then, in August '05, the Times reported that the Pentagon was "struggling" to replace body armor that afforded our troops no protection against the lethal attacks of the Iraqi insurgents. The Spectator could find nary a word from Gen. Webster about these shortages and the casualties they caused. But now someone says "Bring Them Home," and Webster gets his undies in a bunch. The simple fact of the matter is that generals don't care about anything but the next star or the next career. They will make their troops endure any hardship, supply shortage, weapons inadequacy, or strategic blunder to keep their own stiff upper lip protruding toward the ass of the next highest commander. If the troops of the 3rd ID are placing their well-being in the hands of a blundering fool like Webster, the next shortage the division experiences might be body bags.
The U.S. spent more than a decade teaching, training, and encouraging the Vietnamese to fight for the survival of their nation. They cut and ran in less than a year after we left. What's different about Iraq? Keep U.S. forces patrolling, killing and dying indefinitely and what's the incentive for the indigenous forces to succeed? If you wait for the Iraqi government to say "we're ready," you might be waiting a very long time. Establish a timetable, tell the natives when they are to be responsible for their own destiny and they might actually gear up.
The Celebrity Journalist, Part Deux
Bob Woodward is the latest media star. He solidified his status by sitting on information about the leak of Valerie Plame's identity for more than two years. He says, in the Washington Post (Nov. 16) he did so because protecting his sources "is the name of the game." I guess it is when you are depend on those sources to sell your books. But what about informing the American people as the name of the game? Is that such a far-out notion these days? Judith Miller, Robert Novak, and Bob Woodward, Tim Russert, et. al. have been played by this administration as surely as the Bushies played us in Florida in 2000. They all whine about protecting sources as an essential tool to do their job but what they really mean is protecting sources to maintain access. The Bush people blabbing about Valerie Plame were not low level functionaries blowing the whistle on evil-doers. They are the crême-de-la-crême of the Bush Administration trying to punish critics - period. So let's knock off all the crap.
Chalabi Meets Privately with Bush Heirarchy
As if he hadn't done enough already, Ahmad Chalabi was in Washington last week to meet with Condie Rice, Dick Cheney and Donnie Rumsfeld in closed-door meetings. Nice work for a known con artist and proven liar. Perhaps the Bushies meet with him because they see a kindred spirit. But all this begs the question of the FBI investigation of Chalabi's alleged transmittal of secret information to the Iranians earlier this year. The investigation is still open but the guy waltzes into DC and meets with the highest ranking officials in the Bush Administration without the FBI raising a finger? What's up with that?
Speaking of What's UP?
Guess how much Dick Cheney's Halliburton stock has increased in value since the Bush Administration started awarded them no bid contracts. Give up? The stock has increased over 3,000%! Not bad huh? How would you like to have that much control over your portfolio? And keep in mind that there was a six year investigation into Whitewater that never returned an indictment. Where's Louie Freeh when you need him? Where's the outrage?
Copyright 2005 by Buffalo Report, Inc.