Dereliction of Duty

In difficult times, particularly during a war, the American people should seek and find reassurance from a President who speaks to their heart and provides them a vision of a better tomorrow. Sadly, we are far from that ideal today. While our brave young men and women continue to die on the streets of Iraq, we turn to the White House for answers and leadership. All we get in return is political posturing and a level of incompetence that borders on criminal. How else could you describe a so-called policy that flies in the face of the realities on the ground and results in over 100 American dead each and every month? The words of George McGovern ring true almost 40 years after they were first spoken: “I'm fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in.”

Most recently, it appears that the President and Joint Chiefs are at odds over the troop levels in Iraq. This latest debate within the Administration is particularly significant because it illustrates how isolated and misguided the President truly is. When the Joint Chiefs wanted the additional troops necessary to secure the country after Baghdad had fallen, the President refused because of the political implications. The Administration wanted to win the war quickly and on the cheap, and an increase in troops would have sent the wrong message….particularly with a Presidential election around the corner. Now, the President is on the flip side of that argument, potentially changing course over the objections of a military establishment who has made it clear that he simply waited too long to do so.

At regular interagency meetings and in briefing President Bush last week, the Pentagon has warned that any short-term mission may only set up the United States for bigger problems when it ends. The service chiefs have warned that a short-term mission could give an enormous edge to virtually all the armed factions in Iraq -- including al-Qaeda's foreign fighters, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias -- without giving an enduring boost to the U.S military mission or to the Iraqi army, the officials said.

The Pentagon has cautioned that a modest surge could lead to more attacks by al-Qaeda, provide more targets for Sunni insurgents and fuel the jihadist appeal for more foreign fighters to flock to Iraq to attack U.S. troops, the officials said.

The informal but well-armed Shiite militias, the Joint Chiefs have also warned, may simply melt back into society during a U.S. surge and wait until the troops are withdrawn -- then reemerge and retake the streets of Baghdad and other cities. Even the announcement of a time frame and mission -- such as for six months to try to secure volatile Baghdad -- could play to armed factions by allowing them to game out the new U.S. strategy, the chiefs have warned the White House.

The fact that this is a public topic of conversation is encouraging in itself considering the role played by the Joint Chiefs in the lead up to the war. That role was nothing less than a severe dereliction of duty and a subjugation of authority, perpetuated because of the overbearing personality of a Secretary of Defense who placed the personal consolidation of power over the integrity of the uniformed services. Instead of providing military advice directly to the President as dictated by law, their advice was filtered (and often co-opted) by Rumsfeld. As a result, they fiddled while Iraq burned….Rumsfeld ruled the Pentagon with a complicent Joint Chiefs lurking in the shadows, silently nodding in agreement.

It’s been said that the morale of the uniformed personnel in the Pentagon skyrocketed the moment Secretary Gates assumed office. Hopefully it’s a sign of what’s to come. We should also be hopeful that the trip by Gates to Iraq this week is an indication that he will be the engaged and independent presence that this debate (and this White House) desperately needs.