A 12-year war?

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, meanwhile, said it may take as long as 12 years to defeat the insurgents. He said Iraq's security forces will have to finish the job because American and foreign troops will have left the country by then. ... Rumsfeld said he is bracing for even more violence. "We're not going to win against the insurgency. The Iraqi people are going to win against the insurgency. That insurgency could go on for any number of years. Insurgencies tend to go on five, six, eight, 10, 12 years," Rumsfeld told "Fox News Sunday." [Emphasis courtesy of DailyKos]

What is the probability that the US will be able to train Iraqis to fight on their own? An e-history of the collapse of the South Vietnamese government in 1975 blames a number of purely military problems, but also mentions:

The ability of the North Vietnamese to wage a revolutionary war, which purported to offer the chance for a change in the political order as it existed, was extremely effective in mobilizing the population in the South to support its war effort. By contrast, the South Vietnamese government's inability to offer its people a similar change through the ideals of democracy and economic growth insured a lack of support for the Thieu government, especially during the crisis days of early 1975. The people and soldiers simply had no reason to fight for a government which failed to meet their needs. It matters little that the North's government was just as corrupt and more repressive, as evidenced by the conditions existing in Vietnam today; it matters only that the North Vietnamese and PRG were more effective in offering the people a definite change in the political order as it existed in South Vietnam in 1975.

Because Thieu could not effectively eliminate corruption within his regime, the enticing, ideological arguments offered by the North Vietnamese were able to drive a divisive wedge between the people of South Vietnam and their government. In summary, I intend to show that the collapse of the RVNAF had not occurred suddenly in 1975, nor was the collapse due to any one single factor. Instead, the reasons were many: low morale, uncontrolled corruption, incompetent leadership, and the cutoff of U.S. military aid and air support. However, unless the government of South Vietnam could solve its own political problems, it was condemned to, not only losing the support of its own people, but the support of the American public and Congress as well. The Vietnam War was for the South Vietnamese to win. However, the U.S. could only provide aid to buy time for the government of South Vietnam to make significant reforms and rally the support of its own people to win the war against North Vietnam.

One can argue that the current government of Iraq has no need to "change the political order" as it's supposed to be an improvement on the political order in the first place. The fact that, yes there are many civilian targets of the insurgents in Iraq, but the US troops occupying the country are by far the main target for them, means that the current government of Iraq has a long, long way to go to be self-sustaining. As the insurgents are already self-sustaining in the absence of any clearly visible outside support and in the absence of a unifying political figure, the US-supported government of Iraq has to play catch-up. Is there any serious reason to believe that it wil last any longer than Thieu's government did after the North Vietnamese offensive of 1975 began?

It doesn't seem as though a 12-year struggle is in the cards, with or without American troops occupying Iraq for that whole period. America's support for the war is rapidly drying up and it doesn't appear likely that a self-sustaining government can be created under any circumstances, with any amount of material support.

US opens negotiations with Iraqi military resistance

We learn from a British newspaper (Why can't American newspapers break these big stories?) that the Bush Administration has been "negotiating with terrorists" in Iraq. Of course, it's not quite as simple as that:

The Americans were then said to have launched into a lengthy session of questioning about the structure of the insurgency, which is far from a unified entity.
-----------

The links between these groups remain murky and the American team began to irritate the Iraqis with what some saw as a crude attempt to gather intelligence. They asked questions about the “hierarchy and logistics of the groups, how they functioned, how orders were dispatched, how they divide their work and so on”, the Iraqi source said.

“It was a boring line of questioning that indicated an attempt to discover more about their enemy than about finding solutions,” one of the sources added. “We told the translator to inform them that if they persisted with this line we would all walk out of the meeting.”

In any event, the story shows that, once again, as has been proven time and again since Ronald Reagan took office back in 1981, that "no negotiations with terrorists" simply is not, never was and never will be a workable strategy.

Also, the sharp-eyed reader might notice that in an earlier post, I described how silly it was that Bush keeps talking about the armed opposition as though he could "see into their souls" and all that happy horse manure. Quite obviously, if negotiators were making a "crude attempt to gather intelligence" into basic and fundamental matters such as the command structure of the armed opposition, then Bush had absolutely NO basis whatsoever for pretending that he had all this deep, subtle, intricate knowledge about their thoughts and feelings and motivations.

UPDATE: Billmon comments on the confusion caused in conservative/Republican ranks by the switchover from "never negotiate with terrorists" to "well, it's okay to negotiate with some of them some of the time."

Republicans telegraph weakness

Karl Rove demonstrated with an over-the-top speech that Republicans simply have no answer to the question of moderate politicians: "How much time, treasure and blood is it going to take to obtain victory in Iraq?"

More to the point, Karl when you say, “Conservatives saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and prepared for war,” what exactly did you do to prepare for your war? Did your preparations include: sound intelligence to warrant your actions; a reasonable entry and exit strategy coupled with a coherent plan to carry out that strategy; the proper training and equipment for the troops you were sending in to fight your war? Did you follow the advice of experts such as General Shinseki who correctly advised you about the troop levels needed to actually succeed in Iraq? No, you didn't.

It has always been America's policy that you only place soldiers' lives in harm's way when it is absolutely necessary and the absolute last resort. When you send troops into combat you support those troops by providing them with proper equipment and training. Why didn't you do that with the troops that you sent into Iraq? Why weren't their vehicles armored? Why didn't they have protective vests? Why weren't they properly trained about the rules of interrogation? And Karl, when our troops come home – be it tragically in body bags or with missing limbs – you should honor and acknowledge their service to their country. You shouldn't hide them by bringing them home in the dark of night. Most importantly, you should take care of them for the long haul by giving them substantial veteran's benefits and care. To me, that is being patriotic. To me, that is how you support our troops. To me, that is how you show that you know the value of a human life given for its country.

In short, Karl Rove is saying that liberals took an intellectual approach, seeking to understand why America was attacked on 9/11. Conservatives were “manly men” who went off and attacked. As Kristen Breitweiser points out here however, it's not like Republicans have succeeded in their war. It appeared for a short time in early 2003 that they did, but by summertime it was clear to less enthusiastic Americans that the war was far from over. People have pointed out that if 9/11 can be compared to Pearl Harbor and if late 2001 can be compared to late 1941, mid-2005 doesn't seem to bear any relation to mid-1945. By mid-1945, the Allies had already begun standing down and demobilizing from World War II. Staff members had long since begun planning for how to bring our victorious soldiers back home. In sharp contrast, America is still stumbling through a very long, dark tunnel in mid-2005 with no light visibile.
By going on the attack and seeking to blame liberals for their loss, Rove is making it clear that conservatives are completely lost and have no clue as to what to do next.

Bush's radio speech

The Comics Journal once did a review of a standard, basic, not-very-prominent comic. They tore it up. The author was absolutely furious with them. Their explanation went roughly: "Every now and then, we choose a really bad example of the state of the art in comics today and take it out and flog it." In that spirit, let's take a look at Bush's latest justifications for the Iraq War.

As we work to deliver opportunity at home, we're also keeping you safe from threats from abroad.

Bush couldn't point out much in the way of opportunities he had made available to Americans. He never even mentioned the employment picture, the single most important measure of opportunity.

We went to war because we were attacked,

???? When? By whom? What was the attack that prompted the war with Iraq? Oh, I get it, that flea-bitten old dog that's been used to justify everything from here to Timbuktu, 9/11! Back in the 1870s, when people used the Civil War to justify everything, other people called it "Waving the bloody shirt". Well, here's our only president, "waving the bloody shirt" of 9/11. Set aside the fact that there's a great deal of evidence that many, many people within the US and the Bush Administration appear to have been aware that 9/11 was about to occur, there has never been a smidgen of evidence that Iraq had anything whatsoever to do with it.

and we are at war today because there are still people out there who want to harm our country and hurt our citizens.

But there have been no attacks since 9/11. Oh, you mean the people who are fighting US troops in Iraq? That's quite different, of course. Defending one's country (Over 95% of the armed resistance to the US occupation is native Iraqi.) has always been the right of any person and always will be. Protesting that our intentions are good has precisely nothing to do with the issue.

Some may disagree with my decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, but all of us can agree that the world's terrorists have now made Iraq a central front in the war on terror.

I'm not so sure about that. Seems to me there's a big fight taking place there, but to be a "central front", there needs to be solidarity among Arabs. The Arab countries as a whole have to feel that the US is out to get them and that it's a matter of stopping the American offensive in Iraq or waiting for it to come to them. There are many neo-conservatives who feel the war there is just the beginning and many more Arabs believe it today than believed it in February 2003, but this is far from a general feeling. There is indeed an equivalent of America's "Lincoln Brigade" (Spanish Civil War) fighting in Iraq, but it has no official sponsorship of any discernible kind and there is no evidence that it's centrally directed.

These foreign terrorists violently oppose the rise of a free and democratic Iraq, because they know that when we replace despair and hatred with liberty and hope, they lose their recruiting grounds for terror.

Miss Manners instructed us in her column never to try and peer into the murky depths of someone else's soul. If we don't draw conclusions strictly from someone's words and actions, we're sure to make errors and misjudgments. I believe it's a mistake to try and guess what the ultimate goals and motivations of the Iraqis battling the American occupation are. The President is entirely correct however, when he points out that causing hatred in foreign lands is a really good way to provoke violence. Too bad he doesn't appear to understand that occupying an Arab country while giving the impression that he'll never leave is part of the problem. Iraqis long since concluded that America is an occupying power and that the label "liberators" stopped applying a long, long time ago.

Our troops are fighting these terrorists in Iraq so you will not have to face them here at home.

Wow! I sure hope Iraqis don't hear that. I don't think they'd appreciate being the sacrificial beasts for America's safety and security. How would Americans feel if China invades and then claims that it has to keep fighting a war that's expensive in US lives because they're trying to save Chinese lives at our expense? Bloggers discussed this "Flypaper" theory back a year or so ago and concluded it was a completely idiotic notion. There is no fixed or solid "lump of terrorism" and never will be. The number of people engaged in terroristic tactics depends on many, many factors that have very little to do with purely military responses.

We mourn every one of these brave men and women who have given his or her life for our liberty.

Very nice statement, but what does the Iraq War have to do with "our liberty"?

The terrorists know they cannot defeat our troops, so they seek to weaken our nation's resolve.

This strikes me as an accurate reading.

They know there is no room for them in a free and democratic Middle East, so the terrorists and insurgents are trying to get us to retreat. Their goal is to get us to leave before Iraqis have had a chance to show the region what a government that is elected and truly accountable to its citizens can do for its people.

Again, much too much mind-reading here. Bush is reading far too much about the goals and motivations of our armed opponents into what can discern from their actions. Accountability is a sick joke when one considers that "contractors" (i.e. mercenaries) are accountable to neither the American military chain of command nor to the Iraqi government. The CPA was never in control enough to do anything with them either. If an Iraqi gets roughed up or killed by a mercenary? Too bad, so sad.

Time and again, the Iraqi people have defied the skeptics who claim they are not up to the job of building a free society. Nearly a year ago, Iraqis showed they were ready to resume sovereignty. A few months ago, Iraqis showed they could hold free elections. This week, Iraqis have worked on an agreement to expand their constitutional drafting committee to ensure that all communities are represented in the process. I am confident that Iraqis will continue to defy the skeptics as they build a new Iraq that represents the diversity of their nation and assumes greater responsibility for their own security.

People in the right wing may have claimed that Iraqis aren't up to the task of being free. Bush has been suggesting for years that the left doesn't have any such faith. He's never supplied a shred of evidence.

And when they do, our troops can come home with the honor they have earned.

Senator John Kerry pointed out late in the campaign of 2004 that the US was building bases that looked awfully permanent to his eyes. I'll consider Bush's promise a lie until I see evidence to the contrary.

This mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight.

What exactly IS the mission? Having some idea of what the US is trying to achieve there would help. It's impossible to gauge how long the mission will be if no one has any idea what the endpoint looks like.

We're fighting a ruthless enemy that relishes the killing of innocent men, women, and children.

What turns them on even more is hastening the end of the American occupation of their country. The killing of innocents has always been part of the war over there, but the great majority of attacks have taken place against soldiers. Do they "relish" killing innocents? Again, this is mind-reading. Bush is trying to tell at a distance of 6,000+ miles what is in their souls.

By making their stand in Iraq, the terrorists have made Iraq a vital test for the future security of our country and the free world. We will settle for nothing less than victory.

"We" white man? I don't see you or anyone you know giving their sons or daughters to the fight. Far as we can see, conservatives have "other priorities". Awfully nice of Bush to make a commitment in our name while refusing to call upon right-wingers to enlist or urging his political allies to sign people up.

More news on the unsuitability of Bolton for any federal position

Obsidian Wings relates how John Bolton obstructed progress on securing nuclear materials in Russia. It seems that Russia had 68 tons of weapons-grade plutonium that it was willing to move to secure quarters, but Bolton held up progress for two years because he wanted to ensure that US contractors were not held liable for anything that happened on their watch.
Thus, the world lost two years in which more nuclear material could have been secured because the US had an incompetent hack (That's the nice interpretation) in charge of arms control.

Thomas Friedman's idea on how to win in Iraq

Juan Cole, Professor of History at the University of Michigan, comments on Thomas Friedman's idea of doubling US troop strength in Iraq to 260,000:

It is an index of how desperate the US political class is that impractical ideas are put forward by major journalists in newspapers of record that have already reported on their impracticality.

Cole's criticism is that Friedman suggestion fails to take into account many rather basic facts. The first of those involves the question of “How desperate is the US to fill the ranks?”

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, an estimated 15,000 "private security agents" are currently operating in Iraq.

Another estimate is that:

There are currently 130,000 US soldiers, 9000 British, and 15,000 other coalition soldiers operating in Iraq. With estimates of more than 30,000 private 'security experts,' mercenaries now compose the second largest military force in the country.

The US is already paying an arm and a leg to hire mercenaries from the US, India, South Africa and Chile. Obviously, the US wouldn't need to do that if people back home were stampeding into the recruiter's offices. Well, actually they are, but not in the way recruiters would like. Instead, angry parents are storming into recruiters offices to complain about recruiters pressuring their kids to sign up. Republicans are no help as no one on the right-wing side of the fence is putting out the call to join up.

Remember, the War Preachers, War Politicians, War Pundits and 101st Fighting Keyboardists refuse to call for enlistment. They refuse to fight themselves. And no one else wants to fight their war.

President Bush made a whole series of college commencement addresses in May, NONE of which included a call for college graduates to sign up for military service. As has been pointed out many times, most notably by Michael Moore in Fahrenheit 9/11, virtually none of the Congressmen who support the war in Iraq have sons or daughters serving there. Nor do many members of the Bush Administration have any experience with war (Bush failed to complete his Texas Air National Guard service, Rumsfeld served as a fighter pilot, Powell was Chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that's about it.) and very few have sons or daughters serving in Iraq. Bush's two daughters are both college graduates, making them eligible for Officer Candidate School, yet despite the fact that neither one has found a job a full year after graduation, neither one has shown any interest in signing up.

So it remains quite difficult to see where Friedman gets the idea that 130,000 soldiers could be added to the US Army.

Timmerman on Jon Stewart's Daily Show

On June 16, the Daily Show with Jon Stewart featured a talk with the author of "Countdown to Crisis," Kenneth Timmerman. Timmerman was of the opinion that Iranians would welcome a forcible “Regime Change” on the part of the US and would basically, as people predicted for Iraq a few years back, greet invading US troops with flowers and kisses.

One of ANSWER's local members is an Iranian who had visited his relatives over there a few months back. He briefed the rest of us at a recent meeting. Yes, the revolution that deposed the Shah was way back in 1979 and, quite understandably, people's enthusiasm has faded over time and Iranians are getting a bit uncomfortable and feeling a bit restricted. Is Iran a dictatorship? Not exactly. The president was properly elected by any criteria one might wish to apply, but he does not control all of his agencies. The religious authorities maintain quite a bit of control over national security agencies and areas touching on religion. There are avenues where Iranians are free to express themselves. Iran is neither a complete dictatorship nor is it a full-fledged democracy. Our speaker and I are in full agreement that Iran could certainly liberalize more and that Iranians would like to loosen the reins a bit.

But no, Iranians are not at all enthusiastic about being invaded by American troops. Yes, they are fully aware of the situation next door and feel that it is an unmitigated disaster. They have zero desire to repeat the experience. I believe Jon was entirely correct to express skepticism about Timmerman's rosy outlook on a possible American invasion of that country. My own understanding is that Iran would react to an invasion by first setting off bombs and launching small-scale guerrilla attacks all over the Mideast and then by adopting Russia's classic tactics against invaders, i.e. draw the enemy troops in and attack them when their supply lines get too stretched out and they're too deep inside the country to effectively withdraw or get relieved.

Seems to me that an invasion of Iran would be a very quick and effective way to annihilate what's left of America's armed forces after the disaster in Iraq.

Comparing AI's charges to descriptions of same

Amnesty International (AI) is raked over the coals by the author of Gulag. Anne Applebaum, who wrote about the Soviet gulag (The Gulag Archipelago was a name made famous by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in the mid-1970s when he made his way to the US and published a book by that name.) that referred to truly horrible camps in which 18 million Soviet citizens were forced to do hard manual labor and in which millions perished. They were quite extensive and were rooted in Soviet ideology and the Soviet state.
Amnesty International summarizes in their Americas section (emphasis theirs) :

Regional overview 2004

Respect for human rights remained an illusion for many as governments across the Americas failed to comply with their commitments to uphold fundamental human rights. Widespread torture, unlawful killings by police and arbitrary detention persisted. The US-led “war on terror” continued to undermine human rights in the name of security, despite growing international outrage at evidence of US war crimes, including torture, against detainees.
----------
National security and the ‘war on terror’

The blatant disregard for international human rights and humanitarian law in the “war on terror” continued to make a mockery of President George Bush’s claims that the USA was the global champion of human rights. Images of detainees in US custody tortured in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq shocked the world. War crimes in Iraq, and mounting evidence of the torture and ill-treatment of detainees in US custody in other countries, sent an unequivocal message to the world that human rights may be sacrificed ostensibly in the name of security.

President Bush’s refusal to apply the Geneva Conventions to those captured during the international armed conflict in Afghanistan and transferred to the US naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, was challenged by a judicial decision in November. The ruling resulted in the suspension of trials by military commission in Guantánamo, and the government immediately lodged an appeal. The US administration’s treatment of detainees in the “war on terror” continued to display a marked ambivalence to the opinion of expert bodies such as the International Committee of the Red Cross and even of its own highest judicial body. Six months after the Supreme Court ruled that the federal courts had jurisdiction over the Guantánamo detainees, none had appeared in court. Detainees reportedly considered of high intelligence value remained in secret detention in undisclosed locations. In some cases their situation amounted to “disappearance”.

The AI Secretary General then made the comment that has attracted so much furious denunciation:

In 1973 AI published its first report on torture. It found that: “torture thrives on secrecy and impunity. Torture rears its head when the legal barriers against it are barred. Torture feeds on discrimination and fear. Torture gains ground when official condemnation of it is less than absolute.” The pictures of detainees in US custody in Abu Ghraib, Iraq, show that what was true 30 years ago remains true today.

Despite the near-universal outrage generated by the photographs coming out of Abu Ghraib, and the evidence suggesting that such practices are being applied to other prisoners held by the USA in Afghanistan, Guantánamo and elsewhere, neither the US administration nor the US Congress has called for a full and independent investigation.

Instead, the US government has gone to great lengths to restrict the application of the Geneva Conventions and to “re-define” torture. It has sought to justify the use of coercive interrogation techniques, the practice of holding “ghost detainees” (people in unacknowledged incommunicado detention) and the "rendering" or handing over of prisoners to third countries known to practice torture. The detention facility at Guantánamo Bay has become the gulag of our times, entrenching the practice of arbitrary and indefinite detention in violation of international law. Trials by military commissions have made a mockery of justice and due process.

The USA, as the unrivaled political, military and economic hyper-power, sets the tone for governmental behavior worldwide. When the most powerful country in the world thumbs its nose at the rule of law and human rights, it grants a license to others to commit abuse with impunity and audacity. From Israel to Uzbekistan, Egypt to Nepal, governments have openly defied human rights and international humanitarian law in the name of national security and “counter-terrorism”.

US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld made it clear that he disapproved. (emphasis FoxNews)

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld defended the military's handling of detained terror suspects Wednesday while acknowledging that some have been mistreated, "sometimes grievously."
---------

Rumsfeld said the U.S. military has done more than any other force to liberate oppressed people and has gone to great lengths to ensure that detainees are free to practice their religion.

"Indeed, that's why the recent allegation that the U.S. military is running a gulag at Guantanamo Bay is so reprehensible," he said.

Note that the AI charges are considerably reduced from "restrict[ing] the application of the Geneva Conventions" to initiating "the practice of holding 'ghost detainees' ” to setting a bad example, thereby causing bad practices to spread throughout the rest of the world by Rumsfeld to a complaint about how AIs wording of the issue is "reprehensible". We then got the WaPo Op-Ed from Applebaum about how AI has supposedly overstated the issue.

Amnesty, in other words, was an organization that once knew the meaning of the word "gulag." Amnesty also once knew the importance of political neutrality. On its Web site, the organization still describes itself as "independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion." In the Cold War era, this neutrality was important, since it prevented the organization's publications, whether on prison food or prison deaths, from being seen as propaganda for one side or another.

I don't know when Amnesty ceased to be politically neutral or at what point its leaders' views morphed into ordinary anti-Americanism. But surely Amnesty's recent misuse of the word "gulag" marks some kind of turning point. In the past few days, not only has Amnesty's secretary general, Irene Khan, called the U.S. prison for enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, "the gulag of our times," but Amnesty's U.S. director, William Schulz, has agreed that U.S. prisons for enemy combatants are "similar at least in character, if not in size, to what happened in the gulag." In an interview, Schulz also said that foreign governments should prosecute U.S. officials, as if they were the equivalent of the Soviet Union's criminal leadership.

Again, the very serious issues that AI presents are reduced to a quibble over wording. Applebaum then goes into flights of fancy:

Thus Guantanamo is the gulag, President Bush is Generalissimo Stalin, and the United States, in Khan's words, is a "hyper-power" that "thumbs its nose at the rule of law and human rights" just like the Soviet Union. In part, I find this comparison infuriating because in the Soviet Union it would have been impossible for the Supreme Court to order the administration to change its policies in Guantanamo Bay, as it has done, or for the media to investigate Abu Ghraib, as they has done, or for Irene Khan to publish an independent report about anything at all.

First of all, as AI points out, yes "the Supreme Court ruled that the federal courts had jurisdiction over the Guantánamo detainees," BUT "none had appeared in court". Yes, it's marvelous that the Supreme Court "order[ed] the administration to change its policies", but it's hardly a cause for celebration that its ruling has yet to be enforced. AI did not make a comparison between Bush and Stalin, but it's hardly a stretch to suggest that the Bush Administration "thumbs its nose at the rule of law and human rights", that is, it's not a stretch IF one takes AI's whole list of charges seriously. If one, as Rumsfeld does, reduces the charges to quibbles over wording and whether the US respects the religion of detainees, then one might reasonably suspect AI of overstating its case.
Applebaum disputes the "gulag" charge "because our detention centers are not intrinsic to our political system, and because they are therefore not 'similar in character' to the gulag at all." This is a truly silly complaint that trivializes the issue at hand. Yes, it's entirely true that the "Gulag" was central to the Soviet system and was deeply rooted in Soviet ideology, but AI said nothing about how Guantanamo related to American political ideology. AI was simply comparing how prisoners were treated under the two systems. The answer is that they are treated in a manner much too similar for Americans to feel good about the comparison. Americans had this debate when Abu Ghraib first came to our collective attention. Liberals recoiled in complete disgust when conservatives were reduced to arguing that Americans behaved slightly better than had the regime of Saddam Hussein. We were like "Dude, if THAT's the best argument you can come up with...".

As I've said before, America once compared itself to a "city on a hill". Once, America set itself up as something that all Mankind could look to for an example as to how Mankind could govern itself. Once, America stood for something more than just grubby self-interest and immediate advantage.

BTW, Liberal Oasis points out that the charges are starting to stick. And yes, I'm interpreting the word "Mankind" to refer to ALL human beings.

Army recruitment down

On June 10^th (A Friday, generally a day to do a document dump for unwanted news that the government would rather keep quiet.), the government will release armed services recruitment figures for May. The figure released for April were disappointing to the government for two reasons: 1. It was low by absolute standards (42% below target, only 3821 recruits versus an expected 6600) and 2. it was low considering that schools are just letting out, freeing up many thousands of graduates to join the service. As there's a war on in Iraq and as a guerrilla war requires an extremely heavy reliance on infantry, this is an absolutely horrible time to be experiencing a shortfall.

Looking at President Bush's speeches given at graduation commencements over the last month, he gave no sign that he was at all concerned about the drop in recruitment. At Grand Rapids, he asked graduates to consider community service and did not mention the military option. He gave no indication as to exactly how terrorism will be defeated by students going into community service, but suggested that there might be a connection.

Possible reasons for potential recruits to be avoiding military service:

1. The war in Iraq is an unusually fierce one. The armed resistance appears to have a solid backbone of former Iraqi Army personnel. ABC News recently reprinted details from a sniper's online manual posted from Iraq. The instructions were well-written and contained many detailed tips for snipers that only an experienced Iraq Army officer or non-com would have thought of.
2. The incident of al Qa-qaa came to light shortly before the 2004 presidential election and briefly became an issue in that campaign. When US troops were advancing towards Baghdad in early 2003, they didn't have enough troops to both secure the various ammunition dumps and to continue their advance. The choice was made to continue on to Baghdad. Al Qa-qaa was a three-square-mile dump that contained hundreds of tons of very high-intensity plastic explosives. TV cameras had taken pictures of the ammunition dump where the plastic explosives were stored and their UN arms inspector seals were intact. Because the US could not provide enough troops to guard the dump, the seals were later found broken and all of the explosives missing. The result has been that the armed resistance in Iraq is extremely well-armed.
3. Furthermore, Iraq is a society where being armed with at least an AK-47 is not at all unusual. US solders confiscated quite a few weapons held by private individuals before realizing this.
4. The capacity of the armed resistance takes a real toll. The road between the Baghdad Airport and the Green Zone is probably the single most important road in the entire country and it costs $5,000 to hire the men and vehicles necessary to transit the road.
   
5. Unlike Vietnam, where there were quiet areas and various adult recreations (See the movie Full Metal Jacket) available, there are no quiet areas in Iraq where soldiers can have any down time and relax. Being a Muslim country means that soldiers must make do with more family-friendly-type activities then they are accustomed to.
   
6. The resistance has long contained foreign jihadists from around the Arab world, but it has been noted that foreigners have never formed more than about 5% of the forces opposing the US presence in Iraq. At the latest Veterans for Peace annual dinner, a member of the Iraq Veterans Against the War testified that he had been in Baghdad for a full year and never once clashed with anyone who was not a native Iraqi. As his tour of duty was in the very beginning of the war, the situation might very well have changed, but it's a serious stretch to claim that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has much to do with the struggle there. This creates a very serious troop morale/PR problem as colonial wars have never been popular in the US. The war in the Philippines from 1899 to 1913 is largely forgotten today, most likely because it uncomfortably reminds Americans of their own struggles against Great Britain from 1775 to 1783 and from 1812 to 1815.
7. The most critical part of the whole Abu Ghraib scandal as far as morale goes is that the American leadership demonstrated that it does not hold itself accountable for what happens on it's watch. Seymour Hersh has pointed out that:
   
   Three days later the army began an investigation. But it is what was not done that is significant. There is no evidence that President Bush, upon learning of the devastating conduct at Abu Ghraib, asked any hard questions of Rumsfeld and his own aides in the White House; no evidence that they took any significant steps, upon learning in mid-January of the abuses, to review and modify the military's policy toward prisoners. I was told by a high-level former intelligence official that within days of the first reports the judicial system was programmed to begin prosecuting the enlisted men and women in the photos and to go no further up the chain of command.
   ---
   Despite Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo - not to mention Iraq and the failure of intelligence - and the various roles they played in what went wrong, Rumsfeld kept his job; Rice was promoted to secretary of state; Alberto Gonzales, who commissioned the memos justifying torture, became attorney general; deputy secretary of defence Paul Wolfowitz was nominated to the presidency of the World Bank; and Stephen Cambone, under-secretary of defence for intelligence and one of those most directly involved in the policies on prisoners, was still one of Rumsfeld's closest confidants. President Bush, asked about accountability, told the Washington Post before his second inauguration that the American people had supplied all the accountability needed - by re-electing him. Only seven enlisted men and women have been charged or pleaded guilty to offences relating to Abu Ghraib. No officer is facing criminal proceedings.
   
   The basic problem here is that low-ranking American soldiers are still at risk for war crimes trials even though the people in charge have acted with impunity. If a Sergeant or a Corporal gets caught, they alone suffer the consequences.
   
8. If an American soldier perishes or is wounded, he or she will be returned to America in the dead of the night, hidden as though they were a shameful secret or an embarrassment.
   
9. The right wing as a whole is not calling on anybody to join up. "Remember, the War Preachers, War Politicians, War Pundits and 101st Fighting Keyboardists refuse to call for enlistment. They refuse to fight themselves. And no one else wants to fight their war."

John Bolton's difficulties

First off, as a military veteran, I'm absolutely infuriated by the news of Bolton being insubordinate. He blew off both his boss Colin Powell and his later boss Condoleezza Rice.

Two officials described a memo that had been prepared for Powell at the end of October 2003, before a critical international meeting on Iran, informing him that the United States was losing support for efforts to have the U.N. Security Council investigate Iran's nuclear program.

Bolton allegedly argued it would be premature to throw in the towel. "When Armitage's staff asked for information about what other countries were thinking, Bolton said that information couldn't be collected," according to one official with firsthand knowledge of the exchange.
----------------------
Bolton's time at the State Department under Rice has been brief. But authoritative officials said Bolton let her go on her first European trip without knowing about growing opposition there to Bolton's campaign to oust the head of the U.N. nuclear agency.

Bolton has been trying to replace Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who is perceived by some within the Bush administration as too soft on Iran.

"[Rice] went off without knowing the details of what everybody else was saying about how they were not going to join the campaign," a senior official said.

As I said, for me, this is called insubordination and it's quite enough to tell me that this guy has no business being anywhere in the government. Further problems from The Japan Times:

During this internationally televised event, Bush expressed his commitment to a diplomatic solution to the North Korea nuclear crisis, citing in particular the need for consensus among the other five participants in order to bring Pyongyang to the table. But he could not resist throwing in a gratuitous personal attack against North Korea's leader, calling him "a dangerous person . . . who starves his people" and "a tyrant."

All told, he mentioned the reclusive North Korean leader by name 12 times. While this falls far short of Bolton's record -- he once castigated the "Dear Leader" by name more than 40 times in a speech that many South Koreans still cite as a principle cause for the breakdown in the dialogue process -- it was sufficient for North Korea to call Bush a "hooligan bereft of any personality . . . and a Philistine whom we can never deal with."

Bush no doubt believes all the nasty things he says about Kim Jong Il (and they have the added benefit of being true). But to repeatedly say them publicly does not help the diplomatic process, especially at a time when his chief negotiator, newly appointed Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, was visiting China, Japan and the Republic of Korea to build the consensus that the president himself acknowledged was critical for his diplomatic approach to succeed.

The primary concern here is not what North Korea thinks. At the end of the day, it has more to gain from cooperating than from not cooperating and will likely allow itself to be bribed back to the negotiating table. The real concern is the impact that Bush's statements are having on other six-party participants: China, Japan, Russia and, most importantly, South Korea.

As the president has repeatedly stressed, the other members need to stick together and speak with one voice in pressuring Pyongyang to come back to the table. For this to happen, they have to believe that Washington is seriously committed to achieving a negotiated solution.

I have spent the last week traveling through five South Korean cities, speaking to college students and professors, security specialists, and nongovernmental organization representatives. I have met few people who believe that the Bush administration is serious when it says it is prepared to cut a deal with the current leadership in Pyongyang. I was not surprised.

The Bush Adminisration is taking the tack of saying something to the effect of: "You need a tough guy like Bolton to accomplish anything." But clearly, Bolton has not bothered to inform Bush that diplomacy requires some sort of tact, some degree of discretion, it's NOT just a matter of being honest and straightforward and saying whatever comes to mind. Obviously, Bolton can't brief Bush properly on these subjects if he himself is convinced that tact and discretion are not needed.
To illustrate further, please keep in mind that the following passage from NRO comes from a conservative, Republican-friendly website:

Bolton's crime was pointing out the obvious. Two weeks ago in a speech entitled "A Dictatorship at the Crossroads," he offended Supreme Leader Kim Jong Il by stating that the dictator "has not had to endure the consequences of his failed policies. While he lives like royalty in Pyongyang, he keeps hundreds of thousands of his people locked in prison camps with millions more mired in abject poverty, scrounging the ground for food. For many in North Korea, life is a hellish nightmare. As reported by the State Department Report on Human Rights, we believe that some 400,000 persons died in prison since 1972 and that starvation and executions were common. Entire families, including children, were imprisoned when only one member of the family was accused of a crime."

The writer reports that North Koreans were quite upset by these remarks, calling Bolton:

"human scum," "devoid of reason," "an ugly fellow who cannot be regarded as a human being," and a "bloodthirsty fiendish bloodsucker"

The fact that Bolton's observations were all entirely accurate is beside the point. How anyone can represent Bolton as a diplomat and a problem-solver is beyond me. The writer reports that negotiations did not completely collapse because North Korea saw the talks as too valuable to toss away merely because the diplomat in charge was an idiot. That hardly justifies such self-indulgent, degrading, immature name-calling. What have been the consequences of such juvenile antics? Japan Times again:

At a recent Pacific Forum conference on U.S.-ROK relations, I asked how many, in a group of about 40 American, Korean, Chinese, and Japanese regional specialists, believed that the Bush administration was actually pursuing regime change and would not negotiate with Kim under any circumstances. More than 90 percent raised their hands, despite the fact it is the stated position of the Bush administration, as reiterated by Bush, Rice and even Bolton, that it does not seek regime change in North Korea.

There is no possible way on Earth that talks with North Korea can succeed if 90% of the participants think the US has a hidden agenda to conquer North Korea and is simply being dishonest when it says otherwise. For this next passage, keep in mind that Bolton was the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security for four years previous to this.

NEW YORK/UNITED NATIONS - A United Nations review of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is ending in failure today, according to a Japanese delegate who said there is no agreement on new steps toward disarmament or measures to block nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea.
``We lost an opportunity to send out important messages on issues such as North Korea, Iran and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty,'' Japanese envoy Mine Yoshiki told reporters at the UN. ``Some countries put the emphasis on nonproliferation, some on disarmament, and we could not get any agreement.''

None of the three committees created to deal with the issues of disarmament, proliferation, peaceful uses of nuclear energy and terms of withdrawal from the treaty presented a substantive report.
----------------
The U.S. called for amendments to the treaty to block the development of nuclear weapons by Iran and North Korea, or a determination to refer those issues to the UN Security Council. Delegations led by Egypt and Iran demanded assurances of the nuclear powers that they wouldn't attack non-nuclear nations, and that they would ratify the proposed test ban treaty.

Neither side compromised and the delegates didn't adopt an agenda until May 11 or refer key issues to committees until May 19, leaving too little time for agreements.
-----------
Diplomats put much of the blame on the U.S., saying the Republican Bush administration wasn't willing to reaffirm disarmament commitments made at previous conferences...

Bolton isn't mentioned in this article by name, but it's clear that Bolton deserves a hefty portion of the blame.for the project being a complete failure.
For anyone to vote for this guy to have any position even remotely connected with diplomacy would demonstrate that the person has no interest in the US achieving anything in that field.

UPDATE 1Jun05: Salon.com (Free Day-Pass or subscription required) confirms that Bolton had everything to do with the failed nuclear treaty talks.

Friedman sees the light

Shut it down. Just shut it down.

I am talking about the war-on-terrorism P.O.W. camp at Guantánamo Bay. Just shut it down and then plow it under. It has become worse than an embarrassment. I am convinced that more Americans are dying and will die if we keep the Gitmo prison open than if we shut it down. So, please, Mr. President, just shut it down.
-------------------------
Why care? It's not because I am queasy about the war on terrorism. It is because I want to win the war on terrorism. And it is now obvious from reports in my own paper and others that the abuse at Guantánamo and within the whole U.S. military prison system dealing with terrorism is out of control. Tell me, how is it that over 100 detainees have died in U.S. custody so far? Heart attacks? This is not just deeply immoral, it is strategically dangerous.
------------------------
"This is not about being for or against the war," said Michael Posner, the executive director of Human Rights First, which is closely following this issue. "It is about doing it right. If we are going to transform the Middle East, we have to be law-abiding and uphold the values we want them to embrace - otherwise it is not going to work."

Well Tommy my boy, congrat-u-fricking-lations. You've finally acknowledged what was screamingly obvious to us anti-war liberals/progreessives/leftists from the very beginning. It's not that many of us opposed the War on Terror, most of us agreed that al Qaeda had to be punished for 9-11 and that taking down the Taliban government of Afghanistan seemed like an appropriate response (It's become obvious since then that the whole 9-11 story is a lot more complicated than “Bad guys attacked the US.”). But when Bush started talking about starting a war with Iraq, we noticed that he hadn't exactly done a bang-up job of restoring peace to Afghanistan. In fact, Afghanistan was in pretty lousy shape with very little reconstruction going on. By the time the Iraq War began, it was obvious that many of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay were probably not guilty of anything and should have been held as POWs under Geneva Conventions rules or released. Instead, the Bush Administration made up a whole new category of prisoners (“Enemy Combatants”) that had no defined rights under any recognized international agreement. Since the Iraq War began, it's become more and more obvious that Iraq has become an absolute hellhole for both Iraqis and the American troops sent to occupy the place. As Riverbend comments:

We've been watching the protests about the Newsweek article with interest. I'm not surprised at the turnout at these protests- the thousands of Muslims angry at the desecration of the Quran. What did surprise me was the collective shock that seems to have struck the Islamic world like a slap in the face. How is this shocking? It's terrible and disturbing in the extreme- but how is it shocking? After what happened in Abu Ghraib and other Iraqi prisons how is this astonishing? American jailers in Afghanistan and Iraq have shown little respect for human life and dignity- why should they be expected to respect a holy book?

Juan Cole has some good links about the topic.

Now Newsweek have retracted the story- obviously under pressure from the White House. Is it true? Probably. We've seen enough blatant disregard and disrespect for Islam in Iraq the last two years to make this story sound very plausible. On a daily basis, mosques are raided, clerics are dragged away with bags over their heads Several months ago the world witnessed the execution of an unarmed Iraqi prisoner inside a mosque. Is this latest so very surprising?

Detainees coming back after weeks or months in prison talk of being forced to eat pork, not being allowed to pray, being exposed to dogs, having Islam insulted and generally being treated like animals trapped in a small cage. At the end of the day, it's not about words or holy books or pork or dogs or any of that. It's about what these things symbolize on a personal level. It is infuriating to see objects that we hold sacred degraded and debased by foreigners who felt the need to travel thousands of kilometers to do this. That's not to say that all troops disrespect Islam- some of them seem to genuinely want to understand our beliefs. It does seem like the people in charge have decided to make degradation and humiliation a policy.

By doing such things, this war is taken to another level- it is no longer a war against terror or terrorists- it is, quite simply, a war against Islam and even secular Muslims are being forced to take sides.

Friedman is absolutely correct and as Riverbend points out, the damage goes far beyond some manageable PR problems. It goes to the very heart of the War on Terror. Abusing prisoners does the US a great more harm than good. At no time has this been an acceptable policy. At no time has it been justified. I just wish he had noticed this three-plus years ago as opposed to waiting until now.

How concerned are conservatives?

DailyKos maintains that

We know that recruitment is at crisis levels. We know that deaths and injuries are depleting our ranks. We know that at least 5,000 soldiers have deserted.

And the bad news keeps on coming.

Last year, Army lieutenants and captains left the service at an annual rate of 8.7% -- the highest since 2001. Pentagon officials say they expect the attrition rate to improve slightly this year. Yet interviews with several dozen military officers revealed an undercurrent of discontent within the Army's young officer corps that the Pentagon's statistics do not yet capture.

Young captains in the Army are looking ahead to repeated combat tours, years away from their families and a global war that their commanders tell them could last for decades. Like other college grads in their mid-20s, they are making decisions about what to do with their lives.

And many officers, who until recently had planned to pursue careers in the military, are deciding that it's a future they can't sign up for.

There's a word for what's happening to our military: "hollow army". We experienced it after Vietnam, and Bush is busy recreating that experience.

But despite the personnel crisis faced by our armed forces, the War Preachers, War Politicians, War Pundits, and the 101st Fighting Keyboardists still refuse to call for sacrifice. They refuse to urge their followers and readers to enlist in their cause. They, themselves, refuse to serve. They'd rather others suffer the consequences of their neocon fantasies.

------------

We no longer have a volunteer army capable of meeting the requirements of their military adventures. Yet they refuse a call to arms.

How do pro-war conservatives respond to the shortfall the Army is experiencing? Well, we have a start by the Commander-in-Chief, who spoke to young people graduating college:

"As your generation takes its place in the world, all of you must make this decision: Will you be a spectator or a citizen?" Bush asked about 900 seniors graduating from this liberal arts college.

------

In his commencement speech, Bush mentioned advancing freedom around the world and voiced his support for faith-based, or religious, groups getting involved in social service.

"To make a difference in this world, you must be involved by serving a higher calling here and abroad," Bush said. "You will make your lives richer and build a more hopeful future for our world.”

Bush's actual call for young people to devote themselves to community service is not reproduced, but it's clear that he was not asking people to sign up for military service. The piece is mainly concerned about the protesters who marred the ceremony and only minimally about what Bush said. The site I reproduced a section from below, Newsmax, doesn't seem terribly concerned about the Army's manpower shortage either. Here are their top stories of the day for 23May05:

Media Want More Photos of Dead GIs
Evangelicals Targeting Ivy League
Pirro Moves to Challenge Hillary Clinton
Mass. Justice: I 'Cherish' Judicial Activism
Charge Your Credit Card for Israel
Steve Roberts: DeLay Deserves Jail
Tillmans: Army Disgraced Memory of Pat
Sex Offenders Get Medicaid Viagra
Tim Russert Rips Howard Dean Apart
Clinton Criticized for Charging Charity
Poll: Byrd Vulnerable in 2006
Frist Said to Have 'Nuclear Option' Votes
Ethics Committee to Probe Harry Reid
DA Pressured to Quit Over DeLay Remark
Al-Jazeera Nixes Saddam Pics
Schwarzenegger on Fund Drive

And just for the fun of it, here are what their individual writers had to say

Limbaugh: Old Media Liberal Bias
LeBoutillier: Major Political Issues
Farber: Civilized vs. Uncivilized
Metcalf: Don't Expand Patriot Act
Weyrich: Bush Apologizes for Yalta
de Borchgrave: On a Terrorist List
Horowitz: The End of Time
Williams: Muslim Women Enslaved
Putnam: Supporting Tom Tancredo
Estrich: Frist, DeLay Move GOP
Navrozov: Thoughts on Hitler

Not much about the manpower shortage there. Let's see what Free Republic has to say:

Latest News on the Filibuster Showdown
Latest on Newsweek's Treasonous Koran Scandal
Latest News on Hillary Scandals
Latest News on Tom DeLay
Latest News on Bolton Confirmation

Well, how about their News / Activism, Front Page News section?

High court turns aside Mexican's appeal of death sentence in dispute involving foreigners' rights
Anti-Hijab Party Wins Elections, Schroeder Calls Snap Polls (Germany May Be Waking)
Chavez considers breaking US ties (There's One Born Every Day)
Nelson Mandela’s son-in-law wanted for rape in Connecticut (judge let him leave the country)
CRYING FOR STANDARDS - Kosovo
Rather Praises Mapes, CBS News: "Kingdom of Journalistic Knights"
U.N. Forces Using Tougher Tactics to Secure Peace
Sticky wicket in Koran story
Court Dismisses Death Row Rights Appeal
India's BJP sees ISI hand in theatre blasts-'Blasts are a conspiracy': Sikh group
The price of Asian conflict

What are TownHall's most emailed articles of the day?

John Stossel: The H2O challenge
Ann Coulter: Newsweek dissembled, Muslims dismembered!
Michelle Malkin: It's not just Newsweek
Thomas Sowell: Big-time bigotry
Jeff Jacoby: Why Islam is disrespected
Dennis Prager: Newsweek and the rioters
Thomas Sowell: The Senate's 'Dirty Harry'
Thomas Sowell: Newsweak?
Mike S. Adams: The University of Nude Caucasians at Wilmington
Mike S. Adams: Silence that kills
Phyllis Schlafly: Bush buries the shame of Yalta
Jonah Goldberg: Invasion of the America Snatchers
Brent Bozell: No riots for Hollywood
Mona Charen: Caution: Muslims easily inflamed
Charles Krauthammer: Nuclear? No, Restoration
Walter E. Williams: Ripping off the system
Caroline B. Glick: Israel's immigration idiocy
Rebecca Hagelin: The power of parenting
Doug Giles: Developing the Disaster Master Mind
Marvin Olasky: Unanswered questions about Newsweek's false story

Seems their main concern is that Newsweek isn't toeing the line, that Newsweek is proving to be an insufficiently patriotic citizen and failing to do it's part to convince everybody that things are going swell in Iraq. In short, it's only the progressives/liberals/leftists who appear to be concerned about the manpower shortage that's now breaking the Army and that's leaving it a hollowed-out force. The problem here is that officers, both commissioned and non-commissioned, are not produced overnight. The Navy has requirements for making rank that can get a person advanced rapidly, but "Time in Rate" is also an important consideration. An officer or petty officer needs to spend time in the job, grasping the subtleties of leadership and the technical aspects of his or her job before they become good at it. If people drop out of the service and go off to pursue other careers because the Army is looking like a lousy place to raise a family from, where casualties return to the USA in the dead of the night, without the traditional recognitions they deserve, where the wealthy don't sign up to join their less-fortunate brothers and sisters, where the war just appears to be grinding down people with no end in sight, it's not terribly surprising that the Army will start showing signs of severe strain over the next decade or two as a thinned-out officer corps takes command after the next several years.
For those of us who advocate for a stronger military, part of the problem is the actual physical shape of the Army, the hollowed-out force that we're now defending our country with. The other part is that if the Army feels that it's being carelessly used with no consideration for it's people (See complaints about lack of armor for Humvees) then morale will go down and effectiveness will go down with it.

President not informed of possible attack for 36 minutes after “All Clear” sounded

When a Navy ship goes into an alert, the proper words to be passed from either the bridge or Damage Control Central are: “General Quarters, General Quarters, All hands man your General Quarters Stations!!!” That means the ship is facing a situation dire enough that everybody on board needs to be on the alert and at their pre-arranged places. It also means that several crew-members have to change into special outfits for fighting fires and that all kinds of equipment has to be made available and ready for use. Ammo lockers should be opened up, flak jackets and helmets should be put on and the crew made generally ready for anything. If the ship suddenly loses power and the lights go out, the crewmembers don't wait for an alarm to be sounded, going to General Quarters is automatic.

Now, when the country is facing an unexpected problem that may or may not call for a military solution, what should the President do? Seems to me that going to General Quarters is the obvious answer. Where does that mean the President should go? A command post. On board Air Force One will do as that plane is specifically designed to act as a flying command post. Any Navy ship will do as each and every one has a bridge and the great majority have a separate DCC. If there's more than one ship available, the President would go to the largest one. Just about any military base will do nicely, as these normally have a headquarters that can serve as a command post.

There are two reasons for the President to get to a command post:

1. Safety. A ship or a plane can get underway or take off and can promptly be surrounded by escorts, i.e. other ships and planes. Military bases are normally placed in safe, defensible areas and the base command post is usually well inside the base, able to be surrounded by troops. Of course, there's a reason to want the President to be safe. Being safe is not an end in itself. The President is only one person and there are 250 million other people in the United States for us to worry about. Accordingly, we're concerned about:

2. Communications. The other primary reason is so that the President can communicate with the Armed Services. Not just one-way communications. Both directions are needed. The President must be informed in real time as to what's going on and he should respond in real time so that the proper orders can be issued. An example would be during the September 11^th attacks in 2001.

(8:46 a.m.)

Two F-15 fighters are ordered to scramble from Otis Air National Guard Base in Massachusetts to find Flight 11, approximately 190 miles from the known location of the plane and 188 miles from New York City. [8:39, Channel 4 News, 9/13/01, 8:44, CNN, 9/17/01, 8:44, Washington Post, 9/15/01, 8:44, Los Angeles Times, 9/17/01, 8:46, NORAD, 9/18/01, 9/11 Commission Report, 6/17/04] Supposedly, NORAD makes the decision to scramble after only one phone call, as the decision is made to act first and get clearances later. Yet there is a nine minute gap between when the 9/11 Commission says NORAD is notified about the hijacking, and when the fighters are ordered scrambled (see (8:37 a.m.)). Stranger, the pilots received several unofficial warnings before the official one (see (8:40 a.m.)) and were possibly warned as early as twelve minutes before this (see8:34 a.m.). One of the pilots recalls sitting in the cockpit, ready and waiting for the scramble order to come. [BBC, 9/1/02] Yet it's supposedly another six minutes before they take off (see 8:52 a.m.)

(After 8:46 a.m.)

Bush will say in a speech later that evening: “Immediately following the first attack, I implemented our government's emergency response plans.” [White House, 9/11/01] But in fact, seeing the images on television, lower-level officials activate the Conplan—the Interagency Domestic Terrorism Concept of Operations Plan. The plan, created in response to an executive order by President Clinton, details the responsibility of seven federal agencies if a terrorist attack occurs. It gives the FBI the responsibility for activating the plan and alerting other agencies. [Wall Street Journal 3/22/04]

(After 9:03 a.m.)

Shortly after the second WTC crash, calls from fighter units start “pouring into NORAD and sector operations centers, asking, ‘What can we do to help?’ ” At Syracuse, New York, an [Air National Guard] commander [tells NEADS commander Robert] Marr, “Give me 10 min. and I can give you hot guns. Give me 30 min. and I'll have heat-seeker [missiles]. Give me an hour and I can give you slammers [Amraams].” Marr replies, “I want it all.” [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/02] Supposedly, Marr says, “Get to the phones. Call every Air National Guard unit in the land. Prepare to put jets in the air. The nation is under attack.” [Newhouse News, 1/25/02] Canadian Major General Eric Findley, based in Colorado and in charge of NORAD that day, supposedly has his staff immediately order as many fighters in the air as possible. [Ottawa Citizen, 9/11/02] Yet another account says those calls don't take place until about an hour later: “By 10:01 a.m., the command center began calling several bases across the country for help.” [Toledo Blade, 12/9/01] The 9/11 Commission later concludes that a command for other bases to prepare fighters to scramble isn't given until 9:49 (see 9:49 a.m.). In fact, it appears the first fighters from other bases to take off are those from Syracuse at 10:44. This is over an hour and a half after Syracuse's initial offer to help, and not long after a general ban on all flights, including military ones, is lifted (see (9:26 a.m.) and (10:31 a.m.)). These are apparently the first fighters scrambled from the ground aside from three at Langley, two at Otis, and two Toledo, Ohio fighters ordered scrambled at 10:01 that launch fifteen minutes later (see 10:01 a.m.). [Toledo Blade 12/9/01]

(9:03-9:06 a.m.)

Bush enters Sandra Kay Daniels' second-grade class for a photo-op to promote Bush's education policies. [Daily Mail, 9/8/02] Numerous reporters who travel with the president, as well as members of the local media, watch from the back of the room. [AP, 8/19/02 (D)] Altogether there about 150 people in the room, 16 of them the children in the class. He is introduced to the children and poses for a number of staged pictures. The teacher then leads the students through some reading exercises (video footage shows this lasts about three minutes). [Salon, 9/12/01 (B)] Bush later claims that while he is doing this lesson, he is thinking what he will say about the WTC crash. “I was concentrating on the program at this point, thinking about what I was going to say. Obviously, I felt it was an accident. I was concerned about it, but there were no alarm bells.” [Washington Times, 10/7/02] The children are just getting their books from under their seats to read a story together when Chief of Staff Andrew Card comes in to tell Bush of the second WTC crash (see (9:06 a.m.)). [Daily Mail, 9/8/02] [9:02, Washington Times, 10/8/02, 9:03, Telegraph, 12/16/01, 9:04, Daily Mail, 9/8/02, according to photographer Eric Draper, who is in the room] Note that Card comes in at the conclusion of the first half of the planned lesson, and “[seizes] a pause in the reading drill to walk up to Mr. Bush's seat.” [Washington Times, 10/7/02, Washington Times, 10/8/02] Why doesn't Bush take this opportune moment to leave the room?

Clearly, had the President responded in the way that he said he did, the scrambling of jets after the attack on the first World Trade Center tower could have been accomplished in a smooth and coordinated manner without all of the confusions and hold-ups that did, in fact, occur. That is not to say that it would have been accomplished in that manner, but the chances of a proper response would have been enormously increased.

9:29 a.m.

Still inside Booker Elementary School, Bush gives a brief speech in front of about 200 students, plus many teachers and reporters. [Daily Mail, 9/8/02] He says, “Today we've had a national tragedy. Two airplanes have crashed into the World Trade Center in an apparent terrorist attack on our country” (see the text of the speech here [Federal News Service, 9/11/01]). The talk occurs at exactly the time and place stated in his publicly announced advance schedule—making Bush a possible terrorist target. [MSNBC 9/22/01; Washington Post 9/12/01; CNN 9/12/01; New York Times 9/12/01; Federal News Service 9/10/01]

(Between 9:45-9:55 a.m.)

At some point after the White House is evacuated (see (9:45 a.m.)), Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke institutes Continuity of Government plans. Important government personnel, especially those in line to succeed the President if he dies, are evacuated to alternate command centers. Additionally, Clarke gets a phone call from the PEOC command center containing Vice President Cheney and National Security Advisor Rice. An aide tells him, “Air Force One is getting ready to take off, with some press still on board. [Bush will] divert to an air base. Fighter escort is authorized. And … Tell the Pentagon they have authority from the President to shoot down hostile aircraft, repeat, they have authority to shoot down hostile aircraft.” However, acting Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Richard Myers wants the rules of engagement clarified before the shoot down order is passed on, so Clarke orders guidelines given to pilots.

Had the President been doing his job and not stopping to listen to schoolchildren read and making speeches, perhaps the order to shoot down planes might have been given in time to get the plane that was headed for the Pentagon.

So having gone through all this and having supposedly learned lessons from it, what was the response on Wednesday, 11 May 2005?

NEW YORK On the day after more than 30,000 people -- including the vice president, the first lady, and a former first lady -- were evacuated from their offices or homes in Washington, D.C., but the president, who was biking in Maryland was not notified until the threat passed, reporters grilled Press Secretary Scott McClellan at his daily briefing.

**

Q: Scott, yesterday the White House was on red alert, was evacuated. The first lady and Nancy Reagan were taken to a secure location. The Vice President was evacuated from the grounds. The Capitol building was evacuated. The continuity of government plan was initiated. And yet the president wasn't told of yesterday's events until after he finished his bike ride, about 36 minutes after the all-clear had been sent. Is he satisfied with the fact that he wasn't notified about this?

McCLELLAN: Yes. I think you just brought up a very good point -- the protocols that were in place after Sept. 11 were followed. The president was never considered to be in danger because he was at an off-site location. The president has a tremendous amount of trust in his Secret Service detail. ...

Which is very nice to hear, it's very nice that the President was safe, but this completely misses the point that I brought up earlier, the fact that the President is responsible for the lives and well-being of 250 million fellow citizens. Our press corps demonstrates it's not completely out to lunch:

Q: The fact that the president wasn't in danger is one aspect of this. But he's also the commander in chief. There was a military operation underway. Other people were in contact with the White House. Shouldn't the commander in chief have been notified of what was going on?

McCLELLAN: John, the protocols that we put in place after Sept. 11 were being followed. They did not require presidential authority for this situation. I think you have to look at each situation and the circumstances surrounding the situation. And that's what officials here at the White House were doing. ...

Q: Even on a personal level, did nobody here at the White House think that calling the president to say, by the way, your wife has been evacuated from the White House, we just want to let you know everything is OK?

McCLELLAN: Actually, all the protocols were followed and people were -- officials that you point out were taken to secure locations or evacuated, in some cases. I think, again, you have to look at the circumstances surrounding the situation, and it depends on the situation and the circumstance. ...

Q: Nobody thought to say, by the way, this is going on, but it's all under control?

McCLELLAN: And I think it depends on each situation and the circumstances surrounding the situation when you're making those decisions.

With all due respect to Mr. McClellan and the rest of the Bush Administration, NO, this decision did NOT depend on “the circumstances”! The circumstances were UNKNOWN! No one knew exactly what the circumstances were! How was anybody have supposed to have made an intelligent decision on the circumstances when the person who was responsible for making that decision was out bicycling around, miles from the scene?

Q: I think there's a disconnect here because, I mean, yesterday you had more than 30,000 people who were evacuated, you had millions of people who were watching this on television, and there was a sense at some point -- it was a short window, a 15-minute window, but there was a sense of confusion among some on the streets. There was a sense of fear. And people are wondering was this not a moment for the president to exercise some leadership, some guidance during that period of time?

MR. McCLELLAN: The president did lead, and the president did that after September the 11th when we put the protocols in place to make sure that situations like this were addressed before it was too late. And that was the case -- that was the case in this situation. ...

I'm absolutely stunned at the assertion that the President showed leadership in this case, though fortunately McClellan does not go so far as to insult our intelligence by suggesting that Bush's actions on the day of 9/11 were anything to celebrate. “Protocols” are not really necessary. Protocols aren't really the point. The point is that America needs a President who understands what his job is and who does it, not a President who is simply oblivious to what's happening.