On Doug Feith's "War and Decision"
By AcademicElephant Posted in Afghanistan | Doug Feith | Iraq | War | War and Decision | WMD — Comments (41) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Promoted by Dan McLaughlin
[In the interests of full disclosure, Doug is a friend and I am biased in favor of him and of this book - AE.]
Doug Feith’s War and Decision came out on Tuesday. In my opinion, everyone who is interested in the greatest challenge to our country in a generation, the Global War on Terror, should read it.
War and Decision is the first book written by someone who was actually part of the decision-making process in the Pentagon on and after 9/11. Up till now, we have been reading largely second-hand accounts that report on events in which the authors were not directly involved and that are thus heavily reliant on selective sourcing. The result, as we all know, has not been pretty and the debate, particularly on Iraq, has disintegrated into finger pointing and hysteria.
Read On....
To my reading, the book does two important things to improve this situation. First, it undermines the accepted narrative of what happened (and is happening) in Afghanistan and Iraq with a lucid and well-documented account of events told from the viewpoint of someone who was there. You may or may not agree with all the decisions that were made, but at the very least readers will come away from the book with the sense that serious people were approaching them deliberately and with the best interests of the American people at heart. The story Feith tells runs so contrary to conventional wisdom that Bret Stephens noted that it seems like “revisionist history” by comparison.
Second, it provides substantial ammunition for those supporters of the mission in Iraq who have had enough of acting as punching bags in innumerable encounters with opponents of the war—at work, at dinner parties, even at church. In many ways, the most egregious failure of the Bush administration has come in the area of strategic communications. By failing to get the word out on what they were doing and, even more importantly, why they were doing it, the administration left many supporters adrift and without sufficient information to refute the now accepted canards of “no pre-war planning,” “lies about WMD,” etc. War and Decision provides, at last, both a logical narrative and documents to support it that contradict the standard anti-war boilerplate.
Finally, War and Decision is disciplined, well-written and tightly-edited, qualities that are all too often missing from typical Washington memoirs. This is no work of aggrieved or defensive self-justification. Doug Feith has a story to tell, and he tells it well, but he is content to let it stand on its own merits and let the reader make up their own minds. The result is a book that will finally allow the debate on Iraq to be an informed one.
So give it a read and let me know what you think.
I'm looking for something more than the belated self-justification cum mea culpa we got from MacNamara.
Everyone knows that Doug Feith was in charge of the group in the DoD that manipulated a lot of the Iraq intel and used the INC and Ahmed Chalabi for a lot of horrible intel. Regardless if you are for or against the Iraq war you can agree Doug Feith did a horrible job. I herd him on a radio talk show where he blamed the CIA for a lot of the bad intel on Iraq and the reality is that he was the one in the DoD cherry picking the intel he liked. This book is most likely filled with BS and probably was only written to try to save face. Good luck with that Doug.
but when you use terms like "most likely" and "probably" for a book you obviously haven't read it speaks volumes for what "everyone knows" in your herd.
________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
I listened to enough of his BS over the radio. I'll never touch his book. I want to win this war but in order to do so we need to figure out what we did wrong and learn from it. All public accounts I've seen have said feith was part of what made things go south.
An unbiased opinion from the under 80** crowd!
**IQ
You might have better spent your six days on RS reading the book, then discussing issues based on something other than what "everybody knows." Or were you actually in on the meetings? Did you see the intel? Are you so sure "everybody" really knows what happened?
Tommy Franks called Mr. Feith "The stupidest ******* guy on the planet" You must not have graced the general with your splendid presence.
I've read several books on the run-up to the Iraq War, and few people have anything nice to say about Feith. Your perception of Feith reveals you're familiar with George Packer's "The Assassin's Gate," a work more graceful than penetrating, but a fascinating read.
As an insider, Feith has the opportunity to provide a valuable source for future historians: that a Harvard Ph.D. like Henry Kissinger will endorse this book suggests Feith uses this opportunity to illuminate quite a bit on how the government ended up deciding for war in 2002.
“One element in the strength of any government is the patriotism of the people, their love for its institutions, their pride for its name and achievements.” ~ William McKinley
Now, just go away.
No thanks. I'll be around representing the Buchanan Brigades.
Well, I'm not sure what you hope to achieve in a thread designed for constructive debate over a book you haven't read and don't intend to touch. Interesting word choice there, by the way. Are you concerned that the book would sully you somehow?
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Anyhow, I saw Feith in person give a speech on his upcoming book a few months ago. He had some ranting idiot in the audience that said the same stuff. He basically told the guy that he didn't know what he was talking about, explained in a clear, matter of fact sort of way what happened, and went on. The guy looked like a total fool.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
Although he'd be advised to stop telling the rest of you what you're really thinking. It never ends well.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Look, aside from the fact that the JAM appears to be getting its clock cleaned by American and Iraqi troops, let's cut to the chase here...
Feith is right about the CIA.
The CIA is, in all probability, the most hideously inept intelligence agency on Earth. The old notion of the hearse and the two car funeral applies to the CIA. They've got a lot of great young talent, but as you go up the food chain, they become like any Washington beauracracy: go along to get along to survive. George Tenet was an example of the Commitment to Excellence in Mediocrity.
Democrats love the CIA right now. Why? Because the CIA leaks to their house organ, the Times and the WaPo. They're too filled with ambition to see the larger danger to the Republic of an institution that knows how to wage war against its own President, but not bin Laden.
Case in point? The very Ahmad Chalabi you condemn. In 1996, he was in exile in London helping to prepare for a General's Coup against Saddam that the CIA had put together.
Of course, since it was a CIA coup, not only did Saddam's Mukhabarat know all about it, but the Iranians had gotten wind of it and tried to see if they could glean the extent of the CIA network. Chalabi learned through a source in Baghdad that the General's Coup had been compromised and a bunch of folks were headed to the shredder. He tried to warn his CIA handler, who sent it up the line, but the Agency insisted that this would work, and jumped to the conclusion that Chalabi was a liar.
Of course, the Mukhabarat rolled up the coup plotters. Meantime, Iranian agents did some math of their own inside the coup and rolled up an additional CIA network in Iran as a result of the failed coup (liberals, for some reason, like to blame this rollup on the Valerie Plame outing-it was almost a decade earlier). It was a disaster.
Of course, the CIA never forgave Chalabi for being right. Chalabi turned out to be a populist Iraqi politician whose house is in the Red Zone. The CIA? Well, let's just say that people don't use the terms "CIA" and "Mossad" interchangeably, do they...
I don't agree with Doug Feith and the other people around Rummy about everything they did. I think they stuck with some dumb thinking for too long and came close to running a good army into the ground. However, Feith was right in general terms, and he was dadgum right about the CIA.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
Chalabi a populist politician? Now who's drinking the bong water...
If Chalabi is so great and such a populist how come his INC isn't even in the iraqi legislator anymore?
Why did the CIA, State and even the DoD stop funding his INC?
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
You didn't know that, did you, Mr. Known Facts?
He has brokered agreement after agreement between factions in the National Assembly, but what's more, he's turned into a politician that has street popularity because people from any sectarian group believe they can go to him to get things done.
Remember, Friends don't let friends get their news from Daily Kos. As a matter of fact, they'd be much better informed about Chalabi, if they'd read the Wall Street Journal once in a while (please read the whole thing).
I tried to tell you why the CIA hates Chalabi: he showed up their incompetence during the 1996 Generals' Coup and the CIA hates it when they are proved wrong by an outsider. So, they hate the outsider instead of reforming themselves.
By the way, the fact that Chalabi receives no funding from the Americans has only increased his popularity and nationalist cachet among Iraqis.
Now go back to Kos and get some new talking points.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
"By the way, the fact that Chalabi receives no funding from the Americans has only increased his popularity and nationalist cachet among Iraqis."
Your quote may very well be true but it sure doesn't explain why we took him off our payroll. Maybe the reason is that he screwed us over and can't be trusted. The fact that some iraqis like him doesn't mean he did good for us. He is an opportunist nothing more, nothing less.
Funny how anyone that disagrees with you is automatically from Kos..
I recall Chalabi has a conviction for bank fraud or some such in Jordan. Wasn't he also implicated in Iraq a year or two back for counterfeiting Saddam-era currency?
Hardly a sterling character.
Bank fraud to the tune of 300 mil. I'm not surprised some people here are defending him. You can find an apologist for anyone nowadays.
your daily adventures in self-beclowning have increased from nosebleed-inducing to boils-on-the-butt levels. You might not think this is of a concern to you but it is.
Want to ratchet the invective back a notch and try coherent commentary?
"A man does what he can and endures what he must."
Diane Rehm said things like, "It has seemed to many of us that the administration was simply hell-bent on war, regardless of the justification." (I don't have that quote exactly right, but it's close, and "hell-bent on war" is exact.)
And she said these things right after Feith gave several good reasons for going to war.
If anyone is deaf to reason in this debate, it's folks like Diane Rehm and her followers. (I say this as someone who enjoys the debates on her show. But she's got her horse blinders on for this particular issue.)
And you're proving it by calling the book "BS" before you even take a look at it.
Douglas Feith isn't the only official of the Bush Administration to come forward with his account of what he claims "really" went on behind closed doors.
I do know that others have come forward with their own accounts: Richard Clarke, General Tommy Franks, George Tenet, and still others. PBS "Frontline," the Washington Post, and other organs of the MSM have done numerous interviews with various officials as well.
And these accounts don't always agree with each other. It's difficult for me to know whether any one official is now telling an accurate account, or is simply covering his own a**, or feathering his own nest, or whatever.
But I don't really care about the mechanics of how we got here. I know the inputs--the attitudes and philosophies of the neo-conservatives who became the Bush "brain trust" in the first years of the War on Terror. And we all know the outputs--the decisions that were ultimately made. What happened inside the "black box" that was the Bush Administration is of lesser interest to me.
"In many ways, the most egregious failure of the Bush administration has come in the area of strategic communications. By failing to get the word out on what they were doing"
I don't agree with this. The most egregious failure was sticking too long with a strategy that wasn't working and too long with people - while great patriots deserving our appreciation - who didn't produce the required results.
It wasn't until General Petraeus took the lead that things got on track. Before him, it was a bloody mess.
I don't blame anyone for not getting it right from the beginning. I don't blame the president for having the wrong people running the war at first. Every war needs to be fought in its own unique way and not everyone is capable of running a war. It's a mysterious talent - Grant was good at just about nothing else. Same with Patton.
By the way, McCain was right about this before just about anyone. I am confident he will make a tremendous Commander in Chief.
I could not agree more. While media coverage is slanted and the president could do a better job of articulating the reasons why we must continue fighting the war, the Bush Administration committed several blunders early on, such as disbanding the Iraqi army, failing to restore law and order in Baghdad in April 2003, and the Abu Ghraib mess that abetted the rise of the insurgency, and failed to implement a strategy that could yield the desired result.
“One element in the strength of any government is the patriotism of the people, their love for its institutions, their pride for its name and achievements.” ~ William McKinley
and the Bush Administration decided against "occupation" in favor of the Coalition Provisional Authority (an international body). As of 30 June 2004, Iraq was once again a fully sovereign nation.
"An Historic Review of CPA Accomplishments" will certainly surprise many.
(Warning: 8.3 MB Word file - 71 Pages)
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
definitely second in importance, however.
Bush has conceded a great deal to critics who have repeated many very unfair statements until everyone accepted them. And that has hurt public opinion and deprived Bush of the political capital he needed desperately to turn the war around.
that I've been able to access (and they are "numerous" to say the least), including the recently translated Iraqi Intelligence documents, lend much credibility to Doug Feith's public accounting of events.
I look forward to reading War and Decision.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
was a lot of gigantic mistakes made early on. The army should have been reconstituted just to try to get the weapons back and the Baath party irregulars [career-types who only joined for "professional" reasons] should not have been excluded from government office or contract work.
However, the endemic corruption of the country, along with criminal gangs, has gone under-reported by the "Mainstream Media" in favor of bashing Bush and emphasizing explosions.
Tenet's book was self-serving. Read "Legacy of Ashes" for a gimlet-eyed view of the CIA. "Assassin's Gate" isn't as good as "Cobra II" in delineating a clear-eyed view of what went on.
"Tommy Franks called Mr. Feith "The stupidest ******* guy on the planet" You must not have graced the general with your splendid presence. "
GulfWarI -Initially the military was praised for the amazing Hail Mary pass which trapped the Iraqis in Kuwait. It was only much later that we found out the tactic was only put in place because Cheney's brain trust had pushed for an operation deeper in Iraq. If the brain trust had not done its work the Army plan might well have been a basic attack from the front.
I wonder, if in a number of years, we will find that the Feith brain trust was right.
WRT to the dispandment of the Iraqi military. General Garner had negotiated to have thousands of former Iraqi military employed then along came El Supremo Bremer who cancelled the orders. The Bush Administration knew nothing about Bremer's actions unti after he did them. Bremer was a State department hack. Bremer may be also why we have the biggest most expensive embassy in Iraq and a Green Zone.
Franks said that? Show me.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
Wikipedia has a nice summary of various opinions on their page devoted to Feith.
“One element in the strength of any government is the patriotism of the people, their love for its institutions, their pride for its name and achievements.” ~ William McKinley
Yah, and that page specifically also says that Franks told Chris Mathews something very different, and never confirmed he said that.
Sounds a lot to me like something he may have said in a burst of anger when two smart men are disagreeing on something, but that it wasn't a serious assessment.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
The State Dept gave Woodward the most info for that book. Many of the others wouldn't talk to him much or at all.
I got the "Tommy Franks called Mr. Feith "The stupidest ******* guy on the planet" You must not have graced the general with your splendid presence. " from post 8.
...then there wouldn't be this confusion on who you're talking to.
"...readers will come away from the book with the sense that serious people were approaching them deliberately and with the best interests of the American people at heart."
"We meant well" is a pretty lame excuse for a disasterous execution, and is certainly no recommendation for the book.
rationale given by government for any action or legislation, disastrous or no?
I am not quite sure how to read your statement. “We meant well” is certainly a common enough rationale, and because of that ofttimes nothing else, much less anything better, is offered. From that ironic sense you are correct – what ‘better’ rationale is given?
Nonetheless, short of utter, abject perversion, a perpetrator "means well" in every undertaking. Agree or not with intent or outcome, by his/her lights the activity was properly motivated. No one willingly holds a false belief; not by their interpretation. But at the level of Mr. Feith, at the level of formulating the national will and policy, good intentions cannot be more than a bare minimum entry criterion for an idea to even be given any attention.
I’ve not yet read the book. Perhaps it addresses the run-up to war better than what was described in this post.