Seeking Redstaters to Rise in Defense of State & the CIA
By TheSophist Posted in War — Comments (24) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Last night, I finally managed to finish Doug Feith's massive, and massively documented, War and Decision. It may have been the most illuminating book I have ever read about how our government actually functions, and it has the benefit of extensive documentation. Dough Feith tries hard to be fair, although given his central role as a player in the dramas (instead of just an observer), his biases are extremely evident.
I say "finally managed to finish" in part because the book was such a difficult read for me. It wasn't that the writing is boring or dense, and I generally read very quickly. For the first time in a very very long time, I had to put the book down from time to time in order not to explode in fury and anger, or hit someone sitting next to me. Each and every time, I reminded myself that this is just one guy's interpretation/viewpoint, and there is another side to the story... right? There has to be, right?
So I am seeking those willing to rise in defense of the Powell State Department and the Tenet CIA.
Feith, in his book, is pretty brutal in his condemnation of both the State Dept. and the CIA. From his telling, it's almost as if the debacle that the War in Iraq (almost) became was the direct result of interference, foot-dragging, and cowardly bureaucratic manipulation by the State department under Powell, and the CIA under Tenet.
Armitage, Bremer, McLaughlin (Dep. Director, CIA) all come in for some harsh criticism. Powell gets no kind treatment. And frankly, Rumsfeld emerges as something of a hero, falsely maligned and chased out of town.
One blog post is inadequate to go into depth of the array of charges Feith levels at State and the CIA, but in brief:
- Feith accuses State of never signing on to the President's plan after 9/11, and specifically accuses Powell of failing to either resign in protest or to implement effectively the President's policy. That led to an incredible amount of negative consequences.
- Feith accuses the CIA of politicizing intelligence, then turning around and accusing the Dept of Defense of doing the same. I felt his defense of his Policy office within the Pentagon was convincing, but again, it's only one side of the story.
- Feith accuses the CIA of gross incompetence; some of the things he describes might even shade over into the realm of willful deception of the policymakers.
- Feith paints the State Department as a swamp of careerism, staffed almost entirely by elitist career diplomats who think they know better than their putative bosses (including the President). And yet, State fails time and again to advance any real ideas, contribute to the strategy of the War, and fails time and again to followup on actions (such as fostering an expatriate interim Iraqi government that could have stepped in immediately upon liberation of Iraq). Instead, State basically acts as the ambassador of the Sunni Arabs -- particularly Saudi Arabia -- to the United States, and subverts the War effort from within. Feith never actually claims subversion, but as a reader, I couldn't help but reach that conclusion on my own.
- Feith more or less accuses these two incredibly important organs of our war against Terror of creating the insurgency in Iraq by forcing an occupation government down the throats of the Iraqi people, against the plan approved by the President which called for a swift transition post-Saddam to Iraqi control. What's worse, he accuses State and CIA of doing this simply out of an unreasonable personal animosity against Ahmad Chalabi. Basically, what Feith is saying is that thousands of American soliders lost their lives, and tens of thousands lost limbs and were wounded, simply because certain officials in the State Dept and the CIA had a personal grudge against Chalabi. That is nothing short of amazing, and yet, Feith makes his case well.
- Feith exposes much of what has already been written by the likes of Bremer, Franks, and others, as being false -- whether on purpose, or simply out of mis-remembering, the facts (as he shows via documentation) show that some of those guys were talking out of their hindquarters.
So... I'm just a guy in the private sector. I don't know any government people on that side. I figure, Redstate has some pretty accomplished people who know some pretty important folks.
Perhaps there is another side to this sorry tale. If you can provide the "other side" of the story, and you have read War and Decision, please help out a very angry American who does not want to believe that parts of our own government more or less betrayed us, hurt our war effort, and all because of bureaucratic power-wrangling.
Say it ain't so...
Because if there is no defense to these charges by Feith, then by God, it is time the President fire every single person in the State Department, and dissolve the CIA permanently. The last great act of President Bush can and should be to let his successor, whether McCain or Obama, have a diplomatic corps that will OBEY him and an intelligence apparatus that is interested in INFORMING him and not PERSUADING him.
The nation can go on without disloyal diplomats and incompetent spies, while those two institutions are rebuilt from the ground up.
-TS
Three Years of the Condor
Leaking At All Costs
The CIA 1--Bush 0
Four Years of the Condor
The CIA Comes Out Of The Closet
CIA's War Against President Bush
Here, they review Kenneth Timmerman's Shadow Warriors: The Untold Story of Traitors, Saboteurs, and the Party of Surrender:
They quote the book's introduction, which I quote again:
Some have called it the CIA's greatest covert operation of all time.
It involved deep penetration of a hostile regime by planting a network of agents at key crossroads of power, where they could steal secrets and steer policy by planting disinformation, cooking intelligence, provocation, and outright lies.
It involved sophisticated political sabotage operations, aimed at making regime leaders doubt their own judgment and question the support of their subordinates.
It involved the financing, training, and equipping of effective opposition forces, who could challenge the regime openly and through covert operations.
The scope was breathtaking, say insiders who had personal knowledge of the CIA effort. All the skills learned by the U.S. intelligence community during the fifty years of the Cold War struggle with the Soviet Union were in play, from active measures aimed at planting disinformation through cutouts and an eager media, to maskirovka--strategic deception.
It was war--but an intelligence war, played behind the scenes, aimed at confusing, misleading, and ultimately defeating the enemy. Its goal was nothing less than to topple the regime in power, by discrediting its rulers.
Many Americans believe this was the CIA's goal during the 1990s, when the Agency had "boots on the ground" in northern Iraq, working with Iraqi opponents of Saddam Hussein. Most patriotic Americans probably hope that the CIA today has such an operation to overthrow the mullahs in Tehran, or North Korean dictator Kim John Il.
But the target of this vast, sophisticated CIA operation was none of them.
It was America's 43rd President, George W. Bush.
Take my opinion with a grain of salt--I see things from the Department of Defense perspective. My experience with CIA and State is limited, so I can't give you an informed opinion of how well they performed in the planning stages of the war.
I was a relatively low ranking DoD worker during the early days of OEF and OIF. There are a few examples in the book that relate to my direct experience. I found Feith's account to be accurate in these matters, and thus I am inclined to believe the rest of his story.
I believe that Feith is trying to balance out other books on the same subject that place much of the blame on Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.
And one other thing...every time I read about one of our own dying in Iraq, I rack my brain to think of some way that I could have done my job better so that we would have had fewer casualties. War and Decision is such a comprehensive lessons learned that reading it finally gave me some answers. I hope to return to DoD employment in about five years and will be a much better public servant as a result of Feith's work.
I was part of GEN Frank's staff and can say that the book he published is a good accounting of his experience from his perspective. Remember that leaders, at that level, know only what they are told. Unified Combatant Commanders live in a bubble. It is simply the way that it is. That being said, he undoubtedly put the best possible face on it.
As for the others, I'm unable to comment.
My only caution is your extrapolation that "what Feith is saying is that thousands of American soliders lost their lives, and tens of thousands lost limbs and were wounded, simply because certain officials in the State Dept and the CIA had a personal grudge against Chalabi."
I don't there's ever even an implication of a link between policy and casulaties. I also don't think Feith in his book ever places that much hope in Chalabi. His point is that the group of "exiles" who CIA and State determined lacked popular support are today basically running Irag-so a lot of time was wasted. His more important point is that the decision to go with an occupation (versus the Afganistan approach of moving quickly to self-government) was a huge mistake.
The other big US failure was the response to the post-Saddam insurgency. Here Rumsfeld was way too patient with his top generals (Casey and Sanchez). But neither State nor CIA was any better on this issue. Indeed they were useless. So indicting the Pentagon for a lack of prescience on this issue would be a selective prosecution.
The fact is that Bush himself settled on a new strategy and then got himself a new commander in Petraeus. Bush did this over the objections of many in the Pentagon, and facing the worse than benign neglect of State and CIA. Yes, McCain did offer some support, but Bush did the heavy lifting.
But your main point is right. Feith's book exposes the deep rot in both State and the CIA. State can be solved by a strong secretary loyal to and backed by a strong president. Powell and Rice have been neither loyal nor strong. I have come to the view that Moynihan was right about the CIA. Let's close it down and start again.
I don't see how a reasonable reader could not extrapolate that conclusion, though.
Basically, the story goes something like this:
- The Administration had a strategy for handing over Iraq within weeks or months to an interim Iraqi authority (the "IIA" plan) that the President approved, and was the official policy of the U.S. as part of the war plan.
- State and CIA officials opposed the IIA initially, and floated their own plans which involved years of an American occupation government, until "Iraqis were mature enough to manage their own affairs".
- Once the President had made his decision to go with the IIA plan, Powell at State and Tenet at CIA did not resign in protest. Rather, they, and their underlings, simply dragged their feet, did bureaucratic runarounds and various powerplays, resulting in Bremer being appointed as head of the CPA.
- Once Saddam was overthrown, rather than implementing the IIA as they should have, the State/CIA people (including advisors and staff to Bremer) dragged their feet, and unilaterally overruled de facto if not de jure the IIA policy, and put in place an occupation government for 14 months.
- All of this was done essentially because State/CIA despised Ahmad Chalabi. As Feith describes it, after Chalabi's office/home was raided based on some corruption charge, State/CIA apparently thought he was now so poisoned that they didn't need to worry about him. At that point, all of their objections to "externals lacking legitimacy" and so forth disappeared, and we were able to stand up an interim government, carry out elections, and so forth. Those political developments led in part to the success we are having today, with Iraqis joining us in defeating the terrorists.
Unless I see/hear something from the other side of the debate, it seems to me that the "decision to go with an occupation" was a decision made by State/CIA/Bremer against the wishes and policies of the President of the United States.
That occupation bred the insurgency, and led to thousands of our soldiers being killed.
What is unjust or illogical about that line of reasoning? It is nearly impossible to avoid. And it enrages me.
-TS
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." - Ronald Reagan
Where you say "resulting in Bremer..." and where you say "That occupation bred the insurgency, and led to thousands of our soldiers being killed."
I too am enraged at at anyone at State, CIA and esp the dems in congress that sought to sabotage the President's orders and whose activities emboldened the enemy, but, I think the following are at least as significant as your points:
1-I reject the idea that there would have been no insurgency but for any of the above or if we had had more troops earlier.
2-I think what led to the insurgency was saddam's years of tyranny, our slow lead-up that allowed plans, and maybe was inevitable no matter what absent taking out a city as show of force.
3-We can't forget the many months long quiet that followed the Mission Accomplished moment.
I think that an occupation, on balance may well have been the best option. After all, backing strongmen was part of the failed pre911 strategy.
more later
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
I'm not saying that as a brushoff -- really, read the book. I can't really do justice to the narrative in a blog. :)
Suffice to say that backing strongmen was not the IIA strategy; more like an interim appointed government, very similar to how we handled Afghanistan, whose goal was to setup a Constitution, hold elections, and so on.
Arguing counterfactuals is impossible, of course, and Feith doesn't do that. It's possible that there would have been an insurgency no matter what. But Feith makes a pretty compelling case that had the IIA been setup within WEEKS of Baghdad falling, the Iraqi people would have felt more justifiable pride. The Sunnis might have felt that going down the political route would serve their interests better, the Coalition forces could have gotten far better intel much earlier, etc.
After all, we're seeing it now.
-TS
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." - Ronald Reagan
times. I certainly trust Feith, but that does not answer the questions I raise.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
And that no interim authority was goimg to be able to deal with all the stashed weapons and plans by insurgents and their sheer numbers. It was going to take US firepower and the intel that would only come with trust over time.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
that even if there were plans by insurgents, the FACT that we had imposed an occupation government of Americans, by Americans, hurt us with intel gathering and trust.
Would it not have been dramatically different if we had Iraqis working for the interim Iraqi government asking the Iraqi people where the Al Qaeda was hiding, or where the weapons were stashed?
We can't underestimate the impact of national pride. Leaders who would work on the interim IRAQI government are seen as patriots; those who work with the OCCUPATION American government are seen as puppets, collaborators, and traitors.
Of course, we'd have needed US firepower; but our problem from the start wasn't the firepower or ELINT or SIGINT, but HUMINT.
-TS
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." - Ronald Reagan
after decades of living under a nazi regime for decades and having been betryaed by Bush's dad.
Thta was going to take
TIME.
no mater what followed
TIME.
Americans don't like to accept that.
Its a conservative concept that even some feiths and sophists need to accept.
TIME
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
but can you see that it might have taken less
TIME
and less
BLOOD
to get to where we are today if the IIA policy had been put in place, like it was supposed to have?
I hear ya, man; I'm not saying if only Bremer had followed the Presidential directive, we'd have had NO insurgency. I am suggesting that sans willful footdragging and outright insubordination on the part of the CIA and State, we may have had a shorter, less-intense insurgency.
Of course, the world will never know of what might have been....
-TS
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." - Ronald Reagan
20/20 hindsighters are a dime a dozen even of they are half ass agree with devine dimeadozeners.
I am suggesting that to pay this gamne is to miss the big picture, ie whether it pertains to Lincoln, FDR or GWB
all of whom got the big picture of WILL and fight till you win right
and that to play the 20/20 game is to give credibility to the powell doctrine and do nothing crowd who will lose.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
while I have more respect for the CIA there is no doubt that politics instead of the nation's security were the order of the day through the 90's and 2001....
Feith is absolutely correct in his assessment.
Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion
I'm throwing in here with Uma Richie, and with Feith, and with you of course. I heartily condemn both State and CIA. I'm firmly convinced of the complicity of both State and CIA in active treason -- and have felt that way for years.
Impeach the 5 usurpers
My problem with the State Department has always been the negative view they have regularly taken with regards to Israel.
Time and time again the State Department slaps the hands of Israel when she responds to attacks by the Palestinians.
Time and time again the State Department coddles dictators and terrorist producing nations.
I understand that the State Department is kind of supposed to be the olive branch we offer before we send in the Military, but that doesn't mean such a branch should be used to beat our allies or prop up oppressive dictators.
In relation to 9/11, War on Terror, etc.... I do believe that certain individuals acted poorly for their own agenda, but I do not believe that we ought to scrap the CIA.
Overhaul? Yeah. Get out the Clinton Era Holdovers? Yeah.
Scrap? Nah.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
on 9/10. I would say that the CIA has been crippled since Casey left in the 80s, later by Clinton and dem congresses, and that Bush should have fired most of them. Same at State. See Bolten's book. Powell betrayed Bush on Iraq. Powell is too liberal. He was wrong to advise Bush 41 to let Saddam and his army survive. He is good at carrying out orders, not policy.
Rummy looks good to me.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
Their human intelligence was limited and the CIA wanted to wait until they gathered more intel (i.e. until after the winter). It was Rumsfeld who forced action and the Pentagon was forced to come up with a strategy.
of swatting at flies and wanted a plan to overthrow the Taliban. Tenet's CIA put the plan that ended up working so well on Bush's desk on, ironically 910. That plan was implemented and worked like a charm. yes, Rummy was right to in opposing a Soviet like big footprint in both countries.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
in Feith's book. Again, I'm willing to entertain the idea that there's another side to the story, given how partisan Feith is likely to be in the Rummy vs. Powell fight.
But Powell comes off as not only someone who was horrible at policy, but was horrible at carrying out orders. In fact, he comes off as the guy who sabotaged the war plan, the strategy against terror, almost the entire war effort from within by his failure to simply own up to disagreement with his boss and RESIGN so Bush could appoint someone who would carry out the order.
That and the total lack of initiative -- although Powell's not the only one who deserves this criticism, as Rice and frankly Bush have not been good at this -- on the ideological front of the War on Terror is simply awful. Just AWFUL.
-TS
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." - Ronald Reagan
in uniform - see gulf war 1 and his "kill it" speech and how well he killed!
but then he advised stopping the killing of the enemy and leaving Saddam in power
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
that Doug Feith and his book received as much publicity and discussion as Scott McClellan's. Alas, I honestly don't expect it to because of it's content and the people it attempts to elaborate upon.