From the Mouthes of Babes

“…you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want.” From the mouths of babes – and Secretaries of Defense. Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was roundly criticized for making this far too snappy answer to an enlisted man on his way to Iraq. Initially, I, like most of you – including the press and members of Congress, thought that this was a terrible answer to the young man’s question. On reflection, while the answer was not satisfactory politically, there was something far deeper and more meaningful in the response that when coupled with earlier comments by the secretary is very revealing.

When we went into Afghanistan after 9/11, I recall that Mr. Rumsfeld, in the salad days of his modernization program for the military – particularly the army, was unhappy with the nature of the war against the Taliban and al Qaeda. He wanted a far more mobile army to deal with the nature of this novel enemy and the terrain we had to deal with. Somewhere along the way, he was reported to have favored Iraq as a proving ground since it offered much better targets than the barren and sparsely populated Afghan mountains.

Mr. Rumsfeld saw that our forces, however outmoded, were better suited to deal with the likes of Saddam Hussein’s army than the horrible conditions of Eastern Afghanistan and Western Pakistan. Mr. Rumsfeld and the neoconservatives had an answer: knock off Saddam as a demonstration to the heads of other Islamic states could conceivably support al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations to show that such action could have dire consequences for their own regimes. Notwithstanding the problems we have created for ourselves in Iraq, you must consider this is a positive outcome of the Iraq War.

Had not the proposition that if you broke the pottery, you own it arisen, the neocon dream of empire might have succeeded – at least for another short while. After the anarchy and nihilism, we could have informed the survivors running the country that they too could join Saddam in the admiral’s lounge at Baghdad International if they didn’t play ball with us and agree to our strategic bases in the Western part of the country.

Sadly for the neocons, it didn’t play out that way. Their dreams of facing Iran from a position of strength and of threatening the other bad boys like Syria have gone awry. American and international politics being what they are, we’re stuck with the B.S. of nation building and spreading Western style democracy and freedom and not the position of checking the Persian mullahs and everyone else who might play footsie with Osama bin Laden.

But as I rail against the stupidity of the War in Iraq, I have to admit this positive, and, while I doubt that Libya coughed up its nuclear program solely as a result of Saddam’s being stuck at the Baghdad airport, it had to play a part in the Libyan decision. Teheran while mighty angry at us is still unlikely to risk Mr. Bush’s wrath by getting caught aiding Osama.

The administration has overreached. The president, Rumsfeld and the neocons are stuck with what they wrought. They played fast and loose with the facts and must suffer for their hubris.

But think about Rumsfeld’s comment in Kuwait. Perhaps he may well have been far more forthcoming than we gave him credit for.

In support of moderation and sanity, I’m no longer signing my pieces with my old moniker, Wild Bill. From now on – or at least until the Holiday Season is past - it’s Mild Bill, ever the voice of reason.

Happy New Year,

Mild Bill