A very practical reason why declaring war on Iran is a very bad idea

Here's a very good reason why declaring war on Iran any time soon is what the Bush administration calls a "non-starter:" We don't have the military resources to take on another war.

For quite a while now the U.S. military has been stretched way too thin, and that has been well documented. However, a recent development emphasized the point very poignantly. I found out about this develop via a post by David Kurtz at Talking Points Memo. The opening of that post reflects my often-expressed lament of "I can't keep up."

It's remarkable what gets lost some days amid the mounting detritus of the Bush Administration.

Amen, brother. And one reason so much of the bullshit "gets lost" is that Congress spends way too much time and energy on things like non-binding resolutions condemning ads from MoveOn.org. Now before anyone thinks I am condoning the "General Betray Us" ad, recall that I have already said that that ad was a bad idea, and I will say much more about that in a subsequent post. My point here is that the Congressional condemnation of that ad garnered a great deal of attention, which provided cover for the story discussed by Kurtz. And now, back to that story...

The current Army Chief of Staff is Gen. George Casey. As noted by Kurtz, Casey was Petraeus's predecessor as the top commander in Iraq who was "essentially removed from his position as commander in Iraq because he was insufficiently enthusiastic about the President's proposed surge." This past Wednesday, Casey testified before the House Armed Services Committee about the current status of the Army. Kurtz quoted and linked to an article from the Boston Globe. I cannot improve on how that article presents the facts and analysis, so I will quote liberally from the article, beginning with the opening paragraphs:

The Army's top officer, General George Casey, told Congress yesterday that his branch of the military has been stretched so thin by the war in Iraq that it can not adequately respond to another conflict - one of the strongest warnings yet from a military leader that repeated deployments to war zones in the Middle East have hamstrung the military's ability to deter future aggression.

In his first appearance as Army chief of staff, Casey told the House Armed Services Committee that the Army is "out of balance" and "the current demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable supply. We are consumed with meeting the demands of the current fight and are unable to provide ready forces as rapidly as necessary for other potential contingencies."

In other words, because of the Iraq war, this country does not have the manpower to take on any other possible major operations.

Officials said Casey, who appeared along with Army Secretary Pete Geren, personally requested the public hearing - a highly unusual move that military analysts said underscores his growing concern about the health of the Army, America's primary fighting force.

Casey, a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wanted a public forum even though he has ample opportunity to speak to lawmakers in closed-door meetings.

Representative John M. McHugh, a New York Republican, said Casey's blunt testimony was "just downright frightening."

Thus, it is frightening that Congress, through the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, is engaging in sabre-rattling on Iran. Back to Casey's testimony...

But Casey, a four-star general who until earlier this year was the top commander in Iraq, made it clear to the House committee that the costs to ongoing military operations is rising, especially in terms of the United States' strategic position in the world.

The strain on the Army has been growing steadily since Bush sent troops into Iraq in 2003 - the longest sustained combat for an all-volunteer American force since the Revolutionary War. The Pentagon and military analysts have documented the signs of the breakdown: serious recruiting problems, an exodus of young officers, and steadily falling readiness rates of nearly every stateside unit.

Casey's testimony yesterday sent a clear message: If President Bush or Congress does not significantly reduce US forces in Iraq soon, the Army will need far more resources - and money - to ensure it is prepared to handle future security threats that the general warned are all but inevitable.

(emphasis added). Part of Casey's concerns involve equipment.

However, they said the units of most concern are the ones returning from Iraq or those preparing to deploy without all the proper equipment.

Stocks of equipment the Army has positioned around the world are also growing low because of the war, they said. Replenishing those stockpiles, Casey told the committee, "will give us back our strategic flexibility."

In other words, our Army does not the physical tools it needs to carry out all of its current missions, and if anything else is added to that list--like invading Iran--there is no way the needed equipment will be available. And it's not like this is a new problem, as our troops have not had adequate equipment during much of the Iraq war. For more on that topic, check the Cosmic Wheel Index, main heading "Iraq," sub headings "Armor for our troops" and "Equipment for our troops."

The Iraq war is also having an impact on the types of missions the Army can carry out now and in the future.

A major risk for the future, however, is that the Army currently spends nearly all of its time training for counterinsurgency operations - "to the detriment of preparedness" for other types of combat, Casey testified. If troops don't continue to train, their skills "will atrophy over time."

Stated differently, if we declare war on Iran in the near future, such an operation would not be a counterinsurgency campaign and the Army will not have had the training for such a mission.

Casey also addressed the use of manpower and how it is being negatively impacted by the Iraq war:

Army units are now deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan for 15 months at a time. At current force levels, that allows them 12 months or less back home before being sent overseas again. Casey said yesterday that the cycle allows for "insufficient recovery time."

Compounding the situation, he said, is the fact that part-time soldiers in the Army Reserve and Army National Guard - considered the nation's backup forces in the event of a major conflict - "are performing an operational role for which they were neither originally designed nor resourced."

Keep in mind that the Reserve and the National Guard have provided a great deal of the troops for the Iraq war.

There is also more to having an effective Army than troops and their training and equipment, as Casey discussed.

At the same time, he said, the toll on soldiers' families is even greater, raising serious questions about whether the Army will be able to retain its best soldiers.

In the six months he has been Army chief of staff, Casey said that he and his wife have talked extensively with commanders and Army families about the pressures of repeated tours. "It was clear to us the families are affected," he said. "It's cumulative."

But he warned that the Pentagon's current system can not sufficiently support the troops or their families. "Army support systems including health, education, and family support systems are straining under the pressures from six years of war," he said.

And the Bush administration has done precious little in terms of this type of support. See the links in the Cosmic Wheel Index under main heading "Bush Administration," subheadings "Nonsupport for the troops" and "Treatment of disabled veterans." It is not reasonable to think that current Army personnel will remain enlisted or new recruits will sign on if they know their families will not get the support they deserve and need, and it is not reasonable to think about declaring war on Iran under those circumstances.

And here's the bottom line from Casey:

Given enough resources, Casey predicted, it would take at least three to four years to restore the Army to full strength, including replacing damaged or destroyed equipment, adding tens of thousands more soldiers, and increasing health and other benefits for Army families coping with frequent deployments of loved ones.

This is what it will take to restore the Army under current circumstances. How in the world could the Army be able to handle matters if to the current circumstances a war with Iran is added? The answer is that it is not possible. Regardless of all the other issues involving Iran, the status and needs of the Army right now show that declaring war on Iran simply is not a viable logistical option.

Here's another reason I don't like Hillary Clinton.

She voted for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment.

The Kyl-Lieberman Amendment: the overture to IRW redux

This week the Congress has taken steps to increase economic sanctions against Iran. As reported by the AP,

The House passed, by a 397-16 vote, a proposal by Lantos, D-Calif., aimed at blocking foreign investment in Iran, in particular its lucrative energy sector. The bill would specifically bar the president from waiving U.S. sanctions.

Current law imposes sanctions against any foreign company that invests $20 million or more in Iran's energy industry, although the U.S. has waived or ignored sanction laws in exchange for European support on nonproliferation issues.

I am not going to take a position one way or the other regarding whether this action is warranted, wise, etc. Instead I am going to focus on what has transpired in the Senate, which I will say unequivocally is a bad thing indeed.

"What happened" was what has become known as the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment. The amendment was proposed to be added to the bill that passed the House. The entire original amendment can be found here (.pdf) and here (text). There are 15 "findings" enumerated which basically say that the Senate finds that the government of Iran, acting directly and through proxies in Iraq and elsewhere, is trying to cause Iraq to collapse in order to take it over. There are some statements in these "findings" that indicate how dangerous the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment can be (even in its revised form, which will be discussed later).

For instance, the first finding says

General David Petraeus, commander of the Multi-National Force Iraq, stated in testimony before a joint session of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives on September 10, 2007, that "[i]t is increasingly apparent to both coalition and Iraqi leaders that Iran, through the use of the Iranian Republican Guard Corps Qods Force, seeks to turn the Shi'a militia extremists into a Hezbollah-like force to serve its interests and fight a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq."

The Qods Force is in fact part of the official military of the state of Iran. Hezbollah is an organization that is supported--financially and otherwise--by the government of Iran. However, Hezbollah is based in Lebanon. Hezbollah is also officially recognized as a terrorist organization by this and other countries. Here's the problem with this "finding." It is setting the stage to take action against the government of Iran, and it is tying what is going on in Iraq to the "global war on terror." Thus, there is an attempt to once again equate Iraq with the global war on terror, which is a fallacy and a stupid thing to do. Why? Because it does not in any way address the issues in Iraq. It does not in any way address what needs to be done to bring peace and stability to Iraq. "Global terror" is not part of the sectarian and political problems in Iraq. "Global terror" is just another one of the PR catchphrases used by the Bush administration to stir up support for its idiotic policies. And now, this Kyl-Lieberman Amendment seeks to tie "global terror" and the government of Iran into one tidy, complete unto itself package.

This effort is seen further in "finding" no. 6:

General Petraeus said of Iranian support for extremist activity in Iraq on April 26, 2007, that "[w]e know that it goes as high as [Brig. Gen. Qassem] Suleimani, who is the head of the Qods Force. . . We believe that he works directly for the supreme leader of the country."

Again, this seeks to "prove" that the state of Iran is "global terror" itself.

The rest of the "findings" are clearly designed to "prove" that the government of Iran is one of the biggest, if not the primary, source of "global terror."

And that brings me to the proposed action of the original Kyl-Lieberman Amendment.

This portion of the original amendment says "It is the sense of the Senate--" and then lists six items, the first of which is

Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy[.]

[NOTE: Sarcasm alert!] Now we just have to take action against Iran because if we don't, not only will Iraq be harmed, but God's--and America's--gift of democracy for the Persian Gulf and the Middle East will be harmed, and the economy of the whole world will crumble. We just have to do something. Don't you see???

And that "something" is found in the following provisions of the original Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, which state what U.S. policy should be:

(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;

(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;

(5) that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224[.]

(emphasis added). Keep in mind that the bill passed by the House called for increased economic sanctions against Iran, and then please note that almost nothing in the above excerpts has anything to do with economic sanctions. Instead, those excerpts speak in terms of military action and other direct, hostile action toward the government of Iran.

If for any reason any of you do not think that this Kyl-Lieberman Amendment is not designed to set the stage for declaring war on Iran--like the IWR was used to set the stage for declaring war on Iraq--then you need to push aside that big pitcher of Kool-Aid, find yourself a big pot of strong-ass coffee AND WAKE THE HELL UP!!!

Now I know what some of you are thinking. The amendment only says what U.S. policy should be, not what it will be. This technically is correct. The Kyl-Lieberman Amendment was presented as a non-binding resolution. However, if it is non-binding, what's the freakin' point of voting on it in the first place? Well, I will tell you. In the future when some actual, real, binding legislation with the same or similar provisions is presented, anyone who voted for this piece of shit will be hard pressed to vote against the real legislation. After all, they already decided that this should be the policy of the U.S., so to reverse course would be flip-flopping, freedom-hating, etc. [NOTE: Sarcasm alert!] Why, it would mean that they wanted to destroy the God-given duty to spread democracy and--even worse--the global economy! This might sound ridiculous, but given how utterly spineless the Democrats have been (a subject I discussed before), we know this sort of tactic will work.

There is another reason why we know this sort of tactic will work, but I will discuss that a little bit later.

Now, I have to say that the original Kyl-Lieberman Amendment was itself amended. As explained by David Bromwich,

To assure a larger majority the language ("combat, contain, and roll back") was accordingly trimmed and blurred to say "that it should be the policy of the United States to stop inside Iraq the violent activities and destabilizing influence of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies."

[NOTE: Sarcasm alert!] Well, that is oh so much better. That certainly removes all possibility that war could be declared, especially since U.S. policy should use "all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including intelligence and military instruments" to achieve the kinder, gentler policy.

More strong-ass coffee, please.

Now, let's get back to the "sort of tactic" I mentioned to make sure that this "non-binding" crap could become binding in the future. We know this sort of tactic will work because the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment passed the Senate by a vote of 76-22. A review of that vote shows that 1 Democrat did not vote (read the Bromwich post to find out who), 19 voted against the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, and 29 Democrats voted "yes." That means that a majority of Democrats voted for this piece of crap.

On March 21 of this year, I wrote that the Iraq war has been the "dumbest fucking thing this country has done in my lifetime, and possibly in our entire history." The Iraq war will move to #2 on the list if we declare war on Iran. And as it stands now, the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment is somewhere in the top 10.

There's so much to talk about...

The day job got in the way of many more enjoyable activities lately, and I'm behind the news cycle when it comes to blogging. Plenty has happened lately, and I am going to backtrack a bit and discuss some of those matters. Coming up will be posts about the "General Betray Us" ad and the Senate's reaction thereto (here's a preview--both were bad ideas), Rush Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" comment, the defeat of the legislation proposed by Jim Webb--particularly Republican responses regarding the legislation and how the Democrats still have no spine, DNI McConnell's effort to shut down all debate over the Bush administration's domestic spying operation, the Kyl-Liberman Amendment, and more reasons why I don't like Hillary Clinton.

Those on the semi-far end to the extreme of either end of the political spectrum should temper expectations. I am probably going to upset all of you.

Up first is the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, followed by more reasons Hillary Clinton should not be President.

My vexation over Clark's endorsement and how Clark just pointed out a flaw in Hillary

I have spent a good bit of time at the Clark Community Network since Saturday to get an idea of how people there feel about Clark's endorsement of Hillary. Let's just say there are more than a few that share my feelings. [BTW, I posted only one comment, and it contained a reference that only some of the regulars at CCN from the 2004 campaign would understand. If any of those folks ever read this, look for a mention of Clarktopia. :-) ] The problem for many of us Clarkies is that we agree with Wes on many things, and we support his efforts and activities. Speaking for myself, I want Wes to continue to speak out and work on issues facing this nation. I want to support him in those efforts. I want to cite his analysis on this blog. However, I do not want to support Hillary Clinton, and highlighting Wes Clark is going to some degree support Hillary Clinton.

A good example is an editorial by Clark in this past Sunday's Washington Post. Entitled "The Next War," it discusses succinctly some of what was incorrectly done in Iraq, what needs to be done to restore and rebuild our military for the near future, the current conflict with Iran, how military force should be utilized, and an admonition that war should always be the last resort. If you think that is too many topics to address coherently in one op-ed, you are wrong. Read it and see for yourself. This op-ed exemplifies the intellect, knowledge, experience, and skill that made me a huge supporter of Clark. However, from now on everything he says will be attributed by proxy to Hillary Clinton, and that bothers me.

And, ironically, Clark's op-ed pointed out a major reason why I never will vote for Hillary Clinton. In the op-ed, Clark took Bush to task for not taking responsibility in the Iraq war and putting his responsibility on the military generals (a topic I discussed here). Clark started that criticism by stating the following:

But shame on political leaders who would hide behind their top generals. It was hard not to catch a whiff of that during last week's (Petraeus) hearings. The Constitution, however, is not ambivalent about where the responsibility for command lies -- the president is the commander in chief.

In other words, the President has the duty to make decisions and then accept the responsibility for those decisions. Clark was pointing this out in the specific context of Iraq, so let's take a look at Hillary's record on Iraq. I discussed this back on January 20:

She voted for the war. She refuses to say that was a mistake or that she was in any way wrong in her support of the war. Instead she has tried to have it both ways. That is exactly the same bullshit Kerry tried in '04. It didn't work then, and it won't work now. Even John Edwards, who was a big-time supporter of the war and unapologetic about it during the '04 campaign (which is a reason why he was a poor choice for a running mate), has stepped up and said he was wrong. He hasn't tried to rationalize or dance around the issue. He has flat out said he was wrong. And let me tell you, I have a lot more respect for Edwards now because of that. Hillary is trying to keep from offending Republicans while trying to show the anti-war crowd that she is being tough. After the '06 election, this approach is not going to work.

(emphasis added). In that January 20 post, I also linked to a January 20 post by Bob Harris. I did not quote Harris then, but I will now:

[T]he Iraq war is one of the deadliest, stupidest, and most criminal foreign policy mistakes of our lifetimes...And Hillary, despite her recent weaseling -- sorry, triangulation is the term of art -- vigorously supported Bush's Iraq adventure from the start.

In the wake of 9-11, it wasn't just George W. Bush telling the world "every nation has to be either with us or against us." It was Hillary, as you can hear for yourself.

In October 2002, during the debate about giving Bush authorization to invade Iraq, it wasn't just Dick Cheney telling the world in that Saddam Hussein had links to Al-Qaeda. It was Hillary, from the floor of Congress.

And in February 2005, it wasn't just John McCain claiming that democracy was taking root in Iraq, and that the insurgency was in its last throes. It was Hillary, standing right at John McCain's side.

Yeah. So President Hillary would be soooooo much better about Iraq. Clap louder, everybody. Make it come true.

If this were a just world, not one person who authorized Bush to invade Iraq would ever be re-elected to anything, and the prime engineers of this mess would be going to jail instead of Fox News desks. And if this were a just world, Hillary would be held in almost as much contempt by people opposed to this war as Bush, Cheney, and the rest of Team Chimpy.

*******

I can certainly imagine Hillary changing the subject away from Iraq, which she'll have to as much as possible.

*******

It's no wonder that Hillary's announcement gives Iraq exactly one sentence, implying opposition but without taking any position whatsoever. If you read closely, you'll notice she instantly changes the subject to liberal-sounding blah about health care, conservation, and Social Security...but all cleverly framed as open questions, so she doesn't have to take any position right now.

(emphasis added, links in original). You see, what I wrote in January is still true, and Harris was correct in saying that Hillary will keep changing the subject away from her record on Iraq. She has never directly addressed that record. She has never explained her support for the Iraq war. She still refuses to answer questions about that. She has never taken responsibility for her actions, and she refuses to do so now. And I have seen nothing from her that indicates she will behave any differently if she becomes President.

Listen folks--this is not about focusing on one substantive issue while ignoring Hillary's other experience and abilities. This is about her personality and character. A Senator certainly has a duty to make decisions and accept responsibility, but that duty is far greater for the President. Hillary's refusal, as a Senator, to accept responsibility for her actions and decisions on a matter as crucial as war says to me that she is not going to accept the increased responsibility as President--not just on matters of war, but on everything.

For me, this election is not just about issues. It is not just about specific plans for health care, taxes, foreign policy, etc. It is about who has the temperament, personality, and character to be an effective President at this time. Key components for me are openness, honesty, sincerity, and a desire to do what is best for the country rather than for the person in the Oval Office. Those qualities have been missing in the White House since 2001. In my opinion, Hillary Clinton will not restore those qualities to the Presidency.

Well, here's something on which Wes Clark and I disagree.

My oh so many regular readers know much of what follows, but for the oh so many new readers, I will explain a few things. I am a big fan and admirer of Wes Clark. I got involved in the Draft Clark movement as soon as I found out about it. I spent a lot of time and energy campaigning for Clark once he got in the 2004 race. I gave a lot of money to his campaign. I am still bitter over the way many Democrats treated him during the campaign. I still think he was far and away the best choice for the Democratic nomination and the Presidency. I have regularly cited his analysis on this blog, and I have regularly posted complete messages from him. I still have the utmost respect for him.

I have agreed with his position and analysis on almost every issue.

Until now.

Back on January 20 of this year I wrote that I would be "highly vexed" if Clark endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. Well, folks, I am now officially highly vexed.

I'm sorry, General, but any semi-regular reader of this blog knows that I will not follow your lead on this one. And for those who are not familiar with my feelings about Hillary, check out the links under the heading of "Clinton, Hillary" in the Cosmic Wheel Index.

Initial observation on Bush's speech

I decided to actually watch Bush's speech. It was painful to watch Bush's eyes and head visibly move as he read from the teleprompter. That is just so embarrassing.

Recommended reading prior to Bush's speech tonight

Read this post by Kevin Drum.

Overarching observation of the Petraeus testimony--"The Decider" refuses to do his job.

Here's my "general" observation about the testimony of Gen. Petraeus before Congress: he is well practiced in the art of never giving a direct answer to questions. I will likely discuss that further in a subsequent post, but for now I want to focus on one sentence from his written testimony which highlights the problems not just with his testimony but with the Bush administration's Iraq policy as a whole.

Before quoting the "one sentence," I want to make two things clear. First, the responsibility for this country's Iraq policy lies with the Bush administration. Not Congress. Not the Democrats. Congress granted Bush the authority to wage this war--which was one of the dumbest things Congress has ever done--but what was done with that authority was solely left to the discretion of the Executive Branch. All future policy decisions regarding Iraq are the responsibility of the Bush administration. And when I say "policy" I mean what objectives to pursue and how those objectives are to be accomplished. Second, the problems exemplified in the "one sentence" have been present since before the war started, and they have NEVER been resolved.

With the foregoing in mind, here is the "one sentence:"

As a bottom line up front, the military objectives of the surge are, in large measure, being met.

(emphasis added). Let's assume, arguendo, that this statement is true. It still does not come close to determining whether there will or can be overall success in Iraq. Why? Because overall success cannot be accomplished solely through military actions. Plenty of folks--Wes Clark is one example--have been saying since before the war started that success in Iraq would have to include significant political and diplomatic efforts, and I challenge anyone to claim that not to be the case now. And yet Petraeus is not talking about anything but military efforts. What makes this significant is that for months the Bush administration told us that the entirety of future policy decisions would depend on what Petraeus would report to Congress. Read all of Petraeus's prepared testimony, and you will find no discussion of political or diplomatic objectives. If Bush's policy decisions are dependent upon this report, there will be no diplomatic or political objectives.

And that, my fellow Americans, has always been the problem with Bush's Iraq policy. The Bush administration has never defined diplomatic and political objectives and has never engaged in any meaningful diplomatic and political efforts. Instead, these delusional morons were convinced that everything would just magically work out once Saddam was ousted.

But let's get back to the "military objectives." I maintain that Petraeus's statement is not and cannot be true. And the reason for that is found in some of my earliest posts on this blog. It comes down to a matter of military campaign planning. For all the details, go to the Cosmic Wheel Index, main heading "Iraq," subheading "Planning for the Post-war Period," and check out the first five posts listed thereunder. The following excerpts from the Executive Summary of that official doctrine explain the basics of my position:

Guidance from civilian and military policymakers is a prerequisite for developing a military campaign plan. Military campaigns are not conducted in isolation of other government efforts to achieve national strategic objectives. Military power is used in conjunction with other instruments of national power— diplomatic, economic, and informational — to achieve strategic objectives.

Campaign planning generally applies to the conduct of combat operations, but can also be used in situations other than war. Combatant commanders and other JFCs may develop campaign plans for peacetime, conflict, or war.

While deliberate planning is conducted in anticipation of future events, there are always situations arising in the present that might require US military response. Campaign plan design begins with strategic guidance in the form of military strategic aims or objectives that define the role of military forces in the larger context of national strategic objectives. The thread of continuity that ties the strategic objectives to the operational and tactical levels is commonly referred to as the desired “end state.” The desired end state should be clearly described by the NCA before Armed Forces of the United States are committed to an action; they should address both the desired political and military conditions after the military strategic objectives are attained. Although it has often been the case in past military operations other than war (MOOTW) situations that end state and supporting military conditions defining success were ill-defined or even absent, it is imperative to have a clearly defined end state here as well.

(bold type in original, italics added). Under this official doctrine, military force is one of several elements needed to make any military campaign successful, and those other parts include political and diplomatic efforts. More to the point, the use of military force must be designed to achieve the political objectives which make up the "desired end state." In other words, the "desired end state" has to be clearly defined in order for the "military objectives" to be met. Furthermore, as explained in the indexed posts referenced above, the definitions of the desired end state--the policy decisions--have to come from the National Command Authorities, and those are the President and the Secretary of Defense. In other words, the Bush administration--not Congress, not the Democrats, not the military generals--has to give those definitions. AND THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS UTTERLY FAILED TO DO SO.

I know this is redundant, but here is how I summarized the campaign doctrine in a post on May 15 of this year:

Under the official campaign doctrine in place prior to the Iraq war, the National Command Authorities (Bush and Rumskull) were to provide the objectives and desired end state for the war, and they were supposed to provide strategic guidance that would define the role of the military in achieving the desired national strategic objectives--which were also to be determined by Bush and Rumskull. Not only that, but Bush and Rumskull were supposed to provide the termination criteria for the campaign (which would include the reconstruction/occupation phase). The military's job was to then come up with a plan that would accomplish all the foregoing things. Put simply, the military was to figure out the means by which it was to accomplish the goals as set by Bush and Rumskull and within the role for the military as defined by Bush and Rumskull. [See Official campaign planning doctrine and the post-war period for the detailed explanation.]

So the real questions to be answered involve the definition of the "desired end state" and how that is to be accomplished. Some of those questions involve political and diplomatic components. Until those questions are answered, there is no way to determine whether "the military objectives are being met" and whether there has been or will be "success" in Iraq.

And these questions cannot be answered by Petraeus. Why? Because he is not authorized to define the "desired end state" or any diplomatic or political objectives. Those decisions are expressly left to the President and the Secretary of Defense. Petraeus's duty is to use the military to help achieve those objectives, but unless he is told just what those objectives are, how can he use military force to achieve "success," and how can he claim that the "military objectives" have been or are being met?

As I alluded to earlier, what is disturbing about Petraeus's testimony is that Bush and every hack and flack in his administration has been telling us that Bush listens to his commanders, that no decisions would be made until Petraeus testified, that Bush would do what his commanders recommend, etc. This is all bass ackwards, people! Bush is supposed to decide what the objectives are, and then his commanders are supposed to listen to him. Bush is trying to pawn off his responsibilities to the military commanders. Those policy decisions are not part of their job duties. They are part of Bush's job, but "The Decider" doesn't want to do his job.