War with Iran?

There's a frightening article in the current New Yorker by Seymour Hersch, entitled "Preparing the Battlefield". It's getting a ton of attention in the national media. I heard an interview with Hersch today on NPR's Fresh Aire show, for example.

Hersch's thesis is that the Bush administration is running a clandestine military and CIA operation inside Iran right now, aimed at forcing the Iranians to stop their nuclear weapons program. If they don't get that, then they want regime change. Hersch contends that the Bush administration (primarily Cheney) is trying to run Special Operations missions from the White House while keeping the senior military commanders in the region out of the loop. This, he contends, is what forced Admiral Fallon out of his post as CENTCOM (the guy in overall charge of US military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, the Persian Gulf, and so forth). (See my posts of March 11 and March 17 talking about this issue.) The CIA operations are covered under a Presidential Finding, which is extremely classified. The military operations are covered under Bush's constitutional authority as commander in chief. Both have been conflated into one operation that's being run outside of all the normal chains of command with all their hard-learned checks and balances.

The theme that ran through the input from all of Hersch's sources was that the Administration wants to attack Iran before Bush leaves office. Hersch said as much in his NPR interview today, citing specifically a fear of an "October surprise", or possibly something soon after the election.

You might remember that back in December, there was a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that concluded that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapons capability, and hasn't been since 2003. This, of course, is not the answer that Bush wanted to hear. Since then he has been consistently talking up the Iranian threat.

I, personally, have been ignoring him, figuring it's the last gurgles from a turd getting flushed down the drain. Hersch's article says that the turd is still looking to fire some missiles before he goes. And unfortunately, as the Commander in Chief, he still has the constitutional authority to do it.

There are only a few safeguards remaining. One is that Congress can cut off the funds. Not likely, but write your Senators and Congressmen anyway. Another is that more articles like Hersch's will keep the spotlight on Bush/Cheney and prevent them from causing much more damage. A third is that some brave military members will stand up to the President and refuse to carry out an attack, even if that means the end of their careers. I'm not comfortable with this last one. Admiral Fallon is one who was in position to stop Bush, but he was forced out, and replaced by General Petraeus. Now Petraeus is a great soldier, but he's a can-do guy, and not one who bothers to ask the "why" question.

An attack on Iran is the most incredibly stupid action this country could do right now. It's even more stupid than the Iraq invasion. IT MUST BE STOPPED.

Admiral William Fallon Resigns

Today the news came out that Admiral William Fallon, who is (or was) Conmmander in Chief of Central Command (CINCENT, which for all you civilians, is pronounced "sink cent"), has resigned. CINCENT is the guy who's in overall charge of all operations in the Middle East, including Iraq, Afghanistan, the Persian Gulf, and Indian Ocean. He's General Petraeus's direct boss. In other words, it's a pretty potent position. And the news that he has suddenly resigned is very disturbing. Most of the civilian talking heads that I've heard today don't really understand what it might mean, and they're focusing on things that really aren't that important. So, as an ex-military guy, here's my take.

ADM Fallon is quite an accomplished military officer. He was a naval flight officer (NFO) and flew combat missions in Vietnam. He's commanded a jet squadron, a carrier air wing, a carrier battle group (meaning an aircraft carrier, all its planes, and all its associated ships), and served as Commander Second Fleet, Commander in Chief Atlantic Fleet, Vice Chief of Naval Operations and Commander in Chief, Pacific. In other words, he rocks.

He's also, by some accounts, a bit arrogant and abrasive. Hey, he's a naval aviator, what the hell did you expect? But he's also a strategic thinker who knows how the international game is played. I'd put his real knowledge of international relations at several levels above that of Condoleeza Rice. While she was polishing her doctorate in a university, he was learning by doing. And, most critical to this particular story, he speaks his mind. No bullshit here: what he says is what he thinks. Old-school Navy.

Which is what got him in trouble. While our idiot President has kept trying to drum up another war, this time with Iran, ADM Fallon let his thoughts become public knowledge. And his thoughts weren't in line with Bush's. ADM Fallon thought, for example, that it was a good idea to talk with the Iranians, to negotiate with them, rather than attack them. Heresy! Now you and I can say this all we want, and nobody gives a rat's ass. But ADM Fallon is a heavyweight in international relations, especially in the most volatile part of the world, and what he says carries the weight of US official policy. So when the most recent Esquire magazine carried an article that claimed that ADM Fallon is the only one standing between Bush and a war with Iran, that was the kiss of death.

One of the things that distinguishes the United States from countries such as, for example, Pakistan or Panama, is that we have civilian control over the military. It's ground into our military officers from Day One. No upstart Admiral or General would even think of trying to take over leadership of the country while still on active duty. Civilians set the policy, the military carries it out. That's it. So while ADM Fallon wears the uniform and (especially) occupies the position of power, he has to do what the Prez says. Even if the Prez is a certified lunatic, such as our current one. If the Prez starts down a road that ADM Fallon (or any other officer) thinks is wrong, he has two choices: salute smartly and carry out his orders, or resign. Criticizing the orders in public is not an option.

Over the past few years, many civilians have wondered about the generals who served in Iraq or wherever, then retired and started bad-mouthing Bush. Why, they wonder, didn't the generals speak up when they were on active duty? Well, re-read the above paragraph. Military officers may or may not have an input to their orders. If so, it's behind closed doors. When the decision is made, we march off and do it. Or resign.

Which is why today's news is disturbing. Admiral Fallon is probably the most capable individual to serve in that critical position in recent memory. His track record of speaking his mind, and the Esquire article, might be the cause of his resignation, as both he and the Administration are saying. I doubt that's the full story. I haven't read the article yet (you can see it here), but the suddenness of his resignation indicates to me a high degree of possibility that Bush is moving ahead with his plans to attack Iran, and that Fallon took the honorable step of resigning rather than carry out insane orders.

All the TV pundits are talking about the Governor Spitzer sex scandal. They're missing the real and important story: Admiral Fallon's resignation and what might be going on in Iran. YOU should be concerned, too.

A Slight Correction ... from the White House?

Today the White House press secretary had a correction to Bush's previous announcement that he had been told in August that there was some new information on Iran, but that he wasn't told what it was. Now they're saying he was told that the new information would probably change the intelligence community's assessment on Iran.

The White House says this isn't a big deal. Umm, excuse me, yes it is. Bush has been focused on Iran for a long time now, and he was ostensibly basing this focus on the intel assessments that said they were trying to build, develop, or acquire nuke weapons. (Right. And he invaded Iraq because intel assessments said there were weapons of mass destruction. Gimme a break.) Anyway, in August, Mike McConnell tells Bush that they got some hot new intel that would have a big impact on the community assessment of Iran. Do you really think he just left it at that? No way. There's not a boss in the world that would let an underling give him a teaser like that without demanding to know a bit more. And there's not an intel guy in the world that would do such a thing, particularly to the President. And McConnell is a damn good intel guy.

So Bush knew in August that there was at least a good possibility that Iran had stopped its nuke program in 2003. Yet he went ahead with his bellicosity anyway, including his now-infamous comment about World War III.

Was it stupidity? Or irresponsibility? Or both?

Just business as usual in the White House these days.

Bush and Iran

The news channels are all abuzz with the news yesterday of the new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) about Iran, and also about Bush's response today. I just read the NIE (you can find it here). As a former intel professional, I understood the nuances of all the "probably" and "with high confidence" and other such terms. I was amazed at what I read for a couple of reasons. One, things like this didn't normally turn up in unclassified forums like the internet. Yes, this is a stripped-down version with all the classified stuff pulled out or hidden, but still, there's a lot of information there. Two, and this is extremely encouraging, this is the straight scoop, unfettered with neocon ideology. Unlike the "intel" that came out of the intel world during the Rumsfeld era, there's no bending the facts to fit the preconceived end. The intelligence world has re-asserted itself and is doing what it's supposed to do: provide its best guesstimate about a particular problem. God, you don't know how good that makes me feel. Admiral McConnell is my hero. He and the rest of the intel wienies have stood up to Bush and told him, and the rest of us, the truth. After seven years, it's a breath of fresh air.

Bush is completely flummoxed. Here he and Dickie have been rattling their sabers as hard as they can, trying to drum up yet another war, and suddenly the rug has been pulled out from under him. And being the dweeb he is, he can't admit it. So there he was today in the press conference, saying that the NIE doesn't really change anything, that Iran is still dangerous and that all options are still on the table. So I'm still scared that he may push the "war" button just because that's what he's wanted to do for years.

Okay, so let's go back to the NIE for a second. What does it say, really? Well, it says that Iran had a program to develop nuclear weapons, but that it halted the program in 2003 because of international exposure and pressure. Iran is still interested in nukes and is still active in some projects that are peripherally associated with them. But they're not actively pursuing the capability. If they reactivated the program and hit full speed tomorrow, they might be able to have a weapon by 2009. But since the program is shut down, the acquisition date is more likely 2013-2015, and that's if they restart the program.

What the NIE doesn't address is why the Iranians shut it all down. Well, it wasn't because of George Bush, that's for sure. In 2003, he was busy invading Iraq. He didn't start threatening Iran until last year, three years after the Iranians closed up the nuke weapon shop. No, it was the Europeans who were the ones patiently pressuring and negotiating with Iran. And their efforts have paid off. Iran is still interested in nukes, but they've backed off developing them, for the time being at least. International pressure, international opinion, and international sanctions really do have an influence on nations that want to play in the international arena. Which Iran does.

A while back, I wrote letters to my senators and congressman about preventing Bush from launching another war. I got a response back from Elizabeth Dole's office, with a nice stamped signature, in which she said that Iran doesn't respond to negotiations and that the only way to stop a nuclear threat was to have military force "available". Well, Libby, you were wrong.

One more thought and I'll stop. Bush said today that he was told in August that there was some new information about Iran and that the intel analysts were looking at it. But he didn't get the full story until last week. Joe Biden (Democratic presidential wannabe and chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee) was flabbergasted. "Are you telling me a president that's briefed every single morning, who's fixated on Iran, is not told back in August that the tentative conclusion of 16 intelligence agencies in the U.S. government said they had abandoned their effort for a nuclear weapon in '03? I refuse to believe that. If that's true, he has the most incompetent staff in modern American history, and he's one of the most incompetent presidents in modern American history."

You go, Joe.