During the past month we have witnessed a further decay in the nation’s confidence towards its leadership. Instead of following some of the suggestions made in the September1, 2005 essay about how our President could regain the good will of the majority of the American public, the White House has pursued the opposite strategy. Not only is Mr. Rumsfeld still Secretary of Defense, but troop withdrawal in the recommended orderly sequence (1^st National Guard, 2nd Reservists, 3rd the professional military with previous tours of duty in Iraq) is also not even discussed. A recent Zogby poll showed that 72 per cent of our troops in Iraq want to come home during the current calendar year. That 89% of the Reserves and 82% of the National Guard want to leave Iraq can be expected, but that 58% of Marines want to do so likewise should give Pentagon planners food for thought.

These numbers are not surprising because every intelligent person must ask him/herself what we are really doing there. The official answer is that if we pull out completely now - which no one has suggested - the country would sink into further chaos. This is probably true but an orderly troop withdrawal needs to be publicly discussed not only on the domestic scene but internationally with the neighboring countries and the members of the Security Council. Nobody wants a full blown Civil War in Iraq and everybody has a stake in a reasonably successful outcome of that ill-advised and ill-considered venture. But this would require more compromises in regard to the future economic reconstruction of that country, by having other nations participate in the contracts, and a complete shift in our posture vis a vis the rest of the world from “forward leaning” to rational discourse among equals, which the current administration seems to be unable to consider.

There were other fascinating numbers in that poll. Eighty five percent “said the U.S. mission is mainly ‘to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks,’ 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was ‘to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.’” Although the White House has in the meantime officially denied a Saddam – al Qaeda connection this does not seem to have filtered through to the President.

In one of his rare Press Conferences on March 21 Mr. Bush did something nearly unprecedented by calling on veteran reporter Helen Thomas. He had studiously avoided her for 3 years because she is portrayed by the media as an arch-left-liberal who asks the hard questions. I watched that news conference on TV and it was embarrassing to see how the President conducted himself in this unscripted exchange.

The question by Ms. Thomas in regard to Iraq was, “Why did you really want to go to war?” After having stated that “To assume I wanted war is just – is just flat wrong,” he continued, “I – my attitude about the defense of this country changed on September the 11^th. We – when we got attacked, I vowed then and there to use every asset at my disposal to protect the American people. Our foreign policy changed on that day, Helen. You know, we used to think we were secure because of oceans and previous diplomacy. But we realized on September the 11^th, 2001, that killers could destroy innocent life. And I’m never going to forget it. And I’m never going to forget the vow I made to the American people that we will do everything in our power to protect our people. Part of that meant to make sure that we didn’t allow people to provide safe haven to an enemy. And that’s why I went into Iraq.”

Ms. Thomas’ follow up statement was obvious, “They didn’t do anything to you, or to our country.” The President then seemed flustered, “Hold on for a second -- let me -- look --excuse me for a second. They did. The Taliban provided safe heaven for Al Qaeda. That’s were Al Qaeda trained, and --“ at that point Ms. Thomas interrupted him and said “I’m talking about Iraq.” The President then backtracked and switched to Afghanistan as the training camps. “That’s where they plotted. That’s where they planned the attacks that killed thousands of innocent Americans.” As far as Iraq is concerned he stated that he had hoped to solve the problem diplomatically, that is why he went to the Security Council and had Resolution 1441 passed, “And the world said, ‘Disarm, disclose, or face serious consequences . . . and when he chose to deny inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him, and we did. And the world is safer for it.”

These words are revealing because they explain the poll numbers from our troops in Iraq as to why we are there. For the President, a complicity of Saddam in the 9/11 tragedy seems to be a fact. Against this speaks, however, that whatever Al Qaeda camps may have existed in Iraq they were not sanctioned by Saddam. From all we know they were in the Northeast corner of the country in the Kurdish controlled area. Our “no fly zone” was operative there and Saddam had no access to it. If the President had been serious about removing only Al Qaeda training camps a few cruise missiles would have readily done that job for him without all the chaos which the invasion of the country engendered.

His explanation that Saddam did not sufficiently cooperate with the inspectors as demanded by the Security Council resolution is also incomplete. The Security Council in November 2002 did not authorize the invasion for March 2003. It merely demanded that UN inspectors be allowed to return to Iraq and be given full access to whatever facility or documents they wanted to see; absent thereof there were to be “serious consequences.”  The inspectors were to provide a report and the Council, “Decides to remain seized of this matter.” Translated from legalese it says we’ll watch the situation and act whenever further action is needed. The inspectors went in, didn’t find any significant number of WMDs but since the Iraqis continued to drag their feet Dr. Blix wanted more time before “serious consequences” were contemplated. Thus, the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN but precipitated by the Bush administration and the timing depended on military necessities rather than on what Saddam did or did not do. Since this unprovoked war against Iraq has not only cost us thousands of dead and wounded, the Iraqis at least ten if not hundredfold more; destroyed their infrastructure and is bleeding our treasury white we have to hold our administration accountable. Glib rhetoric by our President, as noted above, should not be condoned. Neither should an excuse that he “meant well” or was “not fully informed,” be tolerated forever more. The mistakes and bad faith are now clear for everyone to see and it is urgent that someone educate the President on his misconceptions.

Since this war was a war of choice rather than imminent necessity and had

not been sanctioned by the UN the Nuremberg trials came to mind because German generals were hanged at that time for having committed crimes against peace. The purpose of the Tribunal was to set a precedent that even preparing plans for invading another country – in that case Poland – on orders of the head of state is a criminal offense. “Following orders” was no longer to be tolerated as an excuse. I shall deal with this problem in a subsequent essay, for now it is merely important to find out how our commanding General, Tommy Franks, prepared for and then executed the Iraq war. For that I went to the library and got his book “American Soldier,” co-authored with Malcolm McConnell. The book was published in 2004, after his retirement from the army, and the Epilogue is dated to the summer of that year at which time it had become clear that things were not going as had been anticipated. The book showed that General Franks was not only a good, competent soldier who never asked questions about the legality of this war but also firmly believed in the 9/11 connection. He was in Crete on September 11, 2001 and saw the disaster on TV. As he describes it,

 “I had no doubt that we were going to war. And it would be a war like none ever fought. . . . Sitting back in the hard plastic chair on the hotel roof, I reflected on that talk I’d given to the CENTCOM intelligence staff the previous Friday. America was in deep shock, reeling from the images of airliners smashing into buildings and those proud towers collapsing like flaming tinsel. Would my fellow citizens now be persuaded to abandon their hard-won individual freedoms to earn a bit more security in a clearly insecure world?

As I stood up, another thought struck me. Today is like Pearl Harbor. The world was one way before today, and will never be that way again. We stand at a crease of history [italics in the original].”

I have quoted this passage for two reasons. One is that it reveals the mindset and the deep trauma that day has caused in the American psyche. It was “like Pearl Harbor,” we were attacked for no reason whatsoever and now we’ll show them that America is not to be trifled with. A false belief in a bubble of “invulnerability” had been punctured and a reality, which had been known to Europeans for ages, that no country is safe at any time in history, was driven home. We who have seen our cities flattened and hundreds of thousands innocent women and children burned in the rubble took a more realistic view of the situation. Al Qaeda was not Japan or Germany, countries that could be defeated with superior military and economic power, but some amorphous group of fanatics whose destruction could not possibly be accomplished by military means. This is not hindsight because I said so on this website in October of 2001.

The second point is that if we allow this war to go on in the manner the administration has in mind we will lose further civil liberties and martial law may be proclaimed on whatever pretext seems handy at the time. This is the profound danger we face because no one will be able to prevent another terror attack, of possibly greater magnitude, on our soil.

Although even the wisdom of the Afghanistan invasion can be questioned it was supported by the international community and although the problem is far from solved it is currently not relevant. We are dealing with Iraq; how that war was planned and executed. I have previously discussed Bob Woodward’s book Plan of Attack, which covers the topic and it was gratifying to see that the essential facts between General Franks’ recollections and those of Woodward are in agreement, although the latter did not hesitate to quote the earthy language the General had used when he was told on November 27, 2001 to prepare plans for an Iraq invasion, while he was still busy with Afghanistan.

The next critical date was December 28 when General Franks had to present preliminary plans for a military campaign in Iraq at the President’s ranch in Crawford. To quote again from Franks’ book “The President seemed pleased with the thoroughness of the briefing. ‘Tommy,’ he said after I’d concluded, ‘heck of a job.’ [this sounds familiar after Katrina] He stacked his briefing charts. ‘Don,’ he told Rumsfeld, ‘keep working on this concept. It’s headed in the right direction.’”

Although no date was set for the beginning of hostilities the preparatory work was well under way. The plan, as presented in Crawford, called for 4 phases. “Phase I – Preparation, Phase II –Shape the Battlespace, Phase III Decisive Operations. Phase IV – Post-Hostility operations.” Condi Rice interjected, “the timelines are all hypothetical, aren’t they?” Franks replied,

“I see the phases beginning with N-day, which is indicated as ‘POTUS Decision.’ She was right: The conceptual timeline moved along a continuum starting with N Day, the moment when President Bush would authorize the military build-up in the region, and we would alert troops and prepare their transport from American bases to the region. From there, the continuum ran to C Day, when the flow of forces would begin; to A-Day, the beginning of air operations; from there to G Day when ground operations would be initiated; to the end of major combat operations and the launch of Phase IV-reconstruction.”

At the ensuing news conference with the media Iraq was not mentioned because that was, to use German parlance, “Geheime Reichssache.” The General stressed throughout the book the need for secrecy and that no leaks were allowed in this republic of ours. I also failed to find a date for “N Day” in the book although it seems that some preparations began immediately. The next meeting took place on February 7, 2002 in the White House Situation Room where Franks explained the type of resistance our forces might encounter at various times of the year, which included weather conditions. When all factors were taken into account the General felt that “optimum operational timing would be from December to mid-March.”

The next meeting with the President was also in the White House at some time in August, but no date was given. During that briefing Franks presented a chart where “the anticipated duration of the first three phases of the overall operation was revised to a 45-90-90 timeline.” It was assumed that it would take 45 days for deploying forces while launching an air campaign to target Iraq’s suspected WMD sites, Republican Guards formations and command and control facilities. While the troops were arriving initial combat operations would be carried out in a limited manner for 90 days. “And our ‘decisive offensive operations’ would then be conducted for a maximum of three months, to ‘complete regime destruction.’” Phase IV of unknown duration would follow thereafter. Franks also brought up the potential problem of what he called “CATASTROPHIC SUCCESS.”  Namely what he should do if the regime collapsed suddenly as a result of a military coup inside Iraq or early uprisings occurred by Shiites or Kurds. Rumsfeld answered the question with, “We would continue the operation to restore and maintain order until the Iraqis can govern themselves.” Thus it was clear in August that come what may we would occupy the country and this now explains what my informant of our fruitless mission to Senator Bennett in August of 2002 had told me, “It’s a done deal!” [October Surprise? September 1, 2002].

The next meeting with the President was at Camp David on September 7 where a Five Front invasion plan was presented by Franks. The main effort would come from Kuwait and from the NE Kurdish area. In addition there were to be Special Forces operations in the West, South West and East. The attack on the West would come first because Scuds could be launched against Israel from that area. 

An official request to the President for the deployment in the Gulf of 128,000 soldiers, airmen and Marines, prior to N Day was made by the General in November and this buildup was to be completed by February 15. Keeping the concept of a “running start” in mind the force would be augmented as soon as a Presidential decision for N Day had been made at which time the Special Forces would begin their work. The total force would also be increased to 210,000 no later than March 20, 2003.

Although Franks insists that all of the above was merely contingency planning which would have allowed the President to call off the operation at any time, he also left no doubt that he was thoroughly in favor of this war which he regarded as retaliation for 9/11. Although this was the popular opinion at that time we should also remember Chapter 1 of Bob Woodward’s Plan of Attack. Woodward wrote that in early January 2001, prior to George W. Bush’s inauguration Dick Cheney told the outgoing Defense Secretary Cohen, “’We really need to get the president-elect briefed up on some things, Cheney said, adding that he wanted a serious ‘discussion about Iraq and different options.’” As far as the Vice President was concerned Iraq should be “topic A” for the incoming administration, which Cheney regarded as “unfinished business.” It is a reasonable assumption on my part that his subsequent secret meetings on energy policy in February of 2001 had Iraq’s oil high on the list, with the proposed pipeline through Afghanistan possibly a close second. Thus, there seem to be very good reasons why these meetings have to remain carefully guarded secrets. It is, furthermore, apparent that 9/11 was an excellent pretext to set the Iraq plans in motion.

The Iraq war D-Day (opening of major hostilities) was ready to start on schedule with a final Video Teleconference on March 19, 2003. As Franks reports he received the order from the President as “’All,right. For the sake of peace in the world and security for our country and the rest of the free world . . .’ he paused; his advisers listened intently. ‘And for the freedom of the Iraqi people, as of this moment I will give Secretary Rumsfeld the order necessary to execute operation Iraqi Freedom.’” He ended with “’May God bless the troops.’”

I had always wondered what the 48 hour ultimatum for Saddam and his sons to leave the country had been all about because it was a foregone conclusion that he would not abdicate and we would invade regardless. The reason had been a request by Franks to have 48 hours of warning in order to get the Special Forces into Western Iraq and “close the Scud baskets.” G Day when ground forces entered the country went off without a hitch, our tanks arrived on schedule in Baghdad and Saddam’s statue came down on April 9

The invasion had been successfully completed and victory had been won. Unfortunately it was a Pyrrhic one. Phase IV which should have started immediately after the fall of Baghdad had been built on false premises. There were no greetings with flowers; the decent people barricaded themselves in their homes while in the absence of a power structure mobs roamed the streets, looted everything in sight and settled private scores by killing their enemies. Our Pentagon planners, although they had ample warnings from the State Department, had banked on Chalabi who had no credibility among the locals. This lack of foresight brought on the tragedy we are still confronted with 3 years later and from which we have a great deal of difficulty extricating ourselves.

The rest of Franks’ book is not relevant for the present purpose but interspersed were comments on how to conduct War and he referred to Clausewitz as well as Sun Tzu. I had bought Clausewitz’s On War several years earlier but had forgotten everything he said except for the famous dictum that “War is a mere continuation of policy by other means.” This is why I pulled it from my bookshelf and re-read the relevant portions (Penguin Classics 1968. Carl von Clausewitz On War). I was surprised to note that I had originally ignored the Introduction by the Editor Anatol Rapoport. This should have stuck in my mind because Rapoport was one member of the triumvirate with Ralph Gerard and Jim Miller under whom I worked in the Mental Health Research Institute at the University of Michigan from 1955-1958. The Introduction, written in 1967 when the Vietnam War was beginning to penetrate the American consciousness, is of utmost importance for today. Rapoport emphasized that the Clausewitz doctrines, while valid for conventional wars between states, lose their relevance when it comes to “asymmetric warfare,” where all the power is concentrated in the hands of one force and the opposing side is weak. This is, of course, the case in our “unipolar” world where different strategies are called for. I shall not go into the details of Clausewitz‘s and Rapport’s presentations except to say that if our Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces had read the book he could have spared the world a great deal of grief. It should be required reading for every incoming President, Vice President and Secretary of Defense.

So should be The Art of War by Sun Tzu (Shambala Classics Boston&London 2002). This Chinese General who lived approximately 2,300 years ago has advice which is followed today by the insurgents in Iraq and is bound to be followed whenever we will engage in a protracted military engagement with China. The fundamental aphorism in regard to the enemy is,

“The military is a Tao of deception . . .

When he seeks advantage lure him. ~

When he is in chaos, take him . . .

When he is strong, avoid him.

When he is wrathful, harass him.

Attack when he is unprepared.

Emerge where he does not expect it.”

Some other of Sun Tzu’s aphorisms are:

“If victory takes long, it blunts the military and grinds down its sharpness.

If soldiers are long in the field, the state’s resources are insufficient . . .

One who does not thoroughly know the harm from employing the military cannot thoroughly know the advantage from employing the military . . .

One hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the most skillful. Subduing the other’s military without battle is the most skillful . . .

Invincibility is defense. Attack and one is insufficient . . .

When I am few and the enemy is many, I can use the few to strike the many because those with whom I do battle are restricted! . . .

In the military more is not better . . .

Knowing the other and knowing oneself, in one hundred battles no danger. Not knowing the other and knowing oneself, One victory for one loss. Not knowing the other and not knowing oneself, in every battle certain defeat.

This is precisely the advice Osama bin Laden gave to the true believers in Iraq prior to our invasion of that country. “Build trenches, melt into the background, fight where the enemy is weak and all his ‘smart weapons’ will be useless. The Americans are impatient; you have time on your side.”

When one considers this information, which is readily available, it becomes painfully obvious how incompetent and dangerously frivolous the Bush administration conducted itself. We can absolve General Franks “he just followed orders” and as a military man he did his job well. His civilian superiors failed him, the country and the world.

This brings us back to the perception of the troops that we had to remove Saddam because he was involved in the 9/11 tragedy. The sad fact is that we still don’t know exactly what happened on that fateful day. The administration’s explanation that: 19 fanatic Muslims had hijacked four airliners, smashed two into the twin towers of the WTC, which collapsed as a result and killed thousands of innocents, another plane crashed into the Pentagon and a fourth one went down in Pennsylvania while some passengers struggled with the hijackers for control of the plane, is no longer credible. There are serious problems with this scenario which are detailed on various Internet sites and let me emphasize that not all the people who gathered this information are “conspiracy freaks.”

Let me mention just a few glaring discrepancies. As far as the twin towers are concerned it is true that each one was hit in short succession by two separate aircrafts which exploded in fireballs. But at the time of their collapse the fires were largely under control and it is reported that there is not a single steel constructed building that has collapsed because of fires although they had burned for considerably longer time than what was the case in the twin towers. It is stated on the Internet that Jet fuel creates a maximum temperature of 1800 degrees Fahrenheit, while steel requires about 2500 degrees to melt. Furthermore, the videos from official news organizations show that the towers collapsed at the speed of “free fall” and anyone who has bothered to look at these videos realizes that these pictures are typical of a controlled demolition by previously placed explosives, just as happened with WTC 7 which had not been hit by a plane. While the planes were responsible for damage to the twin towers and some loss of life, it seems likely that the major catastrophe, their collapse with the loss of more than two thousand, was a deliberate act carried out by Americans rather than Muslim fanatics.

This is a terrible thought to contemplate and one does not want to accept its validity but there are other strange events in relation to the two other hijacked planes. As far as the Pentagon attack is concerned the hole made by the plane appears to be too small to accommodate a 757. The plane supposedly disintegrated completely because no major debris was found and the so called engine that was photographed does not resemble one that is used by 757s. Although numerous security cameras existed and took pictures of what happened, these videos were reportedly immediately confiscated by the FBI and have not been shown to the public. As far as the plane that supposedly went down in Pennsylvania is concerned it had likewise disintegrated completely with no remaining parts and it is reported that the coroner, who had been called to the “crash site,” gave up after twenty minutes because there were no bodies. Events like these are unprecedented in airline disasters.

I have previously mentioned (January 1, 2006. When Presidents Lie) that these reports cry out for an impartial, international investigation of what really happened. It needs to be international because unfortunately we cannot trust the objectivity of our government at this time. This is urgent because another terror attack may occur at any time and under those circumstances martial law is likely to be imposed and our republic would be turned into a dictatorship. Just as the Reichstagsbrand allowed Hitler to push his enabling act through the Reichstag, 9/11 has spawned the Patriot Act which may merely be a herald of things to come if we don’t rise up in protest.

The danger does not come from terrorists; whatever attack were to occur, the country could weather it. As with 9/11 the danger comes from an unscrupulous exploitation by the government for political purposes. As American citizens it is, therefore, our duty to expose, to the best of our ability, the deceptions the Bush administration practices. We who do so do not “hate Bush,” as is alleged, we are simply concerned about how our country is governed and we are also mindful of Mark Twain’s words:

“A Patriot supports his country always and his government when it deserves it.”

Our current government does not and a peaceful “regime change” is necessary.