"Metrics" is one of US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's obsessions. In October 2003, he sent a memo to his deputies and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff: "Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror." Rumsfeld demanded precise measurements of progress, including the "ideological." By the "war on terror" he meant Iraq as well as Afghanistan. A study was commissioned by the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) and conducted by the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA), a military think tank. In utterly neutral terms, the IDA report detailed a grim picture at odds with the Bush administration's rosy scenarios. Not only has Rumsfeld suppressed the report, but the Pentagon has yet to acknowledge it.
In the invasion of Iraq, Rumsfeld applied his doctrine of using a light combat force against the advice of the senior military. General Eric Shinseki, commander of the army, was publicly ridiculed for suggesting that a larger force would be required. But it was assumed by Rumsfeld and the neocons that there would be no long occupation because democracy would spontaneously flower.
ILLUSTRATION YUSHA
In April last year the Strategic Studies Institute of the Army War College produced a report on the metrics of the Rumsfeld doctrine: Toppling Saddam: Iraq and American Military Transformation. It concluded that the swift victory over Saddam was achieved by overwhelming technological superiority and Iraqi weakness, and therefore using operation Iraqi Freedom as "evidence" for Rumsfeld's "transformation proposals could be a mistake." The Pentagon has refused to release the study.
"Intellectual terrorism" prevails through the defense establishment, a leading military strategist at one of the war colleges, who deals in calm, measured expertise of a nonpartisan nature, told me. Even the respected defense research institute, the Rand Corp, is being "cut out of the loop," denied contracts for studies because the "metrics" are at odds with Rumsfeld.
US President George W. Bush clings to good news and happy talk, such as the number of school openings in Iraq. Those with gloomy assessments are not permitted to appear before him. The president orders no meetings on options based on worst-case scenarios. Military strategists and officers are systematically ignored. Suppression of contrary "metrics" is done in his name and spirit. Bush makes his decisions from a self-imposed bunker, a situation room of the mind, where ideological fantasies substitute for reality.
"I think elections will be such a hopeful experience for the Iraqi people ... And I look at the elections as a ... as a ... you know, as a ... as ... as a historical marker for our Iraq policy," Bush said last week.
His statement was prompted by Brent Scowcroft, his father's national security adviser and alter ego. Fired as chairman of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, Scowcroft aired his views at a lunch sponsored by a Washington think tank. The Iraq election, he said, has "deep potential for deepening the conflict," acting as an impetus to "civil war." He reflected sadly that being a "realist" has become a "pejorative." "A road map is helpful if you know where you are," he said.
Scowcroft was joined by Zbigniew Brzezinski, former President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, who spelled out the minimal metrics for winning the Iraq war -- 500,000 troops, US$500 billion, a military draft and a wartime tax, and then it would take at least 10 years.
Unwillingness to pay this price while staying on the current path would be a sign of "decadence."
Bush speaks of the Iraqi election as though it is the climax of democracy. But by failing to provide for a Sunni presence in the new government -- proportional representation would easily have accomplished this -- it is as ill-conceived a blunder as invading with a light force, disbanding the Iraqi army, attacking Fallujah, halting the attack and finally destroying the city in order to save it, Vietnam-style.
According to former CPA official Larry Diamond: "One British official lamented to me, the `CPA [officials] didn't want anything to happen that they didn't control.'"
Bush, meanwhile, works on his second inaugural address, to be delivered this week, where his speechwriters can be counted on to produce a bravura speech filled with high-flown patriotism and evangelical codewords, a paean to can-do optimism. "They're not code words; they're our culture," speechwriter Michael Gerson said.
This rhetoric summons purity
of heart ("written in the human heart"), divine blessing ("God is not neutral"), and the power of faith ("there's power, wonder-working power, in the goodness and idealism and faith of the American people").
As Bush draws the sword of righteousness against the forces of darkness, the enemy being evil itself ("evildoers ... axis of evil"), he ascends on messianic imagery. "Do you not think an angel rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm?" he said in his first inaugural, quoting a letter written by a Virginian friend to Thomas Jefferson during the American revolution. "This story goes on," said Bush. "And an angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm."
That verse is in the book of Nahum. It contains no "angel," but the Lord, "a jealous and avenging God ... full of wrath ... The Lord is long suffering, and great in power, and will by no means clear the guilty; The Lord, in the whirlwind and in the storm is His way, And the clouds are the dust of His feet ... Woe to the bloody city! It is all full of lies and rapine ... Thy crowned are as the locusts, And thy marshals as the swarms of grasshoppers..."
These metrics continue for several more verses: "There is no assuaging of thy hurt; Thy wound is grievous..."
Sidney Blumenthal, a former senior adviser to former US President Bill Clinton, is Washington bureau chief of salon.com.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
RSS