Letters to the Editor
cabdriver
Published Letters: 312 Editor's Choice: 6
-
cool, clear water
[Read the article: Guns and water coolers in Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]One of the most telling indicators that the Bush war planners had little or no interest in the goal of returning the country of Iraq to a condition of stability and prosperity can be known simply by reviewing the time of year that the invasion took place- sandstorm season, going into sunstroke season.
The typical requirement for water in a climate with temperatures averaging 100F is along the lines of 5-10 gallons per person per day, depending on the level of activity performed. Unlike food, the demand for water doesn't respond well to rationing.
It's impossible to do serious construction work once the ambient air temperature goes much over 90F degrees- much less 100F, or 130F. Vehicle maintenance and repair is a nightmare. Even basic security work like posting sentries for checkpoint and perimeter guard duty is severely hampered. Many types of sustained physical effort are simply impossible.
Surely the present occupant of the White House was aware of that fact, from his own firsthand experiences as a some-time resident of Midlands, Texas. I doubt that any of George W. Bush's famed brush-clearing photo ops in Midland took place once the sun got high, and the temperature went over 80 degrees.
It sure doesn't look like it, from the linked photos. [click on my signature for live link]
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/images/20020809-1_ranch4-765v.html
The date of the Iraq invasion guaranteed that months of breakdown and entropy would intervene before it would be possible to launch any serious effort to even begin returning the delivery of basic services such as electricity and running water to the Iraqi people.
The rush to war also made quite a number of sunstroke casualties. Sunstroke is no trivial matter- it can kill or cripple just as surely as the other types of stroke.
Why did the Bush administration schedule the invasion for March, of all months? What was the hurry?
-
I'm an Army brat...
[Read the article: How the military analyst program controlled news coverage: in the Pentagon's own words]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]son of a West Point grad, officer, lifer, some-time Pentagon denizen, etc...and my perspective is somewhat different, in regard to the motivations of the military.
I honestly don't think that the impetus of all of this is ideological. I do think that the Pentagon personnel in question would have done the same thing for any president determined to ramp up a war.
A couple of points to bear in mind:
1) as an institution, the US Army still carries a chip on its shoulder about the way that the press- especially the US press- covered the war in Vietnam. They feel as if the journalists of that era were mostly made up of people with hostile biases, out to make them wrong despite their best efforts in the field. Their impression is that the narrative slipped out of their control- not so much because of its objective deficiencies, but because of active undermining by the press.
Reviewing the merits of that position is a debate for a different thread. For now, I'll simply note that the US military side of the argument isn't wholly devoid of evidence to support it. And that evidence has in turn been passed on to comprise somewhat of an article of faith in today's military- that the US press can't be automatically counted on for loyalty, discretion, or basic competence when covering a war fought by its own nation's people. As military professionals, they're determined to not allow a repeat of the Vietnam experience in terms of their relationship to the American media.
2) The US military is inculcated with the idea that duty to the directives of the President is their primary Constitutional duty, especially in wartime. They're also trained to be absolutely one-pointed, focused, mission-driven. So they'll walk right up to whatever line they determine is proper in order to ensure the success of the mission. They aren't going to spend a lot of time consulting with lawyers in advance about what constitutes an overstepping of guidelines in terms of doing public advocacy to the media in regard to what they consider their duly ordered mission. If they're challenged by another institution of the Federal government, they'll put on their best loyal defense of their actions. But if they're admonished, they'll back off.
It's both the strength and the weakness of the American civilian-controlled military that they tend to studiously avoid whys and wherefores. Basically, as long as there are institutions like elections and legislative and judicial review, they consider their orders from the commander-in-chief of a civilian-controlled government to be lawful, and their mission worthy and compelling. After that, "there is no 'try'".
For me, the amazing thing about this war is not the rallying of the military hierarchy to the directives of the Commander-In-Chief- that's to be expected. The amazing thing is the level of dissent that has been expressed by military personnel, both prior to the Iraq invasion and continuing afterward- whether taking the form of open criticism (both publically and behind the scenes), or through more tacit moves like early retirements.