Imperial Hubris: Insanity As The New Normal -- And Nobody Even Asks 'Why?'

"This nation has got to ... fix what is soon going to be broken."
-- Rep. Walter B. Jones (R-NC)

Chris Floyd, who hits the ball hard and straight more often than most, and hardly ever strikes out, here stands accused of inconsistency nevertheless, in that he occasionally knocks the ball out of the city as well as out of the park, so to speak.

For exhibit "A", so to speak .. watch this!

Ann Scott Tyson, of the Washington Post, toes the rubber, winds and works, and here's the pitch: Military Is Ill-Prepared For Other Conflicts:

Four years after the invasion of Iraq, the high and growing demand for U.S. troops there and in Afghanistan has left ground forces in the United States short of the training, personnel and equipment that would be vital to fight a major ground conflict elsewhere, senior U.S. military and government officials acknowledge.

More troubling, the officials say, is that it will take years for the Army and Marine Corps to recover from what some officials privately have called a "death spiral," in which the ever more rapid pace of war-zone rotations has consumed 40 percent of their total gear, wearied troops and left no time to train to fight anything other than the insurgencies now at hand.

The risk to the nation is serious and deepening, senior officers warn, because the U.S. military now lacks a large strategic reserve of ground troops ready to respond quickly and decisively to potential foreign crises, whether the internal collapse of Pakistan, a conflict with Iran or an outbreak of war on the Korean Peninsula. Air and naval power can only go so far in compensating for infantry, artillery and other land forces, they said. An immediate concern is that critical Army overseas equipment stocks for use in another conflict have been depleted by the recent troop increases in Iraq, they said.

"We have a strategy right now that is outstripping the means to execute it," Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, Army chief of staff, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday.

The Army's vice chief of staff, Gen. Richard A. Cody, described as "stark" the level of readiness of Army units in the United States, which would be called on if another war breaks out. "The readiness continues to decline of our next-to-deploy forces," Cody told the House Armed Services Committee's readiness panel last week. "And those forces, by the way, are ... also your strategic reserve."

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff [photo top right], was asked last month by a House panel whether he was comfortable with the preparedness of Army units in the United States. He stated simply: "No ... I am not comfortable."

"You take a lap around the globe -- you could start any place: Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Venezuela, Colombia, Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, North Korea, back around to Pakistan, and I probably missed a few. There's no dearth of challenges out there for our armed forces," Pace warned in his testimony. He said the nation faces increased risk because of shortfalls in troops, equipment and training.

In earlier House testimony, Pace said the military, using the Navy, Air Force and reserves, could handle one of three major contingencies, involving North Korea or -- although he did not name them -- Iran or China. But, he said, "It will not be as precise as we would like, nor will it be on the timelines that we would prefer, because we would then, while engaged in one fight, have to reallocate resources and remobilize the Guard and reserves."

and so on ...

Depending on where you stand, you'll see this curveball in one way or another. You can read it as a more-or-less standard Pentagon plea for more money, and/or a request from upper brass for some saner tactics, and/or a boogeyman in the global closet warning of what might will happen if when America's massive military might gets spread even thinner than the demands of global logistics can bear.

A more-or-less standard analysis might would take one of the above more-or-less naive cynical points of attack and pick out various quotes to support their more-or-less naive cynical points of view.

For instance, when all the pro-Bush armchair warriors read the bad news -- that we face increased risk because of shortfalls in troops, equipment and training and that we might have to reallocate resources and remobilize the Guard and reserves -- they'll certainly find their next soapboxes already built and ready to go.

And when the most of the anti-Bush armchair warriors see how our strategy right now is outstripping the means to execute it, they'll find ample reasons to prattle on about "mismanagement" -- as if an enormous crime against humanity would be any more righteous were it done with more deadly efficiency.

But Chris Floyd takes a different approach, producing a more sophisticated multi-level analysis which looks not only at what was said but at what was left unsaid.

It's one of his best pieces in a long, long time, "Hubris and Obscenity: Imperial Ambitions on Naked Display".

I insist that you read the whole piece, but I don't mind getting you started:

Rarely has the imperial hubris that lies at the basis of U.S. foreign policy – the unspoken, unquestioned assumption of America's right to global domination by force – been so nakedly revealed than in the recent Washington Post story decrying the degraded state of the Pentagon's military preparedness.
...

On its surface, at the level of meaning it intends to convey to readers, the story is disturbing enough. The upshot is that Bush's reckless and stupid war of aggression in Iraq has plunged American military stocks and manpower reserves into a "death spiral" of depletion that will take years – and untold billions of dollars – to replenish.
...

On the second level of meaning – which the reporter may or may not have consciously intended to put across – we find something equally disturbing... What gives cause for the greatest immediate concern in Pace's remarks is his observation that in a coming "major contingency" – such as the all-but-inevitable attack on Iran – the Pentagon's campaign "will not be as precise as we would like."

What is this but a tacit admission that when push comes to shove with Tehran, the United States will have to go in with a sledgehammer, lashing out left and right – no "surgical strike" against alleged nuclear facilities, but a blunderbuss assault, with the attendant "collateral damage" and destruction of civilian infrastructure that we have seen in Iraq (twice), Kosovo, Panama, Vietnam and other "contingencies."
...

All of this is bad enough in itself. But it is the third level of meaning – never expressed either directly or indirectly but embodied by the story as a whole -- that is the most profoundly disturbing. The present state of affairs leaves the nation at grave risk, we are told. Why? Because it leaves the United States somewhat hobbled in its ability to impose its will military on any nation or region it so chooses. Again, attend to General Pace as he tells Congress that he is "not comfortable" with the Army's readiness:

"You take a lap around the globe -- you could start any place: Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Venezuela, Colombia, Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, North Korea, back around to Pakistan, and I probably missed a few. There's no dearth of challenges out there for our armed forces," Pace warned in his testimony.

This is not the statement of a military officer serving in the armed forces of a democratic republic devoted to the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of its citizens. This is the action list of a Roman general seeking more funds so that he might fulfill Caesar's commands for further conquests and punitive raids beyond the frontiers of the Empire. Nation after nation, in every corner of the globe, is laid out for possible military intervention – "and I probably missed a few." And the legislators – of both parties – who heard these dire warnings merely nodded their heads in solemn agreement: the United States must be ready at all times to strike with massive force at short notice anywhere and everywhere in the world.

Not a single Congressional official – or the reporter – ever asked the simple question: Why?

Good question, no? And that's just the beginning. It's a bit longer than the average blog post -- even for Chris -- but that's a bonus in my book because it's so well done; I recommend it to your attention on every level: it's brilliant, concise, beautifully written, and right effing on, so to speak.

Please click, read, and learn: "Hubris and Obscenity: Imperial Ambitions on Naked Display" by Chris Floyd.

Gwynne Dyer: If Bush Gives The Order, Pace Faces A Big Decision

Many people listen to the White House these days and conclude a United States attack on Iran is imminent: "To be quite honest, I'm a little concerned that it's Iraq again," as Senator John Rockefeller, the new chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said recently.

But if President Bush gives the order, then General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will face a big decision.

Some senior US soldiers were worried about the strategic wisdom and even the legality of invading Iraq, but nobody resigned over it. It was obvious the US would win the war quickly and cheaply, and almost nobody worried about the aftermath.

But an attack on Iran is different, even though it would not involve American ground troops, because any competent general knows this is a war the US cannot win.

Who says there's a war the US cannot win?

Why, Gwynne Dyer, of course. He's a veteran of two navies and a respected military historian; he knows the difference between slogans and realities. Dyer's most recent column comes to us today from New Zealand.

Air strikes alone cannot win a war, however massive they are, and they probably could not even destroy all of Iran's nuclear facilities, which are numerous, dispersed, and often deeply buried.

Many Iranians would be killed, but what would the US do next? It would have very few options, whereas Iran would have many. Iran could flood Iraq with sophisticated weapons and volunteers to fight against US forces.

It could throw international markets into turmoil by halting its oil exports. It could try to close the entire Gulf to tanker traffic, and throw the world economy into crisis.

And any further US air strikes would simply harden Iranians' resolve.

So ... what to do about it?

How about NOT doing it?

So would General Pace attack Iran if Bush ordered him to? His only alternative would be to resign, but he does have that option.

Senior officers like Pace, while still bound by the code of military discipline, also acquire a political responsibility. Like cabinet ministers, they cannot oppose a government decision while in office, but they have the right and even the duty to resign rather than carry out a decision they believe disastrous.

The resignation of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - and possibly several of the other chiefs as well - would be an immensely powerful gesture. It could stop an attack on Iran dead in its tracks, for the White House would have to find other officers who would carry out its orders.

It would doubtless find them, but such a shocking event might finally enable Congress to find its backbone and refuse support for another illegal and foredoomed war.

But what would it say to the Terrorists?

My guess is both the Joint Chiefs and the White House understand that the option of resignation is on the table. Consider the dance that was done around the question of Iran and "Explosively Formed Penetrators" in the past couple of weeks. (EFPs are glorified shaped-charge weapons that can penetrate armour. Most major armies have had them for several decades.)

On 11 February, US officials claimed the EFPs that have killed some 170 American troops in Iraq since 2004 were Iranian-made, and supplied to Iraqi insurgents by "the highest levels of the Iranian government".

White House spokesman Tony Snow insisted they were being supplied by the Quds unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

Familiar stuff from the run-up to the Iraq war - but then something unscripted happened. In Australia, General Peter Pace said Iranian Government involvement was not proven: "We know that the explosively formed projectiles are manufactured in Iran, but I would not say by what I know that the Iranian Government clearly knows or is complicit." A day later, in Jakarta, he repeated his doubts: "What [the evidence] does say is that things made in Iran are being used in Iraq to kill coalition soldiers."

Methinks the General ought to know enough not to undercut his Commander in Chef while he's trying to catapult the propaganda!

There is a civil-military confrontation brewing in the US not seen since President Truman fired General Douglas MacArthur during the Korean War.

But this time, if the general acts on his convictions, he will be in the right.

There are some people around here looking for a much more serious civil-military confrontation than the president firing a General. And pulling for the military, too, unless I am very much mistaken.

The "thinking" goes: If we can't have gridlock in Congress then maybe we can get some mutiny in the Pentagon. Yesterday I wasn't sure whether that would qualify as thinking or merely wishin' and hopin' and prayin' ... but today, having read Dyer's most recent, I could almost be persuaded that there's hope for us yet.

Slim is always better than None.

Surge? -- Countersurge! Next Stop: Afghanistan

You could see this coming a mile away:

The Guardian, January 16:
U.S. Officials Say Taliban Attacks Surge

Taliban fighters seeking to regain power in Afghanistan are taking advantage of a recent peace deal with the Pakistan government to dramatically increase attacks on U.S. and allied forces in eastern and southeastern Afghanistan, several American military officials said Tuesday.

Hmm... Several American military officials? All saying the same thing at the same time?

[BEEP! BEEP! BEEP!]

Did you hear that? That was the detector going off. I apologize for the disruption. Unfortunately, the people who need it most just can't seem to hear it.

New York Times, January 17:
Commanders in Afghanistan Request More Troops

American and NATO military commanders in Afghanistan are worried about the resurgent Taliban insurgency and have asked for additional troops, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said today, adding that he was “sympathetic” to the request.

Mr. Gates said that the commanders had “indicated what they could do with different force levels,” but he would not say how many additional troops the commanders had asked for.

Of course not. How can they fudge the figures later if they divulge them now?

New York Times, January 17:
As Raids on Afghan Border Increase, U.S. Military Seeks More Troops

American commanders say the surge in cross-border attacks has coincided with an agreement reached last September in which the Pakistani government pulled back its soldiers in the North Waziristan region in return for a pledge from tribal elders not to shelter militants or allow them to engage in illegal behavior.

In the two months before the agreement, the senior American intelligence official said, there were 40 cross-border attacks in Khost and Paktika Provinces. But in the two months after the agreement there were 140 attacks.
...
Asked about increasing American troop levels in Afghanistan, Mr. Gates said that if military commanders sought more, “I would be strongly inclined to recommend that to the president.”

He also urged other NATO counties to fulfill their pledges to send more troops and equipment to Afghanistan.

It's a good thing Pakistan is our "ally". It's tough to imagine what would be happening if Pakistan were our enemy.

Reuters, January 17:
Gates to consider more troops for Afghanistan

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Wednesday he would consider sending more troops to Afghanistan where U.S. commanders say they expect the Taliban to step up attacks from Pakistani sanctuaries.

Gates, in Afghanistan to ensure commanders have the resources to counter an expected Taliban offensive in the spring, said it was very important the United States and its allies did not let the success achieved in Afghanistan slip away.

Success? What Success?

Oh, right -- I almost forgot. Opium production is way up.

And what's good for the global heroin trade is good for the United States.

U.S. military commanders said attacks from Pakistan into Afghanistan had surged, several-fold in some areas, and the violence was expected to increase in the spring and summer.

Do you hear that?

Surge, surge, surge.

I can't help but wonder if all this talk of attacks surging is designed to whip up support for the so-called president's plan to send more than 20,000 more troops to Iraq. After all, if "the enemy" are surging, shouldn't we surge, too?

It looks as if our so-called leaders are preparing us for multiple surges -- one in Afghanistan, one in Iraq, and options still open with respect to Iran and Syria.

Am I stretching? I don't think so. The preparations haven't been hard to spot. They're not exactly being subtle about it. Even TIME Magazine has noticed.

TIME, January 17:
A Surge in Afghanistan Too?

The U.S. commander in Afghanistan has asked for "significant increases" in resources for what some critics call America's "invisible" war. Army Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, the head of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, has recommended to Gates that the U.S. send more troops and more money to Afghanistan. He has proposed almost tripling the spending on assistance to the Afghan Security Forces and reconstruction projects to some $8 billion.

While the request needs the approval of the Joint Chiefs of Staff before it can be presented to President Bush, Secretary of State Robert Gates — on his first trip to Afghanistan — appears receptive to the idea.

The full-bore lying campaign, clearly designed to obfuscate the possible implications, has already begun.

When asked by a reporter today if the U.S. military was too strained by Iraq and other commitments to send more troops to Afghanistan, Gen Peter Pace acknowledged that "any kind of deployment is going to add a short term strain." But he said that a short-term increase in troops could actually mean less strain on the force over the longer run.

And how will that work? The more troops we have getting slaughtered in Afghanistan in the near future, the stronger our Army will be in the distant future? I guess that must be it. Peter Pace thinks we're all as dumb as a stick. And maybe some of us are.

As if this weren't impossibly sad already, even some so-called leaders of the putative opposition are receptive to the idea.

The Guardian, January 17:
Hillary Clinton opposes Iraq troops 'surge'

Ms Clinton said she opposed George Bush's plans to send a 'surge' of more than 20,000 extra troops to Iraq.

More should instead go to Afghanistan, she told NBC's Today Show.

She said the US president was "taking troops away from Afghanistan, where I think we need to be putting more troops, and sending them to Iraq on a mission that I think has a very limited, if any, chance for success".

Never mind whether the mission in Afghanistan stands any chance of success. Never mind whether the notion of "success" in Afghanistan has ever been defined. Just get us out of Iraq, without getting us out of the Middle East. Is that the idea?

It all seems like a cynical ploy to me; Ms. Clinton can appear to be critical of the so-called president on Iraq, but in the meantime she can appear to be "strong" on "National Security" in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan was "one of the great missed opportunities", Ms Clinton argued, urging an increase in US troops there before a likely "spring offensive" by the Taliban. "Let's focus on Afghanistan and get it right," she said.

I have an even better idea. Let's focus on 9/11. Let's have an honest investigation for a change. Let's find out -- once and for all -- whether Afghanistan had anything to do with it.

Maybe the Taliban were behind the attacks. Or maybe the Taliban were sheltering al-Q'aeda who were behind the attacks. Or maybe al-Q'aeda and the Taliban were merely blamed for the attacks. If we really knew, maybe we could decide what to do about it. But considering that we don't know, how can we decide anything? And for that matter, why are we in Afghanistan at all?

Are we still looking for Osama bin Laden? Sorry, he's dead. And according to the FBI, he was never wanted in connection with 9/11 anyway -- because they have no evidence against him.

So why are we still there?

This wouldn't have anything to do with a pipeline, would it?