October 12, 2006
There may be some signs of strain and concern in the U.S. government. We wonder if, with all that is happening in the world, the U.S. government needs a new approach to the war on terror and world diplomacy and engagement in general.
Yesterday, on October 11, General Peter Schoomaker, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, gave an interview. Schoomaker might be considered to be a tad more independent than many military men. He was recalled to active duty from retirement for his job - an almost unheard of action since the end of World War II.
Schoomaker said, "While we must prevail, victory is not assured," and "we are much closer to the beginning than the end" of the war.
Schoomaker expressed concern that national support for the war on terror has been "tepid," noting that just 4 percent of the United States' gross national product is committed to defense. This compares to 38 percent during World War II.
"Ultimately, victory requires a national strategic consensus ... in words and actions," he said. "Another 9/11 should not have to occur to shake us into action."
Schoomaker is calling for unity and greater effort. Without using the word "mobilize," he is likening this war to the effort in World War II and wondering why the United States cannot invest more time, effort and resources to this war.
Schoomaker also made news by indicating to reporters that the current U.S. troop level in Iraq could remain there unchanged until the year 2010.
And the President has always said he will support the advice of his senior military officers. Just yesterday at a news conference the president said the last time he talked to general Casey in Iraq he told him he would support his recommendations.
"I said: General, the Baghdad security plan is in its early implementation. I support you strongly but, if you come into this office and say we need to do something differently, I support you," the president told reporters.
"If you need more troops, I support you. If you're going to devise a new strategy, we're with you. Because I trust General Casey to make the judgments necessary to put the tactics in place to help us achieve an objective," said President Bush.
If you have ever heard a seasoned lawyer carefully choosing his words, you know what General Casey sounds like much of the time. Just a few months ago General Casey told reporters he would be bringing troops home soon. Then, Baghdad got ugly and Casey lengthened soldiers' "in country" time to add troops to the troubled streets of Baghdad.
On September 25, 2006, more than five years after the September 11, 2001 attacks, Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste told Senators during his appearance before the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, "We must mobilize our country for a protracted challenge."
General Batiste was joined on September 25 by two others in agreement: retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, and retired U.S. Marine Corps Colonel Paul X. Hammes.
O.K. that is only three gentlemen. But three experienced warriors who served in Iraq and who say their conclusions are supported by many others on active duty. The testimony was the most riveting I have heard since I first came to the halls of Congress in 1974. My impression of this hearing was that these three military men are tired of seeing men die and suffer tremendous wounds in a conflict they feel is poorly managed and under funded. I thought, "These guys feel honor bound to be here."
There is also the voice of James K. Kallstrom. The former FBI Assistant Director and the man who was in charge of the criminal investigation in the crash of TWA Flight 800, Mr. Kallstrom is now Advisor to the Governor of New York for Counter-Terrorism. On the Fox News Channel on September 27, Mr. Kallstrom said, "We haven't yet done a lot of common sense things here at home" to fight the war on terror. He added, "We are in a massive war and I am afraid most Americans have no idea...."
I find it very interesting that the president is staying the course and saying he'll follow military advice while there is already a rumbling of military advice that says do not stay the course but DO MORE!
Between Iraq, North Korea and Iran alone the foreign policy and diplomacy requirements have to be mind boggling. But there have been several other, let's call them "second echelon" crises or situations, that have also complicated the strategic landscape. Just this year, Israel went to war with Hezbollah, Muslims rioted in France (and reacted badly to some cartoons and the Pope), nations like Venezuela and Iran lobbied for seats on the U.N. Security Council, and in Southeast Asia a coup in Thailand removed a democratic government just as Vietnam became ready for perhaps more democracy with a new government in place and anticipated entry into the World Trade Organization.
There are just a few situations where U.S. interests are involved but where, arguably, the full intellectual might of our best people might be distracted by the bigger fish to fry in Iraq and elsewhere.
There are some other indicators that mobilization, or at least some greater effort, may be in order because maybe our government is not totally and completely able to handle all its responsibilities during the added weight of the war on terror. Am I crazy or did a democratically elected government in Asia fall during a coup a few weeks ago?
The new man in Thailand is a Muslim general in charge of the army. He says he'll name a civilian leadership corps, get the King's approval, and hold elections again....in a year or so.
Granted that Thailand is not much of a threat to anybody and this was the 18th coup in Thailand since it became a constitutional democracy in 1932. One still has to wonder if there might be strategic implications from this coup d'-tat later on.
Even though President Bush has said over and over that spreading democracy is part of his doctrine, and that "democracies don't attack other democracies," he seemed to give the Thai military a "pass" on this. Just as he has given Musharraf a pass on his democracy, apparently.