Yes Or No On Iraq? Both Jeff Cooper and the Daily Kos are pointing out that the divide inside the Bush Administration over going to war with Iraq is roughly split between those who served in the military, but oppose intervention on one side (Powell, Scowcroft, Hagel, Clark); with those who never served, but favor intervention (Rice, Perle, Cheney, Wolfowitz), on the other. As Cooper points out:
I continue to be amazed by the enthusiasm for warfare displayed by many neo-con hawks who did not themselves serve, and by their eagerness to denigrate combat veterans who disagree by labeling them an "axis of appeasement." Bill Kristol mocked Senator Chuck Hagel for asking whether Richard Perle "would like to be in the first wave of those who go into Baghdad. But it seems to me eminently fair to ask those who would begin a military action whether they believe that the action is so clearly warranted as to justify mortal risk to themselves or their loved ones. If the answer is no, that does not necessarily and entirely defeat the argument for action. But it would raise serious questions, and, at the very least, the advocates would do well to temper their enthusiasm.
Their point is a powerful one: how can those who avoided military service (for whatever reason) advocate going to war when it will be someone else who might be sacrificed at the point of the sword? And how can you continue to advocate going to war, when those who have served, and continue to serve in the uniform of the nation's armed forces, are speaking out against such military action?
How indeed?
Well, because, sometimes, the generals are wrong -- completely and profoundly wrong.
General George McClellan, commander of the Army of the Potomac, was wrong during the Civil War, when he continually refused to engage Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia in the field. It's important to note that his actions were in direct conflict with the express orders of President Abraham Lincoln, a former Whig and war resister during the Mexican-American War (who despite this background made a fine commander in chief).
Knowing that the key to defeating the Confederacy lay in destroying its armies in the field, Lincoln continually pressed McClellan to take action against the Confederates time and again, only to be told that the time wasn't right. One of the great sources of McClellan's excuses was his reliance on spies in the employ of the Pinkerton Detective Agency. More often than not, Allan Pinkerton's men would grossly overestimate the strength of Confederate forces, giving McClellan another excuse to keep the Army of the Potomac in camp. The result: Robert E. Lee and his Confederate forces almost always had the initiative when facing McClellan in the early years of the war. Looking back, it's hard not to conclude that his inaction extended the Civil War, and cost thousands more American dead.
During the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Joint Chiefs of Staff was in favor of an invasion of Cuba once it was discovered that the Soviet Union had deployed intermediate range nuclear missiles on the island. But it was Attorney General Bobby Kennedy (who though he served in the Navy in World War II, never saw combat), who devised a naval blockade that prevented the Soviets from reinforcing Cuba, yet at the same time created enough time and space for both sides to back down from the nuclear precipice. Had President Kennedy taken the advice of the Joint Chiefs, we might have been looking at a nuclear holocaust.
So, while it may be an interesting wrinkle that the non-veterans are lining up in favor of war, it doesn't mean a whole lot when it comes to arguing for or against intervention against Iraq (something that Jeff notes in his own post). In fact, it's hard not to notice that Daily Kos' post is devoid of any sort of rational argument against attacking Iraq, but rather simply the argument that action against Saddam's regime is simply an exercise in saving face for President Bush.
POSTSCRIPT: It is also important to point out that Daily Kos repeats the fallacy that President Bush never served in the military. As plenty of Bush's enemies know full well, the President served in the Air National Guard as a fighter pilot. No, he never served in combat (something Senator John McCain used to point out gleefully on the campaign trail), but it was hardly duty without danger.
Sometimes I wonder if those who repeat this figure the rest of us will start believing them if they repeat it often enough.
UPDATE: After reading the comments from Kos in the comments box, it's pretty clear that when it comes to at least one part of my argument, my research skills were pretty sloppy. Kos in fact has been arguing against what he calls "Gulf War II" for some time now, and I should have taken the time to go back and review his archives. He provides the relevant links in the comments box if you'd like to check them out.
Next, Kos, an Army veteran from the Gulf War, takes issue with President Bush's Vietnam era service in the Air National Guard. Kos points to reports that during his time with the Air Guard, Bush in effect went AWOL for a time, and the Guard never pursued him because of his political connections. As I recall, the Washington Post among others, reported that Bush was working on a campaign somewhere in the South during the year in question. In addition, I think it's relevant to point out that such abuses seem pretty commonplace in the Guard, as USA Today pointed out earlier this year in a piece that revealed that the vast majority of Guard units misreport manpower levels, among other sloppy management practices.
Point taken, but in any case, Bush still served in uniform. And for God's sake, he actually learned to fly a jet, not exactly an easy task. In the case of Bush, I think referring to his military past as "checkered" would be fair, but to dismiss it out of hand is inaccurate. Besides, if Bush used his connections to get a cozy sinecure in the Air Guard, we should also mention the reports from the LA Times that exposed the fact that Al Gore was accompanied by an armed guard during his abbreviated tour (3 months) in Vietnam.
But in the end, these are side arguments that don't really affect the main idea of my argument: that sometimes the generals get it wrong. In fact, we should probably remember that one of those generals, current Secretary of State Colin Powell, advised the first President Bush to hold back once Allied forces had retreating Iraqis on the run on the "Highway of Death." Those troops who escaped later were used in actions against Kurdish rebels, among others. During cease fire negotiations, Allied Commander General Norman Schwarzkopf, whose reservations about a second Gulf War Kos quotes approvingly, acceded to Iraqi requests to use their helicopters for suppossedly humanitarian purposes. Later of course, these same helicopters were used in military operations against the Iraqi opposition.
Kids from Harlem get their last turn in the spotlight.
But did we really need to see it?
Ebbets Field, home of the Brooklyn Dodgers.
