1115.org

The war on Iraq had been pushed for at least 5 years before it actually happened. It was an intellectual experiment developed by people including Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Doug Feith who had financial, political and ideological interest in seeing it carried out. Their grand plans had no chance of taking hold during Bill Clinton’s time in office, but it’s now clear that it was priority one in the Bush Administration. And even then it only went ahead after some of the most deceptive government actions in a generation.

What’s worse is that by all accounts the decision to go to war and when has been made by people who never served or served dubiously. Department of Defense officials (Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith), Vice-President Dick Cheney and his chief of staff Lewis Libby never served. The President’s military record is highly suspect at best and it is clear that he chose not to volunteer for combat duty. Only Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell served with distinction, but according to Bob Woodward’s Plan of Attack their influence was limited.

Neither gets excused as their actions and inaction in the last few years are contemptible.

Powell knew what he was getting into with this bunch. He has been singularly ineffective in moderating the administration’s reckless actions. According to Woodward the only reason that he hasn’t resigned is solidarity with the troops. Too bad that being a good soldier is not nearly enough.

In fact “not nearly enough” applies to a lot about the War on Terror™. Much of this lies at the feet of the Defense Secretary. Since he was sworn in, Rumsfeld has aggressively pushed the idea of a lighter, faster military to fight wars with fewer “boots on the ground”. Under perfect circumstances, these theories would provide much needed cost savings and flexibility in a world where uncertainty is the only rule.

But perfect circumstances only exist in the think tanks and university halls where these theories were developed. In reality, The Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force still holds true. If our military had the numbers that were necessary in Iraq and Afghanistan, they would not be getting killed in such high numbers.

The defense budget will continue to increase every year for the foreseeable future no matter who is in the White House. Who benefits from lower troop strength? A smaller force means a smaller payroll. Less human costs leaves more money for defense contractors. Defense contractors give big money to Republicans.

Technology can’t fix everything, a lesson that should have been learned from the internet bubble.

It’s time for our soldiers to have more of what they need: Fellow soldiers.