The National Review
May 28, 2002
Catastrophe
If Bush doesn’t invade.
by Rich Lowry
http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry052802.asp
The Tom Ricks report that appeared in the Washington Post just prior to the
holiday weekend was a bombshell — that the military has succeeded in
delaying, and possibly killing off entirely, an invasion of Iraq.
Ricks was actually scooped by USA Today, which had the story the day before,
but Ricks fleshed out the story, and his report gained added force by
appearing on the front page of the nation's most important political
newspaper.
NRO readers had read it all before, of course, in John Derbyshire's
prescient, downcast piece predicting that we would never do Iraq (give John
credit for, among all his other virtues, a keen intuition.)
There are several notable things about the Ricks piece. One is that it
appears that the U.S. military considers it its role to shape American
foreign policy, and talk down those irresponsible firebrands who represent
the nation's elected civilian leadership. How dare they give the military
difficult and unpleasant tasks!
This sort of tension between military and civilian leadership is typical in
wartime, and makes Eliot Cohen's brilliant analysis of this tension, in
Supreme Command, all the more timely. As Clemenceau said, war is too
important to be left to the generals.
Cohen argues convincingly that all great wartime leaders — Lincoln,
Clemenceau, Churchill, Ben Gurion — never left the military to make its own
policy, but constantly prodded, challenged, and gave it direction.
In this spirit, Bush should (within reason) refuse to take "no" for an
answer from the Joint Chiefs. If they can't come up with a plausible plan
for invading Iraq, they should think harder. If they can't contemplate the
risks involved in invading without Saudi bases, they should get over it.
It is Bush, the president of the United States, who should be riding herd
over the Chiefs rather than the other way around.
This episode should serve to prove to conservatives what defense analyst and
NR contributing editor John Hillen has been saying for a long time:
America's military leadership is an unimaginative backwards-looking
bureaucracy that has been allowed to run free of vigorous civilian
leadership for too long.
This is what Rumsfeld's battle with the services over outdated weapons
systems is about, and the fight over Iraq appears to be another front in the
same war. None of this means, of course, that American fighting men are
anything but courageous and good soldiers.
But make no mistake: Left to its own devices, the military would probably
build a couple thousand Crusader self-propelled artillery pieces and sit
them in Fort Sill, Oklahoma for the next decade, doing exactly nothing.
It is a sign of Bush's lack of momentum that he has allowed himself to get
sidetracked, first by the forces of the status quo abroad, the Saudis, Iran,
Iraq, and Syria in their support for the intifada, and now by the forces of
the status quo at home, represented by the Joint Chiefs and their former
comrade and soul mate at State, Colin Powell.