Economic sabotage. This from Reuters: "At least one boat attacked Iraq's main oil terminal offshore in the Gulf on Saturday, a British military spokesman said ... Iraq is almost completely dependent on the Basra terminal to export around 1.9 million barrels per day, providing badly needed state funding."
--Josh Marshall
Two more data points on the order to begin planning to seize Iraq's southern oil fields, which was included in the order Centcom got to make plans to attack Afghanistan just after September 11th, 2001.
The April 17th article on Bob Woodward's book in the Washington Post suggested that such an idea <$NoAd$>was pushed before 9/11 by Paul Wolfowitz but rejected as "lunacy" by Colin Powell ...
Early discussions among the administration's national security "principals" -- Cheney, Powell, Tenet and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice -- and their deputies focused on how to weaken Hussein diplomatically. But Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz proposed sending in the military to seize Iraq's southern oil fields and establish the area as a foothold from which opposition groups could overthrow Hussein.
Then there is this intriguing passage from Jane Mayer's February article in The New Yorker about the Cheney Energy Task Force (itals added)...
For months there has been a debate in Washington about when the Bush Administration decided to go to war against Saddam. In Ron Suskind’s recent book “The Price of Loyalty,” former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill charges that Cheney agitated for U.S. intervention well before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Additional evidence that Cheney played an early planning role is contained in a previously undisclosed National Security Council document, dated February 3, 2001. The top-secret document, written by a high-level N.S.C. official, concerned Cheney’s newly formed Energy Task Force. It directed the N.S.C. staff to coöperate fully with the Energy Task Force as it considered the “melding” of two seemingly unrelated areas of policy: “the review of operational policies towards rogue states,” such as Iraq, and “actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields.”
Chatter at the time at Centcom -- that is, late September 2001 -- suggested Wolfowitz as the prime mover.
--Josh Marshall
There is a sobering, though also oddly encouraging article about Iraq in Saturday's Washington Post -- actually an odd mix of sobering and encouraging. The topic is the new Iraqi government now being planned and organized jointly by the US and the UN and the fact that the decision has been made to toss overboard most if not all of the folks we put on the Interim Governing Council.
At the top of the list of those to get the heave-ho is Ahmed Chalabi.
According to the article, the administration is seriously considering cutting off the amazingly ill-conceived $340,000 a month subsidy we still give Chalabi. Meanwhile, his role as head of the de-Baathification committee has just been publicly criticized by Paul Bremer.
Says the Post ...
Chalabi has headed the committee in charge of removing former Baathist officials. In a nationwide address yesterday designed to promote national reconciliation, U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer said complaints that the program is "unevenly and unjustly" administered are "legitimate" and that the overall program has been "poorly implemented."
There is of course a larger issue at work here. Late in the game, the CPA is trying to reach out to some broad segment of the Sunni minority to invest them in the process of creating a new Iraqi state. And <$Ad$>that is a difficult, thorny task -- which may necessitate drawing back from a more ambitious program of de-Baathifcation.
Still, putting Chalabi in charge of such an operation was always an egregious mistake. And it's not hard to imagine he used the post to settle scores and advance his own personal interests, just as he did with his possession of much of the archives of the former regime's secret police.
(As we've discussed previously, the US occupation authority acquisced in Chalabi's seizure and continued possession of much of the archive of Saddam's secret police, which he has used to blackmail his enemies both in Iraq and in the rest of the region. I'm even told that he's using them to prepare a lawsuit against King Abdullah of Jordan, to be filed in US courts.)
In any case, the news seems to be Chalabi out the nearest air lock. And there's some added details in there about his new scheming against UN representative Lakdar Brahimi, claiming Brahimi is an enemy of the Shia and so forth. Basically Chalabi continues to be a rogue and self-dealer and schemer and scammer till the end. As I said a while back (and not really in jest), the real question is whether we should take this man into custody now, while we are still the sovereign authority in the country, to ensure that he can be held to account for pocketing US taxpayer dollars and helping bamboozle the country into war with his phony intelligence findings.
There are still more than a few of the Chalabi crowd here in DC who persist in calling this charlatan the "Leader of Free Iraq", as they did for last several years or 'the greatest Arab since Mohammed' as one of his acolytish handlers often refers to him. (Believe me, I'm not making this stuff up.) And those folks are after Brahimi, claiming that he is a creature of the Arab League and up to no good.
I know little about Brahimi and perhaps there are legitimate criticisms of him. But anyone who can help usher Chalabi out of the political process at least has one good thing to recommend him.
So ditching Chalabi is a good thing, and encouraging.
More sobering is the apparent decision to ditch most of the other folks involved in the Interim Governing Council. They'll come up with some gentle way to frame the decision. But the bottom line seems clear: we've decided that the entire year-long experiment in building up the rudiments of a liberal Iraqi state have just been a wash and that it's best just to start over from scratch. And when you think about it, that's pretty terrible.
Ideally, you'd use the period of occupation to build up at least the nucleus of the institutions you'd want to see take root under full sovereignty. But the IGC, by all accounts and all the available polling data, is wildly unpopular in the country. And we hear more and more reports about its being laced with corruption, self-dealing and lots of other ridiculousness.
That's not to say there aren't many genuine democrats at work in the process who've tried to build the country up rather than exploit the situation for personal gain. Yet the overall reality seems pretty bad. And I suspect we're only at the start of hearing all manner of horror stories about what's really happened to much of the money we've poured into the place.
--Josh Marshall
There's an interesting follow-on to the story of Tami Silicio, the contract worker in Kuwait who was fired for taking the picture of homeward-bound military dead, which appeared in the Seattle Times.
The picture got into the Times' hands because Silicio sent a copy to her friend Amy Katz. Katz sent it to the Times; and then the Times published it after getting Silicio's permission.
It turns out that Silicio and Katz also worked as contract workers for a Halliburton subsidiary in Kosovo in 1999. And they are the two who sued Halliburton -- and Dick Cheney in his capacity as CEO -- for sexual harassment and also for the firm's policy of having separate toilets for Americans and for locals -- something that garnered a bit of attention during the 2000 election.
Right-wing talk radio seems to be making something of this, arguing that it discredits the two in the whole matter of the photograph. But it seems equally plausibly to credit them -- at least in my mind. Though I suspect that no more defense contracting work is in line for either.
--Josh Marshall
I'm still curious to find out more about the planning to seize Iraq's southern oil fields which began roughly a week after the September 11th terrorist attacks.
Whatever President Bush's ambitions to launch a war against Iraq and whatever early discussions there were at Camp David, according to Bob Woodward, the president was quite sensitive to the potentially explosive public consequences of having it become known too quickly that he was preparing to launch a war against Iraq. According to Woodward, he waited until late November -- after the initial military phase of the Afghanistan war was essentially over -- to tell Don Rumsfeld to start drawing up plans for war against Iraq.
Yet that's not when the planning started. As I noted, it started two months earlier.
At the same time Centcom was tasked with drawing up plans to attack the Taliban -- in fact, in the very same document -- they were also tasked with putting together plans to seize the oil fields of southern Iraq -- same document, same order.
Whose idea was that? And why were we dividing the war planners' time with gaming out this oil fields gambit when they had the more pressing issue of planning the Afghanistan war? And why the idea of seizing Iraq's oil fields in the first place?
--Josh Marshall
Yesterday I was going to post a link to this story in the Seattle Times which describes one stop on the way home for the American soldiers and marines killed in Iraq -- a loading bay at the US military section of Kuwait International Airport.
The article begins: "The aluminum boxes, in ordered rows, are bound by clean white straps on freshly scrubbed pallets. American flags are draped evenly over the boxes."
The painfully antiseptic quality of those words pervades the piece. And it is one which, quite apart from your political views, it's worth your time to read -- each of these young Americans, motionless in a box, the focus of a tragedy beginning to unfold thousands of miles away, silent.
The focus of the story is a 50 year old mother of three, a civilian contract worker, Tami Silicio, who works at the loading bay in question. The article tells the broader story of the processing of these remains through the prism of Silicio's work in that process.
The article ends with these three grafs ...
Since the 1991 Gulf War, photographs of coffins as they return to the United States have been tightly restricted. And few such photographs have been published during the conflict in Iraq.On the April day depicted in the photograph that accompanies this story, more than 20 coffins went into a cargo plane bound for Germany. Silicio says those who lost loved ones in Iraq should understand the care and devotion that civilians and military crews dedicate to the task of returning the soldiers home.
Silicio says she shares her motto, "Purpose and Cause," with colleagues who appear worn down from the job: "We serve a purpose and we have a cause — that's what living life is all about."
As the second graf notes, the article is paired with a photograph of coffins on those pallets in the hull of a cargo plane. Apparently, Silicio, who took the photograph, had sent a copy to a friend. The paper got it from the friend. They contacted Silicio. And things went from there.
Now, I don't know the precise timeline and cause and effect. But this photo came up just before a batch of similar photos from Dover Air Force Base, which were apparently the product of FOIA requests from the Pentagon, hit the Internet. And Silicio's photo seems in some sense to have opened the floodgates.
Today, the Seattle Times reported that Silicio and David Landry, a co-worker she recently married, were fired over the photo by the civilian contractor that employed them, Maytag Aircraft.
"I feel like I was hit in the chest with a steel bar and got my wind knocked out. I have to admit I liked my job, and I liked what I did," Silicio told the Times. "It wasn't my intent to lose my job or become famous or anything."
Now, I have a degree of ambivalence about this question of media coverage of the fallen soldiers coming back to Dover. For many opponents of the war there is an unmistakable interest in getting these photographs before the public in order to weaken support for the war. There's no getting around that. I don't mean to imply that most who want these pictures out believe that, or even that that's an illegitimate goal. And there's a long record of governments managing bad news during wartime to keep up civilian morale.
But one needn't oppose the war to find something morally unseemly about the strict enforcement of the regulations barring any images of the reality behind these numbers we keep hearing on TV. There is some problem of accountability here, of putting on airs of national sacrifice and not having the courage to risk the real thing, some dark echo of the Rumsfeldian penchant for 4th generation, high-tech warfare where data transfers and throw weights replace bodies at every level.
Of course, the rationale for this policy of barring these images is that to publicize them would be an invasion of the privacy of the families. And certainly if the issue were one of barring photographers from private funerals, perhaps that notion would have merit. But the idea that the privacy of the families is advanced by barring any sort of public grieving and witnessing of these sacrifices just seems ridiculous on its face -- especially when we are often talking about rows of anonymous flag-draped coffins.
All the arguments aside, there's something wrong about the fact that we're seeing none of this.
Then there's Silicio.
Every job has rules. Civilians working in war zones probably have more than most. And taking pictures of things you're not supposed to take pictures of and allowing them to be published is probably high on the list.
But here we have a situation where this woman was the first one to give Americans a view of something they should have seen a year ago. And for that she loses her job.
For all the rules, this is a case where the sum (her getting fired over this) isn't more or less but just entirely different from the sum of its parts.
Whatever the rules say, that fact that she lost her job over this is wrong.
--Josh Marshall
I have a newspaper column out tomorrow which pursues the hypothesis I mentioned a few days ago that an escalating crisis in Iraq might actually help President Bush, even though the crisis is demonstrably of his own making.
Meanwhile, Ruy Teixeira has a post on his blog DonkeyRising which says Bush's recent rise in the polls reflects his bulking up on support in the bright red states without making much if any headway in the battleground states where the race will be won or lost.
For what it's worth, I remain fundamentally optimistic about this race.
--Josh Marshall
"I request duty in Vietnam" -- the first line in one of the documents from John Kerry's service records, now posted on the Kerry website.
--Josh Marshall
Secret liberal influence at the Coalition Provisional Authority?
Compare and contrast the CPA Website with that of the Brookings Institution.
Who knew Strobe's influence still stretched so far?
Actually, a quick look under the hood of each site shows that either the CPA or Brookings snagged the other outfit's website and remodeled it as their own.
The presence of this line ("submenu name="Brookings Review" id="brs" url="/press/review/rev_des.htm") buried in the code of both websites seems to give a pretty good sign of who did the deed.
Now if they'd just crib the policy proposals and not just the html!
Oh, the Humanity!
Hey, at least those CPA folks are saving money!
Okay, I'm done.
--Josh Marshall
Another follow-up on the White House press conference question.
As I said before, for the reasons I noted below, I'm sure the Presidential press conferences don't work from presubmitted questions.
However, as I noted a couple days ago, that doesn't mean the president's aides, don't give him "must-calls" -- a list of ringer journalists who they know will toss the president a lifeline with some gimme question.
Bill Sammon of the Washington Times was one of the 'must-calls' from last week.
He served up this ridiculous question: "You have been accused of letting the 9-11 threat mature too far, but not letting the Iraq threat mature far enough. First, could you respond to that general criticism?"
For all I know, maybe Sammon gave Scott or Bartlett at look at his question in advance. Who knows? But I really doubt it. After all, they could be pretty confident it would either be something like this or maybe: "Mr. President, many commentators claim John Kerry is a ridiculous liberal who can't stand up to the bad guys. Can you comment?" You get the idea.
In any case, this strikes me as a separate point. I remain quite sure the journalists from the straight-up publications (real newspapers and TV nets) don't submit their questions in advance.
--Josh Marshall
There's been quite a lot of chatter in the last couple days about an article in the Daily Trojan (no snickers, please), the USC student newspaper, which reports the following about what author Ron Suskind allegedly said at at a public forum on campus ...
One of Suskind's most severe critiques of Bush was not only Bush's lack of press conferences but also his management of those conferences.For each press conference, the White House press secretary asks the reporters for their questions, selects six or seven of the questions to answer and those reporters are the only ones called upon to ask their questions during the press conference, Suskind said.
I'd never heard of such a <$Ad$>thing and couldn't believe it was true. But Suskind's a serious person and a first-rate journalist. And a bunch of readers asked if I knew anything about it. And, frankly, I've gotten burned a few times underestimating the degree of skullduggery this White House is capable of. So, with some trepidation, I emailed two friends from the White House press corps just to make sure.
I know and trust both of them and both assured me, categorically, that this is not what happens.
In the words of one of them: "It's complete ---------. As in 'I can't believe that he was quoted accurately' ---------. Occasionally, before background briefings, White House aides will canvass reporters to ask what we're interested in on that day (but "the Middle East" is plenty answer for them). But I have never, ever heard of submitting questions in writing, orally, by email, or any other way before a presidential press conference. Not under Ari, not under Scott."
--Josh Marshall
Onward and upward with the rule of law.
Following up on our post of two weeks ago, Ahmed Chalabi's nephew Salem has now been appointed "general director" of the Iraqi war crimes tribunal which will try, among others, Saddam Hussein.
Salem, you'll remember, earlier went into the war contracting and lobbying business with the law partner of Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith, a prime architect of the war, and the Pentagon official in charge of the contracting process.
And, no, I'm not making any of this up.
From this article, it seems that the spokesman of Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, Entefadh Qanbar, is also acting as the spokesman for the Tribunal. Perhaps he already is the spokesman for it. It's just not clear.
In any case, the operation -- holding the malefactors of the old regime accountable for their acts -- does seem to be becoming a family affair.
Along similar lines, we should still be asking why the CPA, the sovereign authority in Iraq, allowed Chalabi to confiscate the files of the former regime's secret police to use to blackmail his political enemies. Given these most recent developments, perhaps it will be argued that this was part of some rather broadly construed discovery proceeding pursuant to the Chalabi family's prosecution of Saddam Hussein. But I would find that rationale less than convincing.
--Josh Marshall
Let's do a moment of follow-up about the president's reaction to the August 6th, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief.
'How did the president react?' and 'What did he do?' have been the chief reactions swirling around this story. So let's look back at the AP story from the day in question.
According to the story, the president went out for the morning 4 mile run before 8 AM. He came back, washed up, and went to meet aides for a foreign policy briefing.
"With sunlight pouring in through a floor-to-ceiling living room window," said the Associated Press, "Bush met with deputy chief of staff Joe Hagin, national security aide Steve Biegun and spokesman Scott McClellan for about 45 minutes. They took a call from National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, discussing peace efforts in Macedonia."
After that, the president headed off to work on a nature walk on the ranch.
Now, there's been some questioning as to whether the president himself ever actually read the PDB at all. According to an article in Salon last week, the president usually does not read his PDBs himself but rather has them summarized for him by George Tenet.
Tenet of course did not do the briefing that morning since Bush was on vacation in Texas. Rather, it was delivered by the number three person at the NSC, Biegun, who was the president's chief foreign policy advisor on hand. It doesn't seem to be a great stretch that Biegun would have summarized the brief just as Tenet normally did. But of course we don't know.
Now, there's another wrinkle to the story. The president arrived two days before the briefing noted above -- on August 4th. That was a Saturday. And the Monday briefing seems to have been the first after he arrived.
In addition to this, Biegun had only been on the job for about six weeks at the time. So it seems likely that this was the first time he had ever briefed the president. And that makes me wonder even more about just how the briefing was conducted.
So, what do we have? The fact that the meeting lasted less than an hour -- and also included discussion of another major issue, Macedonia -- tells us, I think, that the document generated little if any serious discussion.
But look who was also there: Scott McClellan, the president's current press secretary. The press gets a crack at him every day. Sure, he probably won't answer on principle. But he's one of only four people there that day. He was there. Why not ask him?
--Josh Marshall
There's a lot of hand-wringing from Democrats and a lot of satisfaction from Republicans over the two new polls out this morning showing a small, but measurable lead for the president over John Kerry.
(CNN/USAToday Bush 50%, Kerry 44%, Nader 4%. WaPo/ABCNews Bush 48%, Kerry 43%, Nader 6%.)
The first thing that is worth noting is that if you look at the tally on the Polling Report website, there have been eight other polls conducted entirely or in part during the month of April. And only one of those showed a lead for the president. The most recent of those other polls, the Zogby poll conducted roughly simultaneously with the WaPo and CNN polls, has Kerry up by three points over Bush and tied when Nader is put into the mix.
What I take from this is not that the two most recent polls are outliers and should be discounted, but that we've just gone roughly a month when every poll agreed that Kerry was ahead. Before that, over the first four months of this year, they've oscillated back and forth a couple times. I think this is the just the nature of this race. And something folks on both sides are going to have to get used to.
From what I can glean from reader emails these new numbers have really knocked the wind out of a lot of Democrats because it's very hard for them to see how the president could have possibly gained traction over two or three weeks when the news for his White House has been universally and profoundly bad -- principally because of the uptick in fighting in Iraq, but also because of the 9/11 business.
If I could capture the mood in a sentence, it is, "If this doesn't sink the guy, nothing will."
I must say that it surprises me too. But, as I said, this is a close race that has bounced back and forth a couple times -- and often for reasons which are not as clearly tied to the current news cycle as we're inclined to think. In short, don't change your view of the race based on the president popping up a few points into the lead.
Another opinion is that of Charlie Cook, in the "Off to the Races" analysis out this morning, who points to the president's ad campaign.
Cook gives a rather downcast view of the state of the Kerry campaign and suggests that the massive Bush ad campaign against Kerry is finally bearing fruit. Nevertheless, measures of public opinion on Iraq keep heading south, as does the all-important 'is the country headed in the right direction/wrong direction' question. He concludes by saying that "Kerry's rising negative ratings and an increase in Bush's own problems create a wash -- a race that remains a dead heat in this evenly divided country."
A contrary reading of these polls might suggest that the president gains as national security and war issues become more salient, even if they are becoming more salient because of what seem to be objectively bad news about his policies. But I suspect Cook's read is closer to the mark.
--Josh Marshall
The more I read that passage (below) from this morning's gaggle, the more perplexed I become. Why couldn't Scott McClellan give a straight denial to any of the questions about whether Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar had pledged to President Bush that his country would lower gas prices in time for the November election?
It's not that I don't think it could be true. In fact I find it quite plausible. It makes sense to me given the ties between the Bush family and the House of Saud -- particularly to Bandar. It makes sense given Bandar's Republicanism. And, perhaps most of all, it rings true because such an understanding would play to Bandar's once-exalted role as facilitator and intermediary between elites in both countries.
As David Plotz explained in this December 2001 article in Slate, Bandar's role in Washington and the essence of his once-vast power was as the man who created the illusion that elites from these two deeply dissimilar and in many ways antagonistic countries could hash out mutual understandings and find common interests in places like Aspen and other getaways far removed from the true pulse of both societies.
(Think about that when considering the ties between the Bushes and the Sauds.)
So, yes, I think such an arrangement or understanding is quite possible. Yet such agreements aren't written out on paper. And they should be easily deniable even if they are true -- especially with a White House that, from my experience, seldom gets hung up on such minor quibbles.
So, again, why the evasion?
Even odder is that Woodward now seems to be backing off the original claim. At least that's what I gleaned from this exchange from last night between Bandar and Woodward on Larry King (a cast of three characters about whom many funny things could certainly be said) ...
KING: The story that Mr. Woodward has about the promise to lower the oil prices by the election. Your government has denied has.WOODWARD: That's not my story. What I say in the book is that the Saudis, and maybe you looked at this section of the book, Ambassador, that the Saudis hoped to keep oil prices low during the period for -- before the election, because of its impact on the economy. That's what I say.
BIN SULTAN: I think the way that Bob said it now is accurate. We hoped that the oil prices will stay low, because that's good for America's economy, but more important, it's good for our economy and the international economy, and this is not -- nothing unusual. President Clinton asked us to keep the prices down in the year 2000. In fact, I can go back to 1979, President Carter asked us to keep the prices down to avoid the malaise. So yes, it's in our interests and in America's interests to keep the prices down.
Clearly we're in good hands.
--Josh Marshall
The Bandar Oil Deal Gaggle<$NoAd$> ...
QUESTION: Can you describe conversations between the White House and Prince Bandar about his essential promise to lower oil prices before the election?MR. McCLELLAN: I think you heard from Prince Bandar a few weeks ago about --
QUESTION: He didn’t talk specifically about the election.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- the most recent conversation that we had with him regarding oil prices. And he expressed his views out at the stakeout to you all that Saudi Arabia is committed to making sure prices remained in a range, I believe it’s $22 to $28 price per barrel of oil, and that they don’t want to do anything that would harm our consumers or harm our economy. So he made those comments at the stakeout and we’ve made our views very clear that prices should be determined by market forces, and that we are always in close contact with producers around the world on these issues to make sure that actions aren’t taken that harm our consumers or harm our economy.
QUESTION: There were no conversations specifically about the President’s reelection?
MR. McCLELLAN: You can ask Prince Bandar to --
QUESTION: But from the point -- I mean, conversations are obviously two ways.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- what his comments were. But the conversations we have are related to our long-held views that we have stated repeatedly publicly, that market forces should determine prices.
QUESTION: To follow up on that then, I would gather that the White House view is one of expectation that the Saudis would increase oil production between now and November.
MR. McCLELLAN: Our views are very well-known to Saudi Arabia. Prince Bandar made a commitment at the stakeout that I will let speak for itself. You all should look back to those remarks.
QUESTION: We’re missing the allegation here, which is that Prince Bandar and the Saudis have made a commitment to lower oil prices to help the President politically. Is that your --
MR. McCLELLAN: I’m not going to speak for Prince Bandar. You can direct those comments to him. I can tell you that what our views are and what he said at the stakeout is what we know his views are, as well.
QUESTION: Does the White House have any knowledge of such a commitment?
MR. McCLELLAN: I’m sorry?
QUESTION: Does the White House have any knowledge of such a commitment?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I’m not going to speak for Prince Bandar. You can direct those questions --
QUESTION: Is there a deal?
MR. McCLELLAN: -- I wouldn’t speculate one way or the other. You can direct those questions to him, but I’m telling you --
QUESTION: I’m not asking you to speculate either. Do you have knowledge of such a commitment?
MR. McCLELLAN: I’m telling you what our views are and what we've stated, and I'm telling you what I do know, which is that our position is very clear when it comes to oil prices and what our views are. And Prince Bandar spoke to you all just a few weeks ago out at the stakeout after meeting with some White House officials and expressed --
QUESTION: So you have no knowledge of such a commitment?
MR. McCLELLAN: -- and expressed their view. I'm not going to try to speak for Prince Bandar. You can direct those questions to him.
QUESTION: The President is confident that the American elections are not being manipulated by the world's largest oil producer?
MR. McCLELLAN: Our view is that the markets should determine --
QUESTION: The market doesn't. It's a cartel.
MR. McCLELLAN: But our view is that that's what -- that the markets should determine prices. And that's the view we make very clear to producers around the world, including our friends in OPEC.
Did you get a straight answer out of that?
--Josh Marshall
A few more details on the September planning for seizing the oilfields of southern Iraq, which I mentioned last night.
The United States military, indeed every general staff, will have plans on file not only for the wars a country might likely face, but even for many of the most improbable scenarios -- even potential conflict against current allies. If I'm not mistaken, I think I recall that the United States had war plans on file for war against the United Kingdom well into the early decades of the 20th century.
This isn't a sign of agression or bad faith, just preparedness for any eventuality. And besides planning for wars is what staff officers do.
In any case, war against Iraq was something Pentagon planners had been preparing for for years -- especially after 1991. So there was an existing plan on the shelf when 9/11 came along.
That, however, is not what I was referring to in the post below when I spoke about planning for war against Iraq in September 2001.
When Centcom planners were tasked with preparing to seize Iraq's southern oilfields they took the existing plan for an all-out invasion and essentially whittled it down, since conquering southern Iraq was a smaller version of what would be needed to conquer the entire country.
The chatter around Centcom at the time was this gambit was being pushed by Wolfowitz and was not necessarily done on the say-so of the White House.
How do I know this? From a highly credible source with first-hand knowledge.
--Josh Marshall
Bob Woodward's new book is making a lot of news with the report that President Bush directed Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld to began planning for war with Iraq on November 21, 2001 -- little more than two months after the 9/11 attacks.
I hear it was much sooner than two months -- more like two weeks. That is to say, in September 2001.
In mid-September 2001, at the same time Don Rumsfeld tasked Centcom with drawing up plans for attacking the Taliban, they were also tasked with putting together a plan to seize Iraq's southern oil fields.
(British officers, who were embedded in the planning process and actually on location in Tampa, Florida from mid-September 2001 onwards, reacted with something close to disbelief that this was what the Secretary of Defense had ordered.)
This plan -- pushed by Wolfowitz -- is referred to obliquely in the Saturday article on Woodward's book in the Post. But this wasn't just some idea Wolfowitz proposed prior to 9/11, as the author implies. Centcom planners began putting together the plan for it right as they were putting together the war plan for Afghanistan.
What happened in November was still important, and qualitatively different, because this earlier tasking was not explicitly aimed at regime change, simply seizing the southern oil fields. But whether it was formally aimed at regime change or no, within less than two weeks after 9/11, Centcom planners were at work putting in place a plan to make war on Iraq.
--Josh Marshall
Tune in late this evening for some more news on just how early Centcom was tasked with drawing up plans to attack Iraq.
--Josh Marshall
From my friend in Iraq, late in the afternoon of April 16th, local time<$NoAd$> ...
Dear Josh, I would like you to share with your readers that the four abducted Italian bodyguards worked for me. They were people I had brought in to provide close protection for my former company's contractors. Fabrizio, who was executed, was a great guy and it appears he died with honor, knowing what was about to happen. If the rumors are true that he stated "Cosi Morare Un Italiano - Here is how an Italian man dies" well it would be just like him ... all of the others Incusori, Bersagalieri, Alpini and other Italians have such honor filled sayings tattooed on their arms and chests ...The guys were returning home to Italy from Baghdad via route 10 to Amman. I don't know why they thought they could make it and I am racked with guilt for not having been there to weigh in on such a simple decision ... it would have been NO! Fly royal Jordanian! Everyone would have gone home happy and safe. They and the other Italians who worked for us were/are consummate professionals and our staff loved them. I can only hope the others make it home in safety and this madness of abduction ends. I am headed back to Baghdad now and my family is terrified. If I am not there things will swiftly fall apart as our Iraqi staff are loyal and have offered to protect us with their families and their lives. However I need to give them much more training. So for now I am too grief stricken to assess whether this was worth the adventure that is Fallujah but all I ask is ... how can we assault a city of 300,000 and not have the largest east-west highway secure for logistics and commerce by Military Police?? Allah only knows how many people were killed by ignoring a basic military principle ... secure your lines of communications and supply!
More soon.
--Josh Marshall
