General John J. Sheehan: Why I Declined To Serve

[babylonsister]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/15/AR2007041500564.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Why I Declined To Serve

By John J. Sheehan
Monday, April 16, 2007; Page A17

Service to the nation is both a responsibility and an honor for every citizen presented with the opportunity. This is especially true in times of war and crisis. Today, because of the war in Iraq, this nation is in a crisis of confidence and is confused about its foreign policy direction, especially in the Middle East.

When asked whether I would like to be considered for the position of White House implementation manager for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I knew that it would be a difficult assignment, but also an honor, and that this was a serious task that needed to be done. I served as the military assistant to the deputy secretary of defense in the mid-1980s and more recently as commander in chief of the Atlantic Command during the Cuban and Haitian migrant operation and the reconstruction of Haiti. Based on my experience, I knew that a White House position of this nature would require interagency acceptance. Cabinet-level agencies, organizations and their leadership must buy in to the position's roles and responsibilities. Most important, Cabinet-level personalities must develop and accept a clear definition of the strategic approach to policy.

What I found in discussions with current and former members of this administration is that there is no agreed-upon strategic view of the Iraq problem or the region. In my view, there are essentially three strategies in play simultaneously.

The first I call "the Woody Hayes basic ground attack," which is basically gaining one yard -- or one city block -- at a time. Given unconstrained time and resources, one could control the outcome in Iraq and provide the necessary security to move on to the next stage of development.

The second strategy starts with security but adds benchmarks for both the U.S. and Iraqi participants and applies time constraints that should guide them toward a desired outcome. The value of this strategy is that everyone knows the quantifiable and measurable objectives that fit within an overall strategic framework.

The third strategy takes a larger view of the region and the desired end state. Simply put, where does Iraq fit in a larger regional context? The United States has and will continue to have strategic interests in the greater Middle East well after the Iraq crisis is resolved and, as a matter of national interest, will maintain forces in the region in some form. The Iraq invasion has created a real and existential crisis for nearly all Middle Eastern countries and created divisions among our traditional European allies, making cooperation on other issues more difficult. In the case of Iran, we have allowed Tehran to develop more policy options and tools than it had a few years ago. Iran is an ideological and destabilizing threat to its neighbors and, more important, to U.S. interests.

Of the three strategies in play, the third is the most important but, unfortunately, is the least developed and articulated by this administration.

more...

[YDogg]

1. "current Washington decision-making process"? How about Bush?

[Kagemusha]

2. How about Cheney?

The original WaPo article on Sheehan's refusal was pretty clear: no one wanted to take the job with an unmuzzled Dick Cheney undermining him in public and private. And in terms of power to actually make things happen, Cheney would have every bit as much power as the war czar...

[YDogg]

4. true

[saltpoint]

3. General Sheehan's obviously considered and thoughtful reason for

not taking that post is a telling glimpse of this president's foreign policy.

And a good reason for swift redeployment of Coalition troops in Iraq.

[Peace Patriot]

5. What a bunch of gobble-de-gook! I wonder what's really going on here.

None of his "strategies" acknowledges the complete illegitimacy of the US presence in Iraq. He talks about taking it back "one yard at a time." But whose streets are these? Ours? What right do we have to be doing this? To what end? He says that, by taking it back "one yard at a a time," "one could control the outcome in Iraq." Hm-m. When, how did that become our right--to "control the outcome"? He says that this strategy could "provide the necessary security to move on to the next stage of development." He doesn't seem to understand that the lack of security is being CAUSED BY Bush Oil Cartel domination of what "the next stage of development" is FOR.

"Iran is an ideological and destabilizing threat to its neighbors and, more important, to U.S. interests." This is just crap. But besides it being just crap--totally untrue--he gives himself away: The fate of the people of the Middle East--peace and stability for their sakes--is not that important. What is REALLY important is "U.S. interests."

This imperial jibber about "strategies" of conquest drives me nuts. What right have we to be there AT ALL? What of the SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND innocent people whom we have slaughtered in pursuit of "U.S. interests"? What of the goddamned lies they all told to perpetrate this unjust, illegal, heinous war?

His article is useful for describing the royal fuckup that Iraq represents.

"The Iraq invasion has created a real and existential crisis for nearly all Middle Eastern countries and created divisions among our traditional European allies, making cooperation on other issues more difficult." --Sheehan

But, jeez, he seems so myopic about WHY this all would be--why are Middle Eastern countries so jittery? why are our allies in rebellion? why is there no "cooperation"? Could it be because we have committed a war crime of Hitlerian proportions--an irredeemable act of genocide--and a gross and horrible violation of international law?

He is shrewd enough not to want any part of it. But he is not being honest about his reasons. Perhaps it is as simple as: he doesn't want to end up in the Hague? Other commenters here suggest Cheney as the reason. That does sound quite plausible--in this Imperial snake pit of war profiteers. He wouldn't have enough power. But--although Sheehan is obviously not a deep thinker--it could still be a deeper reason than this, that the whole enterprise was wrong from the beginning, and there is no fixing it.

When you do a war for oil, and for war profiteers--and you care not one crap about the people you are invading--this is what you get. Disaster. Sheehan descries the lack of focus in the Bush Junta, and the lack of coordination of short-term strategies with long term "U.S. interests," but fails to acknowledge WHY this is so. The Bush Junta was NEVER INTERESTED IN the REAL interests of any people, including our own. This is a war of greed. Not incompetence. Greed!

[gratuitous]

6. Yep

Hard to think of how the general could have written more clearly the limitations of his thought processes. But what, really, can one expect from the higher military mind except higher militarism? The unspoken faith in the role of redemptive violence just flows out of his words, and neither the general nor large swaths of his audience will even notice the cascade.