A strange week of war. Israeli historian Benny Morris placed a bloodcurdling and bizarre op-ed in the New York Times, insisting that only an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities (with a U.S. green light) by next January could prevent a future radioactively scorched Middle East. Meanwhile, the President seemed to reverse course (and himself), sending his third-ranking State Department official William J. Burns unexpectedly Geneva-wards -- not, supposedly, to "negotiate" with Iran (along with European partners), but just to sit and "listen." In the same week, he suddenly agreed, in a video conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, to a "general time horizon" for the withdrawal of American "combat troops." ("Support troops," we were assured, would be there "for years" to come.) But let's be clear: This was no "timetable" for withdrawal, which the President had long sworn he'd never countenance. (What's that on the horizon? Not quite as much time as we thought?) And just to add a sad note: There are less than seven months left for Bush administration officials to reach for their dictionaries and continue to creatively pretzel the language.

In the meantime, at home, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates launched a fierce verbal assault on… go ahead, take a guess: the "creeping militarization" of U.S. foreign policy. It seems that too many unappetizing "peacekeeping" tasks, once handled by other departments of the government, are now in the military's lap, which turns out not to be quite as capacious as once imagined. "The Foreign Service is not the Foreign Legion, and the US military should never be mistaken for a Peace Corps with guns" were among his exact words. Of course, this is what happens when your leaders love military power to death, can't imagine dealing with anyone here or abroad unarmed, and expand the Pentagon's job description in every imaginable direction.

Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, as ever more bombs fall, civilians, including a bride and her wedding party, were being regularly wiped out in sizeable numbers by American air power. As the civilian casualty reports came in last week, the US military alternately denied that civilians were dying, issued vague regrets that civilians should have to die, and launched "investigations" that we're guaranteed never to hear about again. And the Afghans? Well, here was an aside in a New York Times account of a Taliban attack on a U.S. base near the Pakistani border in which nine U.S. soldiers were killed and 15 more injured: A former governor of the region where the attack took place said "some local people might have joined the militants since a group of civilians were killed in American airstrikes on July 4 in the same area. 'This made the people angry,' he said. 'It was the same area. The airstrikes happened maybe one kilometer away from the base.'"

As for the Air Force high command, R. Jeffrey Smith of the Washington Post reported: "The Air Force's top leadership sought for three years to spend counterterrorism funds on 'comfort capsules' to be installed on military planes that ferry senior officers and civilian leaders around the world, with at least four top generals involved in design details such as the color of the capsules' carpet and leather chairs, according to internal e-mails and budget documents."

The cost of this program is now estimated at $7.6 million in Global War on Terror money, $68,240 just to change the color of the seats and seat belts from an unpleasant Army brown to a cheerful Air Force blue (while adding seat pockets). Believe me, if you were a general, you would have been involved too. After all, among other features to decide on: a "37-inch flat-screen monitor with stereo speakers, and a full-length mirror" in each two-room capsule. Attention Secretary Gates: Should U.S. Air Force generals be mistaken for interior decorators with Hellfire missiles?

And just in case you didn't think that ordinary Americans back home could do their bit supporting our troops to the nth degree, they now have a wonderful opportunity, thanks to HBO's "Generation Kill" website, where they can "gear up," pick-up that needed Generation Kill women's tank top or men's Tee, and even -- no kidding -- send a box of "Bandaid brand adhesive bandages" to the soldiers as part of the site's "troop drive." Creeping militarism, who sez? (Oh, and if you want further evidence on the subject, check out retired Lt. Col. William J. Astore over at TomDispatch.com on how American citizen-soldiers became Generation Kill "warfighters" in "the world's best military.")

Comments (8)

1. I'm a little new around here, so maybe others will let me know if this unfocused style of reporting is commonly encouraged at "The Nation."

   While I undertake some research on Engelhardt's prior posts--to see if the problem is mostly personal with him--I'll make one response here. It's hard to discern the actual point of this article, but I'll takle the premise of the title and the article's most notable citation.

   Gates DID NOT *launch a fierce verbal assault on...the creeping militarization of U.S. foreign policy.* In fact, his speech (which Englehardt plainly expects won't be scrutinized by his readership) sets out to gently disabuse that notion. Here's a quote with better context:

   *Overall, even outside Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States military has become more involved in a range of activities that in the past were perceived to be the exclusive province of civilian agencies and organizations. This has led to concern among many organizations – perhaps including many represented here tonight – about what's seen as a creeping "militarization" of some aspects of America's foreign policy.*

   Gates goes on to describe his good working relationship with Condi Rice, and how the world has changed in ways that demand cooperation--not conflict--between military and diplomatic arms of government.

   *In recent years the lines separating war, peace, diplomacy, and development have become more blurred, and no longer fit the neat organizational charts of the 20th century. All the various elements and stakeholders working in the international arena – military and civilian, government and private – have learned to stretch outside their comfort zone to work together and achieve results.*

   Essentially, Gates is calling on Congress to strengthen the neglected Foreign Service and Intelligence communities. He complains about unequal funding, while tamping down complaints about an overblown military role. He made no comments which could be even remotely construed as supporting a view of the "military's lap," as "surprisingly incapacious."

   Posted by man00ver at 07/21/2008 @ 11:39am

2. Can you imagine what McCain and the Right would have said (less than a month ago) if Barack Obama had suggested "sending a third-ranking State Department official... just to sit and 'listen' to Iran."?????

   Posted by Maskdelta at 07/21/2008 @ 12:25pm

3. "I'm a little new around here.."

   This ain't Fox, sonny.

   Posted by Sorelish at 07/21/2008 @ 12:32pm

4. *Can you imagine what McCain and the Right would have said (less than a month ago) if Barack Obama had suggested "sending a third-ranking State Department official... just to sit and 'listen' to Iran."?????

   Posted by Maskdelta at 07/21/2008 @ 12:25pm*

   Too late for Obama to be so mature and circumspect, I'm afraid. He's already booked the guest room at Ahmadinejad's country house for the first presidential exercise of his compelling personality.

   Bush is spending his carrots more wisely (although without great effect in this case, sadly), and keeping the stick handy as well.

   *This ain't Fox, sonny.

   Posted by Sorelish at 07/21/2008 @ 12:32pm*

   What, there's no spin here? See my first post.

   Posted by man00ver at 07/21/2008 @ 4:59pm

5. Can you imagine what McCain and the Right would have said (less than a month ago) if Barack Obama had suggested "sending a third-ranking State Department official... just to sit and 'listen' to Iran."????? Posted by Maskdelta at 07/21/2008 @ 12:25pm

   Probably the exact same thing they said a month ago when he suggested talking to Iran. Only more angrily.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/21/2008 @ 7:10pm

6. And NO, you can't make sense out of threads filled with regurgitated HATE, but that is not their purpose. Think of this site more like a home for the rejects of scientology and you will be spot on!!!! Posted by RedRiver_. at 07/22/2008 @ 12:46am

   Why do you post here then? If you think so lowly of us you moron why don't you go elsewhere? Or do you have nothing better to do with your time that you feel the need to come here and insult people to stroke your own arrogance because you didn't receive enough hugs as a child?

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 12:40pm

7. It is very difficult for NGOs , the UN, or any civilian aid organization to operate in a combat zone. However the military has a number of skill sets, such as Medicine, engineering, air lift capacity, and communications, that have civilian applications. They have the ability and the skill sets to respond to many emergency situations. It was my major complaint about Katrina, that the military was not called on to back up the local first responders in New Orleans and along the Gulf Coast. I about had a fit with my elected representatives , when at a news conference, somebody from FEMA said we are waiting for a contract to be issued to pick up the bodies. Graves registration in the army does the same thing on the battlefield. This was a public health issue. These idiots couldn't find their rear end with both hands. Certainly, where security and emergency situations do not exist, Civilian organizations can take the lead.

   Posted by P. J. Casey at 07/22/2008 @ 1:59pm

8. Actually, "Manoover" is right about the general attitude of Defense Secretary Robert Gates toward "militarization," which can be expressed in the words: "Anything you say, Sir." Gates is a company man and will never publicly criticize his bosses. The most he will do is complain that the burdens they place on various departments, above all his own, are unfairly distributed, or that funding is incommensurate with these burdens.

   However, Gates cannot always talk around the fact that the US military really is straining under its many recently added burdens - not just "doing a heckuva job" - and occasionally, this fact is reflected in his speech, as Tom Engelhardt is happy to inform us. ("The Foreign Service is not the Foreign Legion, and the US military should never be mistaken for a Peace Corps with guns...")

   Is this spin? Well, as the Fox "News" Corporation would say, you decide. Which is the real news here - that Gates is a company man, or that Gates occasionally cannot avoid telling the truth about the limitations of the US military - despite being a company man?

   Posted by JakobFabian at 07/24/2008 @ 02:13am