The Nation.



Revolt of the Generals

By Richard J. Whalen

This article appeared in the October 16, 2006 edition of The Nation.

September 28, 2006

General McCaffrey warns that "U.S. public diplomacy and rhetoric about confronting Iranian nuclear weapons development is scaring neighbors in the Gulf. Our Mideast allies believe correctly that they are ill equipped to deal with Iranian strikes to close the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea. They do not think they can handle politically or militarily a terrorist threat nested in their domestic Shia populations."

This article was corrected for the web after going to press; in the printed version, comments made by Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton were mistakenly attributed to Marine Lieut. Gen. Gregory Newbold.

The recent war in Lebanon has only made the prospect of war with Iran more problematic. As Richard Armitage, the astute onetime Navy SEAL and former Deputy Secretary of State, told reporter Seymour Hersh: "When the Israel Defense Forces, the most dominant military force in the region, can't pacify little Lebanon [population: 4 million], you should think twice about taking that template to Iran, with strategic depth and a population of 70 million."

McCaffrey's report raises the possibility that US forces will have to fight their way out of Iraq. He says, "A U.S. military confrontation with Iran could result in [the radical Islamic Mahdi Army's] attacking our forces in Baghdad or along our 400-mile line of communications out of Iraq to the sea." The Bush Administration needs Iranian cooperation for the eventual safe exit of our troops, as General McCaffrey advises. This assumes that the Iranians will not risk World War III by trying to entrap our hostage Army in a humiliating Dunkirk-in-the-desert. After successful negotiations, the United States should be able to withdraw via the southern exit route leading through Kuwait to the Persian Gulf and the blue waters beyond.

Once we get our troops safely out, a newly elected, post-2008 administration in Washington may be able to begin reassembling America's scattered global allies to address the region's problems anew, next time multilaterally, and through diplomacy rather than pre-emptive unilateral military force.

America is a uniquely favored nation that redefines itself in each generation. But we have had a lifetime of embracing one democratic global war, and numerous presidentially inspired, politicized and secret smaller wars that have turned out badly. Sixty-five years after Pearl Harbor, we owe it to the past three generations to resume the debate on our national identity, suspended on December 7, 1941, and foreshortened on September 11, 2001.

In the post-cold war era, we have severely cut back our military manpower, reducing the regular Army to only 480,000 troops, but we have not cut back fantastically expensive Air Force weapons systems or the somewhat more useful but still gold-plated Navy. Nor have we redefined our strategic goals to fit realistically within reduced budgets. We have "paid" for the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan by borrowing heavily from foreign dollar-holders, such as China, that are awash in trade surpluses, and have left debt service to future US generations.

A key argument in the ex-generals' indictment is this undeniable fact: Our armed forces are too small to police and reorder the world and intervene almost blindly, as we have in Iraq. That invasion acted out the world-changing daydreams of pro-Israel neoconservative policy intellectuals like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and others who gained warmaking power and influence atop the Pentagon but who evidently never asked themselves, Suppose we're wrong? What happens then? Sober, realistic Israelis privately fear the neocons' "friendship," and where it has led America, more than any Arab enemies. In the inevitable post-Iraq War tsunami of US political recrimination, such Israelis foresee Christian Zionist evangelicals, whose lobbying muscle in Congress was decisive in the run-up to the Iraq War, attempting to scapegoat the high-profile neocons and endangering Israel's all-important security ties to the United States.

Growing public disgust and frustration with the Iraq War has begun to arouse a self-defeating desire to retreat into isolationism. Rather, the United States should revive the traditional but recently neglected realistic approach to foreign policy, as the ISG is starting to do, and it should begin with a renewed multilateral approach to peacemaking in the Middle East.

Popular Topics
Most Searched

Issues »

Most Emailed

Issues »

Blogs

» Campaign 08

Not-Ready-for-Prime-Time Palin | GOP puts its candidate in a political witness protection program.
John Nichols

» The Notion

Palin Coward Clock Starts Ticking | Palin's refusal to take questions -- from the press or investigators -- tells us about her character.
Ari Melber

» The Beat

What McCain Needs to Tell Us About Sarah Palin | Interviewing the VP choice is important, but the real questions can only be answered by McCain.
John Nichols

» The Dreyfuss Report

McCain and The Forrestal | Back in '67, McCain did recognize the horror of war. But he chose horror.
Robert Dreyfuss

» Editor's Cut

Inside Palin's Politics | A debate with Republican strategist Barbara Comstock over what McCain's running mate represents and where she would lead the country.
Katrina vanden Heuvel

» Capitolism

Community Organizers Fight Back | These people are not particularly practiced in taking things lying down.
Christopher Hayes

» ActNow!

Power Vote | New effort to build a green youth voter bloc of one million is growing.
Peter Rothberg

» And Another Thing

Sarah Palin, Wrong Woman for the Job | Seriously, people! Life is not a Lifetime movie.
Katha Pollitt