



« Rahm lets it rip | Latest postings | Obama: Giuliani plays 'politics of fear' » Originally posted: April 25, 2007

Who's 'micromanaging' Iraq? It depends Posted by Frank James at 9:18 am CDT An oft-repeated line of attack by President Bush and other Republicans against Congress's majority party is that congressional Democrats seeking to impose a timeline for U.S. operations in Iraq want to tell generals what to do. "I believe strongly that politicians in Washington shouldn't be telling generals how to do their job," President Bush told said into the news cameras Monday. A related Republican charge against Democrats is that the party that controls Congress wants to "micromanage" the war. The word is said with such constancy it's a verbal confetti now landing all over the place in Washington, on talk shows, everywhere. One could hope that all of this would trigger an informative public debate about the proper role and nature of civilian control over the military in American democracy. So far, it hasn't. Clearly the president doesn't really believe Washington politicians shouldn't tell generals how to do their jobs since he himself is a Washington politician who just also happens to be commander-in-chief. Among the widely acknowledged strengths of the American Republic is the historic subordination of the military to civilian rule required by the U.S. Constitution. The Founding Fathers would've wholeheartedly agreed with French statesman Georges Clemenceau that "war is too important to be left to the generals." While some academics have expressed concern over what they view as a troubling assertiveness among the top military brass in recent years, especially during the Clinton Presidency when Gen. Colin Powell was accused of doing end-runs around the president, that's nowhere near to saying that the military has become an independent and rogue part of the government. In fact, the U.S. military prides itself on upholding its constitutional obligation to abide by civilian authority. Of course, there've been famous cases of insubordination, such as when President Abraham Lincoln would urge Gen. George McClellan to attack Confederate forces only to have the general blithely ignore him. Or when President Harry Truman had to fire Gen. Douglas MacArthur, who wanted to attack China during the Korean War when Truman didn't, for openly defying him. So Bush must mean something much different such as Washington politicians, like those in Congress, shouldn't be setting military strategy, that it's the province of the president in his role as commander-in-chief to do so. In that, the president has a strong case. In American history, it is the president who usually sets military strategy or oversees it, signs off on the military's operational plans, replaces generals and so on. Congress has usually only been able to exert its influence on the president's exercise of his role as commander-in-chief through the power of the purse and as a Congressional Research Service report indicates it's only had limited success in doing that since 1970. If congressional Democrats really want to end the U.S. military's involvement in what they say is a growing Iraqi civil war, history argues that they'll have to go the route of stopping funding. But congressional Democrats clearly don't have the votes now to do that. Even if they did, there'd be skittishness about such a move since it would leave them politically exposed to the powerfully damaging charge of abandoning U.S. troops during wartime. Which is why Congress will be debating and voting today and tomorrow on legislation that merely suggests a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. The micromanaging allegation of Republicans is interesting because it is exactly the charge retired generals leveled at Pentagon civilians, including former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, before the Iraq War started and throughout until he was forced out late last year. For instance, this from a story published in the Washington Post on March 30, 2003, shortly after the war started. More than a dozen officers interviewed, including a senior officer in Iraq, said Rumsfeld took significant risks by leaving key units in the United States and Germany at the start of the war. That resulted in an invasion force that is too small, strung out, underprotected, undersupplied and awaiting tens of thousands of reinforcements who will not get there for weeks.



"The civilians in [Rumsfeld's office] vetoed the priority and sequencing of joint forces into the region -- as it was requested by the war fighters -- and manipulated it to support their priorities," said an officer who asked not to be quoted by name. "When they did this, it de-synchronized not only the timing of the arrival of people and their organic equipment, but also the proper mix of combat, combat support and combat support units."

Retired Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, who commanded the 24th Infantry Division during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, said yesterday that he told a senior member of Rumsfeld's staff shortly before the war that the secretary's office had to stop meddling in the deployment process and let Army commanders have the units they believed they needed to fight the war. Rumsfeld, McCaffrey said, "sat on each element for weeks and wanted an explanation for every unit called up out of the National Guard and Reserve, and argued about every 42-man maintenance detachment. Why would a businessman want to deal with the micromanagement of the force? The bottom line is, a lack of trust that these Army generals knew what they were doing." Three years later, in 2006 Lt. Gen. Charles Swannack, former head of the 82nd Airborne, joined the growing chorus of retired generals accusing Rumsfeld of gumming up the works in Iraq by meddling. This from an April 2006 report on CNN's website: Swannack is critical of Rumsfeld's management style. "Specifically, I feel he has micromanaged the generals who are leading our forces there," Swannack said in the telephone interview.

"And I believe he has culpability associated with the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and, so, rather than admitting these mistakes, he continually justifies them to the press ... and that really disallows him from moving our strategy forward." Swannack, who served more than 30 years in the Army, said part of the problem at the Pentagon is

Rumsfeld's system of promoting senior leaders. "If you understand what Secretary Rumsfeld has done in his time in the Pentagon, he personally is the one who selects the three-star generals to go forward to the president for the Senate to confirm."

Swannack also criticized the way the war was being run before he retired. Of course, President Bush steadfastly defended Rumfeld against micromanagement and other charges, ad did congressional Republicans, until after last year's mid-term elections. So could it be one conclusion to take away from this is that micromanaging, like beauty, is all in the eye of he beholder?

in Congress, Iraq War, President Bush | Permalink Comments Oh goody. I can't wait to see how the neo-cons parse this thread. Also, at the time Army Chief of Staff Shinseki said he needed about 300,000 troops to invade Iraq but Rummy, Wolfie & Perle vetoed him. You know, politicians telling generals how to do their job. Posted by: Doug Zook | Apr 25, 2007 9:47:08 AM It is not the role of Congress to run a war -- constitionally nor a matter of common sense. The president is commander in chief and the generals run the field operstions. Congress should stay out and let the generals and president do their thing. Posted by: John D | Apr 25, 2007 9:57:17 AM What, Rumsfield gum up the works? That's absurd. Why, none other than Darth Cheney himself proclaimed Donald the "finest Secretary of Defense this nation has ever had". Stop with this blastphemous talk! Posted by: dt | Apr 25, 2007 10:00:57 AM It is not the role of Congress to run a war -- constitionally nor a matter of common sense. The president is commander in chief and the generals run the field operstions. Congress should stay out and let the generals and president do their thing. Posted by: John D | Apr 25, 2007 9:57:17 AM

John D: That sentiment was followed to the letter for the past 4 years, and it's gotten us into a fairly lousy spot. Congress gave Bush a blank check, Bush (supposedly) listed to the "generals in the field," and we're in the middle of a civil war, spending hundreds of billions and destroying hundreds of thousands of lives. So do tell: Is this situation a result of your structural argument above, or a result of incompetence carrying it out? Since you're advocating that the structure is proper (I agree), then it must be because of incompetence in carrying it out. The best solution would be for Bush to muster the patriotism and integrity to resign. Since he lacks both those characteristics, we know Bush won't resign. That being the case, is it all that unreasonable to suggest that allowing Bush to maintain control and make decisions will be a recipe for continued failure?

Posted by: a blinkin | Apr 25, 2007 10:38:52 AM

So, would it be far to say that Congress (Republicans and Democrats alike), and good ol' Rumsfield, were "micromanaging" the war when then agreed on the budget that only allowed 100,000 troops in 2003, when the generals were asking for funding for 400,000 troups? How to run the war, and whether to end the war are apples and oranges. Micromanagement means telling generals which tank to drive in which direction. Funding a war is about deciding whether or not to get into the war or to leave the war. Let's not spin the words. The is article is nothing but more political rhetoric. Americans, especially our soldiers, deserve to know the truth. Posted by: Alec | Apr 25, 2007 10:43:31 AM i do think congress should tell them how to run the war. nobody else seems to be doing what the American people want. it's about time someone stands up to this admin. they are all liars and crooks. Biggest of them all---the white house attack dog...Dennis Kucinich has the right idea...IMPEACH CHENEY. we sure do not want him for pres. Posted by: rskater | Apr 25, 2007 10:45:42 AM Setting time limits in which to conclude a task is not micromanaging. A Board of Directors says to management, achieve X by Y date or we'll have to go to Plan B; management does not accomplish the task by Y date, so the Board moves on to Plan B. Congress is the Board of Directors, Bush is the Commander in Chief (of only the military, not the nation, see Constitution), and Petreas and his troops will or will not accomplish the task by the deadline. Not a whiff of micromanaging here. Posted by: Craig Sparks | Apr 25, 2007 10:47:13 AM As usual, the press are telling the wrong story here. The 'micromanagement' of a war is Republican political cover for the actual story that senator Reid, the majority of the Democrats and a significant majority of the American public (public opinion, remember that?), want this war to end. The actual 'management' of war has always been to the generals. Politicians are debating policy. Posted by: Commoncents | Apr 25, 2007 10:51:55 AM Doug, you're beginning to sound like John E and JJ. You can do better. Posted by: John D | Apr 25, 2007 10:52:28 AM If the President was competent to direct the war, Congress would let him do it. But he's not, and therefore it is Congress's duty to do what it can do extricate our nation from the incredible mess that it's in. Bush's cannot afford to admit failure, because his bald-faced denial of reality is the only thing keeping him in office. That means that Americans and Iraqis will continue dying to save Bush's political face until at least 2009, unless Congress forces Bush's hand. -Jeremy

Posted by: Jeremy Friesner | Apr 25, 2007 10:53:02 AM Thank you. I am so glad that someone finally took on this "micromanaging" canard spewing from every administration mouth. I would say, look buddy, there's nothing micro about it. And by the way, it's the way the Constitution works. Posted by: David Cohen | Apr 25, 2007 10:53:33 AM Also, at the time Army Chief of Staff Shinseki said he needed about 300,000 troops to invade Iraq but Rummy, Wolfie & Perle vetoed him.

Posted by: Doug Zook | Apr 25, 2007 9:47:08 AM Doug: At the time Richard Myers was CJCS, he and Tom Franks believed that was the right number. Shinseski was doing some Monday night quarterbacking, like so many people have a tendency to do. Posted by: Don B | Apr 25, 2007 10:54:39 AM "The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature." Federalist 69, by Alexander Hamilton http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed69.htm The problem isn't that Congress is asserting its authority. The problem is that for far too long the Congress has failed to assert its authority. Control over war was given to the Congress and denied to the president by design and for good reasons. It's also disingenuous nonsense for Bush to talk about the how Congress is going against the generals. Bush is the one who has chosen the current course of action - and he had to replace generals who didn't agree with the strategy in order to have the strategy adopted. Bush (or his political machine, for which he is responsible) has micromanaged the war, Bush has micromanaged the governance of Iraq. The Congress should concentrate on what is best for the United States. A victory of some sort may still be possible - but Bush is not headed for that and never will be. Bush will sabotage (to the detriment of the country) any effort in Congress to find and then implement an intelligent strategy in Iraq and against the terrorists. Why is it so hard for the press and media to see and say that Bush in plainly not interested in "victory in Iraq." Bush's interest is in his broader neocon strategy. Leaving aside the immorality of that strategy it should be clear by now that Bush is not competent to implement that strategy. Look at Iraq. Bush has created a failure. He won't do better if he succeeds in widening the war to include Iran.

Posted by: hewhoasks | Apr 25, 2007 10:55:05 AM Well said. I have been waiting for someone in the press to come to this realization that in our democracy it is the civilians through their elected representives (politicians) that decide when we commit our people to combat. This authority necessary includes when they should cease combat operations. What they do when they are engaged is, of course, up to the military leadership up to the commander in chief.

In this case the military mission has been accomplished. Bring our people home! The people command it!!!! Posted by: PBI | Apr 25, 2007 10:55:09 AM Congress does not have executive powers for 1 reason. Just look at all the bickering. Let the generals do their job and let it be. Try reporting the good news instead of demorilizing. BTW - I think this war was a massive mistake. We should elect a Dem who has 20/20 hindsight vision. That will solve everything. And W is a bad president, but I don't like him for different reasons than the libs. Peace is obtained through superior firepower. You will never win the hearts and minds of these people. Hmm. We wonder why Sadaam was such a harsh ruler. Posted by: My2Cents | Apr 25, 2007 10:55:48 AM We are witnessing the "blame game" from Bush and his troglodyte supporters, in the face of a collapsing game plan. As Bush continues to support incompetence on the part of Gonzales and Rumsfeld, he blames the Democrats to cover his own grotesque failures of policy. In today's stories, you can read about supposedly inaccurate body counts coming out of Iraq, likely influenced by Bush's team seeking to make things look better than they are. This reminds me of Westmoreland inflating enemy body counts in Vietnam, and being found out, and the damage that ensued. You can also find a discussion of the fact that the new military policy is increasing the risks to our troops, as spreading them out makes them more reliant on Iraqi military support. Hence, our higher recent body counts, as the insurgents attack smaller outposts. Bush's best "weapon" in all of this becomes Cheney's continual lies and bluster, as the country watches things slide downhill. Posted by: pb | Apr 25, 2007 10:57:13 AM So Doug Zook, you're saying that since the Republicans screwed it up by meddling that the Democrats should have a hand in screwing it up too? You know, just to be fair? Posted by: Christopher | Apr 25, 2007 10:58:48 AM If Congress wants to stop this war and bring the Army home then do it. Cut the funding and get on with it. Let's see some leadership, evidently politics and getting re-elected trumps everything else in the hallowed halls of Congress. The Dems and the Reps. are both of guility of getting us into this war, they should have the grace to finish it and finish it well. Posted by: Don A. | Apr 25, 2007 11:00:57 AM What will win the war in Iraq? I have yet to hear a measurable goal out of the generals or presidents office. Personally I want this war to end and hope that the legislature has the courage to force president Bush to end the war by denying him funding. The one pause this gives me is the precious human military lives caught in the balance while the president and congress play chicken over an illegal war. Our current military actions are eroding the might and spirit of our armed forces. Posted by: josh | Apr 25, 2007 11:02:10 AM Let the Commander in Chief do his thing? This guy couldn't beat a monkey in a game of checkers, let alone develop a tenable strategy for his war. I think it's time we took his toys away.

Posted by: The Capitalist | Apr 25, 2007 11:03:38 AM Things are going GREAT !!! in Iraq Posted by: John Ryan | Apr 25, 2007 11:03:38 AM All this debate would have some value if indeed we were at war. This is the Wizard of Oz that the administration has so successfully hidden behind the curtain of disinformation, doublespeak and all-out lying. There is no war, which is why the people in Guantanamo aren't called POWs, they're called "enemy combatants." There is no war, because nobody but the Bushies and their piggly wiggly friends in industry fattening themselves at the slop bucket of diverted "war" funds want us to be in Iraq. The whole thing is a scheme to bring Bush and his friends money and power. What else is new in the course of human events? The only thing new is the breathtaking scale of the deception, and the stubborn myopia of so many people who refuse to see it because it threatens their idyllic concept of what this nation represents. Posted by: Seer | Apr 25, 2007 11:03:54 AM This is a well-written article. Kudos to Frank James! The Democrats are playing with fire, by threatening to cut-off funds for American troops in combat. The Republicans are looking for a scapegoat, to blame for losing the Iraq War; Harry Reid seems to be auditioning for the role. A better approach might be to introduce a Resolution that would recant much of the articulated falsehoods and misguided rhetoric that found its way into the Joint Resolution that authorized Bush to use deadly force in Iraq. I say, give the president all the rope that he asks for, he is hanging himself and the Republican Party. The Democrats should give Bush all the money that he requests, while solemnly vowing to stop this tragic nonsense, if they retake the Executive Branch in 2008. Posted by: new_york_loner | Apr 25, 2007 11:05:22 AM So we should allow the President to continue to mis-manage the war? Let's be real. Congress, including leading Democrats, deferred to the president for several years. He and his administration have clearly demonstrated that they did not warrant that trust. Having been patient to a fault, congress is now telling Bush that he must bring this War of Error to a close. If Bush makes a mess of the withdrawal by failing to cooperate, it is his fault. He should not be allowed to use the armed forces as hostages. Posted by: RF | Apr 25, 2007 11:07:39 AM Oh yes, Dems should stop micro-managing, especially given how awful their ideas are. Trying to make sure troops are fully-trained, fully-rested, and fully-equipped before sent into action? Suggesting that leaving them in the crossfire of a civil war might not be a good idea? Crazy talk, all of it.

Posted by: Snarker | Apr 25, 2007 11:08:12 AM Comments are not posted immediately. We review them first in an effort to remove foul language, commercial messages, irrelevancies and unfair attacks. Thank you for your patience.



The comments to this entry are closed.