So I Started Reading the Feith Book...

[SteveMetz]

In the book I'm currently reading (referenced above), Herspring pins most of the blame on Feith for preventing the hiring of more experts and Arabists due to their alleged lack of dedication to the president's mission. They did not share the freedom agenda of the administration, and Feith did not want them involved. He is also said to personally insist on preventing OSD staff from joining inter-agency planning groups, for the same reason.

I've ordered the Herspring book but not yet received it. I'll be interested as to what his sources are. That's not the way I portray it in my book. I'll withhold judgement but looking at the advertisement for the Herspring book, it looked like just one more anti-Bush screed. I strove mightily to be balanced and objective in mine. I felt the administration made major errors, but I didn't want to pin them with ones that I couldn't verify by sources other than administration opponents.

[ipopescu]

I'll withhold judgement but looking at the advertisement for the Herspring book, it looked like just one more anti-Bush screed. I strove mightily to be balanced and objective in mine.

It's more like an anti-Rumsfeld screed. Sources are mostly MSM and personal interviews. I do not detect a conscious effort on his part to be very objective, but he's not extremely biased either given that his thesis - Rumsfeld was a very bad SECDEF - is not that controversial. What's interesting as it relates to this thread is that Feith is the only character in the book that comes out worse than Rumsfeld

[selil]

I strove mightily to be balanced and objective in mine. I felt the administration made major errors, but I didn't want to pin them with ones that I couldn't verify by sources other than administration opponents.

I have to agree. Hang the POTUS on the mistakes they made and don't make stuff up. There will be enough blame to go around in the end. I think the argument in coming years will be framed somewhat in the form of a weak kneed democrat led congress unable to reign in a unitarian executive power juxtaposed with improper planning by the executive branch. The end result will be to punish the military with a massive RIF, somewhat isolationism, distrust of the democrats as weak even in the seat of power, and neo-con petulance at the crashing economic woes that Iraq and the GWOT have created.

What I don't see happening is a massive anti-war/peace movement or a protest populist movement in regards to civil rights.

[SteveMetz]

It's more like an anti-Rumsfeld screed. Sources are mostly MSM and personal interviews. I do not detect a conscious effort on his part to be very objective, but he's not extremely biased either given that his thesis - Rumsfeld was a very bad SECDEF - is not that controversial. What's interesting as it relates to this thread is that Feith is the only character in the book that comes out worse than Rumsfeld

Do you know what Peter Feaver's take on the book is (given his inside perspective)?

[ipopescu]

I don't think he read it yet. I'm reading an advance copy because I will write a review for it.

[marct]

I think the argument in coming years will be framed somewhat in the form of a weak kneed democrat led congress unable to reign in a unitarian executive power juxtaposed with improper planning by the executive branch. The end result will be to punish the military with a massive RIF, somewhat isolationism, distrust of the democrats as weak even in the seat of power, and neo-con petulance at the crashing economic woes that Iraq and the GWOT have created.

Quite possibly.

What I don't see happening is a massive anti-war/peace movement or a protest populist movement in regards to civil rights.

Add to that a deafening lack of politicians taking responsibility for their actions, ideologues pointing fingers and an upsurge in the popularity of this work.

Actually, I'm more concerned about the fact that the rest of the world is starting to view any US administration as a bunch of clowns who will inevitably blame someone, anyone, else for their own failures. Not exactly the sort of "allies" one wants, old chap!

[Ken White]

...Actually, I'm more concerned about the fact that the rest of the world is starting to view any US administration as a bunch of clowns who will inevitably blame someone, anyone, else for their own failures. Not exactly the sort of "allies" one wants, old chap!

We should be used to it...

I'd also suggest that it is not an affliction solely of US Administrations; I've seen a few others use the same 'logic' fairly frequently...

[Steve Blair]

I trace some of it back to learned behavior from watching Congress flounder and cast blame for the last 30 years or so. Sure the executive branch has had more than its share of idiots, but what can you say about a group that sits and whines when it has the controlling majority in both the House and Senate? Too many lawyers and professional politicians in the place for my liking, I'm sad to say....

[marct]

Hi Ken,

We should be used to it...

I'd also suggest that it is not an affliction solely of US Administrations; I've seen a few others use the same 'logic' fairly frequently...

True - but who cares about what our PM's do anyway . On that note, I just got a breaking news alert that the RCMP was raiding Conservative Party headquarters in Ottawa...

I trace some of it back to learned behavior from watching Congress flounder and cast blame for the last 30 years or so. Sure the executive branch has had more than its share of idiots, but what can you say about a group that sits and whines when it has the controlling majority in both the House and Senate? Too many lawyers and professional politicians in the place for my liking, I'm sad to say....

LOLOL - personally, I would have said too few professional politicians and too many ideologue amateurs , but your point is taken.

[Ken White]

...True - but who cares about what our PM's do anyway . On that note, I just got a breaking news alert that the RCMP was raiding Conservative Party headquarters in Ottawa...

about it -- I really had several other governments in mind...

On the Tory Hq raid, I am shocked, shocked I say, that such a thing would be suspected of them. Brian has assured me there is no there there...

[marct]

Hey Ken,

On the Tory Hq raid, I am shocked, shocked I say, that such a thing would be suspected of them. Brian has assured me there is no there there...

Doesn't really surprise me at all . If we ever get together for a couple of pints, we can trade Brian stories .

[SteveMetz]

Steve,

As a moderator,l hopefully speaking for the other mods as well as Bill and Dave, I really hope that you plan to review this book, perhaps on the SWJ Blog or at least on a formal book review thread.

Tom

Since I've become a serial ranter here (imagine a less charming version of Lewis Black), I can just gather up all of these crumbs into a review. Here's my lead:

The book is a wellspring of invaluable information intertwined with one of the most unreflective apologias ever packaged as a memoir. The people generally considered to be most responsible for American strategy--President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld--are portrayed as prescient and blameless. Colin Powell, George Tenet, the organizations each of them led, and, to a degree, the uniformed military are the culprits stabbing the administration in the back, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

[Tom Odom]

Since I've become a serial ranter here (imagine a less charming version of Lewis Black), I can just gather up all of these crumbs into a review. Here's my lead:

The book is a wellspring of invaluable information intertwined with one of the most unreflective apologias ever packaged as a memoir. The people generally considered to be most responsible for American strategy--President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld--are portrayed as prescient and blameless. Colin Powell, George Tenet, the organizations each of them led, and, to a degree, the uniformed military are the culprits stabbing the administration in the back, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Well it certainly offers a clear bottom line up front. I would certainly prefer reading your review over reading this work of historical fiction. I wonder what his students think of him. Then again maybe they don't think.

Best

Tom

[Steve Blair]

Well it certainly offers a clear bottom line up front. I would certainly prefer reading your review over reading this work of historical fiction. I wonder what his students think of him. Then again maybe they don't think.

Best

Tom

Why would they think? Far better to parrot what the guy says, kiss some tail, and come out with a good grade.... It sickens me, but I've seen it happen before.

Steve, does this work of historical fiction beat the grade set by McNamara's? If so we're working on a record of some sort.....

[SteveMetz]

Why would they think? Far better to parrot what the guy says, kiss some tail, and come out with a good grade.... It sickens me, but I've seen it happen before.

Steve, does this work of historical fiction beat the grade set by McNamara's? If so we're working on a record of some sort.....

Yanno, I don't think I've read McNamara's book. I can, though, see a comparison to Westmoreland's equally uncritical and unreflective memoir. I got an email from Tom Ricks about an hour ago and he said he asks himself what Rostow would have written in 1968. I don't know about that, but I had breakfast with Westmoreland and Rostow in the early '90s (only because I was Westmoreland's escort lackey for the day) and he clearly was self critical and reflective. Westmoreland was not.

But, if it rained in DC, according to Feith, it was State's fault. I did just hit the section on applying the Geneva Conventions to detainees and he couldn't think of a way to blame Powell, so he had to use Ashcroft as the substitute scapegoat.

[SteveMetz]

As I get to the Iraq sections, I see Mr. Feith continues his longstanding process of ignoring real criticism and, instead, creating and demolishing straw men assuming, I guess, that readers will lose track of this tactic.

On p. 183 he writes, "Soon after Saddam's overthrow in 2003, some war critics began to contend that not only was the war unnecesary, but that Saddam had never been a significant problem for the United States--regarding terrorism, WMD, or any other matter."

Now, there may have been "some war critics" taking that absurd position. But the serious criticism was that the extent of the threat posed by Hussein did not justify the expected strategic costs and risks of invasion and occupation. Mr. Feith does not address this serious criticism, instead devoting his attention to the easily debunked one he described in this quotation.

[J Wolfsberger]

... Mr. Feith does not address this serious criticism, instead devoting his attention to the easily debunked one he described in this quotation.

Aha! I've figured it out!

Mr. Feith is running for President.

[SteveMetz]

Finally, an explanation for what went wrong with the post-conflict planning!! On pp. 189-90:

Chalabi--a secular, U.S.-educated Iraqi businessman and banker--became a central figure in the story of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, but not because he shaped or implemented U.S. policy. It was, rather, because of the suspicion and antagonism he excited in key parts of the U.S. national security establishment, as well as within the Arab world. That suspicion would in the end derail the U.S. government's preparations and plans for Iraq's political transition.

So, see, it wasn't that OSD inadequately planned for the post-conflict transition. OSD was stabbed in the back by "key parts of the U.S. national security establishment" antagonistic to Chalibi. It is all so clear to me now!

[JJackson]

Thank you Steve

Now let me just check I have got this clear if we had dumped all that Phase IV stuff and photocopied them a copy of the constitution and put in Chalibi as President we could all have gone home after we had pulled down Saddam’s statue?

[SteveMetz]

On p. 200 he takes another dig at the CIA for not, in his estimation, pushing hard enough to remove Saddam Hussein out of concern for the stability of Iraq.

So, Doug, how's that instability stuff working out for you?