Webb: Don't Attack Iraq

WEBB: DON'T ATTACK IRAQ Former Marine urges restraint By ALEX FRIEDRICH afriedrich@montereyherald.com

A former Cabinet member under former President Ronald Reagan told military officers Thursday in Monterey that the United States should not invade Iraq.

Former Secretary of the Navy James Webb said the country should focus instead on eliminating international terrorism. Speaking at the Naval Postgraduate School, Webb said that without a clear understanding of consequences - or a clear exit strategy - U.S. forces face a decades-long occupation that could sap American resolve and resources. .

Well, Dr, now that I have had a moment or two to think about the article, I can only say that I am heartily disappointed to find myself in such disagreement with Webb. You are absolutely right in your criticisms of what he has said; much of this has been rehashed repeatedly on FR.

Your point about the paucity of retired soldiers speaking for the war in the media is well-made; in any case, there is the well made point that what makes a good soldier is not experience in and of itself, but learning from experience. Mr. Webb's obsession with an exit strategy is the product of flawed analysis of the problem with Korea and Vietnam. The errors there consisted of underestimation of the foe (1), absence of a decisive (ie clear goals + coherent annihilation of the enemy in a productive manner) (2), and a lack of popular support (or an inability of the folks in charge (bloody Democrats) to create it (3).

None of those will be a factor in Iraq. Webb, a masterful staff man who reorganized the Corps and revived its spirit, is no battle Marine, it seems. I could not imagine Chesty Puller taking this stance.

...without a clear understanding of consequences ...

Thank you for another in my ever-growing list of epitaphs for our country. This one has the virtue of delicate bluntness. I can amost hear a bell tolling in time with the accent on "clear", "stand" and "con".

But let's forget that no one has truthfully explained WHY we must topple Sadaam, in particular, and bring the blessing of "democracy" and "freedom" to the Iraqi people. Why not, for example. bring these blessings to the long-suffering North Korean people?

Let's forget what happened to another civilization--namely Christian civilization in Europe--when another American president (whom everyone agreed was brilliant) took his ax to the roots of their ancient christian monarchies and bestowed upon them "freedom" and "democracy".

Let's forget the masses of weapons of mass destruction stashed in the arsenals of rascally rogues all over the planet--many of which the United States was instrumental in helping the rogues obtain (when they were our lovable lugs, you know).

Let's forget the spectre of Osama--although before a few more weeks are out I expect "authoritative" reports to surface that Osama has been spotted having a hot tub in one of Sadaam's palaces.

Instead of looking out and around and back, let's just gaze in amazement at the State of the Homeland--at "freedom" and "democracy" central, if you will.

Let's revel in the state of our economic health; the state of our commercial culture--there is no other culture and that is as it should be in the heartland of "free trade". Let's contemplate with joy the strange fact--strange only to the naive and unsophisticated, of course--that we have more citizens in prison than any other civilization in history. Let's pat ourselves on the back for the fact that although we eat more than any other country in the world almost none of us are farmers anymore. Instead we choose our food from the whole planet--cheap and plentiful. Let's rejoice in the efficiency and technological wizadry of our police forces who matched the DNA of five people who were beaten, raped, sodomized, tortured, robbed and finally executed during one horrific night in Wichita with the DNA of their tormentors; who matched bullets from flesh all over the country with those that entered the bodies and skulls of citizens in East Coast schoolyards, parking lots and riding on their lawn-mowers.

Let's rejoice in the suppleness of the limbs of our fellow citizens as they serpentined across the vast exapnses of parking lots in pursuit of happiness and shadows where no sniper could spot them. Let's take comfort in the pioneer courage of a survivor of a massacre who lives to testify in court.

I suspect James Webb has been examining the Wheel which is about to get rolling (again) and has spotted some structural problems. Poor man. He just doesn't get it, does he? It's History--the forces of--rolling on and on and over. There's nothing we can do about it. Except to lay back and enjoy it--as I believe some philosopher once said......

www.sfgate.com Return to regular view
At Navy school in Monterey, voices of skepticism about Iraq war
Robert Collier
Sunday, November 10, 2002
©2002 San Francisco Chronicle.

URL:

When former Secretary of the Navy James Webb gave a speech last Thursday at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey slamming the Bush administration's threatened war with Iraq, an outsider might have expected the officers assembled there to give him a frosty reception.

In fact, the opposite occurred. The respectful, admiring welcome he received gave an unusual, somewhat counterintuitive glimpse into the often- closed world of the U.S. military. Among the Naval Postgraduate School's students and faculty, at least, it seems that independent, critical thinking is alive and well.

Granted, Webb is no outsider. A much-decorated former Marines officer, he became assistant defense secretary and secretary of the Navy during the Reagan administration -- quitting the latter job in 1988 to protest budget cutbacks in the Navy's fleet expansion program.

In recent months, Webb has been a vocal critic of the Bush administration's Iraq policy, calling it, in an op-ed in the Washington Post, a distraction from the fight against al Qaeda.

But in his introduction before a packed auditorium, the school's superintendent, Rear Adm. David Ellison, called Webb a "military hero" and a "dedicated public servant."

Webb took the baton and ran with it, warning that a war in Iraq -- and a possible long-term occupation of the country -- would be a critical mistake.

"We should not occupy territory in Iraq," he said. "Do you really want the United States on the ground in that region for a generation?

"I don't think Iraq is that much of a threat," said Webb, an opinion rarely heard among current or former Republican administration officials.

But Webb recalled proudly that as Navy secretary in 1987, "I was the only one in the Reagan administration who opposed the tilt toward Iraq in the war with Iran," referring to the U.S. sharing of intelligence and arms with Saddam Hussein's forces.

The reaction at Monterey to Webb's speech might have surprised Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who has led the administration's charge on Iraq.

"His reputation may be controversial, but a lot of things he said we tend to agree with," said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Paul Tanks, a graduate student in space systems operations.

The Naval Postgraduate School, at least in civilian circles, does not have the name recognition of military institutions like West Point. But it is a premier school for the U.S. armed services, giving master's and Ph.D. degrees to mid-level officers of the Navy and other branches. About one-quarter of its student body is foreign, from the armed forces of 45 nations.

Some departments, such as meteorology and computer science, rank with the best of U.S. civilian universities.

"The military is not monolithic," said John Arquilla, a professor of defense analysis who was in the audience Thursday. "These are all military officers, they're very sensible people, and Webb is a very, very thoughtful guy."

Arquilla, like Webb, is one of the military's critical thinkers, an oft- quoted expert on what he calls "network theory" -- studying decentralized organizations like al Qaeda.

"Iraq is a terrible detour from what we ought to be doing," Arquilla said. "The real threat is from the al Qaeda network. Saddam is a minimal threat to us. He knows that if he uses any of his weapons of mass destruction against us or our allies, we're going to nuke him into glass, but if al Qaeda uses them, what are we going to retaliate against? Whom do we target?"

Arquilla explained that many students agree with Webb. Military officers, he said, are far from the hard-line, uncritical followers that most civilians think they are.

"Most of my students are in special operations, they want to be challenged, they are off-design thinkers by nature," Arquilla said.

"Overall, military officers have a great openness of mind. There's a great capacity for innovative thinking. They've seen a lot, they've done a lot, they come here at mid-career. Now, we're getting many who are rotating out of Afghanistan. This isn't like four-star generals who are just thinking how to protect their conventional force structures."

E-mail Robert Collier at rcollier@sfchronicle.com.

©2002 San Francisco Chronicle. Page A - 3

In case you haven't thought about it a whole lot, the real problem is the potential for FIERCE terrorism attacks on U.S. soil and even potentially massive WMD attacks against our troops in Iraq.

I think about both of these things. I fear that the terrorism is more likely if we attack and occupy Iraq than it is if we don't. Saddam is in a box now and the danger to us, with or without him, is the Fierce terrorism that has already stricken the homeland. How is getting rid of him likely to change that?

War with him is likely to add to the grievences of our enemies and not at all likely to give them pause. That is my view. Keep him in the box he is in, the policy is working. An added bonus would be for the inspections to be renewed without war.

Regards.

One other thing: you assume Saddam is in a box. Perhaps, except that he has found convenient holes in which to escape and accomplish some of his goals.

If he is paying Palestinian suicide bombers, what would stop him from paying Al Qaeda or Hamass?

If he is sneaking uranium enrichment equipment into Iraq. what makes you think he wouldn't export the same? He deals with all the worst nations, including Cuba, Libya, and North Korea. Do you think he might be giving them bio-weapons? If not, why not? Perhaps Cuba has traded some of their bio-research for oil. Perhaps North Korea has some nuclear stuff they used to buy oil from Iraq.

I don't have the intelligence that the President and his people do. I don't pretend to know the answers to my questions.

I do know, however, that this effort against Iraq has not been taken without the consideration of the consequences. I trust the President. James Webb is operating without all the information. I believe he is wrong.

....an outsider might have expected the officers assembled there to give him a frosty reception. In fact, the opposite occurred. The respectful, admiring welcome he received gave an unusual, somewhat counterintuitive glimpse into the often- closed world of the U.S. military.

So, Chronicle writer Robert Collier is shocked to find that the people at the Naval Postgraduate School treated a former Secretary of the Navy with respect.

In other words: Chronicle writer Robert Collier is an idiot, and this article in Post #43 is Exhibit A.

Thanks for sharing it with me.

P.S. And oh yeah, I'm really bowled over by the grand total of TWO anti-war quotes (one of them rather wishy-washy). Yes, I learn that not only is Webb against fighting Iraq, but so is a professor named John Arquilla. WELL THAT SETTLES IT THEN. Webb was one thing, but ARQUILLA TOO??? My god man if ARQUILLA is against the war, that's all I need to know... when's the next protest?

I also think that if we were just to keep Saddam in an inspection-based box without deposing him, we would avert some terrorist attacks which could very well be precipitated by a war. But I think that this is overruled by a reality which you haven't thought all the way through.

The problem, as I see it, as most Americans see it, is that the inspection approach will not work long-term--since Saddam will just play a game of "cheat and retreat." And if he is able to do this long enough, he will be able to develop even more WMDs--which he could then get his surrogates to plant on U.S. soil.

My point is that the "cheat and retreat" ploy, if he tries to use it--and he will, as you will soon discover--will immediately justify the war which you have suggested we shouldn't launch. I am saying that his cheating and retreating will tell us that we'd better go ahead and pay the price of war (and temporarily worsened terrorism reprisals).

Besides, even if Saddam has no WMD programs on his own soil--and almost no one believes that--there may be an even bigger WMD danger from a guy like him. If he had his way, he would have dozens of suitcase nukes from the old Soviet Union planted all over our nation. He is probably the only leader in the world who would attempt to do that, but I believe he would. After all, he is a full-blown anti-American psychopath. In some ways, he is an order of magnitude worse than OBL.

OBL is a crazy religionist. Saddam is even crazier than that, because he is not religious, but purely megalomaniacal.

And if a psychopath like Saddam could pull off a major and theoretically untraceable nuclear attack against the U.S., he would do it in a New York minute. And that could conceivably destroy our nation.

So, we just have to do risk management. We take him out. Not really a difficult decision. If we incur casualties from Saddam-inspired attacks, that will just prove that we were right to act and to act now, not later (when the casualties would be ten times worse or a hundred times worse).

In short, we need to rid the world of the guy. So, don't worry. It will work out for the best--even if the short-term scenario is pretty bad!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.