Let’s go a little farther back, to the first Gulf War in 1991. Bush the father was President. Over months after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August, 1990, the Administration assembled a coalition of some fifty countries to push the Iraqis out. It consulted Congress. It made clear what it was trying to do, including about specific, limited goals, to both the American people and the nations whose support it sought. It got a UN Security Council mandate for the mission. Many countries contributed forces; others helped in other ways with logistics, overflight rights, and so forth. The U.S. kept channels open to Saddam to offer him a way out before being forced out. It even got a very reluctant Pakistan (where I was stationed at the U.S. Embassy at the time) to join with two brigades, although the Paks insisted on sending them far to the west of any likely fighting, saying they were meant to defend the Holy Places of Mecca and Medina. (Actually, had Iraq launched anything in that direction – never very likely, but an interesting “what if?” – those two brigades were all that stood in their way.) Intelligence properly used and public and diplomatic support lined up, producing a multinational effort to accomplish a clear, defined task.
Mr Trump has repeatedly shown himself to be quite effective at breaking things with great fanfare, but lacking in practical ideas to repair the subsequent chaos. More often than not, he simply looks for something else to break and leave the mess for others to solve. Though there have long been operational alternate plans on the shelf to deal with Iran, there is scant evidence of more than quick advance intel and planning for this war and no evidence that anyone in leadership has thought beyond square one as to unintended consequences of how this will play out. The plethora of competing justifications for this war from the White House, DOD and DOS is testament to the likelihood that there is as yet a different secret goal here by Mr Trump. Heat from the Epstein coverup is reaching meltdown temperatures, so is Mr Trump simply wagging the dog to distract from possible criminal exposure by hoping to rally support for - rah, rah - "America First." He has no compunctions about risking American blood and national treasure if it offers himself some political shade. Time will tell, but how many lives must be sacrificed along that crooked road?
With all due respect, Jonathan, your article reflects what should be done, not the realities I struggled to live with during my 39 years with CIA. Unless I’m forgetting something, the last time the US followed your guidance was in December 1941.
I'm just asking what planning was done, what questions were asked, and what assessments were made. Congress and the public deserve greater clarity on those things. Greater transparency could lead to greater clarity and enabling appropriate decision making on what happens next. As someone who did not spent a lifetime in the CIA, but who used its work literally hundreds of times during the ten years I was at State (and the ten years I worked for the Congress), I found thoughtful intelligence assessments essential to policymakers and policy critiquers both. They certainly informed my thinking on what I needed to do to succeed in my various government jobs. Thanks for taking the time to read it and to respond.
There is not going to any quick resolution to this war. It is going to have unnecessary lose of our men/women in a war we did not need to start. It appears to many of us as a deflection from the Epstein files. There is obviously no fore thought or serious intel done. The general told him it was not a good idea and the president comeback was he had a feeling we needed to do this.And don't get me started on the DOD drunk who said no rules of engagement and that was a weak way to do things.
Let’s go a little farther back, to the first Gulf War in 1991. Bush the father was President. Over months after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August, 1990, the Administration assembled a coalition of some fifty countries to push the Iraqis out. It consulted Congress. It made clear what it was trying to do, including about specific, limited goals, to both the American people and the nations whose support it sought. It got a UN Security Council mandate for the mission. Many countries contributed forces; others helped in other ways with logistics, overflight rights, and so forth. The U.S. kept channels open to Saddam to offer him a way out before being forced out. It even got a very reluctant Pakistan (where I was stationed at the U.S. Embassy at the time) to join with two brigades, although the Paks insisted on sending them far to the west of any likely fighting, saying they were meant to defend the Holy Places of Mecca and Medina. (Actually, had Iraq launched anything in that direction – never very likely, but an interesting “what if?” – those two brigades were all that stood in their way.) Intelligence properly used and public and diplomatic support lined up, producing a multinational effort to accomplish a clear, defined task.
Mr Trump has repeatedly shown himself to be quite effective at breaking things with great fanfare, but lacking in practical ideas to repair the subsequent chaos. More often than not, he simply looks for something else to break and leave the mess for others to solve. Though there have long been operational alternate plans on the shelf to deal with Iran, there is scant evidence of more than quick advance intel and planning for this war and no evidence that anyone in leadership has thought beyond square one as to unintended consequences of how this will play out. The plethora of competing justifications for this war from the White House, DOD and DOS is testament to the likelihood that there is as yet a different secret goal here by Mr Trump. Heat from the Epstein coverup is reaching meltdown temperatures, so is Mr Trump simply wagging the dog to distract from possible criminal exposure by hoping to rally support for - rah, rah - "America First." He has no compunctions about risking American blood and national treasure if it offers himself some political shade. Time will tell, but how many lives must be sacrificed along that crooked road?
With all due respect, Jonathan, your article reflects what should be done, not the realities I struggled to live with during my 39 years with CIA. Unless I’m forgetting something, the last time the US followed your guidance was in December 1941.
I'm just asking what planning was done, what questions were asked, and what assessments were made. Congress and the public deserve greater clarity on those things. Greater transparency could lead to greater clarity and enabling appropriate decision making on what happens next. As someone who did not spent a lifetime in the CIA, but who used its work literally hundreds of times during the ten years I was at State (and the ten years I worked for the Congress), I found thoughtful intelligence assessments essential to policymakers and policy critiquers both. They certainly informed my thinking on what I needed to do to succeed in my various government jobs. Thanks for taking the time to read it and to respond.
There is not going to any quick resolution to this war. It is going to have unnecessary lose of our men/women in a war we did not need to start. It appears to many of us as a deflection from the Epstein files. There is obviously no fore thought or serious intel done. The general told him it was not a good idea and the president comeback was he had a feeling we needed to do this.And don't get me started on the DOD drunk who said no rules of engagement and that was a weak way to do things.