HOME | BIO | MUSIC | JOURNEYS BY DJ | STUDIO BLOG | POLITICAL BLOG | BOOKING INFO | CONTACT

Fred Kagan, the architect of the president's "surge," and Bill Kristol, the man who did more than just about anyone else outside of the White House to drive this country into this debacle, defend their new policy in this week's Weekly Standard. But their defense is just mindboggling:

It is easy to imagine circumstances in which it would be necessary to send more troops to protect Americans at risk in Iraq--which this resolution would forbid. Even if Senator Clinton demanded an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces (and she claims she does not want that), there are many circumstances in which additional forces would be required to make it safe for American troops to leave. Why would Senator Clinton, or any other responsible person, wish to deny the commander in Iraq the ability to request forces necessary to ensure the safety of American soldiers?

Why, above all, would she or anyone else imagine that it is appropriate for a committee of 535 people to micromanage a war by setting a precise (and arbitrary) figure for the number of soldiers the commander on the spot can deploy?

There is one man who should be recommending the size of American forces in Iraq, and that is the incoming commander, General Petraeus. Neither the Bush administration nor any collection of congressmen should preempt his professional evaluation of the situation and of the forces necessary to accomplish his mission. It is foolish and absurd for politicians to propose resolutions on American troop strength in Iraq before even hearing General Petraeus's voice in the debate. And when he has spoken, Senator Clinton and her colleagues should carefully weigh the burden they will take on themselves if they dismiss his advice.

I want to leave aside for the moment the ridiculous idea that Clinton, Obama, and Democrats in Congress don't care about the safety of our soldiers. Instead, I want to focus on a novel concept these military and political geniuses might want to consider: civilian control.

And here are just two examples they might want to think through as they ponder what "civilian control" means:

Abraham Lincoln, the father of the Republican Party, and his endless hiring, firing, and rehiring of civil war generals. Kagan and Kristol still believe Lincoln to be a hero, don't they?

George Washington, the father of the country, and the deference he gave to the Continental Congress throughout the Revolutionary War. By the logic of their argument, Washington must have been successful despite the foolish, irresponsible actions of Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Mason, and others.

Do these people even think about what they are writing? Do they even give a moments pause before publishing this drivel?

Judging by their previous efforts, clearly not. As Glenn Greenwald points out, less than a year ago these same two men were arguing in the very same magazine that the commanders on the ground - specifically Gens. Casey and Abazaid - were being "unrealistic" because they refused to increase troop levels in Iraq and that, as a result, they should be overruled. Because the generals would not comply with the wishes of some private sector civilians, they had to go. Take a look:

Abizaid and Casey haven't rethought these views even as they've been mugged by the reality that lack of security does more damage than a heavy footprint, and that failure is more of a threat to responsible Iraqi behavior than dependency. But, just as important, they underestimate the changes that have occurred in Iraq since the February bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra--changes that threaten to unravel the successes achieved so far. In response to the clear fact that sectarian violence is unhinging the effort to turn responsibility for security over to the Iraqis, Abizaid simply demands an acceleration of that transition. This is a recipe for disaster... In fact, most serious people now concede we need more troops.

They have spent months agitating for the ouster of Casey and Abazaid. Months. And now, having achieved their long sought goal, they argue that the commanders on the ground are beyond question? That we must simply do as they say, and that to do otherwise would endanger the safety and security of our military? Seriously?

It really is amazing that anyone takes these people seriously. And yet, they are the ones driving our foreign policy. Which reminds me of a point I forgot to pass along to you earlier.

This Fred Kagan, the genius who is behind the plan that cannot be questioned - who is he? Why, he is "an expert on Napoleon and the early 19th century Russian army." This is the man guiding our war strategy in the Middle East. Wonderful.