The Scum at the Top
Commentary on the Rats in Washington
Who's Unpatriotic Now?
By Paul Krugman
The New York Times
© July 22, 2003
Some nonrevisionist history: On Oct. 8, 2002, Knight Ridder
newspapers reported on intelligence officials who "charge that
the administration squelches dissenting views, and that
intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce
reports supporting the White House's argument that Saddam
poses such an immediate threat to the United States that
pre-emptive military action is necessary." One official
accused the administration of pressuring analysts to "cook
the intelligence books"; none of the dozen other officials
the reporters spoke to disagreed.
The skepticism of these officials has been vindicated. So have
the concerns expressed before the war by military professionals
like Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, about the
resources required for postwar occupation. But as the bad news
comes in, those who promoted this war have responded with a
concerted effort to smear the messengers.
Issues of principle aside, the invasion of a country that
hadn't attacked us and didn't pose an imminent threat has
seriously weakened our military position. Of the Army's 33
combat brigades, 16 are in Iraq; this leaves us ill prepared
to cope with genuine threats. Moreover, military experts say
that with almost two-thirds of its brigades deployed overseas,
mainly in Iraq, the Army's readiness is eroding: normal
doctrine calls for only one brigade in three to be deployed
abroad, while the other two retrain and refit.
And the war will have devastating effects on future recruiting
by the reserves. A widely circulated photo from Iraq shows a
sign in the windshield of a military truck that reads, "One
weekend a month, my ass."
To top it all off, our insistence on launching a war without
U.N. approval has deprived us of useful allies. George Bush
claims to have a "huge coalition," but only 7 percent of the
coalition soldiers in Iraq are non-American - and administration
pleas for more help are sounding increasingly plaintive.
How serious is the strain on our military? The Brookings
Institution military analyst Michael O'Hanlon, who describes
our volunteer military as "one of the best military institutions
in human history," warns that "the Bush administration will
risk destroying that accomplishment if they keep on the current
path."
But instead of explaining what happened to the Al Qaeda link
and the nuclear program, in the last few days a series of
hawkish pundits have accused those who ask such questions of
aiding the enemy. Here's Frank Gaffney Jr. in The National
Post: "Somewhere, probably in Iraq, Saddam Hussein is gloating.
He can only be gratified by the feeding frenzy of recriminations,
second-guessing and political power plays. . . . Signs of
declining popular appreciation of the legitimacy and necessity
of the efforts of America's armed forces will erode their
morale. Similarly, the enemy will be encouraged."
Well, if we're going to talk about aiding the enemy: By cooking
intelligence to promote a war that wasn't urgent, the
administration has squandered our military strength. This
provides a lot of aid and comfort to Osama bin Laden - who
really did attack America - and Kim Jong Il - who really is
building nukes.
And while we're on the subject of patriotism, let's talk about
the affair of Joseph Wilson's wife. Mr. Wilson is the former
ambassador who was sent to Niger by the C.I.A. to investigate
reports of attempted Iraqi uranium purchases and who recently
went public with his findings. Since then administration allies
have sought to discredit him - it's unpleasant stuff. But
here's the kicker: both the columnist Robert Novak and Time
magazine say that administration officials told them that they
believed that Mr. Wilson had been chosen through the influence
of his wife, whom they identified as a C.I.A. operative.
Think about that: if their characterization of Mr. Wilson's wife
is true (he refuses to confirm or deny it), Bush administration
officials have exposed the identity of a covert operative. That
happens to be a criminal act; it's also definitely unpatriotic.
So why would they do such a thing? Partly, perhaps, to punish
Mr. Wilson, but also to send a message.
And that should alarm us. We've just seen how politicized,
cooked intelligence can damage our national interest. Yet the
Wilson affair suggests that the administration intends to
continue pressuring analysts to tell it what it wants to hear.
The Scum at the Top - Home
E-mail: dwagner2@isd.net
©2007 DJW
Last Modified:
January 13, 2007