With the Spitzer thing still grabbing so much attention, it has gone almost unnoticed (except by some liberal bloggers) that the Commander of the United States Central Command (which includes the Middle East) resigned the other day just ahead of an Esquire magazine article that said he was most likely going to be fired because of his obstinate position against any US military action in Iran. This has been a pattern with the Bush Administration - they look for the most compliant senior military officers possible; when one or another becomes recalcitrant, they scrap him and look for the next guy.
On the one hand, there is nothing untoward about this. The generals do not make policy, but carry it out. If an executor of policy strenuously objects to that policy, there is no reason in the world why the civilian commanders cannot and should not seek one who endorses that policy. The problem in this case, however, is two-fold. First, the Bush Administration has a track record of screwing up even the most basic functions of government; left to themselves to conduct a war, the US would probably be invaded and overrun by El Salvador (Ronald Reagan's nightmare). Their incompetence, which has the President's approval ratings hovering in the 20's with only downward momentum, is stupendous. These are men and women you wouldn't want running a donut shop let alone the most complex governing apparatus in world history.
Second, and more important, on matters of military policy, at least since the end of the Second World War, great deference has been given to the views of senior military officials. With the creation of Joint Chiefs of Staff (part of the National Security Act of 1948), the final touches were put on the movement towards combined military planning first begun at the turn of the 20th century when War Secretary Elihu Root revamped the old system and created the staff system, reducing the offices of the secretaries of the branches to underlings, and raising the uniformed services to more central advisory roles. Copying the reforms Germany implemented a decade before, it did little at first to enhance American military prowess, but paid off over time.
With better and better military education (the War College is among the best military education institutions in the world), our senior uniformed officers are among the brightest, most educated such persons on the planet. They know their jobs, and they understand the role of context in military matters. Since the summer of 2006, former general officers have been outspoken in their opposition to pretty much every position the Bush Administration has taken. Their love for the service has overcome traditional uniformed reticence to speak out on matters of public controversy, as they watch Bush Administration military adventurism strip their beloved services of morale and credibility, and put the country more and more at risk with less and less provocation.
Their have been a slew of reports about Admiral Fallon's objections to any US military action in or against Iran. It was noticed early on, and was the source of much speculation concerning the possible length of his tenure in that office. The best summary of what it might mean is this post by digby.
I can't help but ask, however, whether we are actually overestimating the stupidity of the Bush Administration. Not just their stupidity, though, but also their resourcefulness and agility. Even a series of airstrikes on Iranian soil would entail huge costs; a nuclear strike, even using low-yield weapons designed to hit reinforced targets, poses an exponentially higher risk. As awful as this bunch has been and continues to be, I think a part of me simply refuses to believe they would do something as monumentally dumb, especially in an election year. If a summer or autumn "surprise" of a sudden threat to the US by Iran results in military action, these clowns in charge would almost surely doom any Republican candidate to high office to defeat, for the simple reason they can't even get good stuff right; they are the quintessence of failure.
So, I just wonder, as the title to this post asks - How stupid are they? With most Americans refusing to believe anything the Bush Administration says, can anyone convince me they would play the same game they did with Iraq, cook the books, and try military action against Iran? If they did, wouldn't that be enough for someone in the US to finally haul their asses to The Hague? Weary as I am of this group of nincompoops, I just refuse to believe they would do something as grossly asinine as this.
