Most of the fallout from Robert Gates’s astonishingly frank and often bitter memoir has landed squarely on the stalwarts of the Obama administration, including the president himself, Vice President Joe Biden, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. But, based on the excerpts released so far, the former Defense secretary appears to reserve his fiercest criticism for Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, even though it is fairly implicit.
In one devastating passage of Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War, Gates writes that the optional war that Bush chose to launch in 2003 — the invasion of Iraq — seriously undermined the conduct of the necessary war in Afghanistan, the conclusion of which still bedevils U.S. foreign policy today:
President Bush always detested the notion, but our later challenges in Afghanistan — especially the return of the Taliban in force by the time I reported for duty — were, I believe, significantly compounded by the invasion of Iraq. Resources and senior-level attention were diverted from Afghanistan. U.S. goals in Afghanistan — a properly sized, competent Afghan national army and police, a working democracy with at least a minimally effective and less corrupt central government — were embarrassingly ambitious and historically naive compared with the meager human and financial resources committed to the task, at least before 2009.
In a single paragraph Gates effectively sums up and validates the chief criticisms of the Bush administration’s conduct of the so-called war on terror: 1) that Iraq was a serious diversion from the ongoing stabilization of Afghanistan, where the actual culprits of 9/11 were hiding out; and 2) that the effort to destroy al-Qaida and round up Osama bin Laden and his leadership team was seriously underfunded and suffered from far too little attention, especially by the time the Taliban began to regroup in a major way in the mid-2000s.
Gates’s assessment directly contradicts that of George W. Bush and leading officials of his administration, such as Gates’s predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld, who have consistently denied that the campaign in Iraq was in any way a distraction from Afghanistan. Rumsfeld, who in one of his less-noted but most catastrophic decisions rejected international peacekeeping troops beyond Kabul in 2002, has never acknowledged his failures to complete the task in Afghanistan. On the contrary, even as the Taliban began regrouping in 2005-06, Rumsfeld was giving speeches extolling the transformation of Afghanistan under America’s “modest footprint.” In October of 2006, after my colleagues at Newsweek and I authored a feature story about the return of the Taliban called “The Rise of Jihadistan,” Rumsfeld directed his aide, Matt Latimer, to issue a public rebuttal to it.
But some of Rumsfeld’s own aides in the field, including Jim Dobbins — who today is Obama’s special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan — were saying at the time that Afghanistan was being neglected. Dobbins, Bush’s former special envoy to Kabul who also led the Clinton administration’s rebuilding efforts in Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, and Somalia, told me in an interview in 2006 that Afghanistan was the “most under-resourced nation-building effort in history.” In its 2003 budget proposal, the administration included no civilian aid money for Afghanistan at all. Mitch Daniels, then Bush’s budget director, later quietly slashed a congressional proposal for agricultural and educational assistance to Afghanistan from $150 million to $40 million. According to a study done later by the U.S. Institute of Peace, aid in the early years of the occupation amounted to just $67 a year per Afghan, far less than previous nation-building exercises such as Bosnia ($249) and East Timor ($256).
At the same time, worried U.S. military officials were beginning to realize that the Taliban’s gradual resurgence could be traced to the abrupt diversion of so many resources to Iraq, including Predator aerial vehicles, in a critical period beginning in 2002. In February and March of 2002, the Arabic-speaking Fifth Special Forces Group — the teams that were mostly credited with toppling the Taliban in the swift war that began Oct. 7, 2001 and ended by December of that year — were largely pulled out to be redeployed in the Mideast. They were replaced by less experienced teams such as the Seventh Group, whose focus was Latin America.
Former Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., who was then chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told me in an interview in 2011, on the 10th anniversary of 9/11, that none other than the U.S. commander, Gen. Tommy Franks, had complained to him about this diversion of attention and resources. “In February of 2002, I had a briefing at Central Command in Tampa,” Graham said. “After the briefing, Franks took me aside and said he wanted to talk to me personally. He said in his opinion we had stopped fighting the war against al-Qaida and the Taliban and were getting ready to fight a yet-undeclared war in Iraq. He talked about things like the transfer of military personnel and equipment into Iraq.”
In an interview that same year, before he became Defense secretary, Chuck Hagel blamed the Bush administration’s “mad, wild dash into Iraq” on “the lack of any clear strategic critical thinking” about the causes of 9/11. “I think when history is written of this 10-year period, it will record the folly of great-power overreach.” Hagel added: “We’ll be living with the consequences for a long time.”
What We're Following See More »
"It is with humility, determination, and boundless confidence in America’s promise that I accept your nomination for president," said Hillary Clinton in becoming the first woman to accept a nomination for president from a major party. Clinton gave a wide-ranging address, both criticizing Donald Trump and speaking of what she has done in the past and hopes to do in the future. "He's taken the Republican party a long way, from morning in America to midnight in America," Clinton said of Trump. However, most of her speech focused instead on the work she has done and the work she hopes to do as president. "I will be a president of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. For the struggling, the striving, the successful," she said. "For those who vote for me and for those who don't. For all Americans together."
Supporters of Bernie Sanders promised to walk out, turn their backs, or disrupt Hillary Clinton's speech tonight, and they made good immediately, with an outburst almost as soon as Clinton began her speech. But her supporters, armed with a handy counter-chant cheat sheet distributed by the campaign, immediately began drowning them out with chants of "Hillary, Hillary!"
If a new poll is to be believed, Hillary Clinton has a big lead in the all-important swing state of Pennsylvania. A new Suffolk University survey shows her ahead of Donald Trump, 50%-41%. In a four-way race, she maintains her nine-point lead, 46%-37%. "Pennsylvania has voted Democratic in the past six presidential elections, going back to Bill Clinton’s first win in 1992. Yet it is a rust belt state that could be in play, as indicated by recent general-election polling showing a close race."
Wednesday was the third night in a row that the Democratic convention enjoyed a ratings win over the Republican convention last week. Which might have prompted a fundraising email from Donald Trump exhorting supporters not to watch. "Unless you want to be lied to, belittled, and attacked for your beliefs, don't watch Hillary's DNC speech tonight," the email read. "Instead, help Donald Trump hold her accountable, call out her lies and fight back against her nasty attacks."
Catholics who attend mass at least weekly have increased their support of the Democratic nominee by 22 points, relative to 2012, when devout Catholics backed Mitt Romney. Meanwhile, a Morning Consult poll shows that those voters with advanced degrees prefer Hillary Clinton, 51%-34%. Which, we suppose, makes the ideal Clinton voter a Catholic with a PhD in divinity.