Gates: Bush Screwed Up the War on Terror

In one devastating passage of his memoir, the former Defense secretary confirms the worst.

ARLINGTON, VA - JANUARY 6: (AFP OUT) U.S. President George W. Bush (C) stands by Robert Gates (R), Secretary of Defense, right, and Admiral Michael Mullens, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, during the Military Appreciation Parade at Fort Myer January 6, 2009 in Arlington, Virginia. Bush was awarded the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service during the parade.
National Journal
Michael Hirsh
Jan. 8, 2014, 8:54 a.m.

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 »
STAFF PICKS
When It Comes to Mining Asteroids, Technology Is Only the First Problem
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Foreign Policy takes a look at the future of mining the estimated "100,000 near-Earth objects—including asteroids and comets—in the neighborhood of our planet. Some of these NEOs, as they’re called, are small. Others are substantial and potentially packed full of water and various important minerals, such as nickel, cobalt, and iron. One day, advocates believe, those objects will be tapped by variations on the equipment used in the coal mines of Kentucky or in the diamond mines of Africa. And for immense gain: According to industry experts, the contents of a single asteroid could be worth trillions of dollars." But the technology to get us there is only the first step. Experts say "a multinational body might emerge" to manage rights to NEOs, as well as a body of law, including an international court.

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Obama Reflects on His Economic Record
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Not to be outdone by Jeffrey Goldberg's recent piece in The Atlantic about President Obama's foreign policy, the New York Times Magazine checks in with a longread on the president's economic legacy. In it, Obama is cognizant that the economic reality--73 straight months of growth--isn't matched by public perceptions. Some of that, he says, is due to a constant drumbeat from the right that "that denies any progress." But he also accepts some blame himself. “I mean, the truth of the matter is that if we had been able to more effectively communicate all the steps we had taken to the swing voter,” he said, “then we might have maintained a majority in the House or the Senate.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Reagan Families, Allies Lash Out at Will Ferrell
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Ronald Reagan's children and political allies took to the media and Twitter this week to chide funnyman Will Ferrell for his plans to play a dementia-addled Reagan in his second term in a new comedy entitled Reagan. In an open letter, Reagan's daughter Patti Davis tells Ferrell, who's also a producer on the movie, “Perhaps for your comedy you would like to visit some dementia facilities. I have—I didn’t find anything comedic there, and my hope would be that if you’re a decent human being, you wouldn’t either.” Michael Reagan, the president's son, tweeted, "What an Outrag....Alzheimers is not joke...It kills..You should be ashamed all of you." And former Rep. Joe Walsh called it an example of "Hollywood taking a shot at conservatives again."

Source:
PEAK CONFIDENCE
Clinton No Longer Running Primary Ads
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

In a sign that she’s ready to put a longer-than-ex­pec­ted primary battle be­hind her, former Sec­ret­ary of State Hil­lary Clin­ton (D) is no longer go­ing on the air in up­com­ing primary states. “Team Clin­ton hasn’t spent a single cent in … Cali­for­nia, In­di­ana, Ken­tucky, Ore­gon and West Vir­gin­ia, while” Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) “cam­paign has spent a little more than $1 mil­lion in those same states.” Meanwhile, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Sanders’ "lone back­er in the Sen­ate, said the can­did­ate should end his pres­id­en­tial cam­paign if he’s los­ing to Hil­lary Clin­ton after the primary sea­son con­cludes in June, break­ing sharply with the can­did­ate who is vow­ing to take his in­sur­gent bid to the party con­ven­tion in Phil­adelphia.”

Source:
CITIZENS UNITED PT. 2?
Movie Based on ‘Clinton Cash’ to Debut at Cannes
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

The team behind the bestselling "Clinton Cash"—author Peter Schweizer and Breitbart's Stephen Bannon—is turning the book into a movie that will have its U.S. premiere just before the Democratic National Convention this summer. The film will get its global debut "next month in Cannes, France, during the Cannes Film Festival. (The movie is not a part of the festival, but will be shown at a screening arranged for distributors)." Bloomberg has a trailer up, pointing out that it's "less Ken Burns than Jerry Bruckheimer, featuring blood-drenched money, radical madrassas, and ominous footage of the Clintons."

Source:
×