The New Breed of Chickenhawk

There's a new message being circulated amongst the anti-war elite these days. Instead of bemoaning the heartless occupiers, the new villains are the redefined tender-hearted occupiers.

Suddenly we find those who most strongly argued against the invasion arguing most strongly for crushing the resistance with a massive American presence, armed and armored to the teeth. Suddenly Juan Cole knows just how much armor our forces need in Iraq, and just how large the force should be.

Suddenly we see the new arguments emerge against Rumsfeld and crew. They have failed to armor every vehicle. They have failed to flood every city and town with aggressive patrols of American troops. They have failed to 'take the fight' to the enemy.

Why the change of heart, you ask? First and foremost, they know that by advancing a massive occupation as the new "proper course of action," they are presenting a militarily impossible solution - but one that sounds, at first blush, to be reasonable. We cannot simply turn out more troops overnight. Just as we cannot suddenly change units' table of organization and equipment to include a fleet of everything-proof vehicles. But the very fact that we cannot do these things offers new levers to pull in the attack against Rumsfeld and co.

Now we can directly blame the secretary for every casualty, American or Iraqi. An American dies because his vehicle gets hit by an RPG? Rumsfeld is to blame for "failng to give our troops the equipment they need."

Iraqis angered because tanks are ruining the road? Rumsfeld is to blame for "failing to win hearts and minds."

Iraqis die in a car bombing? Rumsfeld is to blame for "failing to crack down on the insurgency."

Iraqi civilians displaced and killed during the Fallujah operation? Rumsfeld is to blame for "cracking down too hard on the Iraqis."

Having secured the pacifist side of the argument, the chickenhawks move rapidly to secure the hawk side, ensuring that any event that takes place anywhere in Iraq can be seen in the worst possible light...and the root cause of the event can be tied directly back to Rummy's office or the White House. As Fred Kaplan disingenuously explains in Slate, "[d]efense secretaries don't decide whether to go to war, but they do decide how to fight the war once it begins."

If you think the war in Iraq was wrong...that's fine. Express that. Point out the unintended consequences. Point out what you think is shoddy pre-war intelligence. Point out the dangers of unilateralism in today's world. But don't grab the general's hat you wore on Halloween and start preaching strategy. It's embarrassing. It diminishes the strength of the original argument. It comes across as desparation to strike a blow against the administration rather than general concern for the situation in Iraq.

Let me be clear on where I stand. I think Rumsfeld needs to go. In my opinion, he has created too much tension between federal bureaucracies, pushed for too large a role in Iraq's post-invasion reconstruction, and accepted too easily the arguments of folks like Wolfowitz that occupation would be a piece of cake.

But those reasons are completely removed from what is now being introduced into the argument.

• We don't want a secretary of defense who hovers over invasion planners' shoulders, "deciding how to fight the war once it begins."

• We don't want a secretary who chooses to personally write the TO&E for tactical units based on the "guidance" of Spec-4s and reporters.

• We don't want a secretary who thinks massive, ruthless American occupation will do anything other than alienate the entire population, laying the groundwork for a longer - rather than shorter - occupation.

• We don't want a secretary who thinks we need to permanently add tens of thousands of troops to the military because we have high short-term troop requirements.

• We don't want a secretary who chooses to listen to the last generation of military leaders who refuse to budge from Cold War force structures.

• We DO want a secretary of defense who can stand and say, "We messed up. We need to improve that. We're looking into ways to do that better."

• We DO want a secretary who will continue to reshape the military to better fit today's threat environment.

• And we DO want to take every possible step to ensure Iraqi elections produce a legitimate enough government to rally common Iraqis to its cause.