The generals at the breakfast table

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/15498434.htm

The generals at the breakfast table
By JOSEPH GALLOWAY
Knight Ridder Newspapers

Debates about war and peace and America's role in the world aren't off limits in this fourth year of war in Iraq, and they aren't a sign of anything but the health and vibrancy of our democracy -- however much President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld might wish otherwise.

Last week I asked more than a dozen top Army and Marine Corps generals -- active-duty and retired, dissidents and administration loyalists -- to address what we should do now in Iraq.

All of them agreed that America's strategy and tactics in Iraq have failed and that Bush's policy of "staying the course" in Iraq isn't likely to produce anything but more frustration, more and greater problems for the United States in a dangerous world, and more and bloodier surprises for the 135,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

"Until we back up and assess what we have gotten ourselves into, I fear we will see a repeat of the war in Vietnam," said retired Marine Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper, who recently called for firing Rumsfeld. "Our military will again fight a series of battles and engagements in Iraq without the overall purpose that a good campaign plan provides."

If the administration acted quickly, a better outcome could be pulled out of the flames, said retired Marine Gen. Tony Zinni, who formerly headed the U.S. Central Command. To get Iraq right, he said, would take five to seven years, "and it means a much more comprehensive and well-planned set of programs to build political, economic, social and security institutions."

Some retired officers, such as Zinni, spoke on the record; others, including all of those still on active duty, would speak only on background for obvious reasons. But there was a broad consensus among them on the outlines of a new strategy in Iraq:

Review America's military options.

None of the officers recommended an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, and a few suggested sending more U.S. troops. But most of them agreed that the administration has relied too heavily on too few troops, and some argued that it's time to starting planning to withdraw U.S. forces.

Retired Marine Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold, who resigned as the director of operations for the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs of Staff on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, said he takes what he called a "distinctly minority view" that the administration should set a general timeline for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq, conditional on the general security situation in Iraq.

Doing so, he said, would weaken one of the prime motivating forces of the insurgency: the continued presence of U.S. troops as an occupying force.

Newbold and others said the best military option now is to reinforce the efforts of Gen. George Casey, the U.S. commander in Iraq, to stand up a capable Iraqi army to take over security.

Devote more energy to rebuilding Iraq's economy and political system.

"You have to pour on the resources, not cut back," said retired Army Col. Larry Wilkerson, the former chief of staff to Gen. Colin Powell at the State Department in Bush's first term and now an outspoken critic of the administration's policies in Iraq. "A billion a month for reconstruction ... and these dollars do not go to American contractors. They go to Iraqi contractors who are overseen by Americans and British and others."

Revive American diplomacy in the Middle East.

"We need a U.S. ambassador in Syria," said one senior general. (The Bush administration recalled the U.S. ambassador, who hasn't returned.) "We need to be talking to the Syrians. Hell, we need to be talking to the Iranians. This whole axis of evil thing is bull! All it did was drive our enemies closer together."

Wilkerson said the administration also should start negotiations to settle, once and for all, the Israel-Palestinian situation -- including talks with Syria on the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, with Lebanon and with the Palestinians.

The administration's civilian leaders must explain why we're still militarily engaged in Iraq, concluded one general who has led troops in combat since 9-11. "Or as most Americans would ask: What does it mean to win in Iraq? Or ... how much U.S. blood and treasure should Americans be asked to sacrifice for Iraq and why?"

National leaders "need to have this conversation both privately and with the American public, because without it the U.S. will continue to react to events instead of establishing a proactive foreign policy for the region," he said. "And support from the American people will continue to evaporate."

Joseph L. Galloway is former senior military correspondent for Knight Ridder Newspapers and co-author of the national bestseller "We Were Soldiers Once ... and Young." His column is distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services. jlgalloway2@cs.com