Rules of Engagement in Iraq

JIM LEHRER:

And to our nightly military analysis from two of the NewsHour's retired colonel corps: Former Special Forces officer and Middle East intelligence analyst W. Patrick Lang, and Marine Corps urban assault expert Gary Anderson. They are joined tonight by Eliot Cohen, professor of strategic studies at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies. He's also a member of the Defense Policy Board, which advises the secretary of defense. Colonel Lang, do the secretary and Gen. Myers have a legitimate complaint?

COL. W. PATRICK LANG:

Well, you know, I think they're a little overly sensitive about this. In fact, you know, there's so much heat in this subject now, I don't quite understand why that is. I mean it's perfectly clear that the secretary of defense has every right to intervene in military affairs whenever he wishes to. It hasn't been done all that often at the upper echelon level in American history at least probably not since the civil war, but he has every right to do so. So I don't quite understand why they're so worked up about this. The troops in the field, the argument about affecting the troops in the field, the troops in the field are professionals. They know what their situation is. They know they're about to assault Baghdad. They're concerned about what the battle is going to be like. They're not interested in what some retired general is saying on nightly television.

JIM LEHRER:

Prof. Cohen, how do you feel about it? Do you think the retired officers including the ones called Lang and Anderson on this program and others as well as the officers currently serving who have also been quoted extensively not by name in some cases in newspaper stories, is this harmful? Is this a bad thing that's going on?

ELIOT COHEN:

Well, I draw a big distinction between the retired community and the active duty community.

JIM LEHRER:

Let's take the retired community first.

ELIOT COHEN:

Well, the retired community, you know, they're welcome to say whatever they think. My general view, I must say as somebody who has been watching the war rather than commenting on it, is they're as much in the dark as the rest of us. Sometimes they can contribute insights, but the truth of the matter is most of this war is invisible to most of us, which is why I haven't particularly had a lot to say about it. We're going to be to sort a lot of this out afterwards. The active duty community is something very different. This is behavior which is disloyal and it is profoundly unprofessional. I think that's why….

JIM LEHRER:

Disloyal?

ELIOT COHEN:

Disloyal.

JIM LEHRER:

Why?

ELIOT COHEN:

If you had say an infantry division and a battalion commander was going around to the press and whispering things about the commanding general of the battalion that were really very, very negative that would be regarded as unprofessional behavior and disloyal behavior. The truth is the secretary of defense is in their chain of command. I think Gen. Myers is quite right. This is unhelpful. It's implicitly by the way also an attack on him and on Gen. Franks who have been saying things that are very opposite in public. It's also, you know, this is cowardly behavior. These people are not willing to attach their names to it. I do believe there are active duty officer s who are speaking to reporters. I know some of the reporters, I know that's true. But this is improper behavior.

JIM LEHRER:

Improper behavior, Col. Anderson?

COL. GARY ANDERSON:

Yes, it is. Quite frankly, I'm very distressed. Let's not talk about the military side of the thing or the retired side of the thing. Let's talk about the active duty military.

JIM LEHRER:

We'll get back to the retireds in a minute. Go ahead to the actives.

COL. GARY ANDERSON:

Let's talk about the active duty side, the side that is not going public, the side that's carping in the rear echelons and so forth. That really concerns me. You know, if they are so concerned that this is a bad plan and that it's ill conceived, where are the piles of stars and the piles of eagles on Sec. Rumsfeld's desk of people that have resigned in protest? I don't see any of them. I don't think… I think Gen. Myers is absolutely correct. This is a terrible time to be having those kinds of debates in public while our troops are in the field.

JIM LEHRER:

Col. Lang?

COL. W. PATRICK LANG:

I think that's, with due respect to my colleague from the Marine Corps, I think that's an unrealistic view of things. In fact, I think it's… I also think it's a rather extreme thing to apply words such as cowardice to officers serve inning the field in combat. I think that's a bit much to tell you the truth. These officers, in fact, are not employees of the Department of Defense. They hold a constitutional office under the United States. Their commissions are approved by the Senate. They have a professional obligation to the people and to the republic they think something is not going well they have an obligation to speak up. Gen. Wallace spoke up very publicly. And he expects, I'm sure to pay whatever price is necessary.

JIM LEHRER:

He's the one, just to refresh people's memory, he's the one who said we didn't war game for the war we're having to fight and we're adjusting — words to that effect.

COL. W. PATRICK LANG:

That's right. He's out on the line around Karbala or Najaf or some place. And if he feels it necessary to speak up I think people ought to have certain amount of respect for that. As a matter of fact Gen. Myers in his press conference today said he thought that if officers had not spoken up in discussion s with the secretary of defense about this plan, then they had been derelict in the duty to the republic. How is this different from what Gen. Wallace did in the front line a few days ago?

ELIOT COHEN:

I think there's a big difference. First, Gen. Wallace is out in the open and his name is attached to it, but what he's saying is something that's a basic truth about war that we didn't plan everything in advance. There's nothing knew in that, there's no particular critique of his superiors that is involved in that; that's very different from somebody in uniform back in Washington and some of this is back in Washington, some of it may be in the field, going to a reporter and not just saying we don't like the plan but also saying it's because of what the secretary of defense did and the secretary of defense has been denying us resources. That is very different from the kind of honest give-and-take that you want to have and you have to have it. It's undercutting not only the secretary of defense, it's undercutting chairman of the joint chiefs, it's undercutting the theater commander all of them who would deny this. It would not be tolerated if all those people were wearing uniforms.

JIM LEHRER:

Let me ask you this. You said you're in contact with a lot of the people who are doing the talking. Is this a legitimate… is this an honest belief on their part? Is somebody playing games here or do they honestly believe?

ELIOT COHEN:

What I said I know the reporters who they're talking to.

JIM LEHRER:

I see.

ELIOT COHEN:

They protect their sources. I think there are a number of motivations for this. Judging by the newspapers a lot of this is coming from the army. There are people in the army who have very bitter feelings about Sec. Rumsfeld because of the cancellation of the Crusader artillery system, because of arguments about transformation, because of his relationship with Gen. Shinseki, the chief of staff of the army. There's a lot of other stuff going on.

JIM LEHRER:

Not a good relationship.

ELIOT COHEN:

In some cases it's not a good relationship. And of course we have no idea how many sources there are for this. You know, when you pick up a newspaper and you read story you have no idea if this is, you know, fifty colonels and generals out there or two. But there's a lot of other stuff going on. The idea that this is disinterested criticism in the interest of the country I think is baloney.

JIM LEHRER:

Baloney, Col. Lang?

COL. W. PATRICK LANG:

Well, you know, this is all very strident and shrill. I'm amazed at the tone of this, in fact.

JIM LEHRER:

You mean of what the professor is saying.

COL. W. PATRICK LANG:

Exactly. In fact, to think that a flock of colonels reside inning the Pentagon are going to go and throw themselves on their swords in front of Rumsfeld's desk is about as far away from reality as possible. These guys all have kids in college and mortgages to pay for and they have to go on with real life. That doesn't mean that they're not unhappy about what they perceive to have been errors that were made in the way the plan was made up. The real issue that ought to be discussed here is, in fact, whether or not the plan was, in fact, a wise one rather than this defensive crouch over whether or not people are attacking the administration.

JIM LEHRER:

Col. Anderson, I know you're shaking your head.

COL. GARY ANDERSON:

Horse hockey.

JIM LEHRER:

Horse hockey. What specifically are you….

COL. GARY ANDERSON:

If you don't believe that your country is doing the right thing, then you ought to put your stars or your eagles on the line. I don't care if you have kids in college. Go out and work at a 7-11 – if it's that important. You know, that's absolutely not a reason not to speak up. If you don't feel that way, if you don't feel strongly enough, then shut up.

JIM LEHRER:

Col. Lang.

COL. W. PATRICK LANG:

Well, you had a professor, you had another professor was on this program a few nights ago who said very specifically that there is no tradition in American military history of resignation in protest over your inability to satisfy a political administration. Maybe we ought to have one but we don't have a tradition like that in fact. I can't recall a single instance in my own mind– I'm sure he will –

JIM LEHRER:

He just did. He just put his hand up.

COL. W. PATRICK LANG:

— of an American officer doing that. It is certainly a rare thing.

ELIOT COHEN:

Somewhat different point. You know, I topped out as a captain in the army reserves so I've got a somewhat different perspective. The truth is these colonels would not tolerate that behavior in captains. Generals would not tolerate that behavior in colonels but somehow it's okay when it's directed at the civilian head of the Department of Defense. It really is not. I think it's also very important to remember something else. Ultimately officership is about character and it's about honor. That's absolutely essential for the functioning of a military machine. It's not a question of being strident or not. This may have been a good plan; it may have been a bad plan. That's a reasonable discussion. That's separate. But if you cannot trust the honor and the character of your subordinates, the system has a large problem.

JIM LEHRER:

Col. Anderson, let me ask you this. You heard what Eliot Cohen said, that most of this is coming from the army because after problem they've had with secretary Rumsfeld. I know that you're in regular contact with active marine officers that you've served with in the past. It's just part of what you do. Whether they're speaking publicly or not, are there active marine officers involved in this war who don't like the plan, who believe they're not being supported by the civilian leadership?

COL. GARY ANDERSON:

If there are, I'm not….

JIM LEHRER:

You haven't talked to any?

COL. GARY ANDERSON:

I honestly don't… up haven't heard anybody that's said anything, you know,… I haven't been talking to my friends in the field and so forth. But I haven't heard that, no.

JIM LEHRER:

In other words, if the marines….

COL. GARY ANDERSON:

It's not to say that there aren't, Jim. I haven't heard that.

JIM LEHRER:

In other words, if the marines are not talking, it isn't necessarily because they're not happy… they're not unhappy. It's just that they're not talking? Is that what you're saying, or are you dodging me?

COL. GARY ANDERSON:

No, I'm not dodging you. I think the marines are doing what the marines do, which is to go kill people in the field and then they'll worry about it afterwards. But I honestly have not heard a marine publicly criticize this plan. It doesn't mean it's not happening. I just haven't heard it.

JIM LEHRER:

No. But what I meant was privately are they criticizing it but not speaking up along the lines of what Prof. Cohen said because they don't think it's the proper thing to do? That's what I was trying to get at.

COL. GARY ANDERSON:

I understand what you're saying. I just have not heard that said.

ELIOT COHEN:

If I could just make one more point. This kind of behavior can do no good. The plan is the plan. It's not going to get a single additional tank there any quicker. It's not going to get an additional soldier there any quicker. It's not going to change tactics. It's not going to change operations. It's not going to change strategy. It's just a question of settling scores. That's all it's about.

JIM LEHRER:

Do you agree with that? It's not going to help anything?

COL. W. PATRICK LANG:

Well it's not going to bring armored reinforcements to the battlefield any faster by complaining about the fact that the plan was set up a certain way. They're certainly following the plan they adopted. There's no doubt about that. I think you have to accept the fact that if people are unhappy, they're going to make noises about it. They always do. I don't believe that the troops in the field are affected by this. These are professionals. They always grouse about civilian leadership. It's their right.

JIM LEHRER:

Let me ask you a quick question, Pat Lang, about before you go, and it's on Saddam Hussein, they smoked him out or at least they were trying to smoke him out. I talked to Gen. Pace last night. Today they ran the tape of the information minister reading. What do you think is going on? Is this man alive, dead, whatever?

COL. W. PATRICK LANG:

You know, it's just a matter of guessing. My instinct tells me that he was wounded and is somewhat incapacitated. And a very fine analyst who I know suggested to me that the fact that the Iraqi defense is as coherent as it is suggests he may be incapacitated and somebody like the Gen. Sultan is running it. I would vote for incapacitated.

JIM LEHRER:

All right. Thank you all three very much.