September 18--Once again, the military camarilla has raised its ugly head in such a way as to scare the daylights out of some of the most important allies of the U.S. in the Gulf region as well as a good part of the capitalist establishment right here.
This came in a truly extraordinary interview in the Washington Post of Sunday, Sept. 16, in which Air Force Chief of Staff General Michael J. Dugan laid out plans for the use of unlimited air power which could virtually destroy not only Saddam Hussein and his family but every target in Iraq which the military, and in particular the Air Force, would find necessary in order to win the war in a short time. He made the statement just a week before the opening of the UN General Assembly.
The best way to understand Dugan's remarks is to carefully read his interview in the Washington Post. This interview caused his dismissal by Secretary of Defense Cheney.
Not just Dugan's personal plan
It wasn't Dugan alone, however, doing the talking. Present were General "Stormin' Norman" Schwarzkopf, commander of U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf and the entire senior Air Force staff, including General Jimmy V. Adams, the Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations; and General Thomas R. Ferguson, the commander of the Aeronautical Systems Division who is responsible for new Air Force technology.
It wasn't a chance interview. The Post says it was conducted for over ten hours. Furthermore, Dugan gave every indication that he was not speaking personally as the chief of the Air Force but for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The opening lines in the Washington Post's article, datelined Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, state, "The Joint Chiefs of Staff have concluded that U.S. military airpower, including a massive bombing campaign against Baghdad that specifically targets President Saddam Hussein, is the only effective action to force Iraqi forces from Kuwait if war erupts, according to Air Force Chief of Staff Michael J. Dugan."
Dugan is reported to have said that "the cutting edge would be in downtown Baghdad. If I want to hurt you, it would be at home, not out in the woods some place." Virtually everything regarded as important by the military would become a target.
"Until two weeks ago," says the Post, "U.S. planners had assembled a somewhat conventional list of Iraqi targets which included, in order of priority, Iraqi air defenses, air fields and warplanes, intermediate range missile sites including Scud ground-to-ground missiles, communications and command centers, chemical, nuclear and ammunition plants, and Iraqi armor formations." This so-called conventional list in itself is mind-boggling!
"Other targets, Dugan said, would include Iraqi power systems, roads, railroads, and perhaps domestic petroleum production facilities, though not the oil fields. 'That's a nice list of targets,' said Dugan, 'and I might be able to accept those, but that's not enough.' " [Our emphasis.]
Language like that must have created a feeling of terror among the allied imperialist powers when they got wind of the interview and began to bombard Washington with their fears.
The problem for the Bush administration is not just that the general outline of Dugan's strategic plan is to virtually destroy anything of significance in Iraq, but that he publicized it and made worldwide headlines. Moreover, Dugan told the Post that his plan "is shared by the other chiefs and the commander of U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf region, Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf."
The long article in the Post, and especially its headline--"U.S. to Rely on Air Strikes If War Erupts"--gives no indication that the general is speaking as an individual. Rather, he was speaking for the government and the Pentagon. A list of all the military units published in the Post makes it clear that everything is in place for the air strike.
MacArthur, LeMay, now Dugan
The dismissal of the general by Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney came some 36 hours after the interview, enough time for Cheney to deliberate and obtain the necessary public support. By "public" is meant the leading capitalist newspapers, the president and the inner circle of the military establishment, who as of this writing have uttered not a word either in support or condemnation of Dugan's genocidal strategy.
To some extent, this is General Douglas MacArthur revisited, when he threatened to use atomic weapons in Korea. Or General Curtis LeMay's boast about nuking Vietnam "back to the Stone Age." The military camarilla generally presents a harder, more adventurist position than the civilians in the capitalist ruling establishment. Often it means no more than posturing. But in the cases of MacArthur and LeMay, their dismissal by Presidents Truman and Johnson, respectively, meant they had gone far beyond what the administration was ready to do.
Cheney didn't disavow plan
This time there is a difference, to which we have to pay attention. Cheney did not disavow the plan outlined by Dugan. Cheney merely said that Dugan spoke out of turn, that he belittled the other services--the ground forces, Marines and Navy. That could be controversial.
The poisonous rivalry between the services is well known and becomes more accentuated during a war crisis. The military-industrial complex feeds the rivalries in the interest of super-profits.
The rivalry is over weapons systems and the ability to prove them in warfare, in the way the Exocet missile (which had been bought by Argentina and sank a British ship) boosted the reputation of France's military industry during the Malvinas war. This could add up to hundreds of millions in windfall profits.
Dugan also said he didn't think there would be much political interference, meaning he wouldn't be hampered politically. He didn't use the old, moth-eaten phraseology of the military that the politicians are "putting handcuffs on them" and inhibiting their job. What Cheney said was that Dugan spoke out of turn. He did not for a moment try to discredit or deny the validity of the general plan Dugan presented. This is fortified by the view presented in the leading organs of the capitalist press, such as the lead editorial in the New York Times of Sept. 18 which is headlined "Sack the General to Save the Strategy." It says, "Even while disowning General Dugan's remarks, Mr. Cheney was still careful to hold open the option to use military force."
Cheney made a case for the civilian government, so-called, being in control of the military. Dugan was just a loose cannon aboard the Bush warship. From what Cheney said, it's not the generals running the war but the White House, which presumably has a more moderate and sober view of the war strategy.
Progressives, the anti-war movement and the masses of people in general would do well not to assume from the dismissal of General Dugan that the Bush administration is opting for a peaceful solution or negotiations of one sort or another with Iraq. What is involved here is not a broad policy division between the military as a whole and the governing civilian administration led by Bush. To assume that would lead the movement into a dangerous, illusory course of supporting the lesser evil against an unbridled, militaristic clique which is an integrated part of the capitalist establishment.
Bush and the military
The Bush administration, which is the very apex of the military-industrial complex, is not at all at odds with the military establishment. But how and when to say what--all this is important for maintaining discipline in the military and respect for the authority of the secretary of defense and the president.
In the meantime, the military buildup continues. Dugan said they've now got everything in place ready to go. But the Bush administration, and we must assume the rest of the military establishment, are saying they must continue even further with the military deployment and not rely solely on the Air Force, not put all their eggs in one basket. (Of the 150,000 U.S. troops now admitted to be in the area, only 30,000 are from the Air Force.)
Their goal is to coordinate the different services so as to present a unified strategy, notwithstanding the poisonous rivalries which reflect the economic contradictions of the capitalist military-industrial complex, and to avoid granting hegemony to the Air Force.
As this is written, the military buildup continues. It is more urgent than ever to rally the masses of workers and oppressed peoples in the struggle against the war.