What has Douglas Feith Done Wrong? Everything.

[Carolab]

Douglas Feith
What has the Pentagon's third man done wrong? Everything.
By Chris Suellentrop
Posted Thursday, May 20, 2004, at 3:56 PM PT


Listen to Chris Suellentrop discuss this article on Day to Day here. Listen to Douglas Feith's response here.


Of all the revelations that have surfaced about the Abu Ghraib prison-abuse scandal so far, the least surprising is that Douglas Feith may be partly responsible. Not a single Iraq war screw-up has gone by without someone tagging Feith—who, as the Defense Department's undersecretary for policy, is the Pentagon's No. 3 civilian, after Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz—as the guy to blame. Feith, who ranks with Wolfowitz in purity of neoconservative fervor, has turned out to be Michael Dukakis in reverse: ideology without competence.

It's not that the 50-year-old Feith is at fault for everything that's gone wrong in Iraq. He's only tangentially related to the mystery of the missing weapons of mass destruction, for example. (Though it's a significant tangent: An anonymous "Pentagon insider" told the Washington Times last year that Feith was the person who urged the Bush administration to make Saddam's WMD the chief public rationale for going to war immediately.) Nor was it Feith who made the decision to commit fewer troops than the generals requested. (Though Feith did give the most honest explanation for the decision, saying last year that it "makes our military less usable" if hundreds of thousands of troops are needed to fight wars.) But if he isn't fully culpable for all these fiascos, he's still implicated in them somehow. He's a leading indicator, like a falling Dow—something that correlates with but does not cause disaster.

Start with Abu Ghraib. Feith's office was in charge of Iraq's military prisons, but that's not the only reason his name keeps turning up in newspaper reports about the scandal. It was Feith who devised the legal solution for getting around the Geneva Conventions' prohibition on physically or psychologically coercing prisoners of war into talking. As a Pentagon official in the 1980s, Feith had laid out the argument that terrorists didn't deserve protection under the Geneva Conventions. Once the war on terrorism started, all he had to do was implement it. And even more damning than his legal rule-making is Feith's reported reaction to complaints by military Judge Advocate General lawyers about the new, looser interrogation rules. "They said he had a dismissive, if not derisive, attitude toward the Geneva Conventions," Scott Horton, a lawyer who was approached by six outraged JAG officers last year, told the Chicago Tribune. "One of them said he calls it 'law in the service of terror.' "

(Link to entire article):

http://slate.msn.com/id/2100899

[lthuedk]

1. I've a hunch the FBI will connected Feith to the current espionage

scandal. Wolfie is probably embedded as well. Thats Feith chin-to-chin with Pinkie.



Stephen

[Carolab]

2. Read Jeffrey Goldberg's scathing article in the New Yorker

http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/050509fa_fact

[lthuedk]

3. No matter how well read and principled, failure is failure.

Feith is a man looking for a way out, a place to hide amid present circumstances, like those N. Korea and Iran have presented.

His denials there were no hard links to the Likud are nothing short of bald faced lies.

If the motive for the Iraq invasion had merit, it wouldn't have needed a robust set of lies, which Mr. Feith created.

On Feith's Iraq reconstruction lie: Its doesn't exist outside the Green Zone.

What Feith misses is the British failure was unavoidable because...
He just couldn't integrate his vast library of knowledge.

--

As I see it, strict ideologues Feith, Perle, and Wolfowitz got exactly what the Likud wanted: An American presence in the region. The expense of other people's blood and bone is irrelevant. Mission accomplished.

The opportunistic neocons, like Cheney and the AEI-types, are the ones taking it hard on the back side.