In Other Words: The FP Book Channel
Book Club Latest Excerpts From the Magazine FP Authors

Confessions of a Vulcan

An insider's story of how the Bush administration lost Afghanistan.

BY DOV S. ZAKHEIM | MAY 13, 2011

View photos of Afghanistan's army.

When Texas governor George W. Bush began to gather his network of informal national security and foreign policy advisors around him in 1999, neither he nor they initially had much to say about nation building. Bush himself certainly seemed disinclined to raze enemy countries and then spend decades and billions reshaping them. Rather, he spoke of a more "modest" and humble American stance in the world. Condoleezza Rice, who led the small team of advisors whom she had dubbed the Vulcans, went further when she articulated a decidedly negative view of nation building in a major article that appeared in the January 2000 issue of Foreign Affairs.

I was a Vulcan. I was, in other words, one of the original members of a group of eight who advised Bush on foreign and national security policy issues as he made his first run for the White House.

I am proud of my public service in the Bush administration as well as of my service in earlier administrations. I would not be entirely honest, however, if I did not confess disappointment with some of the consequences of Bush administration policies. But my tale is in no way lurid. The administration's shortcomings were not a consequence of criminality, or moral debasement, or stupidity, or a lack of patriotism and good intentions, as so many frenzied anti-Bush ideologues have charged and, to all appearances, actually believe. The shortcomings were instead a consequence, above all, of the inherent novelty and difficulty of the challenges the administration faced but also of deficiencies of management, understanding, and forethought. Some of these deficiencies were inherent in the structure of today's federal government, but others were a consequence of flawed leadership. And nowhere, in my estimation, did these deficiencies and flaws accumulate to do more damage than in the case of the war in Afghanistan.

In early spring of 1999, at a meeting of the Vulcans and other senior advisors in the governor's mansion in Austin, Bush asked whether we would have advocated intervention in Bosnia. All but two of us supported the intervention. I was one of the two dissenters. The other was Dick Cheney. The governor responded by stating that his heart was with the minority, but his head told him it was the right thing to do. Now that the United States had committed itself, he considered withdrawal to be out of the question.

Most of the other Vulcans fell somewhere in between support for and opposition to nation building or regime change. They could be described as "realists," although they were not as openly opposed to military interventions as I was. During the campaign, and indeed not until after 9/11, was there anything remotely unsavory about the term "realist" among the Vulcans. Out of the eight of us, Richard Armitage, Robert Zoellick, Robert Blackwill, and Stephen Hadley, like Rice and indeed Paul Wolfowitz and Cheney, had all served in George H. W. Bush's administration, which was renowned for the hard-headed realism that governed its foreign policy. Only Richard Perle and Wolfowitz were neoconservatives, although Paul denied, seemingly in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that he really was a "neocon." (Paul seemed to do so largely on the basis that he was not an active supporter of Israel's conservative Likud Party, whereas most neocons, the majority of them Jewish, were.)

While the Vulcans reached consensus on many issues, there were differences as well. With Perle and Wolfowitz working alongside several hard-core realists, tensions within this group of strong-willed overachievers with different worldviews were inevitable. Paul, in particular, often expressed to me concern about his relations with Condi. But he never made an issue of Iraq, although he never hid his view that there needed to be a change of regime in that country.

No one else made an issue of Iraq either. In fact, to my knowledge the notion of going to war to unseat Saddam was never debated among the Vulcans. Neither Paul nor Richard Perle ever raised the matter; had they done so, the group would have been bitterly divided. Instead, while all the Vulcans agreed that Saddam had to go, policy discussions relating to Iraq during the campaign and the transition centered on toughening sanctions against Baghdad to accelerate the economic squeeze that would lead to the regime's collapse. And such discussions were not special; Iraq was just one of many thorny foreign policy issues raised and debated. Afghanistan commanded even less attention from the Vulcans than did Iraq. No one spoke about unseating the Taliban. No one pointed out that al Qaeda was in virtual control of pieces of the country. Afghanistan simply was not on anyone's radar screen in 1999 or the year 2000.

Whatever rifts that did emerge among the Vulcans were never sharp, prolonged, or, most important, public. The group worked well together, whether face-to-face or in weekly conference calls. In part that resulted from the unstated but understood pecking order that existed among the Vulcans. Everyone knew that Condi was the leader and that Paul led on defense issues. Richard Perle, Rich Armitage, Bob Blackwill, Bob Zoellick, Steve Hadley, and I made up the next echelon. To some extent, comity among the Vulcans reflected a common purpose -- to ensure the governor's nomination and then election. In addition, however, the group's unity was a direct result of Condi Rice's leadership, which derived ultimately from her relationship to the governor. Their interactions differed qualitatively from those that any of the others had with him: they seemed to communicate on their own special frequency. It was that very special derivative authority, coupled with her willingness to stroke the rather large egos of several of the team's leading lights, that ensured that everyone pulled in the same direction.

***

On Sept. 12, 2001, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith and I arrived in the Pentagon conference room about two minutes before the meeting was to start. The service chiefs and secretaries were already there. So was Dick Myers, who had just been promoted from vice chairman to chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Paul Wolfowitz, and two other under secretaries. Just after six o'clock the president walked in, with his White House team and Don Rumsfeld in tow.

Paula Bronstein/Getty Images

 

Dov Zakheim is a senior fellow at the CNA Corporation, senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, vice chairman of the Foreign Policy Research Institute, and a member of the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan. This excerpt is taken from A Vulcan's Tale, forthcoming from Brookings Institution Press.

ALEXANDER JAMES

11:46 PM ET

May 13, 2011

An Exit for Afghanistan?

It's good to hear how some of the failures of the Bush administration were due to misunderstanding and poor intel. It's hard to fathom how we could either be so arrogant we don't learn from Russia's "Vietnam" and attack "the graveyard of empires" as Afghanistan has come to be known.

With so many problems at home it's hard to believe we even got into this. With the dollar continuing its slow decline never ceasing, rocky creek prices have risen, gasoline prices are skyrocketing, unemployment is maddeningly high, and food stamps are at a completely out of control and unsustainable level.

An exit plan for Afghanistan and some accountability for mistakes made in both administrations would be a welcome reprieve. But I have serious doubts we get that.

 

SWK

2:15 AM ET

May 14, 2011

Culture

The background presented here is interesting. As Afghanistan has progressed over the years, some have increasingly become interested in it, others, more typical of American disposition, have grown weary and tired of it. Which brings me to Rumsfeld’s comment towards the beginning of this article, which of course is particularly pertinent in light of bin Laden's recent fait.

Rumsfeld states, "this campaign... is a marathon, not a sprint... The fact that the first, second, or third wave of our efforts does not produce specific people [such as bin Laden and his closest associates] should not come as a surprise. We are patient and determined."

In retrospect, I wonder if Rumsfeld were asked to qualify his comment, if those proverbial “waves of effort” he mentions were implied to be counted as months, years, or decades?

Never the less, I think Dov's more pressing point has to do with cultures, mainly how American culture interacts with non-American cultures, and specifically Afghan culture. In fact, his statement that Afghanistan needs constant attention, hit the nail right on the head. But more specifically, it needs constant attention from us, if we expect them to act like us.

But what do Afghan’s expect to act like? What are their expectations of their own country? Having spent more than a little time in Afghanistan, as a leader, though admittedly not a policy making level leader, I wonder under what circumstances we could get a candid/unbiased answer as to what popular opinion is for the desired status-quo of the state of their country?

That’s what is so hard about this. As a young officer I was once told, “if you don’t prioritize your assets someone else will.” That statement has stayed with me over the years, and I think it relevant to this discussion. In my opinion, I don’t think most American leaders believe Afghans are giving them candid/clear answers as to what they want/expect, often times this is a direct result of Afghan leaders projecting a disinterested mentality - hence, the common perception that they are indifferent. There for “we” do it for them; we do what we THINK they want (or more importantly what WE want). Which is not necessarily a smart move for cultures so vastly separated.

Which brings me to a pressing concern: How do you fix a problem when you’re not certain what needs to be fixed? I know what I think needs to be fixed, but my priorities are not necessarily my Afghan counterpart’s priorities. Our cultures are worlds apart...

SwK

 

CHARLESKROHN

2:09 PM ET

May 14, 2011

Baghdad Journal

I wrote about the Infrastructure Reconstruction mess in the April/May edition of Columbia Journalism Review, while I was serving as the media advisor to Admiral David Nash, head of the CPA program in the Green Zone.

In the event any reader here would like a copy, please let me know on my personal email clex@msn.com and I'll forward a copy.

 

MAROUN2

3:02 PM ET

May 14, 2011

How Do You Define Stupidity?

Dov states: 'The administration's shortcomings were not a consequence of criminality, or moral debasement, or stupidity, or a lack of patriotism and good intentions, as so many frenzied anti-Bush ideologues have charged and, to all appearances, actually believe. The shortcomings were instead a consequence, above all, of the inherent novelty and difficulty of the challenges the administration faced but also of deficiencies of management, understanding, and forethought.'

Deficiencies of management, understanding and forethought seems to me to be the definition of stupidity-I think that most Americans would expect a little more from the leader of the free world with vast resources at his or her disposal.

It appears that the major problem with the 'leadership' is the limited viewpoints and limited information that was processed-there were no real experts consulted-it was a neocon cabal (and neocons were described by the author as follows: 'Only Richard Perle and Wolfowitz were neoconservatives, although Paul denied, seemingly in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that he really was a "neocon." (Paul seemed to do so largely on the basis that he was not an active supporter of Israel's conservative Likud Party, whereas most neocons, the majority of them Jewish, were.) '

 

MAROUN2

3:07 PM ET

May 14, 2011

How Do You Define Stupidity?

Sorry, to clarify, by experts I meant those with expertise in Afghanistan, it's history, culture, languages, topography, political system, ethnic and tribal groups, etc.; unfortunately, we see the same ignorance and arrogance in the invasion of Iraq where the administration apparently, at the time of the invasion, didn't even know the difference between Shiite and Sunni Moslems and the consequences of empowering the Shiites and the subsequent tilt of Iraq towards Iran and the shift in regional power and all its consequences-

 

BIG THINK

3:36 PM ET

May 14, 2011

George W Bush and Co - our worst national nightmare

Well, this is all good and done... but it amazes me that the article completely ignores the issue of how the President, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rice et al - all conspired to "excuse" the invasion of Iraq as a response against the terrorist actions of September 11, 2001. Remember that sad phrase "The war on terror".

The article does confirm what Republicans have somewhat successfully glossed over - that regime change in Iraq was a major item on the agenda long before the winning of the election, and for this sad, sad reason - America was intentionally raped of her historical respect by the world community as being the most powerful nation in history that could be trusted not to abuse her power.

At least we now have a President who deserves the credit for a job well done. "Mission Accomplished" President Obama! We finally have demonstrated to the world community again that America will not tolerate and will bring justice to those that sponsor terrorism.

 

IBWAHEEMI

1:51 AM ET

May 16, 2011

a government that is

a government that is vehemently anti terrorism and a vocal opponent to rascism and ethnic cleansing (as long as you are not a zionist) will seek to be advised by like minded people

big think - i am from the uk so i dont know much about american policing can you tell me when was a murder without trial american justice?
if several police officers shot and killed an unarmed 56 year old man i assume they would be held to account.

 

WHISKEYPAPA

5:06 AM ET

May 16, 2011

Honor

"America was intentionally raped of her historical respect by the world community as being the most powerful nation in history that could be trusted not to abuse her power."

The honor of the United States is in the toilet. That is as bad as anything the Bush peopke did.

The only way to even partially mitigate that is for most of Dov's Bush administration associates to be put in prison. Bush and Cheney, for instance, have openly admitted violating US law.

Walt

 

EMBYRR

5:28 AM ET

May 15, 2011

Excellent article

Very interesting article. It's nice to see both sides of the story, or at least one that is often hidden from view.
One can usually never, there are some exceptions, subscribe to only one view as this will lead to a rise in misunderstanding or limited knowledge. I'm no conservative and indeed no US citizen but I still emphasize with some of the decisions taken by the previous US administration and the current one.
Great article Mr. Zakheim.

 

ZATHRAS

2:54 PM ET

May 15, 2011

God. Another Book

Is there a list somewhere of former Bush administration officials who held positions at the Under Secretary level or higher who have not either published memoirs already or begun writing them? If there is, I'll bet it's a short one. Dean Acheson had been out of office nearly 20 years when before he published his.

Still, I suppose I will have to read this one. I know Zakheim's no dope, and if I have to get an insider's view of how the Bush administration mucked up Iraq and Afghanistan I'd rather get it from him than from Donald Rumsfeld or Condoleeza Rice. His book will have to fall in line behind Henry Kissinger's latest on my list, though.

 

WHISKEYPAPA

7:53 PM ET

May 15, 2011

The Author Is Saying

The author is saying that the Bush people were not traitors. They were only so stupid they appear to be traitors.

Walt

 

IBWAHEEMI

1:54 AM ET

May 16, 2011

. it appears the dumb

.

it appears the dumb decisions of the bush administration were well thought out idiocy after all !

 

CP4ABOLISHMENT

12:34 AM ET

May 16, 2011

Don Rumsfeld's Obsession

Does anybody know why Don Rumsfeld and the Bush Administration is so obsessed with Iraq. Please do not bring up the idea about WMD...North Korea has worst violations of WMD!

As for me, I always think that WMD is just an excuse for the Bush Administration to go to war in Iraq. I always think that there is a bigger picture than that WMD excuse. Western critics alleged that its about oil, but I doubt that also.

My theory has always been about terrorism and America was humiliated perhaps much earlier than the 9/11 incident. There had been skeptics which argued that the 1995 Oklahoma bombing were not the credit of 2 Americans. Witnesses alleged that there were co-conspirators helping out Timorthy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. Time and again, investigators kept out "foreigners" from the argument and investigation. These "foreigners" (as alleged by witnesses) were of Persian origins. There were even witnesses and reports cited that these Persians were Iraqi military agents who were the right hand security apparatus of Saddam Hussein.

During the Clinton Administration, the DOJ and FBI kept insisting that there were no foreign apparatus in the Oklahoma bombing and the Americans were actually the ones who planned and executed the attack. A number of journalists had questioned the complicity of the bombing, in terms of the planning, the resources to carryout and managed the schedules to an effective exercise.

If this is definitely the work of Saddam Hussein and his agents, then America is right to attack Iraq because this is an act of war. It is not any different than the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor in 1942 and America became war proactive. I can understand the fact when the Clinton Administration suffered loses in Somalia ("Black Hawk Down"), its ill conceived to further aggravate a further situation of fighting another war in Iraq and perhaps the Administration was not interested in war at all.

As for the Bush Administration, perhaps the damage was just far too damaging and the wrath of retribution far outweighs diplomacy. For the Bush Administration, I think Saddam is a greater evil as compared to OBL and the focus on Iraq was more determined than for Afghanistan. They need to remove Saddam.

 

IBWAHEEMI

2:06 AM ET

May 16, 2011

oklahoma boming...iran origin...

dont be silly.

do you honestly think that an american from oklahoma can actually spot a persian from a lineout.

so because some witnesses saw a few sand niggers in oklahoma that may or may not be working for their respective goverments des that justify killing millions of civilians in revenge. so if the advisors were french then and invasion of france is justified!

the best thing you can do to help your country is by not voting

 

WHISKEYPAPA

2:44 AM ET

May 16, 2011

Jose Padilla

I read somewhere that Jose Padilla matched the John Doe #2 description in the OKC bombing. If that was him, that would be something. He was certainly treated savagely by the Bush people.

On the other hand, it is manifestly clear that the Bush Admiistration, and certainly not the smirking monkey at the top, cared nothng for the security of, or the people of, the United States. I would include the author of this article in this statement -- they love the USA like a glutton loves his lunch.

Walt

 

IBWAHEEMI

1:35 AM ET

May 16, 2011

by all the vulcans agreeing

by all the vulcans agreeing on tougher sanctions and a tighter economic squeeze on iraq they share some of the blame for the deaths of thousands of iraqi babies and children.

i am no expert on foreign policy like you guys seem to be.

perhasps the author could give us some examples where crippling sanctions on a country have bought about a regime change.

it would of saved you guys trillions of dollars and thousands of american lives if you sent these seal team 6 and a few helecopters into iraq.

some real silly comments on here too many to rebuke, bigthink had the dumbest one - he thinks a murder without trial is american justice. if police officers shot and killed an unarmed 56 year old man they would be held to account.

 

CASSANDRAAA

3:59 PM ET

May 16, 2011

Can someone explain the rise

Can someone explain the rise of Wolfowitz in the Bush administrations? To an outsider he seems stunningly wrong in his judgments and behavior, both in Washington and later in his IMF sinecure.

 

CHOPPY1

4:09 PM ET

May 16, 2011

Tell Us Something We Didn't Already Know

Dov, You claim it wasn't stupidity that caused us to lose Afghanistan. But the outlines of everything you've said here were clear to me and to many other people in 2003. You are telling us nothing we didn't know already and haven't had confirmed numerous times by reporters and memoirists from the Bush administration. You guys acted as if you learned nothing from the Cold War and the Vietnam War. If that isn't stupid, I don't know what to call it. The size of one's ego is not necessarily proportional to one's intelligence.

You did nothing to fix the disfunction when you were in power. Now you've got a cushy foreign policy-related job through your connections. Why don't you and your ego admit that you don't know what you're doing? It would be honorable to resign from foreign policy and move into a career that you're more suited for.

 

PFNOVAK

5:22 PM ET

May 16, 2011

While I agree that the book

While I agree that the book doesn't break much new ground, your comments towards Mr. Zakheim seem to influenced by Hollywood thrillers where some low-level bureaucrat blows the lid off everything. I think it's pretty clear from this and other accounts that the top brass was going to invade Iraq no matter what and do so in a particularly reckless manner that even committed hawks like John McCain questioned openly. Mr. Zakheim, despite attaining a post of enviable importance, was clearly in no position to change any of that.

 

FIFTH HORSEMAN

7:08 PM ET

May 16, 2011

"Vulcan" = war mongering neofascist

Out here in the real world "Vulcans" are known as war mongering neofascists.

 

WHISKEYPAPA

4:43 AM ET

May 17, 2011

Good Ol' Dov

Top Ten Justifications for Torture

#10 - I don't care about the laws of this country.

#9 - I wish to become the thing I hate.

#8 - It worked for Jack Bauer.

#7 - I don't see people I don't like as people, so torturing them is okay.

#6 - Morals are for liberals

#5 - Jesus would have tortured too

#4 - It's torture if it's done to Americans

#3 - It's not torture if Americans do it to non-Americans.

#2 - You're un-American if you don't like torture

#1 - Because I am not likely to ever be placed in a situation where I would be subjected to torture I don't have to consider the consequences on my fellow Americans who are in a situation where they may be tortured.

----------------------------------(

Walt

 

DURDOM3

6:34 AM ET

May 19, 2011

Stupid

"The administration's shortcomings were not a consequence of criminality, or moral debasement, or stupidity"

"The shortcomings were instead a consequence, above all, of the inherent novelty and difficulty of the challenges the administration faced but also of deficiencies of management, understanding, and forethought."

Uh, sorry to break it to you, but deficiencies in understanding and forethought is a nice way of saying "stupid".

 

KEYBASHER

9:18 AM ET

May 20, 2011

I know better than to ask, but ...

"The shortcomings were instead a consequence, above all, of the inherent novelty and difficulty of the challenges the administration faced but also of deficiencies of management, understanding, and forethought. "

... did anyone in the Shrub Administration read "Dilbert"?

Just wondering.

 

LIZARDO

10:12 AM ET

May 20, 2011

Lions and Tigers and Bears! Oh, My!

Somehow the admitted inability to get beyond 'feelings' and communicating on 'special frequencies', the inability to comprehend and respond to 'novel' situations, and the willingness to leap into moral black holes pretty much describes a 'team' that should never have been let near an important policy making position.

I suppose grand incompetence can in some way be considered 'evil' when it costs the lives of tens of thousands, compromises the morals and liberties of a whole society and spirals the nation into economic ruin.

Bin Laden couldn't ask for a better team of co-dependents.

:P

 

SHIRLEE RAUDENBUSH

8:16 AM ET

June 11, 2011

Confessions of a Vulcan

An insider's story of how the Bush administration lost Afghanistan. by all the vulcans agreeing on tougher sanctions and a tighter economic squeeze on iraq they share some of the blame for the deaths of thousands of iraqi babies and children. i am no expert on foreign policy like you guys seem to be. perhasps the author could give us some examples where crippling sanctions on a country have bought about a regime change. it would of saved you guys trillions of doll co2 laser It's good to hear how some of the failures of the Bush administration were due to misunderstanding and poor intel. It's hard to fathom how we could either be so arrogant we don't learn from Russia's "Vietnam" and attack "the graveyard of empires" as Afghanistan has come to be known. With so many problems at home it's hard to believe we even got into this. With the dollar continuing its slow declin.

 

MATT PETELICKY

7:00 AM ET

June 12, 2011

It's nice to see both sides

It's nice to see both sides of the story, or at least one that is often hidden from view.One can usually never, there are some exceptions, subscribe to only one view as this stavkovaniewill lead to a rise in misunderstanding or limited knowledge. I'm no conservative and indeed no US citizen but I still emphasize with some of the decisions taken by the previous US administration and the current one.The shortcomings were instead a consequence, above all, of the inherent novelty and difficulty of the challenges the administration faced but also of deficiencies of management, understanding, and forethought.You claim it wasn't stupidity that caused us to lose Afghanistan. But the outlines of everything you've said here were clear to me and to stavkovanie many other people in 2003. You are telling us nothing we didn't know already and haven't had confirmed numerous times by reporters and memoirists from the Bush administration. You guys acted as if you learned nothing from the Cold War and the Vietnam War. If that isn't stupid, I don't know what to call it.