Dear Doctor Ullman

"The idea is to get the other side to quit by not firing a shot..."

Editors’ Note: Most coverage of protest and support of the war in Iraq makes it all seem so simple: You’re with it or against it; waving a flag or a No Blood for Oil banner. Yet judging by the comments of Harlan Ullman, the architect of Shock and Awe, for this war the old hawks-and-doves distinction seems inadequate. Ullman is a hawk’s hawk, not just a former military man but a philosopher of combat. And yet when it comes to the current execution of his theories, he has misgivings. “There is a right way and a wrong way to conduct a war,” he writes. “In my mind, the administration has gone about it the wrong way.” What follows is an unedited correspondence with the man who made the war plan.
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003
From: Todd Wolfson
To: Harlan Ullman
Subject: International Relations and Military Strategic Analysis

Dr. Ullman,
If I am correct in my reading of most of the strategic literatures in the academy, the received view is that a war based on terrorizing civilians and/or military does not work. It didn’t work in Dresden or in England in WWII and it won’t work here. So pragmatically it is a defunct plan.

Further, if we are to be moral about this, then ones attempted punishment, and that is exactly what this is, must be comparable to the perceived damage. In this case with the plan put forward by you, to drop 800 cruise missiles on Baghdad in two days, doing untold amounts of damage and potentially killing untold thousands of innocents, there is clearly a mismatch. Simply turn this around and look at it for yourself. If China was the world superpower and they did not like our leader and told him to disarm immediately and he controlled the country, would it be moral or ethical or even pragmatic to kill half a million Americans. Think about what you are doing. Seriously engage with the ideas you toy with in your office on your computer.

Sincerely,
Todd Wolfson

*

Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003
From: Harlan Ullman
To: Todd Wolfson
Subject: Re: International Relations and Military Strategic Analysis

That is absolutely NOT what I am saying — quite the converse. The idea is to get the other side to quit by not firing a shot and if war comes to win it with minimum cost all around. Targeting civilians is not in this universe even though Saddam is almost certain to do that.

*

Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003
From: Todd Wolfson
To: Harlan Ullman
Subject: Re: International Relations and Military Strategic Analysis

Dr. Ullman,
Although I don’t agree with you and sincerely wish that our strategic analysts could engage at a deeper level with political philosophy and the U.S.’s sometimes deeply troubled role within the contemporary geo-political climate, I sincerely respect your willingness to engage in this discussion. I sometimes feel that there are very few who stand in your shoes, that is the shoes of those that have followed a more political career with all of the necessary compromises that entails, that are able to imbibe the meaning of their actions. I am pained in feeling as though the current administration is run through and through with a neo-realist international doctrine and they employ fear to mobilize our country. However, in having discussions with someone such as yourself, who I would think I am in complete disagreement with, and seeing that your intentions have value, it makes me feel better. Thus, what I am saying, is that although I disagree with you, I am glad to have this discussion.

But I must ask you, do you honestly, sincerely believe that this war is the right thing?

*

Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003
From: Harlan Ullman
To: Todd Wolfson
Subject: Re: International Relations and Military Strategic Analysis

There is a right way and a wrong way to conduct a war. In my mind, the administration has gone about it the wrong way. But discussion is now fruitless. For better or worse, the president has made up his mind. Despite the efforts of Colin Powell and Tony Blair the course is virtually irreversible. And the Dems in Congress have abandoned ship in this.

This is not a repeat of Vietnam. However, there are similarities. The best you can hope for is a lightening quick war with few casualties. Then the tough part starts.

Bush has bet more than his presidency. He is betting the country. He better know what he is doing.