Woodward Strikes a Blow for War

By William Boardman, Reader Supported News

01 March 13

Doesn't anyone in Washington tell the truth about anything?

hen a veteran Navy intelligence analyst gets his knickers in a loud public twist over the number of U.S. nuclear-strike capable aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, one might first enjoy the spectacle – and then wonder, why such carryings-on?

When the veteran Navy intelligence analyst turns out to be Bob Woodward with a national audience from his platform at the Washington Post, questioning suspect motives becomes mandatory for any serious observer.

That quickly became a fleeting non-issue for most of what passes for the American journalistic intelligentsia, as twitter-heads of all persuasions were promptly distracted by the shiny objects of threats, alleged and imaginary, from the White House (gasp!).

The news behind this empty media kabuki was reported on February 6, when NBC ran with this false headline: "Navy to pull aircraft carrier from Persian Gulf over budget worries." The text quickly revealed that the Navy wasn't pulling an aircraft carrier from the Persian Gulf, it was simply not sending a second aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf, under a two-carrier policy ordered by Defense Secretary Robert Gates in 2010.

The change in policy raises interesting questions about the U.S. role as a possible peacekeeper in the region, but the NBC story ignores that aspect while going on at length about what appears to be a Navy cover story: budget cuts make the deployment too expensive, which is a non-explanation explanation.

Woodward Worries About Maintaining Robust Presence

Not content with assurances that the U.S. would "maintain a robust presence" in the Persian Gulf region, the Post's Woodward had a delayed but volcanic reaction to the U.S. reducing its ability to obliterate the region to a mere three or four times over, calling it "madness."

On the MSNBC show "Morning Joe," February 27, Woodward accused President Obama of exhibiting "a kind of madness I haven't seen in a long time" for having only one aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf. Since the two-carrier policy dates from 2010, Woodward implies he hasn't seen that kind of madness for almost three years, although he doesn't say that. In the context of discussing the sequester, what he says very calmly is:

"President Obama came out and acknowledged that we are not sending the aircraft carrier Truman to the Persian Gulf because of this budget agreement….

"Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting there and saying, 'Oh, by the way, I can't do this because of some budget document?'

"Or George W. Bush saying, 'You know, I'm not going to invade Iraq because I can't get the aircraft carriers I need?'

"Or even Bill Clinton saying, 'You know, I'm not going to attack Saddam Hussein's intelligence headquarters' ... because of some budget document?

"Under the Constitution, the President is commander-in-chief and employs the force. And so we now have the President going out because of this piece of paper and this agreement. 'I can't do what I need to do to protect the country.'

"That's a kind of madness that I haven't seen in a long time."

What About This Isn't War-Mongering?

Now THAT's a kind of madness. Unfortunately it's a familiar kind of madness seen all too often. "Protect the country" from what? Fulminating about Iraq? Saddam Hussein? Secret war in Nicaragua, perhaps? Is there a pattern here?

No wonder Joe Scarborough immediately changed the subject.

But if Woodward's outburst isn't war-mongering against Iran, what is it? Early Alzheimer's is a possibility, I suppose, or early morning wobbliness. Not likely, not from Woodward, not from a master of hidden agendas hiding other agendas.

If it matters, why wasn't Woodward on the case when the Navy announced the non-deployment decision three weeks earlier?

Why did he wait till President Obama referred to it in a speech in Norfolk, Virginia, on February 26, when he said, "The threat of these cuts has forced the Navy to cancel the deployment [of the aircraft carrier]." Now others are spinning the non-deployment as the President's "decision," based on no evidence.

Is anybody telling the truth here? Doesn't look like it.

Is anyone taking the aircraft carrier decision back to its essentials? Apparently not.

The first question is why does the United States need any aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf? To spare more distraction, let's concede that a credible argument can be made for the projection of American power everywhere we want to stick it.

The next question is why does the United States need TWO aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, where the last time any country attacked another was when the U.S. attacked Iraq.

Is It Unpatriotic to Not Pick a Fight?

There was serious violence in Bahrain more recently, but that was the government attacking its own people, and Bahrain is our ally and we have a Navy base there, so that was none of our business anyway.

So what is this two aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf business all about anyway?

The last time the U.S. deployed a second aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf was in April 2012, when CBS News very helpfully reported:

"(CBS/AP) DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - The U.S. Navy said Monday it has deployed a second aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf region amid rising tensions with Iran over its nuclear program.

"The deployment of the nuclear-powered USS Enterprise along the Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group marks only the fourth time in the past decade that the Navy has had two aircraft carriers operating at the same time in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea, said Cmdr. Amy Derrick-Frost of the Bahrain-based 5th Fleet.

"The two carriers will support the American military operations in Afghanistan and anti-piracy efforts off Somalia's coast and in the Gulf of Aden, said Derrick-Frost.

"The warships also patrol the Gulf's strategic oil routes that Iran has threatened to shut down in retaliation for economic sanctions."

The 2012 deployment came just before scheduled talks with Iran about nuclear issues.

The current non-deployment came just before scheduled seven-nation talks with Iran about nuclear issues.

Is the Obama administration threatening a peaceful approach? No wonder Woodward is losing it.

William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.