Posted on 10/06/2004 2:05:45 AM PDT by kattracks
Former viceroy L. Paul Bremer did 14 months of hard service in Iraq, so it is a special shame to see that he is now squandering that legacy by blaming others for what's gone wrong there. All the more so when he doesn't even have the history right.That's our reaction to yesterday's political tempest over quotes from Mr. Bremer faulting the Pentagon and Bush Administration for having too few troops in Iraq. To hear Mr. Bremer's version of it, he arrived in Baghdad on May 6, 2003, to find "horrid" looting and instability, and an "atmosphere of lawlessness" that was allowed to grow because "we never had enough troops on the ground" to stop it. Mr. Bremer revised his remarks slightly late Monday, saying in a statement that "I believe that we currently have sufficient troop levels in Iraq." But in a speech at DePauw University in September, Mr. Bremer said he had frequently raised the troop issue and "should have been more insistent about it," according to the local paper, adding that "the single most important change . . . would have been having more troops in Iraq at the beginning and throughout."
You get the idea: Mr. Bremer isn't to blame because he was tossed into a bad situation that only got worse while his pleas for more troops were ignored. And this indeed would be a damning indictment if it were true. Trouble is, we haven't found a single other senior official involved in the war or its aftermath--in or out of uniform--who attests to Mr. Bremer's version of events.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Typical back-stabbing RAT behavior. I wonder who got to him?
But some things are clear.
In Feb of 2003 Shinseki said more troops would be needed for an orderly occupation.
On March 19, 2003 the war began.
April 7-9, 2003 marked the beginning of massive looting and lawlessness in Bagdad, Basra, and elsewhere.
On May 6, 2003 Bremer arrived in Iraq. The looting was still largely uncontrolled.
On Aug 24, 2003 he gave his interview to ABC. By this time we had a handle on the looting.
Looting and lawlessness ware certain to occur and should have been planned for. They followed the first Gulf War. They occured in Bosnia, and in Haiti, and after the American Revolution. They occured during and after the Watts riots. They always occur when authority is challanged or overthrown and is worse after big disturbances and in poorer, more primitive cultures.
The question then is would more troops have allowed better and quicker control? Would some other policy have done so? Would any policy have done so?
I don't recall Bremer's public defense of his disasterous decision about Fallujah. I'd be curious to read it as his position seems indefensible.
"On the military side, Mr. Bremer pursued a two-year plan to build an army oriented toward external defense, not internal threats. And once General Abizaid convinced him of the need for an Iraqi Civil Defense Corps, Mr. Bremer envisioned it as a garrison force and resisted its use in counter-insurgency operations. He also rebuffed attempts by the Iraqi National Congress and the two major Kurdish parties to supply the Corps with loyal anti-Baathist fighters. When the April violence flared in Fallujah and Najaf, the 36th Battalion of the ICDC--the only one the parties had been allowed to create--was the only one to prove its worth in battle. (The 36th has been fighting with us in recent days in Samarra.)"
It becomes more clear why Bremer wasn't the right man for the job in Iraq. I'm glad we have an administration that can make mid-course corrections in strategic leadership.
"On the political side, Mr. Bremer underestimated the extent to which putting an early end to the occupation was important. He initially resisted the creation of the Governing Council altogether, and when he allowed it to happen gave it too little power. He also delayed implementing the democracy we had said we came to bring to Iraq, and he ultimately had to be told by Washington to agree to Shiite demands for elections at an earlier date. We're not saying an Iraqi face would have changed everything. But something like the current Allawi interim government could have been created much earlier, with the potential to reveal the insurgency as the Baathist revanchism it is."
Bremer would be absolved of his mistake if the January elections are unsuccessful or not held on schedule. Much like the Kerry campaign and the DNC. Hmmmm...
Go to http://www.bugmenot.com and borrow an ID. You can get one for most subscription sites.
Take a look at the testimony of James Dobbins and tell me what you think. He's a RAND researcher with pretty varied experience dealing with insurgencies and conquests. I'd provide a link but I'm too tired tonight. Maybe tomorrow...if you haven't found it using Google.
<< Typical back-stabbing RAT behavior. I wonder who got to him? >>
No one 'got' to him.
Bremer is with and of the self-annointing, self-appointing and self-perpetuating un-and-anti-American bastard offspring of the Communist Party of America-Alger-Hiss descended Foggy Bottom Brahmanas that both ranks among America's very worst enemies -- and will never miss an opportunity to torpedo a Republican Administration.
His very appointment signalled the inevitability of disaster -- and what bloody disastrous consequences we now face!
Whenever I hear talk that we should have had more troops there to stop all the looting, it seems obvious that there would have had to be about another 300,000 to have made any real difference. What that ultimately would have meant is we would now be looking at 5000 casualties in Iraq, not 800 (combat). More targets always means more chances for the bad guys to get lucky.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.