Posted on 10/07/2004 6:39:00 PM PDT by Wisconsin
Paul Bremer has made clear that his statement of not enough troops to quell looting in Baghdad applied to May immediately after Baghdad fell.
We should know who is responsible for this terrible state of affairs...
You will recall that the original plan would have had the 4th ID attack Baghdad from the north after passing through Turkey. Simultaneously the 3rd ID and the Marines would attack after moving from the South and Southwest.
Turkey did not allow transit to the 4th ID. This meant that the marines had to shoulder some of the 4th ID's load and effectively the marines and 3rd ID would reach Baghdad with something less then 60% of the expected force available for attacking Baghdad.
The logical thing to do was to wait till the 4th ID disembarked in Kuwait and could bolster the American forces.
But, no, Col. perkins screwed things up. With some crazy idea about the importance of speed, getting inside the enemy's decision loop , and psychological impact, he caused a couple of operations called Thunder Runs that caused Baghdad to fall with few US casualties, no time for the Iraqis to organize an effective defense that could have held things up till the 4th ID arrived and without the 4th ID on the scene.
So, he is the guy responsible for too few troops to control the looting. No doubt about it. It is all his fault.
It was not Paul Bremer's job to tell anybody anything about the troops, much less how many were needed.
Bet he's a Democrat.
The onset of the very high temperatures of the Iraq summer <130 degrees was also a factor in determining the timing.
Screw the looting. Our soldiers were there to kill the enemy.
yup what you said. :)
Bremer wasn't even there. If I remember right, there was another guy that was in charge at first, Bremer was his replacement.
Somebody with a memory (LOL) name the guy who was the first one put in charge of Baghdad.
The enemy were the looters. So why didn't our guys start shooting the looters?
I don't know if I place blame here.
Remember, they found a stash of chemical weapons suits, and that was the concern at the time - that chemical weapons or even a nuke would go off before they got there.
It isn't a troop number problem - it's the left-over Vietnam-mindset of not allowing the troops to kill the enemy.
Or more importantly, allowing those 1000 people who surrendered to go free without interviewing them and holding them for questioning. They were part of the Fedeyeen and other elements of the Iraqi military.
That is who I blame.
The reason dems sometimes fool americans into voting for them is that Dems NEVER stop spinning and NEVER speak ill of another dem... Too many GOPers trying to curry favor w/ the mainstream media criticize their fellow GOPers (cough - mccain - cough). They get blinded by the lure of appearances on talk shows, etc. If we could ever get more loyalty...
Uh no, the enemy at that time was a conventional enemy, they wore uniforms. Soldiers don't shoot civilians, its an American thing.
12 May 2003: "New U.S. Administrator Arrives in Iraq."; Robert Burns, AP Military Writer.
Do you really think a democrat would have voiced his controversial opinion about troop numbers just a month before elections? Golllllyyyyyy, you are a cynic!
LOL, no, he's not the guy I was thinking of!
It was an older man, and Bremer took his place after a few months.
THIS IS JUST PLAIN BS...... GET OVER IT ...... IT IS HISTORY....
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.