Posted on 03/04/2009 4:36:24 AM PST by cizinec
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101395478&ft=1&f=1004
I woke up this morning to this story with this guy talking like he was speaking on behalf of soldiers. At first I thought, "how refreshing, someone who cares about our troops speaking on NPR." The next thing you know, he says that the war in Iraq is the worst foreign policy disaster in US history. Then he goes on and on like he's some strategic genius.
I looked up his bio, and it looks like this great spokesman for America's men and women in uniform and the greatest strategic genius of all times never actually served in the military. He reported on stuff, though.
Is this correct, or does he actually have some real military credentials?
He has a book. He’s trying to sell it.
It will be well received by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and the usual suspects.
Remember, just two years ago, every reporter was convinced that Iraq could not be salvaged. They are experts on nothing but their ideology and America’s defeat.
The lost. But don’t expect them to give up. Why should they? Their lies have worked so well they got a complete inexperienced loser into the White House.
That only gives them confidence. Pushing this book is mere child’s play.
Who is Thomas Ricks?
He was a long time military correspondent for the Washington Post.He has access inside the Pentagon.
His book “Fiasco” detailed the in-house fighting between the Bush administration’s Defense and State Departments leading up to and after the Iraq invasion of 2003.
Its a pretty sad tale ...the missteps that put us on the learning curve for 3-4 years in 2003 because Rumsfeld and Cheney had no Phase IV plan for the post-Saddam environment.
One thing I noticed while reading was his singling out of Gen.Petraeus for good marks BEFORE he became a household name...for the methods he used in Iraq prior to assuming command in Baghdad.
Some other big names come off very badly.
I thought it was a great book..some of the stuff during the walk-up to the invasion had me reaching for my yellow highlighter almost every page.
What exactly were Cheney’s military credentials ?
How about Paul Wolfowitz?
Or Douglas Feith ?
And some of the other neo-Con Artists ?
“Their lies have worked so well they got a complete inexperienced loser into the White House”.
You’re talking about Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld right?
The media’s lies. The Manchurian Candidate has assumed control.
Now tell me about the inexperience and lies of the former VP and Prez?
Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Feith were competent enough to allow the military to take down Saddam in two weeks.
The failure was in maintaining/winning the peace afterwards. That’s two different things and from a historical basis, the time period is nothing in comparison to the US presence in Germany and Japan.
The losses also are small in relation as well.
Okay, let’s hear Pat Buchannan’s complaints on the matter now.
So he’s a reporter with access to disgruntled bureaucrats at the pentagon.
If I had read what you wrote without hearing him this morning, I would have read the book. After hearing him speak, I think I’ll skip it.
He comes off as an armchair military strategist with his hand tightly squeezing the pulse of men and women in uniform. No thanks.
“They were competant enough to allow the military to take down Saddam in two weeks”.
No arguement from me here on that...the speed and efficiency of the invasion was quite a feat..justified Rumsfeld’s and Gen.Frank’s theories on lighter faster forces...speed over mass...but that was the first and perhaps last act of competence in the whole affair.....
Was not the over-arching strategy in the post 9/11 world to establish a foothold of democracy in the Middle East?
I usually disdain from sports analogies..or quoting from Sun Tzu’s “Art of War’....but they may be apt here....I won’t take the time.
Rick’s book “Fiasco” likens the Rumsfeld/Franks war plan to a coup d’etat in a banana republic rather than “a full scale war plan that reflected the ambition of a great power to alter the politics of a crucial region of the world”.
“The failure was in maintaining/winning the peace afterwards”
A HUGE UNDERSTATEMENT.
Cheney & Wolfowitz discredited Gen..Shinseki’s estimates of what it would take to effectively control and rebuild Iraq ..they took the worst scenarios for justifying the immediacy of the invasion ( WMD’s /”Curveball”) and took the rosiest case scenario for everything that would come after ( Chalabi ..a man with no real connections to the Iraqi people..)
“The time period is nothing in comparison to the U.S. presence in Germany and Japan”.
You may have a point ..from an historical perspective..but this is little consolation to the widows and mothers...not to mention the tens of thousands of our own servicemen and women who bear the burdens and scars of inept policy makers.
“The losses also are small in relation as well.”
The losses are more than can be listed here...for starters...in hearings and elsewhere Wolfowitz claimed the Iraq invasion and reconstruction would basically pay for itself through oil revenues..yet due to their incompetence by 2004-2005 Iraq was costing American taxpayers an estimated 5 billion a month while the country was spinning out of control in a near civil war due to Cheney/Rumsfeld’s lack of post Saddam planning...not to mention the cost to our image worldwide as we acted out our incompetence on a world stage ..with Abu Ghraib being but one logical and predictable outcome as panicky leaders (”I don’t do quagmires” Rumsfeld )and commanders ( Rick Sanchez..he replaced Tommy Franks ..who got out when the gettin’ was good ) clumsily attempted to restore some kind of order to the situation.
Since you do seem to have an historical perspective...compare WW II to this...
MacArthur’s post war plan in Japan vs. Cheney/Rumsfeld’s in Iraq.
or Patton’s use of ex-Nazis in Germany to keep things running smoothly while Bremer fueled the insurgency by humiliating 1,000’s of Saddam’s troops by turning them out in the streets against the sage advice of many..even after our own pre-war Psy-Ops had promised them a stake in the post Saddam re-building.
To paraphrase one of our Middle East ambassadors..Barabra Bodine..”there were probably a couple of right ways to do Iraq..and five hundred wrong ways. Who knew we’d do all five hundred wrong ways before we got to the right one or two.”
He also has access to a lot of uniformed military men ...both grunts in the field and staff officers ..one Colonel who did his stint w/ the post Saddam CPA ( Coalition Provisional Authority )summarized his offices work over there as “ pasting feathers together..hoping for a duck”.
Retired General Jay Garner indicated that Douglas Feith..a Rumsfeld crony who was running things..was so incredibly misinformed and inept that he was just plain dangerous. Gen. Tommy Franks summed it up even better...Feith- “he’s the dumbest motherfucker on the planet”.
These are just a couple of the tidbits in a litany of screw-ups in both the pre-war and post war.....
“armchair military strategist”...a more apt description of Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Feith et al I cannot come up with..suits THEM to a T.
I’m not familiar w/ Rick’s latest..and I hope he’s wrong in his long range assessment..but his prior work laid bear the utter incompetence of the Bush White House and the infighting between Rumsfeld’s Defense Dept.. and Colon Powell’s State
Dept....its a cost that we are still paying for today....
If such sobbering analysis disrupts your frame of reference...why not avoid it?...Rumsfeld and Cheney apparently didn’t care to deal with the negatives either.
I heard an interview with him, and he seems relatively reasonable, and certainly knowledgeable.
I don’t mind if it “disturbs” my “frame of reference.”
I just don’t want to pervert my frame of reference based on information from someone who is not competent in the field.
Concerning “Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Feith et al,” I am not happy at all with their performance. However, that doesn’t mean I want to run to a reporter (who may not have any more competence than Wolfowitz) just because he disagrees with Wolfowitz.
Now I am frustratingly interested. Oh well. I needed a new book for my bus commutes. I will read it, but with a great deal of skepticism.
You might be interested..(or maybe not)...that I had a great deal of respect for Bush 41 ...Brent Scrowcroft...James Baker...Colin Powell...Schwarzkopf,etc.
How they handled Gulf War I was pretty much textbook...even with that one’s less than perfect conclusion...and it was because of that I had a lot of trust in Bush 43 and Co. when it came to Iraq ...tho’ I worried quite a bit about the possible consequences the more I studied up as the hour drew near.
I got into many arguements w/ friends and family during the Iraq aftermath in 2003-2004...my late wife and I both voted for Bush Cheney in -’04 thinking they should be given the chance to see their policies through.
It was only after the debacle of 2005-2006 that I came across Rick’s book and the reasons why we were seeing what we were seeing..and it became apparent to me that those who counseled the father had not advised the son..I lay it all upon Cheney and Rumsfeld’s massive egos not being held in check by others...our troops nor the Iraqi people were well served.
Rick’s book began to feel like Cornelius Ryan’s “A Bridge Too Far”..the study of the ill-fated Operation Market Garden in WWII...the same turning of a blind eye to certain intelligence that was available..the don’t rock the boat mentality that pervaded the offices of the planners....
I’d recommend T.Rick’s “Fiasco” prior to this latest “Gamble”
you can probably get it real cheap now....if you’re the least bit curious...and can deal with the frustration.
There is a substantial difference to the surrender of Japan by order of the Emperor and Saddam’s quick exit. The first gave the bad news to the people, the second sent audio to take out the Coalition.
Germany had Nazi resistance as I understand it in small violent groups into the 50s. Those cells were vicious but the outcome was not in doubt.
For the US, the outcome was not in doubt either. What was in doubt was the elevation of an elected Iraqi government that could summon enough support to maintain itself from a region hostile to democracy and seeking its quick annihilation.
Every despot in the region as part of a Sunni supremecist agenda sought to have Iraq’s elected government destroyed. They withstood the attacks and managed to hold several more elections but at a horrible toll on civilians.
Rick’s book is just another effort in the leftist desire to see the US humbled via another Vietnam. It’s an investment that has failed and will continue as the Iraqis finally have some semblance of a Republic and a way of functioning. It hasn’t been easy but that part of the world and that country is rife with corruption as a way of life. Even though it’s suicidal they’ve operated for the short term interest. Perhaps that’s changing.
Shinsecki was right, no disagreement there. You can’t maintain a hostile area the size of California with a rapid deployment force barreling through with nothing left behind in its wake. Blame Rumsfeld for that one.
Was only referring to human losses, the suffering of our guys in the field. It’s pretty pointless to take the liberal mantra talking points about cost and the split in Iraq leading to the intrafighting being negligible.
Historically, there is no way around this in almost all cases similar. Yugoslavia’s breakup would be the best example.
As for the financial cost, like the Marshall Plan only in time will we know if the cost was worth it. Did the change of Hussein in Iraq, the detoothing of Libya’s nuke plan, and revelation of Pakistan’s nuclear info sharing along with a cultural change in the concept of a free republic lead to a worthwhile outcome? Tough to weight currently?
Did the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, the bombing of the nuke plant in Syria and the rattling of the mullah’s cage in Iran produce long term benefit due to Saddam Hussein getting a permanent exit visa? Too soon to tell.
The question that is NEVER asked is what would Saddam Hussein be up to today if he had been left in power?
Pretty bad stuff if you ask me. And with no sanctions at all to stop him either. He had just about bribed enough UN people to get that hackle removed. He was so close he could taste it.
The David Kay report makes that evident. Read the report and you know that if you don’t already.
Nice chatting.
Yeah, how long did Jay Garner last? Let’s see his book up against Feith before we determine who’s misinformed.
Guess Jay didn’t last because he was?
No arguement from me that Saddam was “unfinished business”..even Clinton wanted him gone..but didn’t have the intestinal fortitude to see it through.Perhaps there were no real good choices with Iraq...and the timing after 9/11 couldn’t have been better..what with sanctions coming off soon and two malignant sons ready to take over whenever Saddam’s health or paranoic security measures failed.
Still..Thomas Rick’s book ..if anything..makes the case that the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld strategy was confused...placing all the emphasis on the quick and easy regime change while expending zero effort on the aftermath..as if the spectacle of “shock and awe” would
have the region willingly fall into line.One gets the sense we tried to get it all “on the cheap”...yet Ricks does single out those that got it right..from Rep.Ike Skelton’s prescient warnings about the complexities of the Sunni/Shite culture that went unheeded..to Gen.Anthony Zinni’s wargaming scenarios that were ignored..to Gen.Petraeus’ occupation skills that no doubt led to his ascendancy.
Lastly...Rick’s implies that Rumsfeld’s stubborness to at first even acknowledge an insurgency and then his failure to implement skills already in our tool box to deal with it cost us greatly in lives,money,and international prestige.
It didn’t have to be that way...to dismiss this writing as mere leftist revisionism at worst or Monday morning quarterbacking at best seems a disservice to me..but you are of course entitled to your opinion.
Thankfully.. after 4 to 5 years on the learning curve and 4,000 lives later ...we hopefully are getting it right.
Well thanks for your comments but I can’t say that Rick’s Monday day after QB skills mean much to me. Nothing in that is new. Petraeus did a great job in the north and if his model was employed throughout, it would have been a quicker route to success.
Rick’s predictions ahead to me are not likely. The momentum has shifted entirely against his prediction. I’m dismissing it because of the reality on the ground and the monumental shift that has been underway and continues apace after the last Iraqi elections.
Meanwhile Mookie remains in hiding doing nothing but watching from the sidelines as his Mahdi Army was dismantled and his center of power in Basra was crushed by the Iraqi President. This even while the US media was trumpeting the engagement as a victory for Mookie.
The irony is too delicious.
And this guy Rick need to sell books. So he has to continue on the route he’s taken even if the train has long left the station. He should get together with Harry Dingy for lunch.
The two of them have much in common.
I’m not saying that Rick is a leftist. But his book is a failure as I believe the tide has now turned. Events can change things as nuclear weapons are becoming a looming issue in the region. But that has nothing to do with Rick’s book IMHO.
International prestige is a funny thing. When you win, everyone pats you on the back. But who stood with us in Iraq and now in Afghanistan. The list is rather short.
And the current needs in Afghanistan have been pressing for a while. You can have your so called “international prestige” thank you very much.
Buys you a subway ride here in NY when you start with a token.
From what I’ve read Garner’s short time at the helm was due less to his ‘skill set’ and more to his desire to employ the very State Dept.people that Cheney/Rumsfeld abhored....
As soon as Garner set up shop in Baghdad Rumsfeld’s people..Feith among them..were advising him not to get too involved ..since they believed we’d be out of there by August ‘03..with only a residual force of a few thousand remaining..so misinformed were Cheney/Rumsfeld about the situation on the ground. Rumsfeld already had Bremer in mind...and any hope of getting out by Aug.’03 were dashed after Bremer’s disbanding of the Iraqi army and the marginalizing of the Bathist professional class..which led to the U.N. HQ bombing and Sergio De Millo’s murder..the start date of the insurgency.
The events unfolding exonerate Garner...not Feith & Co.
Nice talkin’ to ya’.
Really couldn’t say. I heard that is was partly due to some rumors among Iraqis that the guy was Jewish. Crazy? I have no idea.
This criticism of breaking up the Iraqi army though is interesting. Why would it be better for Iraqis to have a professional oppressive minority of 20% remain in control of the army?
How the army was broken up is the problem IMHO. Not putting those people on the whole to work and on the payroll led to the emerging problems. But retaining them, I don’t really subscribe to that.
Have a nice evening.
“Mookie”. LOL
What the hell ever happened to him ?
Back in Tehran for re-training....?
Seems to me that Maliki somehow was able to outmaneuver him.
Suffice it to say there have been some earthshattering events going on over there in the last year that we may not hear about for awhile..since lack of violence doesn’t seem to garner much of our own media’s attention...they only like train wrecks and we’ve had our own election .
Guess we finally found out exactly who it is we need to pay off to keep things quiet.
Have a good one.
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.