Posted on 10/05/2004 8:36:33 PM PDT by Former Military Chick
America's former proconsul in Baghdad delivered a damning critique of the Bush administration's policy on Iraq yesterday, saying the US had made two grave errors of judgment in the early days of the war. Paul Bremer, who was America's most senior official in Baghdad until the handover last June, said the US committed two major blunders which compromised the course of events in Iraq: it went to war without enough troops and it did not contain the looting and violence after Saddam Hussein's regime fell.
"We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness," Mr Bremer told a conference of insurance agents in West Virginia. "We never had enough troops on the ground."
Mr Bremer is the latest in a stream of US government officials to voice doubts on the administration's strategy on Iraq, but such criticism is surprising from a man who says he "strongly supports" the re-election of President George Bush .
The comments, surfacing only hours ahead of last night's vice-presidential debate between John Edwards and Dick Cheney, were very badly timed for the administration - and a boon for the Democrats.
Mr Cheney is widely regarded as the architect of the war and came under renewed pressure to account for what the Democratic challenger, John Kerry, yesterday called a "long list of mistakes" on Iraq. "I hope Mr Cheney can take responsibility," Mr Kerry said.
Mr Bremer's comments are also a belated rebuke to the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, who overruled his army chief of staff and other military officials by opting for a smaller invasion force, and who famously dismissed reports of looting in April 2003 by saying "Stuff happens" and "Freedom is untidy".
Mr Rumsfeld attempted yesterday to undo the damage from statements made hours earlier, in which he acknowledged there was no connection between al-Qaida and Saddam. "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two," Mr Rumsfeld told the Council on Foreign Relations .
The statement - a u-turn on Mr Rumsfeld's assertion in September 2002 that the CIA had "bulletproof" evidence of a connection - appeared in line with a new intelligence review that failed to find a connection.
Mr Rumsfeld later said his comments to the council had been "misunderstood".
More attention was devoted to the comments from Mr Bremer, who shared Mr Cheney's and Mr Rumsfeld's views on Iraq, and who maintained yesterday that America was right to go to war.
The White House yesterday refused to say whether Mr Bremer had asked for more troops during his frequent visits to Washington.
Meanwhile, Mr Bremer released a statement claiming that his remarks were intended for a private audience, and that the US now had sufficient troops on the ground.
He also reaffirmed that the war in Iraq is an "integral part of fighting this war on terror".
However, Mr Bremer began expressing doubts about the administration's strategy before his speech to the insurance conference. During a September 17 appearance at Indiana's DePauw University he accused the administration of disregarding his advice to bring in more troops.
"The single most important change - the one thing that would have improved the situation - would have been having more troops in Iraq at the beginning and throughout [the occupation]," Mr Bremer was reported to have said.
The debate on America's preparations for war on Iraq was opened in early 2003 when the then army chief of staff, General Eric Shinseki, said the invasion needed an occupying force of several hundred thousand soldiers - much to the fury of Mr Rumsfeld whose battle plans called for a streamlined force.
In January, the chief weapons inspector, David Kay, testified that western intelligence agencies "were all wrong" in their assessment that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
Last month, a former CIA official Paul Pillar told a private dinner that the White House disregarded intelligence reports two months before the invasion warning that a war could unleash a violent insurgency.
Mr Bremer claimed that US planners had failed to anticipate the chaos that would follow Saddam's departure, saying that planners were more concerned with preventing a refugee exodus and a humanitarian crisis that did not arise. "There was planning, but planning for a situation that didn't arise," he said.
Bremer was the civilian administrator? Hmmmm. Does he really feel confident in second guessing generals?
Why?
That was their choice as a nation, but thousands of people have died in Iraq (on both sides) as a direct result.
What penalties should America place upon Turkey?
How about:
$1,000,000 for each American death as a result of their political choice?
Prior to being in Iraq, Ambassador Bremer was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Marsh Crisis Consulting Company, a crisis management firm owned by the financial services firm Marsh & McLennan. From 1989 to 2000, he was Managing Director of Kissinger Associates, a strategic consulting firm headed by former Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger.
Before rejoining government, Ambassador Bremer had been a director of Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., Akzo Nobel NV, the Harvard Business School Club of New York and The Netherland-America Foundation and a Trustee of the Economic Club of New York.
Ambassador Bremer is the Founder and President of the Lincoln/Douglass Scholarship Foundation, a Washington-based non-profit organization that provides high school scholarships to inner city youths.
Ambassador Bremer received his BA from Yale University, a CEP from the Institut D’Etudes Politiques of the University of Paris, and an MBA from Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration. His languages are French, Dutch, and Norwegian.
Why do we have to go through this every two weeks?
Don't these people pay attention to what is said?
Is their hearing so selective they can't hear what is said?
I guess the 20+ years of intense MSM brainwashing has worked.
Welcome to the result of 1984.
A Statement From Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
A question I answered today at an appearance before the Council on Foreign Relations regarding ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq regrettably was misunderstood.
I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there were ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq.
This assessment was based upon points provided to me by then CIA Director George Tenet to describe the CIA's understanding of the Al Qaeda-Iraq relationship.
Today at the Council, I even noted that "when I'm in Washington, I pull out a piece of paper and say 'I don't know, because I'm not in that business, but I'll tell you what the CIA thinks,' and I read it."
The CIA conclusions in that paper, which I discussed in a news conference as far back as September, 2002, note that:
* We do have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.
* We have what we consider to be very reliable reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade, and of possible chemical and biological agent training.
* We have what we believe to be credible information that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven opportunities in Iraq.
* We have what we consider to be credible evidence that al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction capabilities.
* We do have one report indicating that Iraq provided unspecified training relating to chemical and/or biological matters for al Qaeda members.
I should also note that the 9/11 Commission report described linkages between Al Qaeda and Iraq as well.
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2004/nr20041004-1352.html
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.