Rumsfeld Faults Turkey for Barring Use of Its Land in '03 to Open Northern Front in Iraq

nytimes.com ^ | March 21, 2005 | THOM SHANKER

[Destro]

Rumsfeld Faults Turkey for Barring Use of Its Land in '03 to Open Northern Front in Iraq

By THOM SHANKER

Published: March 21, 2005

WASHINGTON, March 20 - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Sunday used the second anniversary of the American-led invasion of Iraq to answer the most tenacious criticism of the war effort - that the Pentagon did not commit sufficient troops to the major offensive or to stability efforts after Baghdad fell.

The fault, Mr. Rumsfeld contended in two appearances on television talk shows, rested with Turkey, a NATO ally, which would not give permission for the Fourth Infantry Division to cross its territory and open a northern front at the start of the war in March 2003.

"Given the level of the insurgency today, two years later, clearly, if we had been able to get the Fourth Infantry Division in from the north through Turkey, more of the Iraqi Saddam Hussein Baathist regime would have been captured or killed," he said on "Fox News Sunday."

As the invasion neared, the heavily armored units of the division and its support elements were in ships off Turkey, ready to create a battlefield vise to squeeze adversaries with the larger Army and Marine Corps force entering Iraq from Kuwait to the south. Had that happened, "the insurgency today would be less," Mr. Rumsfeld added.

With the Fourth Infantry blocked from entering from the north, "by the time Baghdad was taken, the large fraction of the Iraqi military and intelligence services just dissipated into the communities," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "And they're still, in a number of instances, still active."

Pressed on why the level of American forces was not increased to subdue a resilient insurgency even after the United States was the occupying force in Iraq, he said the troop levels for the stabilization mission were set by Gen. Tommy R. Franks, who at the time was commander of the military's Central Command.

"General Franks made a call, and he made a judgment that not only would they not be needed and it would not be appropriate, but that it would be ill advised to put that many more, quote, 'occupation forces' in," Mr. Rumsfeld said on the ABC News program "This Week."

"You'd have that many more targets, that many more people who would leave the feeling of the United States taking over that country as opposed to liberating that country," he added.

Mr. Rumsfeld - one of the most hands-on defense secretaries in a generation, whose concepts for modern warfare significantly shaped the military's plan for Iraq - did acknowledge in the interview that he officially endorsed General Franks's recommendations for troop levels.

He pushed back when asked about any errors of the mission, and instead sought to focus on successes: "We have 25 million Iraqis that are free. The economy is coming back. The dinar is strong. The schools are open. The hospitals are open.

"They had a successful election. The Iraqi security forces are increasingly taking responsibility."

The American military force in Iraq is down from a spike in January to 150,000 before the elections, the highest level since Baghdad fell, although Mr. Rumsfeld said the number would probably increase again for the next elections this fall.

He cautioned the new Iraqi government against favoritism, which he said could weaken the counterinsurgency mission.

[Destro]

Rumsfeld's point man in Turkey? Wolfowitz. He was going to bribe Turkey with BILLIONS. Wolfowitz's dept. screwed up the Iraq mission in terms of how to fight the war. What saved us is the unmatched skill of our military that can fight through piss poor civilian planning/theories.

Many see Wolfowitz's nomination to head the World Bank as a way to get rid of Wolfowitz to the World Bank the way MacNamara was.

[Just mythoughts]

GO RUMMY!

"He was going to bribe Turkey with BILLIONS."


Banking would be the place to place him.

[EagleUSA]

Many see Wolfowitz's nomination to head the World Bank as a way to get rid of Wolfowitz to the World Bank the way MacNamara was.
======
Wolfowitz is a mixed bag for sure. You may have a point here, about "putting him out to pasture" in the World Bank job. IMHO, we still allow too much civilian/politician interference with the tough, hard business of fighting a war.

[Destro]

Wolfowitz screwed up big time - his failed predictions of what would happen in Iraq if we invaded - his pushing of Chalabi - all came up wrong. Why he is praised on this forum still I can only guess at.

[Destro]

How about placing him on the unemployment line?

[Just mythoughts]

"How about placing him on the unemployment line?"


I have no objection to that. I was playing upon the word you used "bribe" and "banking".

[Destro]

I know, but it was too good a line to not use!

[watsonfellow]

I believe that it was the State Department's job to get Turkey on board. There is an article in the American Thinker about this. So the blame is not Wolfowitz's, but rather "I'm to busy leaking to the Washington Post to actually ever travel anywhere" Powell's.

Seriously, the hype behind Powell is so sickening. What exactly did he do as Sec. of State, aside from complaining all the time? The job of Sec State, it seems to me, is to travel all the time and hold meetings.

Powell never, ever left Washington. Bush should have appointed him Secretary of Education or something.

I think Bush is a great president, but he has done a horrible job with alot of his appointments--- most especially his economics team. Don't get me started on that though.

[Destro]

Why did Bush send The DoD Wolfowitz instead of one of Powell's guys from the DoS?

In any case this CBS article was a little premature:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/03/attack/main531608.shtml

Turkey On Board Against Iraq

Turkey's foreign minister said Tuesday that his country would approve the U.S. use of military bases in Turkey if the United Nations approved military action against neighboring Iraq.

Yasar Yakis spoke as U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was in Turkey to lobby for Turkish support in an Iraq operation.

Yakis said Turkey was against a war, but "if it comes to that, then of course, we will cooperate with the United States because it's a big ally and we have excellent relations with the United States."

Turkish Prime Minister Abdullah Gul, right, greets U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz in Ankara on Tuesday, Dec. 3, 2002. (Photo: AP)

[watsonfellow]

Because Powell refused to go.....Powell's the one who should have gone, not Wolfie. Plus, the reason Bush sent Wolfi is because under Powell the State Department was unofficially opposed to the war and did nothing to help it.

So since no one from State would go, Wolfie had to.

[Destro]

I agree - something like that happened - can't wait to read what the memoirs have to say. Should make for good reading.

[Destro]

PS: I also think Wolfowitz was a true believer - he has a history of claiming to know the Middle East and boosted Turkey as teh model for a new ME policy. That could also be the reason he was sent? We don't know...yet.

[Echo Talon]

You people are ridiculous.... Do you think Wolfowitz should be able to see into the future? Should we not have attacked Iraq since Turkey didn't let us ship a large package across their country? You people in a way sound like the liberals complaining about the president saying mission accomplished...
If you people can see into the future, please join the govt. and let them know of your abilities, I'm sure your skills will be utilized.

[bozot]

I think that the "insurgency" problem did not started as a military one.

After the invasion most of the Iraqis was looking curiously to the future to see what happens next.
Then Bremer fired most of the armed man, at least few hundreds of thousands of them, without a chance to earn money...
Question: What is a man do anywhere in a world without money (or chance to get some), and with a weapon?

Answer: Go to fight if someone pays him...

And the traditional Iraqi enterprises who seen that they have Bowen little and no chance to compete with Haliburton and others in the rebuild of Iraq were happy to finance the armed man to get rid of the unwanted competition...

I guess the 75% unemployment rate supports this view too...

If you try to step back from the simplified "terrorist - liberator" presentation of the situation, and look at it as an economic setup, then it becomes clear why and who finance the insurgents...

From here it is completely irrelevant that which directions the US troops entered to the country, because not the invasion strategy was at fault, but the "pacification" strategy....

And it looks like Bremer admitted it when he disappeared from the country minutes after the handover the power in Iraq...

[bozot]

Bowen = between

[bozot]

Bowen = between

[Bogie]

#3 Isn't Wolfowitz the civilian? Shouldn't he have been the one who listened to the military people?

[Bogie]

Wolfowitz is the civilian who should have listened to the military.

[Bogie]

Saddam sure took the time to read General Giap's book about how Vietnam did it.Wolfowitz can read too. He decided to take the course of self delusion. With the help of the mass media propaganda machine, he was able to get what he wanted.

This time there is the Devil to pay, however. These people in the mideast aren't going to stop, just because the US is gone.

Long after Wolfowitz is gone, other people, will still be paying the price. It's two steps backward.

[Santiago de la Vega]

There're a lot of good insights in the above posts about this article. Well done, mates.

They key is Powell. He was incompetent. Had he arranged for US troops to enter through Turkey, the war, and the terrorists would be much fewer.

But, that's not the real problem. The State Department failed completely to plan for the transition to civilian government and left our armed forces to deal with both pacifying the country and rebuilding it. As we've seen, this is too big a task, and far outside the job description of the profession of arms.

Instead, we should've had tens of thousands of State, Commerce, and Treasury employees ready to flood the country with money and expertise to rebuild the country. Where are they, even now?

When the history of this war is finally written, the failures of the US government will loom large in the picture.

As for Wolfowitz, remember he was both a planner and a pleader. He knew this war was important and sold his credibility to get us into it. It was the right decision.

We'll see how he does at the IBRD, but he sure ain't no economist, nor banker.

To start with, he should demand a competitive audit, performed by three independent accounting firms. They should take the place apart and see just what sorts of nasty things jump out. Then, the killing should start.

Most of their programs are designed to buy votes, not produce public goods. That has to stop.

I wish him luck.

Macnamara? Don't get me started...

Again, good analysis from the Free world.