Former US general says Rumsfeld should quit over Iraq

Yahoo News & AFP ^ | April 2, 2006

[Ajnin]

It pains me to no end to see Marines in such a cowardly light. Zinni is a little bitch and hindsight is always 20/20.

[coconutt2000]

Actually, the only part of the post-invasion phase that really caught us off guard was the looting and rioting.

It wasn't expected that the Iraqis would go lawless at the first opportunity to the degree that they did, as fast as they did. The bulk of our occupation forces and administrative services contingent weren't ready to move because nobody planned for the complete collapse of Iraq's army as quickly as it did. If the Iraqi army had held in there and put up a long term fight and held us off for 2 months, the rest of the plan would've gone smoothly on schedule. Instead we were caught off guard with how weak the enemy turned out to be compared to our planned for scenarios.

Other than that, the rest of the post-invasion planning was pretty decent.

[caveat emptor]

However, I tend to agree with the General, at least to the point where I believe that the execution of the Iraq invasion was poorly handled.

Any opinions on how the invasion and aftermath would have gone had the Turks permitted us to move an army in from the north.

[LZ_Bayonet]

"These were strategic mistakes, mistakes of policies made back here," he said."

I watched the interview. IMHO - The problem with his argument is that Zinni sees the "highest" strategic decisions being 1) That there were WMD 2) How to invade.

I think the real HIGHEST level strategic decision resulted from this type of basic discussion among 3 to 5 people (short version):
- Iraq with a nuke is unacceptable as it would become even more agressive and it's mere possession of a nuke threatens the world.
- Iraq will likely either develop or buy (North Korea) a nuke in the next 12 years.
- If a Democrat is elected President in 2004 or 2008, the problem will not be dealt with, and IRAQ WILL HAVE A NUKE. Then America, the West, and the world will be in jeopardy. This alone is enough reason to overthrow Saddam. And, there is Congressional support.
- 9/11 changes everything. We no longer have to worry about how the leaders and people of the ME feel about us eliminating the WMD threat from Iraq.
- We have a problem that must be dealt with and the terrorists have made a mistake and presented us with an opportunistic moment to deal with it.

Strategic Decision: Do we "seize the moment" and deal with the Iraq WMD problem (present or future) now, rather than pass it to the Dems, who will almost certainly fail to properly deal with it.

I think this is what some reporter's are getting at when they ask, "Why did you go to war with Iraq?"

[tonycavanagh]

re ;I got the feeling going into the war that the Administration was spending almost all of its time thinking about how to win the combat, a little time selling the idea to the American people, and absolutely no time thinking about what life would be like after the combat phase.

Its not just a feeling, this is totally true.

All the emphasis was on toppling Saddam, there was no work at all put into phase 4 until after phase 3 the toppling of Saddam.

The fact was there were many in the American political leadership who felt that with Saddam gone the Iraqis will quickly form a new government.

An A message if you are going to mention the Second World War as a example, then the examples were in the post reconstruction. In both West Germany and Japan.

Before DDay we were training up administrators who were going to take over positions in West Germany and Japan.

For those who don't know the phases.

Phase 1 :Troop buildup.

Phase 2: Air war.

Phase 3 : Ground War.

Phase 4 : Pacification and Stabilization.

The sad fact was there was no plan in operation for phase 4 there was not even any form of prepartion for a plan.

As for they could have run 10,000 different simulations of post combat and still not have foreseen what the experience is now.

That is complete and utter rubbish both British and American military leadership and intelligence assets were stating that without a proper phase 4 and the troops to carry it out the situation was going to develop along the lines it did.

The sad fact was the military were not listened to because it was not politically expedient.

Also look up articles that debated this very subject on FR when the idea of invaded Iraq was first mooted.

You will find that plenty of people had an idea of what was coming and the best way to prepare for it.

[SoFloFreeper]

Zinni was the one who was booted 'cause he was a Clinton lackey, wasn't he?

[Tallguy]

Zinni is angling to be SecDef in the next Democratic administration. Think about it. He's held several high military commands, plus he was some sort of an envoy for Clinton when Slick was trying to force a peace settlement in the Middle East. I don't think he's quite suited to work at State since he's primarily been on the military side of things (though that didn't stop Colin Powell).

[Tallguy]

Another big problem was that the 4th ID was not allowed into the game by the Turks. It seemed that no one seriously believed that the Turks would not ultimately allow the US to pass through even though they had been making noises all along that they wouldn't. Last minute political maneuvers fell flat. This was a much more straight-forward problem that Powell & Company couldn't seem to get their arms around.

[dfwgator]

Even the best war plans don't survive the first shot.