Posted on 09/08/2006 2:03:18 PM PDT by jmc1969
Long before the United States invaded Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld forbade military strategists to develop plans for securing a post-war Iraq, the retiring commander of the Army Transportation Corps said Thursday.
In fact, said Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid, Rumsfeld said "he would fire the next person" who talked about the need for a post-war plan.
Rumsfeld did replace Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff in 2003, after Shinseki told Congress that hundreds of thousands of troops would be needed to secure post-war Iraq.
Scheid, who is also the commander of Fort Eustis, made his comments in an interview with the Daily Press. He retires in about three weeks. snip.
"The secretary of defense continued to push on us that everything we write in our plan has to be the idea that we are going to go in, we're going to take out the regime, and then we're going to leave," Scheid said. "We won't stay."
Scheid said the planners continued to try "to write what was called Phase 4," or the piece of the plan that included post-invasion operations like security, stability and reconstruction.
"I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that," Scheid said. "We would not do planning for Phase 4 operations, which would require all those additional troops that people talk about today.
"He said we will not do that because the American public will not back us if they think we are going over there for a long war."
Why did Rumsfeld think that? Scheid doesn't know.
"But think back to those times. We had done Bosnia. We said we were going into Bosnia and stop the fighting and come right out. And we stayed."
Was Rumsfeld right or wrong?
Scheid said he doesn't know.
(Excerpt) Read more at duluthsuperior.com ...
The left is coming out full force before the elections to cement anti-Bush sentiments in the minds of the electorate.
Come on. Face it, the first time someone comes out saying they 'planned' for post-war Iraq, then it was all about oil.
Instead, they say, we look for contingencies but don't have a 'plan' because this would send the already moonbats right over the bridge (not that they need help.)
Besides, thus far all of the criticism from Generals have come from folks who don't or didn't report to Rumsfeld.
Curious that.
Firing General Shineski, effective on the date Shinseki set for his retirement a year earlier, has to rank as the neatest trick Rumsfeld done done yet. Dontcha think?
Who does the fact checking for Stephanie Heinatz? Obviously, her editor doesn't care to do it.
You mean the LEFT is pretending that they would have figured it out? No, the left will BEND OVER and let world s**** us and they will smile doing it. APPEASEMENT is what they know.
He is at Fort Eustis. Anyone ever been there?
I think it is an Army backwater, perhaps better known for its proximity to the Naval bases than anything else.
It sure ain't Fort Bragg.
Yeah, and Eisenhower had the whole post-war reconstruction of Europe laid out on June 6th, 1944.
courtmartial him and bust him down to private.
Absolutely Rovian!
A ONE STAR? Gimme a break. Shut up general.
I certainly remember being told that they figured it would take a long time to take the country and especially Bahgdad...and that they thought they were going to have to go "door to door" in Baghdad, fighting the fedayeen...
I totally remember Franks saying they were shocked at how quickly they "won" and that that was one of the reason for the confusion...they hadn't planned to be there that quick...and didn't have the plans worked out...
I cannot believe Rummy said what this guy says he said...FOR THE REASON that he states....and we already know the article has one lie in it ...when it says that Rummy got rid of Shinseki...and Shinseki's leaving had nothing to do with his recommendation for the number of troops sent to Iraq.
another Weasley Clark looking to cry out because his 1970's style career was going to end.
Ft. Eustis is the Army's Transportation center, located in the Tidewater area, known to many of us who have been there as "backwater country".
I've read quite a bit about the pre-war planning, and here's my conclusion: no matter what we would have done, and no matter what we would have found on the ground in Iraq, it was going to be wrong. NOt in the sense that it was wrong to take out SH, but the entire endeavor was going to contain problems such that the US/Allied presence was going to inherit a snake pit. Yes, what eventually did occur has led to problems. But there is nothing to suggest that the possible alternatives would have been fool-proof. For example, the General who said that we should have gone in with 450,000 troops (see Mark Helprin on the same suggestion): ok, fine, but if you thought 145,000 troops would have been condemned as an occupation force, how do you think 3X that number would have been seen? And another poster is right--as soon as any post-hostilities plan would have made it into the front page of the NYT, it would have been seen as a ploy to take over the oil.
Must be a GINO.
All it would do is have brought about another OIL FOR FOOD scam, which again, we wouldn't find out about until a lot of innocent people were being murdered under a shadow government regime spanning multi-nations.
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.