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.
A ONE STAR? Gimme a break. Shut up general.
another Weasley Clark looking to cry out because his 1970's style career was going to end.
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.
I don’t doubt this story. It’s consistent with what I’ve heard.
This summer I spoke with someone connected with top Marine generals, and although he didn’t suggest any widespread disrespect for Rumsfeld like the old media would love us to believe, I sense that a consensus is forming to holds him rather than Franks responsible for staffing and planning parameters of our postwar occupation.
I heard slightly conflicting opinions on how troop levels were determined, but as best I can tell, it started with Rumsfeld leading Franks before the President and championing a framework that ignored Zinni’s long maintained plans for 400k troops, starting over with half that. Zinni’s plans to administer Iraq were not just amended, but round filed. Even their previous existence was unknown to some people commanding post war Iraq administration. Granted there’s politics influencing versions of the story, but I think something like that’s taking root in the military.
Also, Remole makes a good point that having a 200k footprint rather than 400k may have avoided an appearance of occupation and all the associated problems. And who knows how much Iraqis would have taken responsibility for their democracy if we handed it to them rather than them dieing at 15 times greater numbers than us to win it. That’s not even mentioning our questionable ability to maintain that force.
On the other hand, I’m not big on the “more troops equal more targets” argument. They may be a larger political target, but militarily, 400k “targets” shoot back. 170k left us far from meeting Iraq’s post war security needs. Population centers were not patrolled, police and allies were unprotected, borders were open, ammo dumps exposed, unprotected roads and supply lines, and contractors and projects were paralyzed (and had to be resized).
Given the tradeoffs, the need for more postwar troop levels is debatable, but I’d lean strongly toward more if this had to be done again.