Posted on 10/29/2006 10:52:46 AM PST by John Jorsett
The Pentagon today asked the New York Times to correct an editorial, which claimed that “There have never been enough troops, the result of Mr. Rumsfeld’s negligent decision to use Iraq as a proving ground for his pet military theories, rather than listen to his generals.” Whether the Times believes there were (or are) enough troops in Iraq, it is demonstrably untrue that troop levels in Iraq are the result of Secretary Rumsfeld’s “not listening to his generals.”
Generals involved in troop-level decisions have been very clear on this matter, making numerous statements that are not new—or difficult—to find, such as extensive commentary in General Franks’s book, American Soldier. The implication is that the New York Times either believes these generals are not being truthful, or that they are too intimidated to tell the truth. The Pentagon would vigorously dispute both characterizations.
Read what generals themselves have to say about the subject, in a Pentagon letter to the editor.
UPDATE: The New York Times has declined the Pentagon’s request to correct its editorial.
October 24, 2006
The New York Times
To the Editor:
The New York Times has once again repeated a popular myth to mislead its readers about Secretary Rumsfeld. We ask for an immediate correction.
Today’s editorial claims: “There have never been enough troops, the result of Mr. Rumsfeld’s negligent decision to use Iraq as a proving ground for his pet military theories, rather than listen to his generals.” Whether or not the Times believes there were enough troops in Iraq, the claim that any troop level in Iraq is the result of Secretary Rumsfeld “not listening to his generals” is demonstrably untrue.
Generals involved in troop level decisions have been abundantly clear on this matter:
- General Tommy Franks, Commander, U.S. Central Command during the opening of Operation Iraqi Freedom: “Don Rumsfeld was a hard task master -- but he never tried to control the tactics of our war-fight [Franks, “American Soldier, “ pg 313]
Rather than advancing Secretary Rumsfeld’s alleged “pet theories,” General Franks wrote that he based his troop level recommendations on the following: “Building up a Desert Storm-size force in Kuwait would have taken months of effort - very visible effort - and would have sacrificed the crucial element of operational surprise we now enjoyed. . . . And if operational surprise had been sacrificed, I suspected that the Iraqis would have repositioned their Republican Guard and regular army units, making for an attrition slugfest that would cost thousands of lives.”
On page 333 of his memoirs, General Franks added: “As I concluded my summary of the existing 1003 plan, I noted that we’d trimmed planned force levels from 500,000 troops to around 400,000. But even that was still way too large, I told the Secretary.” General Franks also notes on a number of occasions that rather than “rejecting” military advice, Secretary Rumsfeld repeatedly listened to commanders’ advice in designing a plan for Iraq.
- General George Casey, Commander of Multi-National Force - Iraq: “I just want to assure you and the American people that if we need more troops we’ll ask for them. Right now, we don’t.” [CBS News, June 27, 2005]
- General John Abizaid, Commander, U.S. Central Command: “... this notion that troop levels are static is not true, never has been true, and it won’t be true. We’ll ask for what we need when we need them.” [CNN, September 18, 2006]
- Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Pete Pace: “We have done more than honor the request of the commanders. . . . As Joint Chiefs, we have validated that; we have looked at that; we have analyzed it. We decided for ourselves, and I as an individual have agreed with the size force that’s there. So we should take on the responsibility that we own.” [Pace Confirmation Hearings, Transcript, July 10, 2005]
- Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers: “But in the plan going in there, the best military judgment, the judgment we got from academia, from anybody that wanted to make inputs to include the National Security Council was that we had the right number of troops. And so you can always look back and say, should we had something different? I personally don’t believe - we didn’t want to turn Iraq into a police state.” [ABC News, April 16, 2006]
These statements are not new, nor difficult to find in public sources. So the implication is that either the New York Times believes these generals are not being truthful, or that they are too intimidated to tell the truth. If the Times feels this way, way not say so? For our part, we vigorously dispute either assertion about these distinguished military leaders.
The Times claims to correct “all errors of fact.” Please correct this at once or provide us with demonstrable facts that support your assertion.
Sincerely,
Dorrance Smith
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs
The DoD's "For the Record" webpage is something I just heard about. Apparently it's their attempt to get some actual facts out despite the media spin machine that's determined to mislead and outright deceive the public. I've heard that bloggers are taking note and writing about what DoD is posting.
I don't know who's responsible or why, but I beleive we don't have enough troops on the ground to pacify Iraq. That's pretty obvious- Iraq is not pacified and it's been over three years.
As for the actual invasion, we had plenty of troops, even without the ones who would have come in through Turkey, but were denied.
However, for people who demand more American troops on the ground, I ask, "Where will these Soldiers come from?" There aren't any today. We're tapped out.
We wanted to make up this shortfall of troops by quickly training up the Iraqi Security Forces, which are a combination of military and police. This program has been less than succesful. The police suck and are completely ineffectual. The military does okay when backed up by Americans, but seems too timid to fight by themselves.
Enough troops to win the war? Easily. Enough troops to win the peace? Not by a long shot.
While I agree with SecDef Rumsfeld's philosophy of training our troops to do more and be more efficient, I don't agree that the logical conclusion is to keep our military at the present level of troops. At a minimum, the USMC needs another fighting Division and the Army two or three, with all the necessary equipment.
Though I'm not a big fan of his, Colin Powell warned about the troop strength getting too low back in his 1994 Quadrennial plan, or whatever it's called. He was ignored.
bflr
I respectfully disagree. All the troops in the world couldn't stop terrorists from sneaking around and killing innocent civilians, or occasionally bombing a convoy.
In fact, you can make the argument that the more troops you spread around the countryside, the more they are vulnerable to sneaky enemies.
And what would be the use of more troops? We could change our policy to a more bloodthirsty one of killing more indiscriminately and widely, firing back without caring about collateral damage, massacring whole cities where there are higher levels of troublemaking. But it didn't work for the Russians in Chechnya.
When you have terrorists willing to kill random targets, there is really no way to prevent a certain number of deaths. Most of the deaths in Iraq are of that kind: random acts of cruelty and cowardice, which our press refuses to report properly.
Oh really? Three whole years? WOW, imagine that. Gee, with you running the show I'll bet the whole thing would be functioning like clockwork and all the troops would be home in bed.
Gee, you're soooooooo impressive.
Thanks for posting this. I'm glad to see the media is starting to be called on its' inaccuracies.
Panties on the head does that you know.....what is happening in Iraq is a direct result of the Dems and the MSM....and I guess you too from your post....
[Oh really? Three whole years? WOW, imagine that. Gee, with you running the show I'll bet the whole thing would be functioning like clockwork and all the troops would be home in bed.
Gee, you're soooooooo impressive.]
Lady, where the heck did your attitude come from? I just love chicks like you who criticize so readily, yet come up with zero solutions.
Check my post. I offered up what I believe is the root problem, which is our undermanned military. I offered up a solution: increase the size of our military. It's called "intelligent debate." You offered... exactly what in your post?
For the record, I don't know how to beat an insurgency. Would you, with your art history degree, care to tell us how? Hmmmm, sweety? Or would you like to tell us how rosey pink the war's going in Iraq? Sort of like the color of your bedroom? Wanna explain to us, Ms. Rose, how we're going to win this war by just continuing to do what we're doing? Hmmmm?
[I respectfully disagree.]
At least you're being respectful, which is what FR is all about.
[In fact, you can make the argument that the more troops you spread around the countryside, the more they are vulnerable to sneaky enemies.]
How 'bout this to illustrate my point: In times of unrest here in the US, or what's taking place today in france and mexico, how is the problem being solved? By sending in fewer police? By sending in the same amount of police? Or by sending in massive amounts of police?
The answer is, massive amounts of police are used to crush disorder.
When Fallujah was awash with terrorists and insurgents, what did we do? Did we send in a platoon or Marines? Or did we send in thousands? We sent in thousands, crushed the insurgency, and still today Fallujah is relatively passive.
[We could change our policy to a more bloodthirsty one of killing more indiscriminately and widely, firing back without caring about collateral damage, massacring whole cities where there are higher levels of troublemaking. But it didn't work for the Russians in Chechnya.]
Yeah, I've actually thought about this a lot- about changing the philosophy to be more violent, more aggressive, etc. You're correct that it didn't work for the Russians in Chechnya. However, it has worked other places. It even worked in Iraq, for Saddam.
Still, I am not yet able to say increasing our level of violence is the correct solution. And given the troop level back in 2003 and today, I'm not sure there is an easy solution. However, I do think that if you want to put down an insurgency, the more troops, the better.
[When you have terrorists willing to kill random targets, there is really no way to prevent a certain number of deaths.]
We can make it more difficult for the terrorists to operate by having more troops on the ground. Having troop presence 24/7 in neighborhoods would give us many more options, including more intel and control of that neighborhood. For instance, it'd be hard to have a bomb making factory in a mechanic's garage with US soldiers walking a beat up and down the street all day long. It'd be harder to transport bombs into Baghdad if all routes entering the city were manned by roadblocks. It'd be harder for the Chechen with red hair and green eyes to walk the streets of Ramallah if he had to pass by Americans on every block.
Think about the examples in your neighborhood. If you want to rob a bank, will you rob the one with the 3 armed security guards inside, the police station next door, and the roadblocks at the end of each street?
Cicero, thanks for the respectful debate!
I don't disagree with your argument that we should have given our troops wider lattitude to deal with certain problem makers. Almost everyone here in the forum agrees that Sadr City is a problem that should have been taken care of long since, but it was not because of political constraints.
But I don't think more troops are needed to solve such problems, merely permission to act, or changes in the rules of engagement.
Since you've taken it upon youself to disagree with the Generals assesment on the number of tropps needed, would you give us some credentials of your own?
[Since you've taken it upon youself to disagree with the Generals assesment on the number of tropps needed, would you give us some credentials of your own?]
No military experience. But I've been in some fights. And no matter the fight, I always wanted more of my own guys around. Common sense, no?
It's common police practice, as well, during riots and large scale demonstrations. Flood the zone with good guys and the bad guys can't do their bad deeds. See today's headlines from france and mexico.
I do want to reiterate a point that I think you might be hitting on. I'm not opposed to the generals. I'm very sympathetic to them and want them to win. And I don't think this is the generals' fault. See, the generals know that even if they did ask for more troops, there aren't any to send.
That returns to my original point, which you can find in my first post on this subject, that nobody has challenged: Our military is too small. The RIFs of the 1990s gutted hundreds of thousands of combat-experienced troops (Panama, DS/DS, Somalia). We should have begun rebuilding the day after our President took office. We did not, and that was a mistake. A mistake that still haunts us today. A mistake that Colin Powell predicted in his 1994 Quadrennial Defense Review. I presume Colin Powell has the proper military credentials to satisfy you?
Whose fault is this mistake? People can blame Klinton or Bush or Rumsfeld or even the elder Bush. I don't care whose fault it is. I just want to fix the problem.
It could get much, much, much worse. For instance, it would be a disaster if NoKo went south, and the ChiComms decided to cross the blue ink on the map, and King chavez of venezoola cut off the oil and sent his troops to support little evil morales of bolivia if he decided to go westward into Chile and no longer be a landlocked country. And if chavez decides to start really funding and supplying the FARC in Colombia. And then Iran cuts off the oil. And al qaeda and the tali-whackers overthrow Musharaff in Pakistan and take control of the nukes...
Any of these things could be a disaster. All of these things could happen tomorrow. All of these would need large quantities of American troops to correct. Troops that we don't have.
You want to increase the military? Where were you when Clinton was dumping all the young Captains and Lt., didn't hear you out there making any proposals.
For the record, I don't know how to beat an insurgency.
You got that right, you don't.
I see the above statement by you as a concession to the Generals who say we have enough troops in Iraq.
It seems to me they are looking at the big picture, factoring in the resources (number of troops available) taking into account the scenarios you've listed, and more.
The resulting number is equal to the number of troops we now have in Iraq.
While you are wailing about 'not enough troops' they are facing up to the facts as they exist.
Oh my, how cute is that? Gee, your debating skills are just overwhemling.
Listen hot stuff, we have men who know what they're doing running the war, just because you tend to believe all the crap that is dished out by the drunks from the media who hang out at the bars in the green zone doesn't mean that we're not making progress.
BTW..."Sweetie", I've been writing and sending packages to dozens of our kids over there and I'll take what they say in their letters over some Keyboard Warrior who has blinders on and can't see anything beyond the tip of his nose.
...............The answer is, massive amounts of police are used to crush disorder. .................
Ahh yes! But the difference is that domestic police are not allowed to use their weapons, unless and until the identified perp is in their sight.
Our great military, weaponed to the hilt, are being forced to fight with one hand tied behind their backs as we might risk killing a family member of a vicious terrorist.
If the enemy is willing to suit up their children and wifes in bomb belts, the whole G-Damned territory is hostile, and our guys should be able to take out the trash.
Remember the phrase, "If you harbor terrorists, you will be treated like a terrorist" That should apply to Sadr slum, as well as a country.
These cockroaches harbor terrorists; stop picking around of edges of their nest, and just eliminate the threat.
Aaaaaaah, yes. Ms. Mcgavin99999 has reemerged from her pretty pink room, tossing more insults and still unable to engage in debate or dialogue. It must be horrible to be such a bitter, angry old lady.
[I'm just sick of you keyboard warriors making stupid posts about how long this should take.]
Are you writing to me, sweetheart? I have no idea how long this should take, nor have I made any comments about such. Are you transposing an argument you once had with your hippy daughters back in the 1960s to the here and now?
I'm discussing force levels. Very well, in fact, with Cicero and Balding Eagle, who raise good points that are challenging. You? Well, I suggest you go back to your bingo game at the casino and complain how everyone's cheating you. Tell someone else about how things were back when you wore dresses down to your ankles and walked 5 miles to school, uphill both ways, through 12' snow drifts.
[You want to increase the military? Where were you when Clinton was dumping all the young Captains and Lt., didn't hear you out there making any proposals.]
Are you talking to me, honey? Back in the 1990s, I was working 3 jobs and voting R as often as I could. And you, princess? Why don't you tell us about your grassroots effort that saved the world, that saved our military, that stopped the RIFs, all while your hair was turning grey and your boobs began sagging down to your knees. I'd love to hear your story.
[You got that right, you don't.]
That and lots more, baby. My way, we would have beaten the insurgency a long time ago and I'd be vacationing at the W Hotel in Baghdad and taking side trips to urinate on Saddam's unmarked grave.
[I see the above statement by you as a concession to the Generals who say we have enough troops in Iraq.]
Well, those statements were specifically about the larger problem, as I see it. I had given examples about bad things that could happen throughout the world and how we don't have a large enough military.
The intent of your statement is mostly correct. I believe the generals in Iraq are doing the best they can with what they have. I also believe the generals would be doing a lot better if the force in theater were double the current level. Or even triple.
[It seems to me they are looking at the big picture, factoring in the resources (number of troops available) taking into account the scenarios you've listed, and more.]
A small correction: The generals in Iraq aren't really worried about king chavez and little evil morales invading northern Chile. Or of an increased FARC insurrection in Colombia.
[The resulting number is equal to the number of troops we now have in Iraq.
While you are wailing about 'not enough troops' they are facing up to the facts as they exist.]
Balding Eagle, thank you for the civilized debate. The "One Line Wonder Trolls" are active on this thread and I most certainly don't count you as one of them.
Again, the generals in Iraq are doing as best they can with current troop levels and current ROE. I'm not blaming them for anything, unlike what Ms. Pink is imagining.
So let me ask you this question: If we had the level of troops that we had back during DS/DS, how many troops do you think we'd have in Iraq today? I'm guessing we'd have at least 250,000 and peace would be closer at hand. If we had an occupying force similar to what we had in Europe at the end of WW2, where we crushed quite handily the residual German resistance, Iraq today would be a peaceful country with a thriving economy.
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.