Posted on 03/30/2003 5:49:20 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's influence in crafting the plan for the Iraq war is facing scrutiny as it becomes apparent the campaign will not be as quick or easy as some U.S. leaders had predicted.
Some retired top brass are voicing in public an opinion harbored in private by some current top military officers -- that Rumsfeld's bold vision of a sleeker, high-tech military prompted him to take unnecessary risks in the size and nature of the force sent to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
In addition, some experts -- even those who say they admire Rumsfeld -- say he has assumed too big a role in articulating U.S. foreign policy.
"At the end of the day the question arises: why would you do this operation with inadequate power?" retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who commanded an infantry division in the Gulf War and later headed all U.S. military forces in Latin America, told Reuters.
"Because you don't have time to get them there? But we did. Because you don't have the forces? But we did. Because you're trying to save money on a military operation that will be $200 billion before it's done?"
"Or is it because you have such a strong ideological view and you're so confident in your views that you disregard the vehement military advice from, particularly, Army generals who you don't think are very bright."
Rumsfeld has clashed with some top officers, particularly in the Army, during a tenure as defense secretary in which he has sought to reimpose strict civilian leadership over a uniformed military that some conservatives believed had run the show at the Pentagon during the Clinton administration.
The flash point has been his quest to bring what he calls "transformation" to the military. He has a vision of a military liberated from its Cold War past, with smaller, swifter forces, high-tech weapons, air power and special operations.
In developing a war plan to use in Iraq, Rumsfeld firmly rejected the advice of many top officers that he field a force more in line with the half-million troops used in the 1991 Gulf War. Rumsfeld favored a much smaller force. Analysts said Rumsfeld and war commander Gen. Tommy Franks reached a middle ground, fielding a force about half the size of the 1991 one.
"Rumsfeld basically cut in half what the Army said that it needed for the war. Basically, he has the view the Army is too big, too heavy, too cumbersome," said analyst Lawrence Korb of the Council on Foreign Relations, who served as assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration.
'A POWERFUL PERSONALITY'
Military analyst Jack Spencer of the Heritage Foundation said Rumsfeld is facing the huge task of bringing change to an institution, the military, that resists it mightily.
"In terms of how Rumsfeld has influenced everything, certainly he has demanded that war planners think outside the box a little bit, and come up with some new ways to conduct this mission," Spencer said.
"He's a powerful personality. And powerful personalities, you either love them or hate them. Not many people are indifferent to Rumsfeld," Spencer said.
Military analyst Daniel Goure of the Lexington Institute said one must look at the development of the war plan in the context of Rumsfeld's "transformation" quest.
"What we have now is a division between the military guys who want to say that once you've made the decision to go to war, you turn it all over to us: timing, numbers, whatever. The reality is that's not the way it works. It has never been the way it works," Goure said.
During a Pentagon briefing, Rumsfeld was asked whether his vision of a "transformed" military led him to authorize a force with insufficient troops and armor on the ground.
"First of all, I don't know how anyone outside of the government thinks they know what my views are," Rumsfeld said.
He said the war plan was approved by Franks, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Richard Myers, and President Bush. "And it is a good plan," Rumsfeld said.
"I can't manage what people -- civilians or retired military -- want to say. And if they go on and say it enough, people will begin to believe it. It may not be true, and it may reflect more of a misunderstanding of the situation than an analysis or an assessment of it."
Critics have pointed to a series of faulty assumptions they believe were made by the civilian leaders of Pentagon. Among these are: that the Iraqi military would collapse quickly once hostilities began; that there would be mass surrenders of Iraqi troops; that the "shock and awe" aerial bombardment would convince the Iraqis that resistance was futile; and that the Iraqi people would embrace invading Americans as liberators.
McCaffrey said some moves have been "just shocking," citing inadequate ground combat forces, inadequate security for supply lines, too little artillery and not using key military units.
"So I think we've got a viewpoint where he sees a vision for a new form of warfare. And what I told a senior defense official three months ago was, 'You know you may be right that these people will unravel. But if you're wrong, you're going to risk a political and military disaster."'
Analysts also said Rumsfeld may not be well-suited to articulate U.S. policy on international relations and the war.
"I have incredible respect for the man. But I think that he should have been banned from the Pentagon briefing room for the last year. Honestly. He is articulate. He is smart. And he likes it too much," Goure said. "I don't think that he is doing as good a job, partly because people, including the media, are bored with him, bored with his shtick."
Goure = Gore?
May I suggest that the Turkey talks all along were a feint to tie down large portions of Iraqi forces facing north, which FRANKS TODAY IMPLIED HAD TO BE SUDDENLY REDEPLOYED (too late!!) to the south. He further implied that this is what made our advance so quick.
Either Franks is an idiot, or in fact there is a plan. You don't know it, and I don't know it, although I did give what I think is happening here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/879184/posts
If you look closely, we have PLENTY of "boots on the ground," only many of them are unaccounted for in theater.
This McCaffrey is a disgrace. Remember when he was running the DEA and some of his own agents and their wives were dealing with the drug pushers?
Reuters is not able to print the truth when it comes to Islamofacist/kazi terrorism and the thugs in control of Iraq.
Reuters is controlled by an rich Opecker Prince who will not allow the words terrorism or terrorist to be used in any article where the Islamofacists/kazis are responsible.
The pure bull $ that Reuters has printed since New Years to save their Uncle Soddomite's rear end is massive and like a continuing wet dream by Reuters with little if any basis on reality! This wet dream posing as a news article is a prime example of the BS Reuters puts out posing as news.
Believe nothing that Reuters has to say about the Islamofacists leaders, our allies and our administration. Reuters creates more Bravo Sierra in a day than 1,000,000 cattle do.
This meter should be run with the posting of any Reuters article. Reuters makes the NY Slimes look all most honest.
Meanwhile, Reuters is taking a beating in the business world. Recently, Reuters reported a loss of $631 million, the largest in its 150-year history. In addition, Reuters announced 3,000 job cuts, along with the 3,200 jobs cut over the past two years. Reuters' market capitalization has plunged by almost 90 percent from its peak, and Reuters' stock has fallen to a 14-year low. (Reuters posts record loss, to cut jobs News provider to cut 3,000 workers as part of turnaround plan , Link to how the Reuters lies and BS hits Reuters's bottom line)
Apparently Reuters' dwindling credibility as a media provider is now affecting their bottom line. May Reuters go broke and slide into the Irrelevant Cesspool!
Ho Humm, more Bravo Sierra from Reuters!
Grampa Dave's final Reuters comment, Beware of any Reuters post from those who hate America and claim to be patriots. No real conservative would ever use a Reuters hit piece as a center piece for an argument or discussion.
THIS JUST IN: "Americans who only watch ABCNNBCBS and only read the Compost, NY Slimes, REUTERS or AP, are at risk for developing depression, shingles, and other DSM V symptoms and signs. Rx : FREE REPUBLIC 1x q6h or prn" Rx : FREE REPUBLIC 1x q6h or prn"
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.