Rumsfeld at receiving end (Gen. Barry McCaffrey, alert)

telegraph calcutta ^ | 3/31/03

[knak]

Washington, March 30 (Reuters): US defence 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 US leaders had predicted.

Some retired top officers are voicing in public an opinion harbored in private by some current 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.

Retired army Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who commanded an infantry division in the Gulf War before overseeing anti-drug policies under former President Bill Clinton, said, “At the end of the day the question arises: why would you do this operation with inadequate power?”

“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 two-year tenure as defence secretary. 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 flashpoint 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 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 cut in half what the army said it needed for the war. He has the view the army is too big, too heavy, too cumbersome,” analyst Lawrence Korb of the Council on Foreign Relations, who served as assistant secretary of defence in the Reagan administration, said.

Rumsfeld told reporters this morning that he believed the war plan was an excellent one, that is was in its early phase and that his armchair critics did not know what the war plan was. He said Franks was doing a “truly outstanding job.” “He’s had a lot of success,” Rumsfeld said, noting that the US-led coalition had captured southern oil fields and a port and that there had been no massive humanitarian crisis or droves of refugees.

He said many of his critics had expected the kind of air war that led off the Gulf War but after months of diplomacy and a last 48-hour ultimatum for Saddam, the decision was to go for tactical surprise by starting the ground war first.

In an interview with ABC’s This Week, he said the war plan had the backing of all members of the joint chiefs of staff and the White House. He said although some 300,000 US and British troops were now in the region compared with 500,000 troops sent to the 1991 Gulf war, many of the earlier force were not used and the Iraqi army was“35 to 40 per cent as capable as it was back in 1991.”

[Just mythoughts]

Any guesses who has orchestrated the media blitz on Rummy, my first is hillary and second is bill.

[gov_bean_ counter]

Of course it has not occured to anyone that placement of Desert Storm numbers may give the impression to North Korea that the US was vunerable to attack in a second theater.

[swheats]

If this keeps up we're gonna have to label McCaffrey as a stalker. This guy has it in for Rummy big time.

[annyokie]

[Conservababe]

Retired army Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who commanded an infantry division in the Gulf War before overseeing anti-drug policies under former President Bill Clinton, said, “At the end of the day the question arises: why would you do this operation with inadequate power?”

I so tire of these old generals. Why can't they just relive their own battles and wars in their own dreams...and shut the hell up?

[Just mythoughts]

Makes sense to me.

What is so sinister about the conspiracy of the leftist media is the number of outlets all fixating on Rummy.

For me it is not only the attack on Rummy, but more an attempt to sway the American public, especially those who have lost family members over there.

What better than to have some family member on the tube blaming Rummy or Bush for their loss because not enough troops were sent over. It is the "evil" of their conspiracy that steams me.

[Always A Marine]

If this keeps up we're gonna have to label McCaffrey as a stalker. This guy has it in for Rummy big time.

McCaffrey would have to take a number and stand in line behind almost every active Army and Marine Corps general.

[DannyTN]

Both Rumsfield and Franks have denied that Rummy wanted fewer troops. They both say all the joint chief of staffs were in agreement and that Franks got everything he asked for.

[Keith]

it becomes apparent the campaign will not be as quick or easy as some US leaders had predicted.

who?

Exactly who are these US leaders who predicted a faster campaign? LIARS.

[swheats]

Is it safe to say, you guys don't like civilians telling you how to fight?

[Conservababe]

And, as a follow up, I remember the old generals as consultant reporters on tv in Desert Storm.

Same old stuff..yada yada yaday...they knew everything.

I remember watching their mouths drop on CNN when the war started and it was NOT by sea.

LOL

[Keith]

Do a search here on FR...I saw an article on how he was a Clinton suckup when he was in the military, telling them how great it was to have BJ in command. Explains a lot...perhaps he's trying to help his buttbuddy Wimply Clark.

[Rushian]

The only delay in the war plan was the failure to get the cooperation of Turkey. That was a political or diplomatic problem, so if blame is to be assessed it would have to be on Bush and Powell, not Rumsfield or his generals.

[BunnySlippers]

I so tire of these old generals. Why can't they just relive their own battles and wars in their own dreams...and shut the hell up?

Powell said as much last week. Now they're TV pundits.

[bluecollarman]

"disregard the vehement military advice from, particularly, army generals who you don’t think are very bright"


Sounds about right to me!

[bravo whiskey]

Gen. Barry McCaffrey, as stated, worked for ex president clinton. i do not trust generals who are democrats or who retired and then worked for someone as loathsome as clinton. when they say they care about the troops they have no credibility since all the demoncrats do is cut defense spending and spit on the troops. i was stationed in germany during the clinton (oops make that carter) years. of course both thought nothing was too good for the troops and that's what we got.

[Just mythoughts]

Care to explain, maybe what you say might make some sense.

[whadizit]

"...my first is hillary..."

Heard today that she said something like she did not think GW had enough experience to be able to tell us how war is going. She is digging her own grave...and a lot of people want to help.

[bravo whiskey]

Gen. Barry McCaffrey, as stated, worked for ex president clinton. i do not trust generals who are democrats or who retired and then worked for someone as loathsome as clinton. when they say they care about the troops they have no credibility since all the demoncrats do is cut defense spending and spit on the troops. i was stationed in germany during the clinton (oops make that carter) years. of course both thought nothing was too good for the troops and that's what we got.