Ousted Army Chief Blasts Bush Iraq Policy

Yahoo! News ^ | 09/02/03 | ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer

[CoolGuyVic]

Ousted Army Chief Blasts Bush Iraq Policy Tue Sep 2, 4:49 PM ET

By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON - Thomas E. White, forced to resign as Army secretary in May, has fired back in a book that describes the Bush administration's postwar effort in Iraq (news - web sites) as "anemic" and "totally inadequate."

The book, which presents a blueprint for revitalizing Iraq, asserts that the administration underestimated the difficulty of putting that country back on its feet after the fall of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).

"Clearly the view that the war to `liberate' Iraq would instantly produce a pro-United States citizenry ready for economic and political rebirth ignored the harsh realities on the ground," White wrote in a preface to "Reconstructing Eden," which is to be published Thursday.

In a letter to news organizations announcing the book's release, White was even tougher on the administration. "Unbelievably, American lives are being lost daily," he wrote. White said the administration lacks a cohesive, integrated plan to stabilize and rebuild the country.

"We did not conduct the war this way and we should not continue rebuilding the country in a haphazard manner," he wrote. "The result will be a financial disaster, more lives lost, chaos in Iraq and squandered American goodwill."

White, who as a civilian service secretary was not in the military chain of command, served as Army secretary from May 2001 to May 2003. He clashed with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on a number of issues, including the service's plan for the Crusader artillery system, which Rumsfeld viewed as too heavy and cumbersome for the lighter, more agile Army he envisioned.

A Defense Department spokesman, Lt. Col. Jim Cassella, said that as a matter of policy the department does not comment on books. He acknowledged that U.S. occupation authorities in Baghdad face severe problems with security in Iraq but believe they are on track toward success.

In the book, White noted the postwar spasms of violence in Iraq.

"It is quite clear in the immediate aftermath of hostilities that the plan for winning the peace is totally inadequate," he wrote.

White wrote that the administration's Iraq policy "threatens to turn what was a major military victory into a potential humanitarian, political and economic disaster." The administration's "anemic attempts at nation building" will be viewed with disdain by other countries, he said.

White is a co-author of the book with three associates of CountryWatch Inc., a Houston firm that describes itself as a provider of global information to businesses, schools and government organizations.

The authors say U.S. troops ought to remain in Iraq until June 2005, and they estimate that by then the total cost of the war and the occupation would be about $150 billion, including money to revitalize the Iraqi oil industry.

White submitted his resignation on April 25. Later it became known that Rumsfeld had forced the resignation. White left May 9; his replacement, James Roche, has not yet been confirmed by the Senate.

While saying there is still a chance to make a success of postwar Iraq, White wrote in his book that the record on U.S. efforts at rebuilding Afghanistan (news - web sites), which it invaded in October 2001, is "dismal."

Afghanistan, he said, is experiencing a resurgence of Taliban influence and rule by warlords. He criticized "artificial caps" that the administration placed on U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan, where about 9,600 American forces are now engaged in combat and stability operations.

[MamaLucci]

Any insider who refused to dump his Enron stock is too stupid to manage anything.

No kidding.
What I want to know is why this guy was even considered,
let alone appointed, Secretary of the Army.
As usual the Bush White House is it's own worst enemy.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

As usual the Bush White House is it's own worst enemy.

That seems to be a Republican trait. They must attend foot-shooting classes.

I suspect Bush's religion gets in his way at times, especially the inclination to take people at face value until they prove differently. His leaving so many Clinton appointees in place is disturbing.

[MamaLucci]

His leaving so many Clinton appointees in place is disturbing.

Agreed, which is why it is imperative that his own
appointments be top notch administration loyalists.

[OldCorps]

I'm no fan of the berets either. Taking them from the ranger battalions and wasting money to change the uniform by issueing them to the regular army was a bad decision. I'm sure that Gen Shinseki had this great idea recommended him by some pogue from dcsper. Alas, he will forever be associated with the decision.

Nonetheless, General Shinseki is highly respected within the army (contrast this with Gen Wesley Clark who is pretty much loathed). He was a great division commander and was instrumental in integrating 'digital' warfare in the army. As a division commander he also won praise during command post exercises (run by some group at ft. leavenworth) as the most skillful warfighter of all the active divisions. On top of all of this, he had a foot blown off during Vietnam, so this label of 'Clintonista' is just plain inaccurate.

As for Secretary White, all I know about the guy is that he retired as a brigadier general. But reading between the lines of the press leaks coming out of washington, I'd say Sec. Rumsfeld had it out for him from day one because White had the audacity to stand up to him on Crusader. I don't really know much about his role in the enron scandal, but i've been told Sec. White worked for a completely different group within the company.

so for all you guys bashing these two men who served their country honorably over many years, i'll just say that you are only getting one side of the story. The part that you don't get from Fox news or elsewhere is that

1. Sec Rumsfeld has a real burr under the saddle about the army. I don't know why this is, but ask any army guy who has served a few years and he will tell you the same thing.

2. Sec Rumsfeld micromanaged the TIPFDL, (the troop deployment list) as well as other aspects of the war in Iraq, when, to my mind, he should have been working out the end game in Iraq (ie, having a govenment in exile ready to step in immediately).

3. Soldiers in Iraq (US) have had to put up with a lot of unnecessary privation because the army is not large enough to rotate in other units. this is why the rank and file of the 3rd ID were so irate...they had been promised a departure date, but low and behold, there were not enough combat units to backfill them.

regards,

[LTCJ]

Concur, in spades. An excellent summary.

(Although I will add my pet peeve - the "Army of One" should have been sold to the Navy.)

[Justa]

"1. Sec Rumsfeld has a real burr under the saddle about the army. I don't know why this is, but ask any army guy who has served a few years and he will tell you the same thing."

I'd agree and someone who has a grudge against the Army should not be in charge of a ground war! The Air Force is no more than a support element for ground operations. And that's where Iraqistan and our enemies are -on the ground. Having a former AF officer in charge of a ground war makes as much sense as having a Field Artillery officer in charge of an infantry operation. It's amateurish.

My experience with the Air Force and their personnel has given me the impression they are much more focused on the process than the outcome of their work. Micromanagement and macro-inefficiency are commonplace. That may work fine when your people are x-100s of miles from the ground war but when the troops are stationed amongst their enemies practicality should be the order of the day. Wasn't it McNamara's meager troop levels and BS rules-of-engagement which cultivated a regional war in SE Asia 40 years ago? Perhaps the same is intended for Iraq. Good for the Defense economy I suppose.

I'd much prefer as SecDef a slovenly former General, donut dust sprinkled on his Class As, who'd say "yeah, ...whatever" in the press briefings yet vehemently supported the troops and would kick-ass until the job is done. Heck, I wouldn't care if he was a drunk.

Rumsfield has to learn that Army training, doctrine and culture are nearly opposite the Air Force's. You train 'em, release 'em upon the enemy in overwhelming force, leave 'em alone until they're good and done, then get them out of there. I just hope he doesn't learn this the same way McNamara did.

[OldCorps]

Thank you. while i'm on my soapbox, i'd like to spout off about a few things:

1. The beret fiasco was most harmful to the ranger battalions, not the monetary cost or impact to the regular army per se. Why? Our values are tradition, loyalty and bravery. The one army unit that most exemplefies these values is the ranger regiment. To tell them we are taking a uniform item from you, which you value, and give it to a pretty much undeserving group of rear echelon types insults the very unit that is first to fight. It tells them their bravery and sacrifice (which for the ranger regiment is significant) is not as important as political expediency.

2. Agree with you about the sorry nature of the recruiting jingo, 'army of one.' No doubt you and many others have said this madison avenue catch phrase denigrates the army's necessary value of teamwork in order to emphasize individualism. This is going in the wrong direction.

3. Fox news. Where did this USAF general Macinereny come from? He should be labeled minister of propaganda for the air force! Fox news must have hired him because they read the tea leaves and correctly predicted the winner of the DoD power struggle (it really doesn't have to be that way, but Sec. Rumsfeld encourages this, best i can tell). According to Macinerney, air power alone can win the war in Iraq (this was before we went to war). Every time this guy opens his mouth i have visions of privates in the 101st, 82nd, 3rd ID and 1st Marines getting killed because the pentagon realizes belatedly that they can't back up what he says, and has to use ground forces. I have no proof, but I'll bet you a doughnut that general Macinerney is a protogee of JCS chairman General Myers and/or has very close ties to Sec. Rumsfeld.

4. Justa's comments about the derth of tube artillery and armor are exactly right. As an infantry officer, I cannot imagine conducting combat operations without artillery support, as was (is?) done in Afghanistan. This violates soooo many principles of war.

5. Trying to win with special forces alone (on the cheap) is a recipe for disaster. Given the inevitable mission creep that politicians impose upon the armed services, forcing them to do more with less, the time will come when our SF units are asked to do things beyond their capability. Sure, sh__ will hit the fan politically when this happens, but just as in Somalia, many young soldiers will die needlessly to make the point. Now I'm a big fan of green berets; i think they are incredibly brave and competent. Its just that you need an army to occupy enemy terrain; a mission the SF are not designed to fulfill.

My two cents.

regards,

[inPhase]

Late reply here, long days. Nice points, merging views.

And some of us who thought Shinseki was a clintoon (me) now have respect (recognize) the soundness of his military judgement.

But White must also be extricated. He is honorable wrt his knowledgeable support of the Army... leadership counts.

[piasa]

Rumsfeld was not Air Force.

[piasa]

Never mind, I see now you were referring to James Roche

[Tripoli]

I believe Shinseki was the one who came up with the concept of "lighter, more mobile" (unarmored to be lighter, more mobile) vehicles. If so, he is the source of our present problems.

[Southack]

"Trying to win with special forces alone (on the cheap) is a recipe for disaster."

Special Forces did just fine winning Afghanistan.

Shisenski was wrong about troop levels; he wanted more troops for the initial military campaign, not the later occupation. Clearly our initial invasion was so successful that even the malcontents can't knock it.

As for the occupation, it went quite well by historical standards compared to the German experience in Serbia circa 1941-1945, the Austrian experience in Serbia circa 1914-1918, the Russian experience in Afghanistan circa 1979-1989, etc. The handover of power went ahead of schedule, the schools are all open in Iraq for the kids, traffic flows on all Iraqi highways, more electricity is being delivered to Iraqi civilians now than under Saddam's "peaceful" regime, more hospitals are open (with better staff and better supplies), and the oil is flowing in greater quantities today than in pre-war Iraq.

What we have here is that the news media is shaping public opinion by being so negative about Iraq.

For perspective, consider that Brazil is painted by the news media as a calm paradise, yet Rio's pretty beaches and slum wastelands see 110 adults shot dead every day; yes, every day in Brazil there are 110 *fatal* shootings.

You don't get that many fatalities in a week of "chaotic," war-torn Iraq.

Yet Iraq is a "disaster" and Rio is paradise.

Such is the power of the press.

You two have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker. By being relentlessly negative, the news media has programmed you two to think that Iraq, where 1 or 2 Americans are dying per day, is somehow worse than Brazil, where 110 adults are shot dead *every* day by gang violence and street criminals.

No doubt you'd both happily vacation in Rio, yet fear for your lives in Iraq, even though the *reality* is so vastly different than the perspective that is being painted by the news media.

[Southack]

"4. Justa's comments about the derth of tube artillery and armor are exactly right. As an infantry officer, I cannot imagine conducting combat operations without artillery support, as was (is?) done in Afghanistan. This violates soooo many principles of war."

The quest for a lighter, faster military is dead. Clearly a heavier military is required. Armor works.

Combat operations have been fine, however. At most, we've seen unexpected casualties from insurgent techniques (ala IED's and RPG's). Stopping IED's, mines, and RPG's isn't the forte of tube artillery, either.

Yes, we need mortars. Yes, we need counter-battery fire. No, we don't need $12 billion Crusader boondoggles that fire dumb warheads. We need precision fire and we need armor.

[Mr Rogers]

What USAF General was in charge of the invasion & post-war results in Iraq? Which USAF General ran the ground war?

Oh, that's right - NONE.

And neither of you know squat all about how the USAF operates.

[daddyOwe]

A bunch of people are making money off of the so called Bush mistakes. Gee I wonder if I can get a book deal for all the screw ups that my former boss made.

[Mr Rogers]

BTW - I currently get to watch a number of Army Generals at work - micromanagement in NOT a USAF specialty...it's gone joint all the way.

I'm no Rumsfeld fan - but we didn't need 500,000 to win in Afghanistan or Iraq. And NO ONE does a good job of planning for the peace - that because we never know what the peace will look like until we get there.

As for the suggestion Army Generals are in touch with the troops on the ground - NOT! I've watched Army 4-stars dining on prime rib say they didn't understand why troops complained about the food - that it was quite good! It wouldn't have bothered me as a joke, but the mofo was serious. Needless to say, the troops were NOT dining on prime rib. That day we had macaroni & sleeze so overcooked it must have come from an aircraft carrier.

[leadpenny]

Exactly right. As soon as White attacks the Administration, the AP writer/editors leave out any Enron reference. This guy Burns should have his Pentagon pass confiscated.

[Travis McGee]

bttt

[arasina]

This book was predictable... and the pathetic worm couldn't even write it himself. He had to do a Hillary! and bring in more writers than extras in a Cecil B De Mille bible epic. I predict the book will vanish without a trace. If a book goes plonk into an ocean of public indifference, does it make a sound? White's fifteen minutes of fame are long since up.

I like your style!