Wolfowitz Contradicts Shinseki over Iraqi Occupation

STRATFOR ^ | Feb 28, 2003 | Staff

[Bigg Red]

U.S. Army Chief of Staff Erik Shinseki

My question is why is that jerk still in there? He should have been booted for the morale assault he mounted with his beret nonsense, not to mention the money wasted on it as well as the money that went to China for berets.

[ken5050]

Isn't Shinseki the same guy who order a million berets for the US Army....all made in Red China?

[joesnuffy]

Shinseki should just pass out magic black berets to all Iraqis....
If can turn ordinary boys and girls into an "elite" fighting force without effort..
Maybe it can turn Iarqis into "nice guys"

[joesnuffy]

Shinseki should just pass out magic black berets to all Iraqis....
If can turn ordinary boys and girls into an "elite" fighting force without effort..
Maybe it can turn Iarqis into "nice guys"

[cynicom]

Shinseki got there the old fashioned way, on his kneepads. Bush and Rummy better have a talk with the perfumed princes as to just who is in charge.

[onedoug]

Clintonite Shinseki.

[leadpenny]

Just a couple of random thoughts on this:

- Gen Shinseki has been a lame duck for just about a year now. His replacement, the serving Vice Chief, was tapped to replace him an unheard of lead time of 14 or 15 months. I believe Shinseki leaves in June or July.

- The descrepancy in numbers for an eventual occupying force begs for Sec Def Rummy and/or Sec Army White to step in and clear things up. If they don't step in, I'd have to say the whole thing is an example of planned confusion or just plain old disinformation.

Hello, Bigg Red

[Captain Kirk]

Yeah, that's right. Whenever anyone contradicts the sunny, rosy view of the coming "build democracy" occupation in Iraq, smear him! Criticism is unpatriotic!

[stimpyone]

As much as I hate the Berets, let us not forget that that Wolfowitz has absolutely ZERO military experience yet he talks like he's George S. Patton. He has absolutely no business publicly questioning Shenseki in such an important issue, it sends a terrible message to the troops.

Wolfwitz hid in college instead of going to Vietnam, and he's been a career bureaucrat ever since. Shinseki, on the other hand, graduated from the USMA and performed two combat tours in Vietnam, one as a forward artillery observer.

Wolfowitz's comments to Shinseki should consist of "no sir" and "yes sir"

[2nd Bn, 11th Mar]

The words and their definitions are important. In 1983, the USS New Jersey was shelling positions in the Shouf Mountains in Lebanon. The Pentagon was asked if the Battleship was firing in direct support our allies (militia). The answer was a "No". They could say this because the misssion of the New Jersey was "General Support".

Semper Fi,

[RCW2001]

bttt...

[OldFriend]

Shinseki is near retirement. Let him go off into the sunset with a few chinese made berets to keep him company.

His is the one who has been feeding bullcrap to Hackworth.

[OldFriend]

May I remind you that the military SERVES the civilian in our goverment!

[chilepepper]

Shinseki used up his credibility with me a long time ago. Any clown who was promoted to such a high rank during an administration watched over by Klintoon and Hitllary is, IMHO, *highly* suspect. Look to the clown Wesley "Perfumed Prince" Clark if you need any example of what I mean.

Combat per se insures no one bit of credibility... just experience. We don't know what decisions this guy MADE UNDER COMBAT. Just 'being there' is not enough...

[meenie]

You've got the wrong Pollack. Kashveili (or something similar) was Clinton's Joint Chief.

[Captain Kirk]

Your conclusion is---what?

[Hipixs]

From: Secretary Rumsfeld Media Availability with Afghan President Karzai 2/27/03

Rumsfeld: He was asked, I believe, in a Senate hearing what the magnitude of the Army's force requirement for occupation of Iraq would be following the war. And he responded something like that; that he said he didn't know. And then they said, well, do you have a range? And so then he said, well, several hundred thousand, roughly what it would take to win the war. Something like that, I think.

The fact of the matter is the answer to the question that was posed to him is not knowable. We have no idea how long the war will last. We don't know to what extent there may or may not be weapons of mass destruction used. We don't know -- have any idea whether or not there would be ethnic strife. We don't know exactly how long it would take to find weapons of mass destruction and destroy them -- those sites. There are so many variables that it is not knowable.

However, I will say this; what is, I think, reasonably certain is the idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far from the mark. The reality is that we already have a number of countries that have offered to participate with their forces in stabilization activities, in the event force has to be used.

Second, it's not logical to me that it would take as many forces to win the war -- following the conflict as it would to win the war.

So I can assure you that there are so many variables that it's not possible to come out with a point answer to the question. You'd have to first say: If you assume this, this or this with respect to the variables, how many other forces are going to be participating besides ours? Until someone decides that there has to be a conflict and that the conflict's over, you're not going to know the answer to that question. So it's simply not knowable.

And I will say that I do think that any idea that it's several hundred thousand over any sustained period is simply not the case.

[stimpyone]

Oh I'm well aware of who serves who - but when a draft dodger like Wolfowitz publicly criticizes a warrior like Shinseki, we've got some serious problems on our hands. Let Wolfwowitz survive Ranger school and then he'll be able to shoot his mouth off.

[SLB]

The military does work for the civlian sector. However one would expect the civilian sector to at least have enough common sense to listen to the military. I do not necessarily agree with all Shenseki has done administratively (berets and Stryker) but when it comes to being a tactician he is hard to beat. Which would you rather have a general who is good tactically or one who screws up administration? If I was on the ground I know which one I would rather have.