Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Wolfowitz Contradicts Shinseki over Iraqi Occupation
STRATFOR ^ | Feb 28, 2003 | Staff

Posted on 02/28/2003 8:29:04 AM PST by Axion

Wolfowitz Contradicts Shinseki over Iraqi Occupation
Feb 28, 2003

Summary

U.S. Army Chief of Staff Erik Shinseki said Feb. 25 that hundreds of thousands of troops would be needed in Iraq following a war. However, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz contradicted that statement on Feb. 27, saying Shinseki's estimates were "wildly off the mark." When two important figures like this contradict each other, it always has strategic significance.

Analysis

An interesting fight has broken out over the U.S. Army chief of staff's contention that Iraq would be occupied by hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops following a war. Gen. Erik Shinseki made that statement Feb. 25 at a Congressional hearing, without any immediate contradictions. Then, at hearings on Feb. 27, Democrats began attacking Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz on the question of the war's cost -- at which point Wolfowitz broke with Shinseki, saying that his estimate was "wildly off the mark" and that the actual number of occupation forces would be closer to 100,000 troops.

The debate over the cost of the war is not particularly interesting. The Democrats know perfectly well that the cost of the war depends on how long the war lasts, how hard the fighting is and so on. Since no one knows that, a definitive answer is impossible. At the same time, the Bush administration has run the numbers along several contingencies and know more than officials want to tell Congress. Both sides are playing dumber than they are. It is wearying, but not important.

A split within the Defense Department on the scope of the occupation, however, is important. Shinseki is a careful man: He did not become chief of staff of the Army by casually throwing numbers around Congressional hearings, nor was his statement, widely circulated, immediately repudiated by civilian defense officials. From the evidence, it is clear to us that Shinseki was expressing defense policy as he knew it -- and the Army chief of staff, charged with personnel planning, certainly would have to be in the loop on a long-term deployment issue of that magnitude.

That make Wolfowitz's statement hard to fathom. Wolfowitz is also a careful man who knows these things will come back to bite him. Even under pressure from Congressmen looking to score points, Wolfowitz is not one to leave the Army chief of staff looking like a liar or fool, nor is he likely simply to buckle under hard questioning. Nevertheless, at the end of the day, the Army plan and the plan of the Office of the Secretary of Defense seem to be off by a couple of hundred thousand troops -- a large part of the U.S. Army.

We suspect that the explanation for this mismatch lies in the definition of the term "occupying forces." Strictly speaking, occupying force are those charged with maintaining order and providing services in an occupied country. Troops in Kuwait, for example, are not occupying forces. They are based in Kuwait, but their mission is outside of the country; so, there can be troops occupying Iraq and troops based in Iraq and the missions are completely different.

If the Stratfor theory on the long-term U.S. strategy in Iraq is correct, U.S. troops will have two roles to play there. There will be an occupation force charged with managing Iraq's internal security and other issues. There also will be other troops based in Iraq -- not reporting to the occupation commander, but reporting to a war-fighting commander whose primary responsibility will be for operations outside of Iraq.

From Shinseki's point of view, looking at the aggregate numbers, the part of the U.S. Army that he will have to carve out of his manpower pool will run to the hundreds of thousands, and they will be eating their meals in Iraq. From a technical point of view, calling them occupying forces is "wildly inaccurate" because only a hundred thousand will be busy occupying the country while the rest will have other missions. From Wolfowitz's point of view as a strategic planner, it is that force that represents the striking power.

None of this is, of course, as innocent as it appears. Wolfowitz -- and President George W. Bush -- simply don't want to lay the long-term cards on the table at this time. They would rather be accused of attacking Iraq without reason than being viewed as being engaged in a long-term, well-thought-out campaign against other countries in the region. They certainly don't want to express the strategy during a cat fight with congressional Democrats.

All of this points at a core problem. The Bush administration's desire to make Iraq appear a stand-alone operation, without any strategic purpose behind getting rid of a very bad man, is highly vulnerable to attack from many directions. It's only virtue is that it keeps the administration from getting involved in complex questions that can complicate the war. It also makes officials look -- at one and the same time -- simplistic, devious and incompetent. When the deputy secretary of defense and the chief of staff of the Army cannot, within 48 hours of each other, provide Congress with consistent information -- and Wolfowitz must cover the strategy by making Shinseki look like he doesn't know what he is doing -- the situation is getting out of hand.

Once the war is concluded, if it is concluded well, these contradictions will be forgotten and the next strategic steps will unfold -- or so the administration's theory goes. That may be correct, and indeed, much of this is simply Washington chatter, of no consequence outside of Washington. Nevertheless, the intense strains of unarticulated strategic plans are showing.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: warlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 next last
To: chilepepper
Any clown who was promoted to such a high rank during an administration watched over by Klintoon and Hitllary is, IMHO, *highly* suspect.

Um, Gen. Tommy Franks, who will lead the invasion of Iraq, was promoted 4 star general and assigned to be commander in chief of U.S. Central Command in June of 2000.

21 posted on 02/28/2003 9:39:41 AM PST by stimpyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Axion
As can be seen in the below quotes from the article the issue is in semantics between Shinseki and Wolfowitz but the big story is that while the world is focused on Iraq the US is planning to use force elsewhere in the region. Wolfowitz's emphises on those large forces not being in Iraq as occupiers but for further deployment, this gives weight to the president's speech the other night how the world is on notice that they will have to reshape their governments, foreign policies and civil rights according to our dictates or they will be the next Iraq.

* We suspect that the explanation for this mismatch lies in the definition of the term "occupying forces." Strictly speaking, occupying force are those charged with maintaining order and providing services in an occupied country. Troops in Kuwait, for example, are not occupying forces. They are based in Kuwait, but their mission is outside of the country; so, there can be troops occupying Iraq and troops based in Iraq and the missions are completely different.

* There will be an occupation force charged with managing Iraq's internal security and other issues. There also will be other troops based in Iraq -- not reporting to the occupation commander, but reporting to a war-fighting commander whose primary responsibility will be for operations outside of Iraq.

* Wolfowitz -- and President George W. Bush -- simply don't want to lay the long-term cards on the table at this time. They would rather be accused of attacking Iraq without reason than being viewed as being engaged in a long-term, well-thought-out campaign against other countries in the region.

22 posted on 02/28/2003 9:41:03 AM PST by u-89
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *war_list
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list
23 posted on 02/28/2003 9:45:57 AM PST by Free the USA (Stooge for the Rich)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Axion
Shinseki is an imbecile. I saw the tape when he made this statement.

Q: How many troops will be needed to occupy Iraq after the war?

Shinseki: Uuuuh..it would probably take...uuhhh....several....hundred thousand.

This numbskull probably doesn't even know how many troops are under his command. His answer came from where most of his decisions come from - his ass.

24 posted on 02/28/2003 9:55:41 AM PST by servantoftheservant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stimpyone
Who said I had much respect for Tommy Franks?

Rummy has chided him publicly publicly (if indirectly) and put his own guys under him to spearhead the effort in Iraq...

I stand by my suspicions, with some of the Clinton era appointments better than others...

Remember who was leading the Department of the Army during the Clinton days and what Clinton's FIRST act as president was?

25 posted on 02/28/2003 9:56:05 AM PST by chilepepper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: stimpyone
You didn't happen to notice that, here in America, the military is under the command of the civilian government, did you? Someone should be saying "Yes sir" and "no sir" but not Wolfowitz. What the two did in the early 70s is completely and totally irrelevant.

Or did someone stage a military coup while I was passed out last night?
26 posted on 02/28/2003 10:06:40 AM PST by ConservativeNewsNetwork
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: meenie
You've got the wrong poster. I said nothing about Shisheki being the Joint Chief. My comment was that he is feeding his anti administration meddling to Hackworth.
27 posted on 02/28/2003 10:09:39 AM PST by OldFriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: servantoftheservant
Now you are going to confuse those Shinseki lovers on this site!!!
28 posted on 02/28/2003 10:10:29 AM PST by OldFriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: chilepepper
Rummy has chided him publicly publicly (if indirectly) and put his own guys under him to spearhead the effort in Iraq...

From DoD News Briefing - Secretary Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers

Rumsfeld: I'm going to finish my thought and then we're through.

Someone mentioned General Franks, or I did. I'm not -- I don't want to be critical of any one person or any newspaper, but we're going into a difficult period. And accuracy and precision on my part is important, and accuracy and precision on your parts is important. There's just an awful lot of mischief taking place around here.

I read an article that said that I overruled General Franks and -- because I was disagreeing, we were disagreeing, and I put General John Abizaid in as his deputy, so that we could keep track of what he's doing. That is absolute hogwash.

The truth is that what happened was that Paul Wolfowitz came to me and said that General Franks had come to him and said, "How do you think I could approach the Secretary of Defense about the possibility of my getting General Abizaid as my deputy, one of my deputies?"

And Paul said, "I don't know. He's not going to like it, because he likes him as director of the Joint Staff. He's doing a terrific job there. Dick Myers isn't going to like it, and Pete" -- (laughter) -- "and Pete Pace isn't going to like it. So you, General Franks, better figure out a way that you can make it so persuasive that you can get the secretary, the deputy secretary, the chairman and the vice chairman to agree to let this fine talent leave the Joint Staff" -- where he was doing tremendously important work and exceedingly well -- and go -- "and that he is the only one in the entire armed forces, Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, that can do that job for you. And that's not going to be an easy sell," he told Franks.

So, General Franks comes sidling up to you and sidling up to me and sidling up to Paul, and we said, "No! We need him here." And so, he goes away, and he comes back a week and a half later and does it again. He sidles up to all of us and he was persuasive. And finally we said, "Well, maybe. But not now." And we kept delaying it.



29 posted on 02/28/2003 10:12:44 AM PST by Hipixs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Axion
Pentagon Briefing going on now. (C-SPAN). Maybe Rumsfeld or Meyers will be asked a question or two about this.
30 posted on 02/28/2003 10:51:22 AM PST by leadpenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Axion
Pentagon Briefing going on now. (C-SPAN). Maybe Rumsfeld or Meyers will be asked a question or two about this.

I apologize if this is a double post. We can consider it an added bump.
31 posted on 02/28/2003 10:54:00 AM PST by leadpenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stimpyone
Wolf has every right to brace Shinseki. It is the civilians that run the military, not vice versa. Most importantly, Shinseki should have resigned months ago; he is aware the administration has little confidence in him, but like all of Clinton's satraps, he cannot leave the stage gracefully.
32 posted on 02/28/2003 11:28:36 AM PST by gaspar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: stimpyone
I spent two years in Nam and as far as I'm concerned my admiration for Wolf is much greater than that for Shinseki. Just because a person did not serve in Viet Nam does not make that person inherantly evil or unpatriotic. And just because someone served there doesn't make him/her good or patriotic.
33 posted on 02/28/2003 11:32:20 AM PST by gaspar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
You might inquire of the source why the words "Clintonite" and "smear" conjugate.
34 posted on 02/28/2003 11:47:19 AM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Axion
Rummy was asked about Shinseki's remarks at today's press conference. The conversation went something like this...

Reporter: What do you think about Gen Shinseki's estimate on the cost of a possible occupation of Iraq?

Rumsfeld: Everybody is entitled to their opinion.

Reporter: But is it helpful to the adminstration to have him express this opinion at this time?

Rumsfeld: All opinions are helpful, unless they are wrong.

Rumsfeld then went on to explain that there would be many different variables involved in such an estimate, and since he doesn't know how Shinseki came up with his conclusions on each variable he really couldn't comment further on his opinion, except that it doesn't match what he has seen.
35 posted on 02/28/2003 12:32:09 PM PST by Hugin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stimpyone
AAAAhhhhh...excuse me but the Deputy SecDef outranks this REMF ass COS. But then again most people who never served wouldn't know a thing about the chain of comman structure. Shenseki is a Clintonite drone. I am glad I never had to be on active duty when a bunch of REMF ass jerry's kids got to wear the beret that I had to literally kill to wear!!! I think that ass even has a Ranger tab...but I knew alot of REMF butter bars who had a Ranger tab..."The tab is just a school...the scroll is a way of life"!!

Wolfowitz does talk like Patton...and God bless him for it everyday!!
36 posted on 02/28/2003 12:39:56 PM PST by Ga Rob ("Concensus is the ABSENSE of Leadership" The Iron Lady)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
Clinton appointee.
37 posted on 02/28/2003 12:57:06 PM PST by ScholarWarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
Some of us determine our views on the merits not solely on the basis of "us" and "them."
38 posted on 02/28/2003 2:50:28 PM PST by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
Okay.

By some of his articles and interviews, Shinseki seems to have a fair sense of warfighting theory, if it isn't more heavily skewed to the priority of training to actual battlefield command. It's tougher to actually judge his performance in the latter however, without the critical criterion of his superiors.

I did, and still disagree with his vision of warfighter esprit de corps vis a vis what I consider his stubborn recalcitrance on the Clinton era beret controversy in which he essentially ripped one of Airborne qualified troops most coveted symbols of their military uniqueness away from them, and fitted it instead onto the heads of the entire Army from boot to ACS. That essentially the entire inventory of that headgear was at least initially Made In China, only added insult to injury. ...Again, in my opinion. Not that I've ever been crazy about our Army emulating the appearance of French soldiers, anyway.

So, on what other basis outside the merits of of "us" and "them" are your views on this issue determined?

Clinton isn't worthy of evaluation in a military context. So if that's your point, we're done.

39 posted on 02/28/2003 4:45:53 PM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: leadpenny
Thanks for the info, but June or July is too far away for that turkey!

Hello, yourself, my dear. Hope to see you tomorrow.
40 posted on 02/28/2003 4:53:49 PM PST by Bigg Red (Defend America against her most powerful enemy -- the Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson