Rumsfeld speaks

[Cyrus]

Secretary of Defence Donald “Donnie The Poet” Rumsfeld blamed Turkey for the intensity of the insurgency, with the following reasoning: If the United States had able to get its 4th Infantry Division into northern Iraq through Turkey, more of Saddam's Baathist regime would have been captured or killed, diminishing the insurgency.

The interviewer, of course, should have cornered Rumsfeld with the obvious remark that the North of Iraq was the one area that was totally friendly to the United States and practically Baath-free, since it is inhabited by the Kurds. Having the Americans pass through the North in massive numbers would, at best, make the conquest of Baghdad, a faster affair. But the interviewer kept mum. And so did Rumsfeld about the actual mistakes that have fuelled the insurgency, such as the demobilization of the Iraqi army and police, the utter post-invasion lawlessness, etc. All ignored by Rumsfeld's "planning".

And let's mark another, very important statement made last night by Rumsfeld. He said that there could be a temporary increase in U.S. forces at the end of the year, when elections in Iraq are slated to be held again, but they won't reach the current level of 152,000.

"We're planning to bring the 152,000 down to about 135,000 or 137,000 or 140,000 over the coming weeks, now that the election is behind us," Rumsfeld said.

So, folks, 152,000 is the apex of US forces in Iraq.

Remember the Secretary’s words; he’s being very clear about it all and he is an absolutely honest man.

CNN Report (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/03/20/iraq.anniversary/index.html)

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
"We're planning to bring the 152,000 down to about 135,000 or 137,000 or 140,000 over the coming weeks, now that the election is behind us," Rumsfeld said.

So, folks, 152,000 is the apex of US forces in Iraq.

Remember the Secretary’s words; he’s being very clear about it all and he is an absolutely honest man.

CNN Report (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/03/20/iraq.anniversary/index.html)

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently if your plan needs to be changed you are a liar? Yet another pointless and nonsensical post for a lefty...

[cardcounter0]

You invade with the countries you have, not the countries you wished you had.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

So, since Clinton is not in office -- It is all Turkey's fault!

[Felix_Nietsche]

"The interviewer, of course, should have cornered Rumsfeld with the obvious remark that the North of Iraq was the one area that was totally friendly to the United States and practically Baath-free, since it is inhabited by the Kurds."
************************************************** ********
No, the city of Mosul is far from friendly. And it is not a Kurdish city. If you recall, this is the city where Uday and Kusay found sanctuary after the regime fell. Also, the border towns near Syria are/and still Pro-Saddam. The Syrian border has traditionally been a smuggling route into Iraq. There was concern that WMD equipment would be sent accross the border into Syria is if Bagdad fell. Securing the Syrian border at the start of the invasion was a high priority. Now will never know whether WMD equipment were sent into Syria or not. Anyway to claim this area was TOTALLY friendly shows a lack of understanding....


"Having the Americans pass through the North in massive numbers would, at best, make the conquest of Baghdad, a faster affair."
************************************************** *******
Much Faster


As for disbanding the army and police force this was a judgement call. Both organizations were filled with Saddam cronies and if left intact could have been a source of trouble rather than a stabilizing force. Perhaps we could have cleaned house of their leadership instead.... We'll never know now. It is water under the bridge.

As for the lawlessness, you are correct here.
After a hurricane, the governor of the state can call out the national guard and order looters shot on sight... Even if they blond-haired and blue-eyed. We should *NOT* made an exception for the dark-haired brown-eyed Iraqis. Shooting a few looters would have done much to gain the Iraqis respect... The 'Oprah' approach to winning the Iraqis over was a HORRIBLE mistake...

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
As for disbanding the army and police force this was a judgement call. Both organizations were filled with Saddam cronies and if left intact could have been a source of trouble rather than a stabilizing force.

[/ QUOTE ]

The United States Army War College are trying their damnedest not to be Monday morning quarterbacks. So they prepare plans. Which they send up to the political leadership. Which is Rumsfeld. And in those plans, the Army planners were quite explicit about how to deal with post-conquest Iraq: A. Preserve the infrastructure, B. Use the army and the police.

Rumsfeld pointedly ignored both recommendations and ordered blanket bombing of electrical and water infrastructure, copying the strategy in Yugoslavia. (Hey, dummy? In Yugoslavia, the US army never intended to conquer and occupy the damn country!) And he also ordered the immediate elimination of the Iraqi officer corps.

This was far beyond a poor "judgement call", as you put it. This was a prime example of the perils of arrogance and poor leadership. At other times, a Secretary such as Rummie would have been quietly forced out. (Certainly not re-appointed!)

[ QUOTE ]
As for the lawlessness, you are correct here.
Shooting a few looters would have done much to gain the Iraqis respect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Soldiers are trained to kill people. Not to direct traffic light or guard convenience stores. The American soldiers could have enforced "law and order" at the far greater expense of alienating even more Iraqis than their mere presence as occupiers caused. To shoot looters, you need to shot a lot of innocent people too.

After the first few days of an occupation (the Army War College provided examples going back to the occupation of Japan and Germany), the occupier routinely enlists the help of the locals, recruiting even from the deepest ranks of the enemy (eg ex-Nazis were routinely used in low-level positions of police, customs, etc, in post-war Germany).

[ QUOTE ]
The city of Mosul is far from friendly.

[/ QUOTE ]

You did not understand.

The north of Iraq would have indeed fell quicker, as Rummie says -- no one contests that. But the insurgency is NOT related to how fast the North was conquered! The one has little, if anything, to do with the other.

The insurgency grew out of other factors, already identified by both the pro- and the anti-war camps. Disbanding the Iraqi police was just one of those factors. The north of Iraq, the Kurdish Iraq (which, by all accounts is relatively the most friendly area for Americans) would have been occupied faster but whatever role it played in the insurgency (=small), it would still have played it.

Baghdad, for example, was occupied swifter than most cities. Yet, it's still not under control. (What part of Iraq except Kurdish Iraq is?)



Before I forget. Jaxmike, the resident one-man brain trust, wrote up this amazing piece of rhetorical question:

[ QUOTE ]
If your plan needs to be changed you are a liar?

[/ QUOTE ]

Plans get changed all the time, Jax. This is why someone with an ounce of honesty and not a totally immoral political hack like Rummie would not commit himself to specific figures ("will never again go above 152,000" -- oh, get off!) to score political points, to show to the people that "the worst is behind us".

That was the point, not ...plans.