How Bremer screwed up in Iraq

[Ned]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Sort of like Rumsfeld ignoring all the advice from the career military types and DOD/State/CIA intel resources that we would need over 200,000 troops to occupy Iraq?

shawn, but Rummy himself may have been counting on the use of the Iraqi Army.

[Sava]

I just saw a sign back down the road...
"Caution. Buck passing zone."

Bush clearly is too much of a chicken**** to take responsibility for his mistakes.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Ned


shawn, but Rummy himself may have been counting on the use of the Iraqi Army.

Ned,
Why are you soft on Rumsfeld? He's the SecDef, it's his job to make sure there are enough troops on the ground and that they have the right equipment. It's his responsibility by nature of his title. If he does not do that then he is responsible. Also, if he engages in activities that are really not his responsibility and they blow up in his face, he will also be responsible in that arena as well.
You can't be the SecDef and say that keeping the troops supplied and properly manned is someone else's responsibility.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Pax

Ned,
Why are you soft on Rumsfeld? He's the SecDef, it's his job to make sure there are enough troops on the ground and that they have the right equipment. It's his responsibility by nature of his title. If he does not do that then he is responsible. Also, if he engages in activities that are really not his responsibility and they blow up in his face, he will also be responsible in that arena as well.
You can't be the SecDef and say that keeping the troops supplied and properly manned is someone else's responsibility.

He appears to have been overruled or undermined by State.

[Q Classic]

shawn, but Rummy himself may have been counting on the use of the Iraqi Army.

Rummy might have been listening too much to Chalabi and Wolfowitz, seeing as the internal revolution didn't quite materialize as planned.

This is the same rummy who spoke about having unknown unknowns. If he was counting on the use of the Iraqi army...

Why would he factor in an unknown unknown into his calculations? I say unknown unknown because he wouldn't know if they were reliable, if they would join the americans, if they would participate in winning the peace...

[kronic]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
So in 1945 you would have been in that crowd defending the necessity of forgiving former Nazis to rebuild Germany?

Well, actually former Nazis did rebuild Germany. Maybe the top 50 were sentenced, but a lot of more or less influential Nazis played important roles in the West German society (chancellors, ministers, judges...).

The West German society in the 50's and 60's also was very conservative.

[Berzerker]

I agree with this. It's a difficult choice that I'm hesitant to gainsay, even knowing what we know now.

True, if we kept the Iraqi military in power, would the Kurds and Shi'ites resist more or even rebel? If I was a Kurd I sure would feel betrayed if the "liberators" came in and removed just the guy in charge and a few of his henchmen and left the machinary of destruction in place.
Sometimes 20/20 hindsight is valuable, sometimes it's problematic given our inability to know what would have happened if a different course was taken.

And I'm still torn on the whole Iraqi invasion issue, it may have been a brilliant move to smoke out the terrorists instead of playing cat and mouse with them all over the globe. On the other hand, did invading Iraq motivate "fence sitters" to join the terrorist groups leaving us with even more enemies to deal with? What I'm afraid of is if we are planning on using Iraq as a staging ground for invasions of Iran and maybe Syria.

We have two options - hang around or get the hell out of dodge asap. We stayed after the first gulf war and 9/11 was the result. But we left Afghanistan and the Taliban rose to power, maybe with our blessing. Of course, we didn't get attacked because we left Afghanistan, we got attacked because of the aftermath of the gulf war. I think Bush I and Clinton really screwed up by keeping our troops in S Arabia.

[/rambling post]

[Mr. Harley]

Ned, proper military planning NEVER counts on an assumption like that (the enemy troops will serve with you). It's nice if that happens, you leave yourself open to that eventuality, but you plan as best as you can for the worst.

Plus there is excellent evidence it was Rumsfeld, and possible Cheney (that link is weaker), who deliberately brought in their own unit of "experts" into the DOD intelligence community. They are the people who gave Rumsfeld the answer this administration wanted. If you think Rumsfeld has no involvement, why did DOD censure Kinseki over the requisite number of troops issue? Note this is not simply about chain of command, they left the general who said remarks about Christianity versus Islam alone, even when he provided the Muslim fundamentalists a wonderful recruiting tool on Al Jezera with his inane remarks. Ain't gonna fly this time. If Bremer screwed up, so did Rumsfeld. Once is a mistake, twice? (reference Bush's trend in appointing agenda driven people who ignore disparate voices)

[Ned]

Originally posted by Berzerker


I think Bush I and Clinton really screwed up by keeping our troops in S Arabia.

Either that, or not finishing the job so that we could withdraw. With Saddam in power, we had no option but to stay.

[Ned]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Ned, proper military planning NEVER counts on an assumption like that (the enemy troops will serve with you). It's nice if that happens, you leave yourself open to that eventuality, but you plan as best as you can for the worst.

Plus there is excellent evidence it was Rumsfeld, and possible Cheney (that link is weaker), who deliberately brought in their own unit of "experts" into the DOD intelligence community. They are the people who gave Rumsfeld the answer this administration wanted. If you think Rumsfeld has no involvement, why did DOD censure Kinseki over the requisite number of troops issue? Note this is not simply about chain of command, they left the general who said remarks about Christianity versus Islam alone, even when he provided the Muslim fundamentalists a wonderful recruiting tool on Al Jezera with his inane remarks. Ain't gonna fly this time. If Bremer screwed up, so did Rumsfeld. Once is a mistake, twice? (reference Bush's trend in appointing agenda driven people who ignore disparate voices)

I keep wondering why Bush lets Kerry get away with the lie about Shinseki? No one disciplined him or fired him over what he said.

As to the Iraqi Army and police, Bush said they were counting on them post invasion to help out. Particularly the police. That they vanished into thin air was not something we planned.

Which all goes to show that Rummy was initially planning to use Iraqi police and armed forces post invasion and did not think he needed as many troops as became necessary. The fact that the Iraqi army largely joined the resistance when they were not recalled and paid, was something that everyone on the ground there foretold, but Bremer ignored or for some reason did not inquire about. But Rumsfeld clearly was undercut by what Bremer did.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Ned, Bremer couldn't piss without permission. I remember Cheney talking about dismissing the Iraqi Army before the invasion was even started. Cheney pointed out how better off Costa Rica is without a military but that totally ignores that Costa Rica's in a relatively nice neighborhood and Iraq is in the worst neighborhood in the world. If the Bush boys are all talking about disbanding the Iraqi Army before the invasion was even started then how come it suddenly becomes Bremers fault? After all Bremer was micromanaged to the extreme.

Any body else think the administration is just trying to turn Bremer into a fall guy?

Oerdin
Bremer
Bremer's superiors
Disbanding the Iraqi army and then doing a joke of a job at building up a new one (the vast majority of the "Iraqi forces" Bush talked about in the debates are "shake and bake" police forces who've only had three weeks of training)

Maybe. However, everyone in the Pentagon seemed to oppose it because the knew disbanding the Army was more than counterproductive on a practical level.

The majority of the Pentagon is often opposed to the more idiotic Bush administration decisions, this hardly absolves the Bush administration for its idiocies.

If true, perhaps Cheney should be fired. ]

He's not the only one...

It seems the Pentegon was right and Cheney/Bush were wrong on that issue. Now it seems Cheney/Bush were also wrong about disbanding the the Iraqi military and once again the Pentegon was correct. Why won't the stupid politicians realize they don't know what they're doing and let the military take the lead in military matters?

Well wars are always politicied. Its happened before and its happening how with the taking of Falluja being delayed until after the election etc. etc.

That Bremer ignored all of this to prove some ephemeral point was more than foolish. It was criminal.

Same goes for his superiors.

It would've been good to keep the whole army and stick them all in desert training camps where they could be paid well for digging and filling in wholes in the sand or whatever just to keep that many otherwise unemployed and angry young men who know how to use weopons busy...

[Pax]

Boshko,
That is a good idea. Or better yet. Use the army for rebuilding with good pay.
Ned,
Wake-up. Any plan implemented by Bremer ultimately had to have the approval President Bush. Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell all have some(large) blame to bear. Don't you dare try to cut Rumsfeld slack. Stop being a loyal Neocon and start being a loyal american. Our soldiers are risking their lives for Neocon beliefs. Stop looking out for the Neocons and start looking out for the people who have sworn to protect you. You owe them that much.

[Q Classic]

I keep wondering why Bush lets Kerry get away with the lie about Shinseki? No one disciplined him or fired him over what he said.

i'm amazed that anything i post is completely ignored.

actually, i'm not, because nothing i post is ever cogent or useful.

in any case, here's another thing to ignore.

when shinseki retired, rumsfeld did not send any representatives, nor did he show up himself to wish him well--an unprecendented event for a member of the jcs.

[Mr. Harley]

Q-Cubed - I just came back to this thread because I saw you posted. I enjoy what you write, because it typically is consistant and well thought out. In fact it might qualify for that dirty word - moderate

[Ned]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

I keep wondering why Bush lets Kerry get away with the lie about Shinseki? No one disciplined him or fired him over what he said.

i'm amazed that anything i post is completely ignored.

actually, i'm not, because nothing i post is ever cogent or useful.

in any case, here's another thing to ignore.

when shinseki retired, rumsfeld did not send any representatives, nor did he show up himself to wish him well--an unprecendented event for a member of the jcs.

That might be true. This is quite different, though, from Kerry's constant refrain.