Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It wasn't just Powell. Not noticed by the media, and certainly not mentioned by Rumsfeld, was that every single one of the "Vietnam generation" flag officers was either fired or retired before he could get his war on in Iraq.
Shinseki springs to mind. Told the establishment their plan was cr.p, was 100% right, and got fired for it.
Hi. This is the real world reminding you that wars are fought to achieve a desired political outcome, post-war. If Rumsfeld/Cheney entered the conflict with the mindset of "destroying" Iraq, they lied their rearsides off before the war.
The Cheney who said "We will be greeted as liberators" had actually planned to destroy Iraq instead? Is that seriously a worthwhile hypothesis in your mind?
Going with the old adage of not assuming maliciousness when incompetence could be in play, I think the best thing that can be said for Cheney/Rumsfeld was that they massively underestimated how hard it would be to keep the lid on an occupied/liberated/whatever Iraq. Of course, the intelligent guy in the room was Powell who had the nerve to say "If you break it, you buy it" - and he was sidelined the second his usefulness ended.
There was also the public contest between Rumsfeld and the Army Chief of Staff. Rumsfeld claimed the war could be won with only 70,000 troops. The general said, "Our plans call for 350,000 troops." When the media pointed out the discrepancy between him and his boss, the general said in multiple press conferences, "Our plans call for 350,000 troops." Wolfowitz said, "That's crazy." The general repeated, "Our plans call for 350,000 troops."
There was also the public contest between Rumsfeld and the Army Chief of Staff. Rumsfeld claimed the war could be won with only 70,000 troops. The general said, "Our plans call for 350,000 troops." When the media pointed out the discrepancy between him and his boss, the general said in multiple press conferences, "Our plans call for 350,000 troops." Wolfowitz said, "That's crazy." The general repeated, "Our plans call for 350,000 troops."
So he was fired for not getting on board.
Well, it was 2002. Not supporting the President in a time of war was pretty much considered treasonous. Weird how that changed...
Sorry, no. The Cheney/Rumsfled plan was that a limited force of 70,000 American troops would quickly topple the Saddam regime and the Iraqi army and police forces would immediately rally around Ahmed Chalabi.
The things we could control, like toppling Saddam's military, went off flawlessly, we cannot control what the general public might do. The Nirvana of Iraqi citizens embracing the idea of a free, representative Republic that Bush hoped did not cone to fruition.
All 0bama had to do was negotiate a status of forces agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government, thru Joe Biden, and leave a small US force behind to help ensure the peace, and help with the transition. But they failed at something that we have successfully negotiated with every other nation. so we were forced to withdraw our forces completely.
The things we could control, like toppling Saddam's military, went off flawlessly, we cannot control what the general public might do. The Nirvana of Iraqi citizens embracing the idea of a free, representative Republic that Bush hoped did not cone to fruition.
That's as fitting of an epitaph for the Iraqi Folly as any I've seen: "It didn't go the way we hoped." No sh.t.
Shinseki springs to mind. Told the establishment their plan was cr.p, was 100% right, and got fired for it.
I don't know how they expected to control a country the size of Iraq with 70,000 troops where they are both military force and police. Rumsfeld is not offering any apologies.
Quote:
Shinseki publicly clashed with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld during the planning of the war in Iraq over how many troops the United States would need to keep in Iraq for the postwar occupation of that country. As Army Chief of Staff, General Shinseki testified to the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee that "something in the order of several hundred thousand soldiers" would probably be required for postwar Iraq. This was an estimate far higher than the figure being proposed by Secretary Rumsfeld in his invasion plan, and it was rejected in strong language by both Rumsfeld and his Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, who was another chief planner of the invasion and
occupation
I dont know why we cant just send some drones over and kill a bunch of them.
Why not bomb their overloads in Saudi Arabia? This is a Saudi funded, supported, and trained militia.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
