Thursday, September 28, 2006

Insurgency was anticipated. Rumsfeld just doesn't admit it.

Don Rumsfeld claims that no one anticipated the strength of the insurgency in Iraq.

"Well, I think that anyone who looks at it with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight has to say that there was not an anticipation that the level of insurgency would be anything approximating what it is," Rumsfeld told CNN for the documentary, "CNN Presents Rumsfeld -- Man of War," which debuts Saturday at 8 p.m. ET.

Well, he could be right, if he said that 'Don Rumsfeld didn't anticipate the strength of the insurgency.' For that matter, neither did George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz or the rest of the neocon idiots that planned this war.

But it is wrong to say that no one anticipated it.

Gen. Eric Shinseki anticipated it. He calculated before the war that the U.S. would need 400,000 troops after the fall of Baghdad in order to prevent an insurgency from taking root. This directly contradicted the 'Rumsfeld doctrine' of supposedly being able to do this lightly (read cheaply-- this is what happens when you have fiscal conservatives running a war.) Rumsfeld remained fixed on his initial estimate of 100,000 troops and-- in a clear signal to the rest of the military leadership-- forced Gen. Shinseki to retire. Gen. Casey, who knew better than to openly confront the boss, sweet talked him up to 150,000 but that was still a woefully inadequate number.

And remember all that talk from Bush and Rumsfeld about not taking decisions on the ground away from the generals, and about how 'if they ask for more forces on the ground then we will give it to them?'

Well, also from the linked article:

One of those is the man who led the 1st Infantry Division in northwest Iraq in 2004. Former U.S. Army Maj. Gen John Batiste said he asked for more troops and was turned down.

"We're in a real fix right now [in Iraq]," Batiste told CNN. "We're there because Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ignored sound military advice, dismissed it all, went with his plan and his plan alone."


By 2004 the insurgency was in full swing and we had heard that promise of letting the generals make the call multiple times on TV. It was all a big fat lie, but they said it anyway because they were trying to win an election.

It's bad enough that we are led by incompetents. But it is worse that their incompetence is mixed with an unwillingness to let the military leaders do their jobs.

4 comments:

Indy Voter said...

this is what happens when you have fiscal conservatives running a war.

Umm. We had Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al running this war. They're social conservatives, not fiscal conservatives. Have you looked at the growth rate of government spending in the past 6 years, even after military costs are removed?

But no question, these guys decided to do Iraq on the cheap, just like they decided to do NCLB and Medicare reform and you-name-it.

Jack Hampton said...

All that growth in spending has been caused by various types of corporate welfare. The medicare prescription drug plan, the new energy policy that massively increased payments to our poor, hurting oil companies, all the no-bid contracts that come with Iraq and Katrina...

On the other end, places where there is no corporate welfare involved like the National Parks and the Veteran's administration has been cut.

Sending more troops to Iraq only marginally enriches Haliburton, but beyond that there is little to be gained in terms of corporate welfare. So THEN they are 'fiscal conservatives.'

Karen said...

How many times do you go back to the same doctor when he doesn't help you, or the same garage that doesn't fix your car right, or the same, or the same, or the same...

one of these days the American people will wake up to the bushies follies and realize if you keep doing what you're doing, you'll keep getting what you're getting. Until that day comes, we'll continue to pay the price.

Lammy said...

They seem to be trying to fight two fronts with this war thing. One in Iraq and the other at home to win elections. It seems strange, but while I was watching the History Channel they were talking about the Mexican war and the great Mexican general had the same problems as well as the U.S. President Polk not knowing what he was doing.