It has to be one of those three things. Today’s headlines include a bleak assessment from Army General John Abizaid that suggests that all-out civil war is very possible. Senator John McCain asked him if he saw this coming a year ago. He and Army General Peter Pace both said no, they didn’t see it coming.
So, let me ask a simple question. How is it that our top generals, running the war in Iraq, were not able to see what at least half the country saw coming (and that half of the other half just refused to admit)?
Of course Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was also present (even though he’s previously ditched these meetings since February) and told everyone that he doesn’t think he’s ever been overly optimistic about the situation in Iraq. Someone will need to get this guy some memory aids or some morality. One of the two is in short supply with this guy.
6 Comments
I guess that puts you in the Hillary camp! I don’t think anyone has been overly optimistic (on either side) when it comes to the war. If you could accurately predict events it wouldn’t be war.
Gary, come on. Here was Rumsfeld before the war took hold, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: “It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”
There are dozens of these sorts of comments from this administration. Six weeks? Things don’t get much more overly optimistic than that. That’s giving him the benefit of the doubt too.
Many on the other side accurately predicted what has come to pass, include Bush’s own father in his book on why he didn’t go for Saddam during or after the Gulf War.
It wouldn’t be war if we’d have listened to people who actually put forth honest assessments of the situation instead of rhetoric that was never going to pan out.
Nice try Rich. I try to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you constantly show an unswerving ability to dodge reality.
The quote you printed of Secretary Rumsfeld was in response to a question about National Guard and reserve deployments not the length of the war. You’ve already made up your mind to be against anything the administation does or stands for so you can stop the rhetoric. It’s not panning out.
Gary, it’s just as easy for me to make the same argument you just did. That’s the easy one.
At a DoD briefing in February of this year he was asked “Is Iraq going to be a long war?” His response, “No, I don’t believe it is.”
Remember this rosy overly-optimistic, resolute comment? (speaking about WMD’s) “We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”
Sounded to everyone like we were going to walk in and be able to pick WMD’s off the trees.
I’ll keep going if you like. Rumsfeld is, in my view, NOT stupid and he appears to be able to walk around and not bump into things so I don’t think he’s blind eithere. He knows exactly how these comments will be presented and knows exactly how they’ll be received and framed.
He and the administration have painted overly optimistic views of the war from the beginning. We still have to get Cheney to define how long “last throes” can last. It’s almost 18 months now since he offered up that pile of manure.
The bottom line is that many people, includling those in high places, pointed out all of these concerns at the beginning. When they start to come to pass, sorry, but then it’s time to be quiet, admit you wrong and change course.
Here’s the complete portion of question and answer from the Italy session that Gary referred to:
Q: Thank you, sir. First, it’s a pleasure to hear you and to be this close to you and see you in person. We’ve seen you on TV a lot, and it’s a neat experience for us.
I’m part of an AEF rotation here, a part of a group that is deployed for AEF 7 and 8, and this is a great place to be deployed, no doubt. But many of us are asking, how long will we be frozen? But my question is, on the behalf of some of our Guard and Reserve men who are here, we know that some units have been mobilized, partially mobilized. Their question is, do you — are we going to go to a full mobilization of Guard and Reserve? And if we are, when will that decision be made?
Rumsfeld: Well — (laughter) — let me say this about that. (Laughter.) It is highly unlikely that we would go to a full mobilization. We — I have been signing a great many deployment orders and mobilization orders and alerting orders. The forces have been flowing now for a good number of weeks, and that has had its intended effect. There is no question but that the world’s focus is on the fact that the Iraqi regime, now for some 12 years, continues to ignore and disagree with the now 17 resolutions of the United Nations. The world understands that; they are looking for cooperation and hoping that the force flow will bring about cooperation, but thus far, it has not.
We don’t talk about deployments in the specific, but we have brought a good many Guard and Reserve on active duty. Fortunately, a great many of them were volunteers. We have been able to have relatively few stop losses. There are some currently, particularly in the Army, but relatively few in the Navy and the Air Force. And it is not knowable if force will be used, but if it is to be used, it is not knowable how long that conflict would last. It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.
After that, we have a responsibility as a country that if force were to be used and if the United States did have to go in with its coalition partners — and there are a growing number of nations that would be participating in a coalition of the willing — we feel an obligation to see that what is left after that regime is gone becomes a state that does not have weapons of mass destruction, and that would be part of our responsibility; that it would be a state that would not threaten its neighbors and launch Scuds into it, or use chemical weapons on their own people or their neighbors, as they have in the past; that it would be a single country and not broken into pieces; and that it would be a country that would be setting itself on a path to assure representation and respect for the various ethnic minorities in that country.
The number of people that that would take is reasonably predictable, and the only question would be what portion of that total number would be U.S. forces.
So I would see this buildup going up, lasting for a period, and the last choice is war, but if that is necessary, a period where that takes place and then a drawdown. And you would find people moving back out and some residual number staying there, with the — undoubtedly the forces of many other nations.
We have every week a growing number of countries who have volunteered to participate in a coalition of the willing, if it proves to be necessary; a number of countries that have indicated that they’re not able to participate in a coalition of the willing unless there’s a second resolution in the U.N., and that number is a reasonable number; and then a third group that says they would like to participate in a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq reconstruction effort. And that too is important. It will require people who are willing to come in and assist with civil affairs and with humanitarian assistance, and all of that planning is taking place.
So that is, I think, the way to think of it, but to try to put numbers on it is really not possible.
I will say this. The way we were organized in this department was really industrial age, not information age. And the way we were prepared to deploy and activate forces was — for a mental or a visual picture — we really had no deployment, and then we’d take a great big switch and swing it over and have full deployment. Now, that’s not very skillful. We can do a lot better than that.
And I’ve been taking these proposed deployment orders and disaggregating them so we can look at them and show respect for the Guard and Reserve and not pull them away from their jobs and their families prematurely to do jobs that aren’t really needed; instead, to try to leave them in their circumstance until we do need them. Because I’ve found that the people who have been activated, not volunteers, their morale is high. But the ones that have been activated are proud to be serving; they’re pleased to do it, they’re anxious to do it, but they want to be doing something real, they want to be doing something worthwhile. They don’t want to just simply be called up and then used in something that they know in their heart really doesn’t need to be done.
So we are in the process of taking lessons learned from this deployment exercise we’ve been through, and by golly, we’re going to refashion it in a way that we can do it an awful lot better. And I suspect that we’ll have that in place sometime in the next six months.
———–
There you have it. So let me add to the list the comment that, “It is highly unlikely that we would go to a full mobilization.”
Then there’s, “We have been able to have relatively few stop losses.”
To the point he says, “And it is not knowable if force will be used, but if it is to be used, it is not knowable how long that conflict would last. It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”
If you read that any way but as referring to how long the fight will be in Iraq, then you’re the one wearing blinders. He’s not talking about how long the unit will be deployed. He is clear and to the point. He’s speaking about how long “that conflict would last.”
Here are two that are concerning:
“..that it would be a single country and not broken into pieces; and that it would be a country that would be setting itself on a path to assure representation and respect for the various ethnic minorities in that country.”
Both of those are in major doubt now.
Then there’s this, “The number of people that that would take is reasonably predictable.”
Really? So reasonably predictable that it’s not going well and all sorts of different estimates have come out of the wood work on the number it would take to do this right. Even Paul Bremer is now an enemy of the administration for his comments in his book about how the troops there weren’t enough for the job (and don’t forget the President put a Medal of Freedom around his neck).
Yet another one: “We have every week a growing number of countries who have volunteered to participate in a coalition of the willing”
Boy was that overly optimistic. He’s clearly giving the impression that we’re going to be far from alone here. Where are they all now? When were they ever there?
Referring to post-Saddam Iraq, “It will require people who are willing to come in and assist with civil affairs and with humanitarian assistance, and all of that planning is taking place.”
Yes, we all know how well that planning turned out.
There’s more even in this single example. Many of us have had enough of this garbage and it appears that the guys in charge are finally admitting that they have egg on their faces now.
Senator McCain’s question was clearly meant to put the General’s on the spot and they looked like idiots standing up there saying they didn’t anticipate this situation. Perhaps they paid too much attention to the words of Mr. Rumsfeld.
“Is Iraq going to be a long war?” His response, “No, I don’t believe it is.”
And your point is????
How long is long? And if you’re going to be technical it’s stopped being a war sometime ago. It’s more of a peacekeeping force now, that the UN is so fond of, but never capable of peace making.
You’d make a good politician Rich, one of their favorite tactics is to quote someone out of context to try and support their position.
“He is clear and to the point. He’s speaking about how long “that conflict would last.””
I was referring to the question asked. You were implying his response was to a question of….Mr. Secretary how long do you think the war will last? (Even if true the actual war much shorter)
I don’t think you could take your blinders off if you wanted to Rich.