A Stronger Force in Iraq

President Bush should be sending yellow roses to Gen. Eric Shinseki and begging him to come back. Before the war in Iraq, General Shinseki, then the Army chief of staff, said that Mr. Bush was going to need "several hundred thousand" soldiers to occupy and stabilize the country. The general was denounced by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's civilian team and then ushered into retirement. Mr. Bush clung to Mr. Rumsfeld's misguided idea that a minimal force could not only capture Baghdad but could also hold, stabilize and rebuild an entire country.

Mr. Rumsfeld was right about the lightning strike into Baghdad. But he was tragically wrong about everything else, and the deeper the United States gets into this badly planned occupation, the more American soldiers are paying the price. In the 13 months of war, about 700 American soldiers have been listed as killed, including at least 100 just in April. The White House cannot continue to deny our forces and the Iraqi people the protection that adequate troop strength would provide.

The administration agreed to increase the occupation force from about 115,000 to about 135,000 after being surprised by an easily predictable uprising this month. But it did so by extending the stay of already exhausted soldiers. And it authorized the increase for just 90 days, suggesting that it is continuing to put off hard decisions and deny unpleasant realities. The White House does not talk about it much, but the Pentagon is planning to stay in Iraq at least until the end of 2006. Even that timetable is extremely optimistic. It assumes everything will go precisely according to a plan that no one outside Mr. Bush's circle seems to understand and that has certainly not worked well so far.

It is past time for the president to let go of Mr. Rumsfeld's flawed theories of war and authorize a real long-term increase in the force in Iraq. There is debate about how many more soldiers are needed — some experts say at least 50,000 in the short term, while others say even more. What is certain is that the nation cannot continue limping along on small, politically calibrated 90-day infusions. The White House likes to shift responsibility to those in uniform by saying it is up to the military to figure out what it needs to do its job. Unfortunately, military planners are not certain what that job is in broad political terms. They stick to the safer ground of figuring an adequate force to handle very specific, immediate assignments. The administration needs to create a long-term military strategy and accept the burden of providing the troops to carry it out.

The failure to do that reflects the overarching error of the Iraqi invasion, one that has defined the entire Bush administration — the refusal to take the political risk that comes with asking the voters for real sacrifice. The president led the public to underestimate the time it would take to turn Iraq into a stable democracy and the likely cost in money and blood. Even now he is trying to avoid admitting that Congress needs additional appropriations for the war, while preaching an election-year gospel of tax cuts.

Right now, the wrong people are bearing the burden. The reserves have done far more than their fair share and many men and women on active duty are also being kept in the field too long. Iraqi civilian casualties mount and the Iraqi people, who were supposed to get their freedom, are prisoners in their homes while street crime, terrorist violence and insurrection are rife.

Sending more troops will cause further pain to an already strained military and it means acknowledging that units now being rotated home could be sent back to Iraq. But there seems to be no other choice. Much of the current trouble could have been avoided if Mr. Rumsfeld had not been so determined to disprove the doctrine named for his rival, Secretary of State Colin Powell, which posits that force, if it is to be used at all, should be overwhelming. The period after the fall of Baghdad was catastrophic: Iraq was looted, its police and army were disbanded, its civil servants were fired in a needless political purge, armed militias formed, and the thin American ranks could do little more than watch in horror. The United States should have had a much larger military force ready to actually occupy Iraq and restore order.

As much as we hope that Mr. Bush's very belated agreement to involve the United Nations in Iraq can clear the way for greater international military assistance, it would be folly to count on more than symbolic help in the near future. Any real increase in the military force in Iraq will have to come from the United States.

This page felt it was a mistake to invade Iraq without broad international support, and since then we have seen few indications that Mr. Bush's notion of establishing a stable democracy there is anything but a dream. Yet leaving Iraq now would create a situation so horrific that the United States is obliged to press forward as long as there seems any hope of making progress. The only possible, but by no means certain, road to a good outcome is to stick with the plan to allow the United Nations to set up an interim Iraqi government, to expand international political support, and to work with moderate Shiite and Sunni leaders to isolate the violent radicals. The Iraqi security forces have to be made into something far better than what they are now. It was a relief last week to see the occupation authorities finally start to reverse a foolish policy that denied work to Iraqis who had been forced to join Saddam Hussein's Baath Party in order to serve in the middle and lower levels of the deposed government and disbanded army.

We may, in the end, find that the task Mr. Bush has laid out for the brave men and women in the military and the brave Iraqi citizens who are struggling to create a better future is simply impossible to achieve. But we have not reached that point. This is not the moment for retreat and it certainly is not the moment for half measures.

How can you agree with ANY of it? It's utter nonsense from start to finish! It should be the 'meathead editorial':

1. "General Shinseki, then the Army chief of staff, said that Mr. Bush was going to need "several hundred thousand" soldiers to occupy and stabilize the country."

And he was proven wrong, as we have been there a year and we won a war and stabilized Iraq with much less.

2. "Mr. Bush clung to Mr. Rumsfeld's misguided idea that a minimal force could not only capture Baghdad .. "
Mr Bush didnt 'cling' to anything, he signed off on the most successful military plans ever put in effect when we invaded and secured Baghdad within 3 weeks.

"Mr. Rumsfeld was right about the lightning strike into Baghdad." Yes he was. Mostly, he was right to give General Franks what the General asked for.

4." But he was tragically wrong about everything else,"
WRONG!!! And this is the nub of the problem. I recall MANY DoD press conferences where Rumsfeld refused to predict what would happen since he said it was not knowable.

Rumsfeld has been right about that, far more so than NYTimes which has predicted 20 out of every 5 things that have gone wrong...

5. " badly planned occupation," another lie. cant get into details, but it was not 'badly planned', as there were operational plans on different contingencies, many of which never happened.

6." The White House cannot continue to deny our forces and the Iraqi people the protection that adequate troop strength would provide." Yet another lie. What is not conveyed is simply the reality that more troops ie more targets and closer US presense would mean less deaths, actually the opposite is likely. A deliberate policy of trying to give the Iraqis both more responsibility for security and more opportunity was made. It was made because we DONT want to be an occupying force.

Now, you could argue the pro/cons of more troops - the pro of security margins, the cons of cost and the fact that it would create greater dependency on the US, which would create greater US problems as Iraqis would not feel compelled to manage the situation. more importantly, though, the reality that intelligence is the real bottleneck not raw numbers. But, as usual the NYTimes looks at the cons on one side, but not on the other. You can be CERTAIN that had Bush ordered 300,000 into Iraq the NYTimes today would be denouncing the 'heavy handed

6."The administration agreed to increase the occupation force from about 115,000 to about 135,000 after being surprised by an easily predictable uprising this month."
Another lie - it was not an 'uprising'.
Another lie - predictable or not, the increase was a reasonable response to events. In particular *not* the insurgents, but the Iraqi forces not being up to par.

7. " But it did so by extending the stay of already exhausted soldiers." Another lie! troops are no "exhausted" simply because their tour of duty is up. There is nothing suggesting the extention cannot be done by professional troops. Does NYT seriously aim to suggest the troops are too 'exhausted' to stay 3 more months?!?

8. " And it authorized the increase for just 90 days, suggesting that it is continuing to put off hard decisions"

More baloney! It is NOT putting off hard decisions, it is waiting to see how events evolve.

Apparently, the NYTimes lives in the unreal world where all security risks can be assessed prior to reality happening, that every planner must be a 100% correct oracle, or 'planning has failed'...

9. "The White House does not talk about it much, but the Pentagon is planning to stay in Iraq at least until the end of 2006." See, this is the kind of phony baloney that NYTimes trades in all the time. They spout this like some kind of failing of the administration... hello? We are still in *Bosnia* for cryin out loud! Anyone with a brain knows that the US has *wanted* to stay in Iraq - if we are wanted there - for the foreseeable future. It is great basing for our influence in the mid-east and for the GWOT.

" Even that timetable is extremely optimistic."

No its not optimistic. Here is "optimistic" - we stay there another 10 years in Iraq as welcome guests, and in the interim, WE WIN THE WAR ON TERROR helping Iran, Syria, and other nations reform or face revolution.

10. " It assumes everything will go precisely according to a plan that no one outside Mr. Bush's circle seems to understand and that has certainly not worked well so far."

The clueless Times gets it wrong again. The vision is for a stable democratic Iraq. To implement the vision we have a strategy - US military providing security, support for the political process of democratization - via CPA/UN/elections/constitution-writing etc., and handover of security duties to Iraqis as soon as we are able, by building up those institutions. The tactics of implementing that are up to the military. They've been doing a good job, although there is the reality of terrorists working actively against the coalition. Maybe we've been a bit soft on them.

"It is past time for the president to let go of Mr. Rumsfeld's flawed theories of war ..."

excuse me, but we have Rumsfeld: 2 countries successfully invaded and enemies deposed; NYTime editors: 0 countries.
It is past time for the NYTimes to let go of their phony presumed superiority in issues they themselves have proven ignorant about.
Rumsfeld and our DoD have proven themselves capable of winning wars.

11. "What is certain is that the nation cannot continue limping along on small, politically calibrated 90-day infusions."
Another lie - the infusion is not 'politically calibrated' but militarily so. What does the military want? what they want they get.

12. " The White House likes to shift responsibility to those in uniform by saying it is up to the military to figure out what it needs to do its job. Unfortunately, military planners are not certain what that job is in broad political terms."

Hogwash. The job is Iraqi security and the NYTimes is lying again. Abazaid and Sanchez know their job, so does our US military generally.

NYT lies by ignoring the evidence and the clear statements from President Bush about the goal, and then says 'there is no plan'.

Wolfowitz, Myers, Grossman (DoS) and others were testifying to Congress thursday. They gave *hours* of testimony that point by point totally and 100% refutes these lies of 'no planning' or 'poor planning' or 'we dont know the plan'. These are ALL LIES DESIGNED TO UNDERMINE THE PRESIDENT, THEY ARE WHOLLY WITHOUT BASIS. You can dispute the plan, or not like it, or propose something else, but it is there and it is clear enough to those who care to listen.

" They stick to the safer ground of figuring an adequate force to handle very specific, immediate assignments. The administration needs to create a long-term military strategy and accept the burden of providing the troops to carry it out."

Duh. They have done exactly that! See above comment. You see, we are again at the conundrum of 'planning', the NYTimes wants it all spelled out in enough detail so they can hammer Bush hard for any perceived slip or change. They hold Bush to an impossible standard that castigate him for failing to be perfect.

Rumsfeld has a more rational and flexible strategic approach. Dont try to predict the future, take into account the possible scenarios and adjust on an ongoing basis.
NYTimes is too rigid in thinking to understand this mode of operation.
A simple retort might be to ask the NYTimes - 'okay, so what stories will be on your front page on may 15th? oh, you dont know? how can you run a paper with such poor planning of future issues!'
Gosh, that's an easy job, being a critic in war!

13.
"The failure to do that reflects the overarching error of the Iraqi invasion, one that has defined the entire Bush administration — the refusal to take the political risk that comes with asking the voters for real sacrifice."

AND NOW WE GET TO THE REAL AGENDA. The NYTimes wants Bush to beg for a 'sacrifice' - maybe we have to wear sweaters, or give up SUVs, or even better Higher Taxes - from the people.

"The president led the public to underestimate the time it would take to turn Iraq into a stable democracy"

*ANOTHER LIE*. Any thinking person was thinking a few years of transition. Administration has made that clear.
We've been told that June 30th was 'too fast' ... hmm. the timeline is a permanent govt by end of 2005, and that is a planning estimate stable since late last year.

"Even now he is trying to avoid admitting that Congress needs additional appropriations for the war, while preaching an election-year gospel of tax cuts."

Oooo, cant you see thse liberals seething at a President *still* advocating tax cuts. boy they would love to pin any tax increase on the "price of Bush's Iraq policy" or some such nonsense. Never mind that Iraq's total war cost is still less than 1 month of total govt spending.

"Right now, the wrong people are bearing the burden. The reserves have done far more than their fair share and many men and women on active duty are also being kept in the field too long. Iraqi civilian casualties mount"

An Al Jazeera LIE!!! The civilians are being killed by TERRORISTS.

"Sending more troops will cause further pain to an already strained military"

The military 'strained'. Is that why recruitment goals are being exceeded?

"The period after the fall of Baghdad was catastrophic: Iraq was looted, its police and army were disbanded, its civil servants were fired in a needless political purge,"

more baloney!!! .... getting rid of baathists was not 'needless'.

" armed militias formed, and the thin American ranks could do little more than watch in horror."

Inventing history - hysteria - as we speak! The looting was something we didnt feel the need to stop immediately as we had remnants of an enemy to defeat.

The main issue is not that we disbanded the police - it is that the police *disappeared*. So did the army. The NYTimes is *blaming* the US military for the craven lack of duty of any element of saddam's govt to stick around !!!!
This is amazing! It is as absurd as those meatheads blaming British rockets for the Basra car bombings.

Let us recount what happened: US military invades Baghdad. Police are gone. Amry is gone. Iraqi people loot. US military stuck fighting remaining fighters. How is this lack of civil order the fault of the US military?!?

"As much as we hope that Mr. Bush's very belated agreement to involve the United Nations in Iraq"

YET ANOTHER LIE. We asked for UN involvement since last may. It has been the UN dragging their feet, not the US who has been belated in working on this.

"This page felt it was a mistake to invade Iraq without broad international support, and since then we have seen few indications that Mr. Bush's notion of establishing a stable democracy there is anything but a dream."

So they were against the war and have henpecked it to death ever since.

"It was a relief last week to see the occupation authorities finally start to reverse a foolish policy that denied work to Iraqis who had been forced to join Saddam Hussein's Baath Party in order to serve in the middle and lower levels of the deposed government and disbanded army."

More hogwash. It was a good policy supported by most Iraqis. It has not harmed Iraq at all to carry that out, and the change by Bremer is a slight one, not a major one.
Now the NYTimes is carrying water for the baathist-lovers in the UN. guys like brahimi... ugggg.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.