Posted on 05/01/2004 12:36:35 PM PDT by Matchett-PI
Rumsfeld wanted Iraqis in on the action — right from the beginning.
The latest post-hoc conventional wisdom on Iraq is that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld won the war but lost the occupation.
There are two problems with this analysis (which comes, most forcefully, from The Weekly Standard).
First, it's not Rumsfeld's occupation; it's Colin Powell's and George Tenet's.
Second, although it's painfully obvious that much is wrong with this occupation, it's simple-minded to assume that more troops will fix it.
More troops may be needed now, but more of the same will not do the job. Something different is needed — and was, right from the start.
A Rumsfeld occupation would have been different, and still might be.
Rumsfeld wanted to put an Iraqi face on everything at the outset — not just on the occupation of Iraq, but on its liberation too. That would have made a world of difference.
Rumsfeld's plan was to train and equip — and then transport to Iraq — some 10,000 Shia and Sunni freedom fighters led by Shia exile leader Ahmed Chalabi and his cohorts in the INC, the multi-ethnic anti-Saddam coalition he created.
There, they would have joined with thousands of experienced Kurdish freedom fighters, ably led, politically and militarily, by Jalal Talabani and Massoud Barzani.
Working with our special forces, this trio would have sprung into action at the start of the war, striking from the north, helping to drive Baathist thugs from power, and joining Coalition forces in the liberation of Baghdad.
That would have put a proud, victorious, multi-ethnic Iraqi face on the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and it would have given enormous prestige to three stubbornly independent and unashamedly pro-American Iraqi freedom fighters: Chalabi, Talabani, and Barzani.
Jay Garner, the retired American general Rumsfeld chose to head the civilian administration of the new Iraq, planned to capitalize on that prestige immediately by appointing all three, along with six others, to head up Iraq's new transitional government.
He planned to cede power to them in a matter of weeks — not months or years — and was confident that they would work with him, not against him, because two of them already had.
General Garner, after all, is the man who headed the successful humanitarian rescue mission that saved the Kurds in the disastrous aftermath of Gulf War I, after the State Department-CIA crowd and like thinkers in the first Bush administration betrayed them.
Kurds are not a small minority — and they remember. The hero's welcome they gave General Garner when he returned to Iraq last April made that crystal clear.
Finally, Secretary Rumsfeld wanted to cut way down on the infiltration of Syrian and Iranian agents and their foreign terrorist recruits, not just by trying to catch them at the border — a losing game, given the length of those borders — but by pursuing them across the border into Syria to strike hard at both the terrorists and their Syrian sponsors, a move that would have forced Iran as well as Syria to reconsider the price of trying to sabotage the reconstruction of Iraq.
None of this happened, however, because State and CIA fought against Rumsfeld's plans every step of the way.
Instead of bringing a liberating Shia and Sunni force of 10,000 to Iraq, the Pentagon was only allowed to fly in a few hundred INC men.
General Garner was unceremoniously dumped after only three weeks on the job, and permission for our military to pursue infiltrators across the border into Syria was denied.
General Garner was replaced by L. Paul Bremer, a State Department man who kept most of the power in his own hands and diluted what little power Chalabi, Talabani, and Barzani had by appointing not six but 22 other Iraqis to share power with them.
This resulted in a rapidly rotating 25-man queen-for-a-day-type leadership that turned the Iraqi Governing Council into a faceless mass, leaving Bremer's face as the only one most Iraqis saw.
By including fence-sitters and hostile elements as well as American friends in his big, unwieldy IGC and giving them all equal weight, Bremer hoped to display a kind of inclusive, above-it-all neutrality that would win over hostile segments of Iraqi society and convince them that a fully representative Iraqi democracy would emerge.
But Iraqis didn't see it that way.
Many saw a foreign occupation of potentially endless length, led by the sort of Americans who can't be trusted to back up their friends or punish their enemies.
Iraqis saw, too, that Syria and Iran had no and were busily entrenching their agents and terrorist recruits into Iraqi society to organize, fund, and equip Sunni bitter-enders like those now terrorizing Fallujah and Shiite thugs like Moqtada al Sadr, the man who is holding hostage the holy city of Najaf.
Despite all the crippling disadvantages it labored under, Bremer's IGC managed to do some genuine good by writing a worthy constitution, but the inability of this group to govern-period, let alone in time for the promised June 30 handover — finally became so clear that Bremer and his backers at State and the CIA were forced to recognize it.
Their last minute "solution" is to dump the Governing Council altogether, and give U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan's special envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, the power to appoint a new interim government.
The hope is that U.N. sponsorship will do two big things: 1) give the Brahimi government greater legitimacy in the eyes of the Iraqi people; and 2) convince former allies to join us and reinforce our troops in Iraq in some significant way.
These are vain hopes.
Putting a U.N. stamp on an Iraqi government will delegitimize it in the eyes of most Iraqis and do great damage to those who are actively striving to create a freer, more progressive Middle East.
Iraqis may distrust us, but they have good reason to despise the U.N., and they do.
For 30 years, the U.N. ignored their torments and embraced their tormentor, focusing obsessively on a handful of Palestinians instead.
Then, when Saddam's misrule reduced them to begging for food and medicine, they saw U.N. fat cats rip off the Oil-for-Food Program money that was supposed to save them.
The U.N. as a whole is bad; Lakhdar Brahimi is worse. A long-time Algerian and Arab League diplomat, he is the very embodiment of all the destructive old policies foisted on the U.N. by unreformed Arab tyrants, and he lost no time in making that plain.
In his first press conferences, he emphasized three points: Chalabi, Talabani, and Barzani will have no place in a government he appoints; he will condemn American military action to restore order in Iraq; and he will be an energetic promoter of the old Arab excuses — Israel's "poison in the region," he announced, is the reason it's so hard to create a viable Iraqi interim government.
Men like Chalabi, Talabani, and Barzani have nothing but contempt for Mr. Brahimi, the U.N., and old Europe.
They know perfectly well who their real enemies are, and they understand that only decisive military action against them can create the kind of order that is a necessary precondition for freedom and democracy.
They see, as our State Department Arabists do not, that we will never be loved, in Iraq or anywhere else in the Middle East, until we are respected, and that the month we have wasted negotiating with the butchers of Fallujah has earned us only contempt, frightening our friends and encouraging our mortal enemies.
The damage Brahimi will do to the hope of a new day in Iraq and in the Middle East is so profound that it would not be worth it even if empowering him would bring in a division of French troops to reinforce ours in Iraq.
In fact, it will do no such thing.
Behind all the bluster and moral preening, the plain truth is that the French have starved their military to feed their bloated, top-heavy welfare state for decades.
They couldn't send a division like the one the Brits sent, even if they wanted to (they don't).
Belgium doesn't want to help us either, nor Spain, nor Russia, because these countries are not interested in fighting to create a new Middle East.
They're fighting to make the most advantageous deals they can with the old Middle East, seeking to gain advantages at our expense, and at the expense of the oppressed in Iraq, Iran, and every other Middle Eastern country where people are struggling to throw off the shackles of Islamofascist oppression.
It is not yet too late for us to recognize these facts and act on them by dismissing Brahimi, putting Secretary Rumsfeld and our Iraqi friends fully in charge at last, and unleashing our Marines to make an example of Fallujah.
And when al Jazeera screams "massacre," instead of cringing and apologizing, we need to stand tall and proud and tell the world: Lynch mobs like the one that slaughtered four Americans will not be tolerated.
Order will restored, and Iraqis who side with us will be protected and rewarded.
— Barbara Lerner is a frequent contributor to NRO.
NB: "This is an outstanding analysis of what has gone wrong--and will continue to go wrong--in Iraq, unless it is addressed."
You must have missed this.
The Foggy Bottom Swamp (State Department) will begin to be DRAINED when Bush is re-elected in a landslide.
Did you miss my tagline?
The "underlings" as you call them, are the enemy within. Better get up to speed.
Oh yes, we need men like Chalabi in power. Lord knows he's steered the administration so right in the past with 'intelligence'. Who knows what he could do once in the Iraqi government?
More 'advice' from the NRO bump. The WOST continues
Bremer is an interesting man. Did you see this thread from the other night? ~ Bremer speech accused Bush of ignoring terrorism (Feb. '01 speech)
Wrong. It is merely a backing of Rumsfeld's origional plan. Read it carefully:
Rumsfeld's plan was to train and equip — and then transport to Iraq — some 10,000 Shia and Sunni freedom fighters led by Shia exile leader Ahmed Chalabi and his cohorts in the INC, the multi-ethnic anti-Saddam coalition he created.
There, they would have joined with thousands of experienced Kurdish freedom fighters, ably led, politically and militarily, by Jalal Talabani and Massoud Barzani. Working with our special forces, this trio would have sprung into action at the start of the war, striking from the north, helping to drive Baathist thugs from power, and joining Coalition forces in the liberation of Baghdad.
That would have put a proud, victorious, multi-ethnic Iraqi face on the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and it would have given enormous prestige to three stubbornly independent and unashamedly pro-American Iraqi freedom fighters: Chalabi, Talabani, and Barzani.
Jay Garner, the retired American general Rumsfeld chose to head the civilian administration of the new Iraq, planned to capitalize on that prestige immediately by appointing all three, along with six others, to head up Iraq's new transitional government.
He planned to cede power to them in a matter of weeks — not months or years — and was confident that they would work with him, not against him, because two of them already had.
General Garner, after all, is the man who headed the successful humanitarian rescue mission that saved the Kurds in the disastrous aftermath of Gulf War I, after the State Department-CIA crowd and like thinkers in the first Bush administration betrayed them.
Kurds are not a small minority — and they remember. The hero's welcome they gave General Garner when he returned to Iraq last April made that crystal clear.
Finally, Secretary Rumsfeld wanted to cut way down on the infiltration of Syrian and Iranian agents and their foreign terrorist recruits, not just by trying to catch them at the border — a losing game, given the length of those borders — but by pursuing them across the border into Syria to strike hard at both the terrorists and their Syrian sponsors, a move that would have forced Iran as well as Syria to reconsider the price of trying to sabotage the reconstruction of Iraq.
None of this happened, however, because State and CIA fought against Rumsfeld's plans every step of the way. ..."
WHY????
I don't recall saying anything about either Rumsfeld or Powell....
When you mention "State" you're referring to Powell:
. "Bremer and his backers at State and the CIA"
Looks like Bush decided to go a different route. Probably smart not to take this writer's bloodthirsty advice.
Well...
Rumsfeld and the hawks were constantly in front of the cameras pushing their version of events. Most of the Bush comments corroborated the Rummie dummies as being in tune to Bush. As the events get more unsettled, the tendency is to shift the blame to others for the quandry. Who is the last man standing in the game of musical chairs? Only time will tell.
This was Bush I's Bay of Pigs: a craven act through and through. He, once he passes from this earth, along w/JFK, Johnson and Carter should be exhumed yearly, and beaten w/their own bones sometime close to the Fourth of July.
Kurds are not a small minority — and they remember. The hero's welcome they gave General Garner when he returned to Iraq last April made that crystal clear.
The Kurds love of this man was written all over their faces and plain for all the world to see, upon Garner's arrival in Iraq.
Finally, Secretary Rumsfeld wanted to cut way down on the infiltration of Syrian and Iranian agents and their foreign terrorist recruits, not just by trying to catch them at the border — a losing game, given the length of those borders — but by pursuing them across the border into Syria to strike hard at both the terrorists and their Syrian sponsors, a move that would have forced Iran as well as Syria to reconsider the price of trying to sabotage the reconstruction of Iraq.
Rumsfeld has about 50 IQ points on Colin Powell. Along w/that contrast Powell's procliivity to play the Media Whore, and Rumsfeld's procilivity to tell it like it is, and leave the
ass-sniffing to generals like the General.
How is it possible that GW, after exhibiting enormous foresight (sp?) finds himself in this unenviable position?
Seems to me some Conservatives are using Powell as a scapegoat because they don't like him and quite frankly would do away with the State Department if they had a chance. Again, I'm not suggesting Powell and his management at State isn't without fault, but to blame all the problems in Iraq right now on him is totally unfair.
First french fries, now Le Monde ? Officially, it's because money's tight, but some Bush administration officials aren't hiding the fact that there is a little payback for anti-American coverage in the State Department's decision not to fund foreign press centers at the Democratic and Republican presidential nominating conventions. "They can come and pay like everyone else!"barked an angry administration official. "It's ridiculous; this is foreign press welfare." Said a British scribe: "I can't believe this is for a little ribbing in the press." What's happening is this: For the first time since Ronald Reagan ran for re-election in 1984, the State Department isn't pampering the foreign press by outfitting high-tech briefing rooms at the political conventions. "This year, money was tight," explained State's Adam Ereli. "You can't do everything you want to." The savings: a whopping $500,000. Instead, they'll have to cover the Boston and New York events like the rest of the press. Payback? Gosh no, says Ereli. "That's crazy," said the diplomat."We're not shutting them out." Link
What I said. Rumsfeld's plan was wrong in the first place.
Rumsfeld's plan was to train and equip — and then transport to Iraq — some 10,000 Shia and Sunni freedom fighters led by Shia exile leader Ahmed Chalabi and his cohorts in the INC, the multi-ethnic anti-Saddam coalition he created.
And there's where it went wrong. Chalabi provided 'intel' on these invisible WMDs. Months after Chalabi's evidence has still not been proven he still receives over $300,000 a month from our government. Chalabi is no friend to this nation of states. He merely applied the scare tactic of WMDs that did not exist to require our Armed Forces to remove Saddam Hussein. This was a vendetta between two men of the same nation. We should have stayed out of it. Now that we haven't, I support any plan that dilutes Chalabi's power in Iraq. It's not like ten years from now the nation will be a republic, democracy, or any form of Western government. No, it will be an Islamic theocracy
Bremer ordered debathification, Bremer reports to the Defense Department although Col. Hunt stated on Fox News the other night that it was Sec. Powell's idea for debathification.
Bush's man to pick up pieces after war
Matthew Engel in Washington
Wednesday April 2, 2003
The Guardian
It is probably most accurate to call him Iraq's president-elect. The moment Saddam Hussein falls, Jay Garner will take over, with the kind of sweeping power over the whole of Iraq that even President Saddam has been unable to exercise for the past few years.
When the name Garner was announced as the US's intended interim ruler six weeks ago, it seemed relatively uncontroversial. After all, it was clear someone would have to do the job. Here was a retired general, highly regarded in the services and with a track record of involvement in humanitarian work in the region, being dragged reluctantly from rebuilding the boat deck at his Florida home the moment his country called.
But as the weeks have gone by, the choice looks to be yet another misjudgment from a Pentagon leadership that has misjudged rather a lot.
At present, General Garner is sitting in Kuwait, saying nothing in public, waiting for the US military to declare at least some areas sufficiently pacific for his team to start work. For the past fortnight the Iraqi interim authority has had the formal sanction of the Bush administration. But its plans remain mysterious: the New York Times called Gen Garner's operation "obsessively secret".
Meanwhile, arguments swirl around him - between those ancient Washington adversaries, the state and defence departments, and between the US and the UN. There is no argument among Arab opinion formers, who with rare unanimity have been condemning his appointment as another sign of American contempt for Iraqi feelings.
Among those who actually know him, no one seems to have a bad word for Jay Gar ner. Now 64, he retired six years ago as a three-star general, having made his reputation most spectacularly after the 1991 Gulf war when he was in charge of the Kurdish areas in the north, and won the confidence of the thousands of Kurds who had fled into the mountains to escape President Saddam's forces.
Former colleagues recall him as a brave decision-maker ("He wouldn't dodge bullets, he'd bite them," in the words of General Thomas McInerney) and a humane, informal ("Call me Jay") and humorous man. His Florida neighbours like him too. "Real casual, very humble," said one of them, Renee Keene.
But three facts have come to haunt his mission before it even starts. One is the general's work since retiring from the army as president of defence contractor SY Coleman, now part of a communications-led outfit called L3. An L3 spokesman insisted that Gen Garner's firm does not make military hardware but specialises in the guidance systems. In other words, he is the man who has been trying to make sure the weapons hit the targets rather than the surrounding civilians. This may be true, but this might require an over-subtle explanation in the Baghdad souks if Iraqis start to believe they are being ruled by a man who was just trying to kill them.
The second problem concerns his links with Israel. In October 2000 Gen Garner went on what seems to have been a routine 10-day freebie to Israel, organised by the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, an organisation striving "to inform the American defence and foreign affairs community about the important role Israel can and does play in bolstering democratic interests in the Mediterranean and the Middle East". Afterwards, the general signed a declaration of support for Israeli policy, at a time when the latest outbreak of Palestinian unrest was just under way.
Commentators across the Arab world, always on the lookout for slights, are aghast at the insensitivity involved in his appointment. "It sends completely the wrong signal," said Ibrahim Hooper of the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations.
"From the perspective of the Muslim and Arab world, it is inappropriate to have someone who has exhibited strong pro-Israel sentiments as the veritable ruler of Iraq. It will be seen as confirming the sense that it is not a war of lib eration but a war to promote the state of Israel."
In Washington a diplomatic battle has broken out about whether relief for Iraq should be controlled by Colin Powell's state department or the Pentagon. Mr Powell's allies regard Gen Garner, appointed by the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, and reporting to the wartime commander Tommy Franks, as someone whose motives will inevitably be regarded as tainted in postwar Iraq.
"This is an outstanding analysis of what has gone wrong--and will continue to go wrong--in Iraq, unless it is addressed."
Well, those of us who tried to address this before we went into Iraq were called anti-American terrorist sympathizers.
But I hope he realizes that the media and the left will continue to hold him responsible for whatever goes wrong there no matter if it is the UN running the show.
Bush should be held responsible. He is the one who pushed for this. And isn't he the self-proclaimed "ultimate decision maker for this country"?
There is problem with this
Chalabi is an opportunist, wanted for financial crime and more-less responsible for the WMD myth.
I think that noone had the courage in the US administration to give an army to his hand..... Quite rightly
If you get your way it will.
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.