Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Missing Men Attended the Global Test (The Belmont Club)
The Belmont Club | October 5, 2004 | Wretchard

Posted on 10/05/2004 2:07:39 PM PDT by 68skylark

Andrew Sullivan feels justified in saying, "I told you so". In the Daily Dish, he says:

Now, Bremer: The main criticisms this blog has directed at the conduct of the war have been the insufficient troop numbers and allowing the looting and disorder to spread after the liberation. Now comes Jerry Bremer to say exactly the same thing:

"We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness. We never had enough troops on the ground."

That's a big admission. Why doesn't Edwards bring that up directly tonight with Cheney? And since it was so obvious so soon, why didn't the administration do anything to change that policy once its failings had become so glaring? Pig-headedness? Ignorance? Hubris? Or merely Rumsfeld - shorthand for all three?

Sullivan's source for Bremer's remarks is the Washington Post which begins its story this way:

The former U.S. official who governed Iraq after the invasion said yesterday that the United States made two major mistakes: not deploying enough troops in Iraq and then not containing the violence and looting immediately after the ouster of Saddam Hussein. Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, administrator for the U.S.-led occupation government until the handover of political power on June 28, said he still supports the decision to intervene in Iraq but said a lack of adequate forces hampered the occupation and efforts to end the looting early on.

What Bremer actually said was:

"We paid a big price for not stopping it (looting) because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness," he said yesterday in a speech at an insurance conference in White Sulphur Springs, W.Va. "We never had enough troops on the ground."

From that quote the "Washington Post" concluded that:

Bremer's comments were striking because they echoed contentions of many administration critics, including Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry, who argue that the U.S. government failed to plan adequately to maintain security in Iraq after the invasion.

Bremer's own interpretation of his own comments was rather different. He claimed the coalition was shorthanded when it arrived in Baghdad.

"I believe that we currently have sufficient troop levels in Iraq," he said in an e-mailed statement. He said all references in recent speeches to troop levels related to the situation when he arrived in Baghdad in May 2003 -- "and when I believed we needed either more coalition troops or Iraqi security forces to address the looting."

Before we dismiss Bremer's statement as a belated attempt to split hairs and return to the Party Line it is important to remember one simple fact. The US arrived in Baghdad in May, 2003 minus nearly half the mechanized force intended for the operation. The Fourth Infantry Division which was scheduled to attack downward from Turkey and sweep through the Sunni heartland never arrived in large part due to the opposition of countries like France in the Security Council. Instead, it was forced to re-embark and ship around to the Gulf where it marched north up the Tigris in the path of the 3rd Infantry Division. The 3rd ID, for its part had to continue its attack north to partially subdue the towns in the Sunni triangle. It was a double-whammy. Not only was the 4th ID missing from the order of battle, the 3rd ID had to send units out of Baghdad. to continue the fight further on. Here's what the Christian Science Monitor had to report on February 21, 2003, just weeks before OIF actually began:

A US-led war in Iraq without Turkey as a pivotal ally was once a remote possibility. But months of prickly negotiations between Washington and Ankara are coming to a head and the US is dangerously close to its first setback - one that would force drastic changes in the war plan, military officials say. Already 30 to 40 US cargo ships are either waiting off the Turkish coast or scheduled to arrive there soon, officials say. The Bush administration says Turkey must decide Friday whether tens of thousands of US troops can be stationed here.

"They would have to change their entire strategy as a result," says one US military official.

Some 20 to 30 US cargo ships bound from Texas ports and another 10 headed from Northern Europe are carrying 4.5 million sq. ft. of cargo including tanks, trucks, and other heavy equipment for the 16,000-strong division. It would take 18 to 21 days to divert these ships from the eastern Mediterranean to Kuwait via the Red Sea and Persian Gulf, with additional delays possible from winter high seas and traffic in the Suez Canal. The roll-on, roll-off cargo ships of the ready reserve fleet travel at about 14 to 16 knots. Once in Kuwait, finding pier space to offload the cargo, and additional staging grounds, could also take time, officials say.

Turkish President Ahmet Sezer says that the US must first win international legitimacy before launching any military operation in Iraq, arguing that a second UN Security Council resolution beyond Resolution 1441 be passed. Bush administration officials will seek a vote at the Council next week, requiring 9 out of 15 votes for the measure to pass. But even if it does not, Bush has said, the US may go ahead and launch a war led by a "coalition of the willing."

The Fourth Infantry Division, at that time the most modern armored force in the Army, was not absent due to the "Pig-headedness? Ignorance? Hubris?" of Donald Rumsfeld. It was missing directly as a result of the machinations of those supposed to administer Kerry's Global Test to America in the United Nations, who were large part responsible for closing Turkey to the United States. To continue Sullivan's quote: "Why doesn't Edwards bring that up directly tonight with Cheney?" Cheney should. And to Sullivan's question: "since it was so obvious so soon, why didn't the administration do anything to change that policy once its failings had become so glaring?" one might answer that it did, re-embarking the 4ID and sailing it a total of 1/5th of the way around the world into congested ports which had never planned to receive them, before marching it 600 kilometers up to Baghdad.


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: belmontclub; iraq; kerry; theglobaltest
This is an interesting analysis of the troop strength issue.

I think Bush critics are confusing two different questions. First, how many troops were needed to depose Saddam? Second, how many troops were needed after that for occupation duty? Both questions have been hotly debated.

The first question was answered by our quick victory in Iraq. And I think Gen. Franks delivered the coup de gras to his critics in his very pursuasive book.

I'm still not sure about the right number of troops for peacetime occupation duty. Some people argue for more, while others say that the smaller our footprint, the more effective we are. It still deserves serious debate.

1 posted on 10/05/2004 2:07:39 PM PDT by 68skylark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 68skylark
Why doesn't Edwards bring that up directly tonight with Cheney? And since it was so obvious so soon, why didn't the administration do anything to change that policy once its failings had become so glaring? Pig-headedness? Ignorance? Hubris? Or merely Rumsfeld - shorthand for all three?

Sullivan is shorthand for pathetic idiot, desperately seeking a single reason to vote for Kerry and Edwards. His once sharp intellect has given way to emotion, something he once delighted in criticizing in others.

2 posted on 10/05/2004 2:24:27 PM PDT by Dolphy (Support swiftvets.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dolphy
I pay little attention to Andrew Sullivan, so I don't really have a reply. I heard him speak once at Northwestern Univsersity, and he was impressive. But I don't care if he's supporting the left or the right now, and I really don't want to hear his military analyses.
3 posted on 10/05/2004 2:28:48 PM PDT by 68skylark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 68skylark

The troops were committed...they wound up in Kuwaitt after being denied entry to Turkey at the last minute. If you want to blame anyone blame the Turkish legislature dominated by Muslims.


4 posted on 10/05/2004 3:15:08 PM PDT by vigilence
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 68skylark

Thanks for the post. It helps me feel better about Bremer. I was pretty angry at him before reading this.


5 posted on 10/05/2004 3:16:00 PM PDT by arjay (If the NYT is against it, it must be good for America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howlin; Grampa Dave
Our Vice President should hammer Edwards with these facts. Kerry sure is making hay with the wrong interpretation of what Bremer said.
6 posted on 10/05/2004 3:21:26 PM PDT by MizSterious (First, the journalists, THEN the lawyers. :: Kerry promises, but Bush delivers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious

I agree with you. It seems to me that our error -- if we made any error -- was underestimating how barbaric the Muslims of Iraq really are.

Citizens of other countries don't loot their own wealth quite the same way, so how were we supposed to anticipate that Iraqis would wreck their own country?


7 posted on 10/05/2004 3:49:33 PM PDT by 68skylark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: vigilence

I agree that Turkey should bear a lot of the blame. But remember that Turkey wants to enter the European Union in the worst way, and the French were telling them to keep our troops out if they ever want a shot at the EU. So Turkey was in a tough position, and I put a lot of blame on the French.


8 posted on 10/05/2004 3:55:11 PM PDT by 68skylark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 68skylark
not to worry anymore about the war or anything else!
We now know who the foreign leaders are that support komrad kerry - he has intergalactic support...
per his statement today to clear up what he meant by "Global Test."

he said: "But I can do a better job of protecting America's security because the test that I was talking about was a test of legitimacy, not just in the globe, but elsewhere."

I hope someone asks him which other planets?
Inquiring minds want to know. Bet the DNC hate to let him out there on his own...he's as bad a ter-assa.
9 posted on 10/05/2004 4:06:48 PM PDT by maine-iac7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maine-iac7

They're probably registering dead aliens to vote on the moon and Mars -- kind of like Chicago.


10 posted on 10/05/2004 4:10:20 PM PDT by 68skylark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 68skylark

We had to walk a fine line between killing homicidal Iraqis and foreign terrorists and encouraging, aiding and abetting nascent Iraqi forces to shape their country. Too many troops, we're then perceived as heavyhanded and mean. We cannot do it all, well we could do it all, but it would injure Arab pride and we all know how important that is. Sigh. (See the pink panties on the heads incidents. I have been told seriously that this is worse for them than being put through a shredder. We had to take the cultural and social needs into account. Hence the plan that went forward, now being nitpicked to death because we discovered some Iraqis were cowards, some terrorized no doubt by threats to family, etc., and Fallujah remained a hellhole for far too long. Still, if we'd turned it into a parking lot, the shrieks and screams from our Globalist pals would be deafening. This is one of those Bush no win MSM deals, but you already knew that.


11 posted on 10/05/2004 4:29:38 PM PDT by hershey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 68skylark

Boy, from all we're hearing about what the perfidious French, Germans, Russians, and Chinese have been up to, it's a wonder we have a barrel left to stand in.


12 posted on 10/05/2004 4:31:11 PM PDT by hershey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: hershey
The Democrats seem to argue that the war was imperfect.

If they have a more serious & mature point than the charge of "imperfections," I haven't heard it.
13 posted on 10/05/2004 4:34:59 PM PDT by 68skylark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: vigilence

Blame the french also, they put heavy pressure on the Turks to not help.


14 posted on 10/05/2004 5:09:53 PM PDT by crazycat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 68skylark

Andrew Sullivan is not worth a pimple on Rumsfeld's ass.

Mr. Rumsfeld attended Princeton University on academic and NROTC scholarships (A.B., 1954) and served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as an aviator and flight instructor. In 1957, he transferred to the Ready Reserve and continued his Naval service in flying and administrative assignments as a drilling reservist until 1975. He transferred to the Standby Reserve when he became Secretary of Defense in 1975 and to the Retired Reserve with the rank of Captain in 1989.

In 1957, he came to Washington, DC to serve as Administrative Assistant to a Congressman. After a stint with an investment banking firm, he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Illinois in 1962, at the age of 30, and was re-elected in 1964, 1966, and 1968.

Mr. Rumsfeld resigned from Congress in 1969 during his fourth term to join the President's Cabinet. From 1969 to 1970, he served as Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity and Assistant to the President. From 1971 to 1972, he was Counsellor to the President and Director of the Economic Stabilization Program. In 1973, he left Washington, DC, to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Brussels, Belgium (1973-1974).

In August 1974, he was called back to Washington, DC, to serve as Chairman of the transition to the Presidency of Gerald R. Ford. He then became Chief of Staff of the White House and a member of the President's Cabinet (1974-1975). He served as the 13th U.S. Secretary of Defense, the youngest in the country's history (1975-1977).

From 1977 to 1985 he served as Chief Executive Officer, President, and then Chairman of G.D. Searle & Co., a worldwide pharmaceutical company. The successful turnaround there earned him awards as the Outstanding Chief Executive Officer in the Pharmaceutical Industry from the Wall Street Transcript (1980) and Financial World (1981). From 1985 to 1990 he was in private business.

Mr. Rumsfeld served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of General Instrument Corporation from 1990 to 1993. General Instrument Corporation was a leader in broadband transmission, distribution, and access control technologies. Until being sworn in as the 21st Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld served as Chairman of the Board of Gilead Sciences, Inc., a pharmaceutical company.

Before returning for his second tour as Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld chaired the bipartisan U.S. Ballistic Missile Threat Commission, in 1998, and the U.S. Commission to Assess National Security Space Management and Organization, in 2000.


15 posted on 10/05/2004 5:26:38 PM PDT by Max Combined (I gave back, I can't remember, six, seven, eight, nine...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: arjay
I am still angry at Bremer.
16 posted on 10/05/2004 5:27:29 PM PDT by Max Combined (I gave back, I can't remember, six, seven, eight, nine...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Max Combined
I knew Sec. Rumsfeld had a very impressive record, but I didn't know a lot of the information you've provided.

For example, I had no idea he reached the rank of Navy Captain -- that probably impresses me more than anything else you've written.

17 posted on 10/05/2004 5:34:14 PM PDT by 68skylark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: 68skylark

"he reached the rank of Navy Captain"

That and he was a naval aviator. I tip my hat to anyone willing and able to land a plane on a ship at night.

Don't forget his being elected to Congress at the tender age of 30 and his being the youngest Secretary of Defense in the history of our great country.


18 posted on 10/05/2004 6:05:00 PM PDT by Max Combined (I gave back, I can't remember, six, seven, eight, nine...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson