OK, I reread it.
I still say its Rumsfeld trying to shift blame.
1 - So Turkey didn't go along, for good or bad, that was their call. When you are planning a war, you have to expect that everyone is not always going to fall in line.
2 - If Turkey had gotten "directly" involved we might have lost Kurd support, still losing us the North.
3 - This article presupposes that the resistance is a "Baathist resistance". I've seen a lot more reference in their rhetoric to religion than Sadam. Baathists or no Baathists, there is no shortage of people in the middle east who want to stick it to an American troop. I said it before the war and I'll say it now, anyone who thinks the U.S. is going to walk into ANY country in the middle east, topple a government AND NOT meet resistance is an idiot.
4 - Check your record player guys, it seems to be skipping..... France, click France, click France, click France, click.....
Or maybe I'm still missing the point.
It can if your willing to grease the palms! Rice would have gotten them in. Powell was an ineffective wimp as a SOS!
except 4th ID was already offloaded in Turkey and ready to go. Turks gave us the go and then screwed us over because Germany and France threatened them. This, after we spent billions on Turkey during the cold war.
1 - So Turkey didn't go along, for good or bad, that was their call.
That's the problem with dealing with other countries. They sometimes don't do what you want.