Posted on 04/17/2006 5:51:31 PM PDT by Phsstpok
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.
I remembered the period after Saddam fell and there was a big power struggle. Rumsfeld's guy, Jay Garner, was under constant criticism (intense propoganda) following the amazing success of the war against Saddam. There was also the totally unsubstantiated campaign launched against Chalabi (by the CIA) that he was an Iranian agent. Jay Garner was pushed out in favor of Colin Powell's man, Paul Bremer. Thus it was Rumsfeld's war, but it was Powell's occupation.
I don't know what arguments Colin Powell used to quash Rumsfeld's plan, as outlined in this EXCELLENT article, but he succeeded in convincing the President to give the Powell plan preeminence over the Rumsfeld plan (probably "we have to be able to offer bribes to the French to get them to cooperate so letting the Iragi's control their own oil won't be good"). And President Bush ordered Secretary Rumsfeld to tell Jay Garner that he was being replaced but to not explain why. Secretary Rumsfeld did as his commander in chief ordered him. He very obviously didn't like it, but he did it. He is the same as president Bush in that he understands his duty and he understands honor and he did what he was ordered to do.
And now it appears possibly to be Powell's halleluiah chorus is taking shots at Rumsfeld to prepare the way for saint Colin to become President.
A new (old) wrinkle on the general's revolt.
Rush covered several possibile scenarios as to what was going on with these generals. One of them was that these generals are part of the "draft Powell" movement. Rush didn't explore this particular slant, but if they are Powell supporters it would be very important to them to cast the blame on Rumsfeld for the occupation and deflect any blame from Powell. That nagged at me and I went googling.
I love the internet. This may not be "the answer" on this question and it may not be the ultimate interpretation of events, but it sure gives a new slant on the questions being raised right now.
I was wondering how many of these dissident generals were resisting Rumsfeld's restructuring of the Army. A lot of military egos were over-invested in the Crusader program, for example.
But I like your explanation better -- Generals for Powell.
It had to be philosophy or politics -- and I'm now deeply suspicious of the latter.
The responsibility fell to Rusmfeld but, until Powell was NOT asked to continue in the second term, he didn't have a free hand. That meant that Rumsfeld had to go along with the Powell plan for nearly 2 years until 2005. And then he's done the best he could with the facts on the ground. And he's cut down the death rate, he's decimated the opposition and he's got a viable process in place for the Iraqis to develop their own government. Notice, not OUR government, THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT. That was Secretary Rumsfeld's plan from the beginning. Too bad he wasn't allowed to pursue it during the crucial period.
And remember, it's almost certain that Powell's top lieutenant is the one who fed Valerie Plame's name to the drive by media. They know it, but they'll never mention that.
Thank you for digging up this old article -- which I had completely forgotten -- and posting it today.
It is critically important and damning of Colin Powell and his cohorts among the ex-military.
I hope that this article gets picked up by some of the talk radio leaders.
In fact, so dead on, I think that I noticed something (well, several things) that I don't like.
First, the whole aspect that our military has become so politicized, that generals are --for lack of a better phrase-- "taking sides". There aren't supposed to be any sides.
Second, and very disturbing to me, the President is the one that has made these decisions (the removal of Jay Garner, to move forward with the "Powell" plan, the installation of J. Paul Bremer, etc.).
These are his decisions. And, they don't appear to be good ones.
Look, I won't join the "woe is me" chorus, but there comes a point when we have to make a decision about where we are devoting our resources and our time. One might need to be forgiven for feeling a little blue, but our domestic situation is a total mess right now.
Illegal immigration that is rotting our country inside-out. The administration's position on this is depressing to say the least.
Spending is so out-of-control with this Congress and with the President that I'm really not sure what to say. If this is what "compassionate conservativism" is, then take it back...I don't want it. Even when I factor in that we are fighting a war and the impacts of 9/11 are still being felt, it's still very hard for me to believe what I'm seeing.
The situation with the oil is ridiculous. That the President (or somebody, anybody) hasn't told the PETA-NDRC-Earth-First-Watermelon crowd to "stuff it, we're drilling!" is beyond me.
I have read research that our announcement --not the actual results of the drilling, just the announcement-- that we are drilling in Alaska and opening up the Gulf of Mexico would drop gas prices 10-15%.
And we have our "friends" in OPEC that are "fighting the good fight for us". Right? But, oh, it's that Chavez guy and Iran that are the real problem. I suppose that's why the next meeting of the greater intellgensia that is OPEC is meeting in, yep, Venezuela!
If only 1 of these generals that is pissing and moaning now would have advocated bombing the Venezuelan Presidential palace and securing it's oil fields for our use --an actual war for oil-- and they were shot down by Rumsfeld, maybe I would be pissed. Perhaps if Rumsfeld was ignoring a plan that would have stopped illegal immigration in it's tracks, maybe I would be calling for his job too.
Sorry to ramble. I'm just very frustrated.
We let DeGaulle "liberate" Paris even though Americans did all the heavy lifting. The least we should have done is let real Iraqis take Baghdad.
Besides, whether I agree with that or not, arguing a tactical issue (i.e., taking Bahgdad) in the scope of a strategic discussion seems a little out of place. Which is not to say tactics aren't important, but when the strategies are being accomplished, discussing/debating the tactics seems like more than a little bit of hairsplitting.
Reestablishing the facts just so we don't forget why Iraq is a problem today. bttt
#10
An interesting article of how Powell screwed up the Iraq occupation and probably started the retired arm chair general/admirals revolt against Rummy/GW.
Tie this bs in with Armitage/Powell feeding and fueling the Plame/Wilson BS, and we see a clear picture of Powell's danger to America.
Thanks for the ping, bitt. Very interesting article. I never had any problem with Garner, but the "3-week team" included Barbara Bodine as "mayor of Baghdad." She is infamous for blocking John O'Neill from properly investigating the bombing of the Cole. I sure was glad to see her go.
Thank you so much for pulling this up.
lost the occupation
I keep hearing and seeing saying. On the assumtion that if you say some often enough it'll become true.
I would point out that this (the 1st freely elected Arab government) has been in power of (if memory serves) 140 days. That's less than 5 months for those of you who are in Rio Linda. Maybe those who say America doesn't have the patience to see this war though to victory...but I refuse to believe that, even with all the "bomb em all" crowd here.
Thanks for the ping!
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.