Who said what about how long it would last

Who said what about how long it would last
(Filed: 29/03/2003)

Nine days into the war, there is growing criticism that the advocates of attacking Saddam Hussein promised that the conquest of Iraq would be brief, even easy.

But leading US conservatives retort that it is the media that has been over-optimistic about the course of the war. Certainly military spokesmen and advisers have been proved wrong in their confident expectations of mass surrenders within days.

Yet a review of recent utterances suggests that, whatever they thought and hoped, in public most key politicians carefully avoided firm predictions.

Key members of the Bush administration, such as the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, were among foreign policy experts who signed a joint letter to President Bill Clinton in 1999 declaring: "Iraq today is ripe for a broad-based rebellion . . . We must exploit this opportunity."

That view prevailed as the war neared. Senator John McCain, a leading Republican, said last autumn: "I believe Saddam Hussein is very weak. I don't believe there is an Iraqi soldier that is ready to die for Saddam Hussein."

Sen McCain went on: "I am very certain that this military engagement will not be very difficult . . . Saddam Hussein is vastly weaker than he was in 1991."

Richard Perle, an influential Pentagon adviser, said last winter: "I don't believe we have to defeat Saddam's army. I think Saddam's army will defeat Saddam."

Last month, Mr Perle told MSNBC television: "There may be pockets of resistance, but very few Iraqis are going to fight to defend Saddam Hussein."

His colleague, Ken Adelman wrote in February last year: "I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: one, it was a cakewalk last time; two, they've become much weaker; three, we've become much stronger; and, four, now we're playing for keeps."

But officials in the administration have been careful to avoid making specific claims. The most outspoken has been Vice-President Dick Cheney, who predicted "I don't think it would be that tough a fight" in an interview with NBC television last September.

A month earlier, Mr Cheney told military veterans that Saddam's overthrow would embolden moderates across the Muslim world.

Mr Cheney has come under fire for his further prediction, a fortnight ago, that war in Iraq would go "relatively quickly", taking "weeks rather than months".

But he may yet be proved right. The White House noted yesterday that the vice-president had qualified his remarks.

The full quote, a spokesman said, included the proviso: "There is always the possibility of complications that you can't anticipate."

Notwithstanding his image as a hawk, Mr Rumsfeld has been cautious about predicting the length of the war.

In November last year, he said: "The Gulf War in the 1990s lasted five days on the ground. I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months.

"But it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that. And it won't be a World War III."

British officials have proved more guarded in general, although Group Captain Al Lockwood, a spokesman for British forces, proved an exception.

He appeared visibly carried away by the infectious optimism of the first day of the war.

"If I were a betting man, which I'm not, we will be in Baghdad hopefully in the next three or four days," he told reporters at the coalition headquarters in Qatar.

Addressing the Commons at the start of the war, Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, said: "I would caution the House against suggestions that this campaign will be over in a very short time. We should not underestimate the risks and difficulties that we may face against a regime that is the embodiment of absolute ruthlessness."

A few days later at the European summit in Brussels, Tony Blair said the military campaign had started well, but added: "I should warn that our forces will face resistance and that the campaign, necessarily, will not achieve all its objectives overnight."

Speaking of Quotes

Whooo-raaah!!!

Stay Strong
Fuzzy

Concur, but question the depth of the research.

I heard a news report along these lines on the radio that related that even Bush had said it wouldn't be a cake walk and cited a single quote given somewhere in Ohio, I think.

I would be far more interested in hearing all the variations, in context, from all the major players over, say, the last 3-6 months preceding the attack.

When the administration resorts to pointing out a single obscure speech given by the prez in "fly over" country, I have to question whether the administration honestly tried to convey the likelihood of a prolonged (weeks, plus) conflict, or deliberately snuck in a qualification, while actually encouraging and abetting media spread optimism.

This report waffles a bit on that issue and consquently, isn't terribly satisfying to me.

Yet a review of recent utterances suggests that, whatever they thought and hoped,
in public most key politicians carefully avoided firm predictions.

Leave it to journalists outside the USA to actually analyze the news.
Well done as usual, Telegraph!

Of course, consideration must be given to the shading given to such statements for propaganda purposes. Propaganda can be a useful tool against your enemy. Personally, I think Bagdad will go down something like Berlin at the end of WWII.

Gawd, I hope not!!!

When I hear that phrase, I think of street fighting, the secret police herding civilians in front of tanks, snatching kids from home and issueing them, panzerfausts (I think), RPGs, today, and "deserters and cowards" hanging from streetlanmps.

Ugly, ugly scenario. And we didn't see the worst of it. Nazis considered the Soviets the greater threat by far and it was worse on their side.

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.