Powell Rejects French Timetable for Iraq

AP, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ^ | 9/12/03 | George Gedda

[AntiGuv]

Umm, no. If what you said is true [which it's not] then the Pentagon still did not properly plan the occupation and reconstruction.

BTW, I seriously doubt that the Bechtel Corp is charged with charged with the task of military occupation. I'm rather certain only the Pentagon is authorized to occupy Iraq. The provisional authority is clearly under the purview of the State Department [having been transferred when the Pentagon's initial administrators proved an utter disaster] though I'll admit its possible Paul Bremer is just a frontman for Bechtel.

Did you just make that up?

[FreeReign]

The Army has 480,000 active troops and about 555,000 in reserve. Troop reductions in Bosnia, Kosovo and Germany, plus an increase deployment of reservists alone could maintain our troops levels at about 150,000 for an indefinate period of time, given normal one year rotations.

However most likely, 150,000 will become less and less needed as we are now training some 40,000 or 50,000 Iraqi troops. Plus other allies will join in irrespective of any coerced U.N. resolution that the French and the WP may want or that the old windbag Robert Bryd may falsely imply -- REALLY!

The Congressional Budget Office warned yesterday that the Army lacks sufficient active-duty forces to maintain its current level of nearly 150,000 troops in Iraq beyond next spring.

Did you read my above response? Did you read the full article?

[Wp]:Guard and Reserve units are playing a major role in the occupation, and additional Guard and Reserve units are being activated to take over more of the Iraq mission early next year, the report noted. But it added that unless even more Guard and Reserve units are mobilized, "an occupation force of the present size could not be maintained past March 2004."

That's the full context of my response to you and the WP article. More reservists means no UN coerced resolution!

[FreeReign]

I see nothing there about budget cost analysis.

That's because the WP takes the budgetary report out of context and puts it into the context of a military strength anaysis. It is not a militarty anaysis report it is a budgetary report.

[AntiGuv]

More guardsmen and reservists along with extended active-service tours of duty means no Bush reelection. Take that to the bank.

That's why Bush is pursuing a "UN coerced resolution"...

[singsong]

the CBO said the Army's goals of keeping the same number of troops in Iraq and limiting tours of duty there to a year while maintaining its current presence elsewhere in the world were impossible to sustain... Troop reductions in Bosnia, Kosovo and Germany... will provide for Iraq and more.
Did you read this? Your attention is lacking today. CBO assumes maintaining the same amount of troops elsewhere. Which is totaly unnecessary. Germany, Kosovo? Why??? Let the Serbian Army back in Kosovo and Bosnia. They'll do a better job than the frogs. It will cut some costs too.

[FreeReign]

More guardsmen and reservists along with extended active-service tours of duty means no Bush reelection. Take that to the bank. That's why Bush is pursuing a "UN coerced resolution"...

Your argument has now changed...bye!

[AntiGuv]

BTW, the CBO report addresses the factor of maintaining other commitments. Obviously, if the U.S. defaults on all other commitments we have enough troops and more to maintain a sizable occupation force, forever...

Incidentally, there aren't really any "troop reductions" in Germany that would make much difference, since most of those troops are already in Iraq regardless of their official 'home' base - and are probably never going back.

Moreover, we only have 1,800 personnel currently in Bosnia and 4,350 in Kosovo. Defaulting on our obligations to SFOR and KFOR will hardly make the huge differene you seem to imagine.....

[AntiGuv]

See my post #67. I didn't initially respond to that because I didn't want to go out of my way in pointing out how deeply misguided the person who posted that was...

[AntiGuv]

I am somewhat inattentive today, though, I'll admit - because I have to Freep standing up due to a knee/leg injury. Mostly that's just showing up in a lot of typos, but it is somewhat awkward to read the screen...

[WOSG]

Iraq would face "total chaos" if the United States surrendered to demands for a hasty U.S. transfer of authority to Iraqi control.. But isn't that what France wants?

"Yes, we have a winner! Tell 'em what he won! ... 'A bound copy of Camus' "The Fall", 4 bottles of Bordeaux wine vintage 1988 (the good ol days of the cold war), and an LP phonograph record of the greatest hits of Vichy French singers singing to the German masters!"

[WOSG]

Good response. Actually Team USA has done things addressing all steps mentioned:

1. US forces + 20,000 polish + UK forces. plan to add more multinational forces (20,000 or so)

2. WMD finding - US has been doing that.

3. "post-conflict missions"? US forces do it every day, read CENTCOM reports. enough ammo and guns to run an army have been recovered.

4. Transitional administrator was appointed = Paul Bremer.

5. National dialog? They've gone beyond that, they have now a Governing Council which will set up the constitution development process, and they have appointed 32 Iraqis to run all key ministries.

6. US has brought experts and advisors on legal matters and the courts. FR has posted some articles from lawyers who went to Iraq and reported on it.

7. "international civilian police officers" US has done that, but we are now doing even better - over 50,000 Iraqis in the police and security units.

8. Debt conference and donors conference is in oct, set up by Powell.

9. Sanction lifted - done.

10. done - see #8.

11. "The United States has declared a commitment to a democratic, economically viable future Iraq. It is time to move from rhetoric to action." We've had quite a lot of action, and much success despite the many obstacles.

[WOSG]

"Nonetheless, the reason we're going to France and the rest of the Security Council is because the Pentagon did not properly plan the occupation and reconstruction. Period."

100% false. we are going to the UN because some of the would-be donors of multi-national troops, eg India, require the UN "seal of approval", solely due to the sense in those countries of the UN being an arbiter of such matters. You and I can disagree with such claims of "legitimacy", but that is the only reason we need to go to the UN. And we feel it serves our mission better to have more multi-national component to the occupation of liberated Iraq.

Any amount of planning or non-planning wouldnt have changed that.

If anything we have planned for so many contingincies that didnt happen: No food shortage, no massive oil fires, no refugees, and a war shorter and less bloody than it might have been.

[AntiGuv]

Did you read my posts #33 and #52?

Regardless, the reason we're going to France and the rest of the Security Council is because the Pentagon did not properly plan the occupation and reconstruction. Period.

[WOSG]

The Army has 480,000 active troops and about 555,000 in reserve. Troop reductions in Bosnia, Kosovo and Germany, plus an increase deployment of reservists alone could maintain our troops levels at about 150,000 for an indefinate period of time, given normal one year rotations. However most likely, 150,000 will become less and less needed as we are now training some 40,000 or 50,000 Iraqi troops. Plus other allies will join in irrespective of any coerced U.N. resolution that the French and the WP may want or that the old windbag Robert Bryd may falsely imply -- REALLY!

Well said! I agree!

[WOSG]

I've read the whole thread ...

- Post #52 is that Bill Kristol says we should do what it takes to win in Iraq. I agree with him. Do you agree with Bill Kristol on that?
- Pentagon planning has been fairly good wrt reconstruction, your assertion otherwise ignores the fact of great progress.
If Iraq has elections and a democratic Constitution within the next 18 months wouldnt that represent a great victory for US (as well as for Iraq)?
- Everytime the generals are asked about 'more troops' they say they dont need more troops, they have plenty of troops, 150,000 is the right number for now; what they need is good intel on the bad guys and the chance to catch them. Do you agree with the CENTCOM generals and DoD that current force levels are appropriate?
- The reasons we are going to the UN have to do with the politics of getting multi-national forces from some countries. You cant deny that because it is true and is what the Bush administration has been saying. Do you agree with the Bush administration?

[woofie]

"We've done a lot of liberation in Europe after other Europeans had occupied parts of Europe," Powell said.

Tell em France is next

[woofie]

"We've done a lot of liberation in Europe after other Europeans had occupied parts of Europe," Powell said.

Tell em France is next

[AntiGuv]

Yes, I agree with Bill Kristol except in his assessment of the utility of international forces. IMHO, Bill Kristol merely recognizes that internationalizing the effort would kill most of the peripheral neocon objectives [such as taking Iraq out of OPEC]. I don't care about the peripheral neocon objectives which I never considered founded on anything close to reality, anyhow...

Otherwise, I think the reconstruction in Iraq will be extensive by this time next year - with the caveat that I'm assuming in the end we'll submit to a UN resolution. If the admin refuses to do so, then I'm far more skeptical about the ability to make progress in any sort of expedient manner.

To my knowledge, the generals have not stated they don't need more troops, it's the Pentagon spokesmen who've stated that. Basically Rumsfeld and his PR people. To my knowledge, the Joint Chiefs have stated no such thing.

No, I do not agree that current force levels are appropriate; I agree with Bill Kristol that they are clearly not. Whether those additional forces come from Iraqi militia, foreign militaries, or undeployed U.S. divisions is open to debate.

The reasons we are going to the UN have to do with the politics of getting multi-national forces from some countries. You cant deny that because it is true and is what the Bush administration has been saying.

I don't deny that, I stated the same in post #33 as well as in several related threads. The reason we require the politics of getting multi-national forces from some countries is because the Pentagon did not properly plan the occupation and reconstruction. That's why the reason we're going to France and the rest of the Security Council is because the Pentagon did not properly plan the occupation and reconstruction.

[Once-Ler]

By your logic, we needed a 2nd UN resolution and a base in Turkey before we could win in Iraq because we were the one's doing the asking. Your logic is failing because you equate what is desirable with what is needed. It is desirable to have muslim faces working with us as we rebuild Iraq. It is not NECESSARY. We will not need as many troops in March as we do today.

[Once-Ler]

The only people who planned according to a fantasy scenario were Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and their fellow neocon underlings..

You make it sound like this administration failed in Iraq instead of winning one of the fasted most effective and brilliantly conceived victories in history. This war will be looked back upon as required tactical reading by all military historians as how to do it right.

You sound like John Kerry and his "didn't have a plan to win the peace" crap-ola. Nobody expected Iraq to be rebuilt in 3 and a half months except you and the 'rats.