Shinseki To Be Veterans' Affairs Secretary

NBC Washington ^ | 12/6/08

[jamese777]

Democratic officials say President-elect Barack Obama has selected retired Gen. Eric K. Shinseki to be the next Veterans Affairs secretary.

The officials said Obama will announce his selection Sunday. They spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid pre-empting the official announcement. Shinseki is the former Army chief of staff who upset his civilian bosses in 2003 when he testified to Congress that it might take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to control Iraq after the U.S. invasion. He was forced out of his job within months for being "wildly off the mark." But his words proved prophetic after President George W. Bush in early 2007 announced a "surge" of additional troops to Iraq after miscalculating.

[Edit35]

not even Rumsfeld thinks Rumsfeld was right anymore

As a Monday morning quarterback, I look at the initial estimates from two standpoints.

One, US commanders initially figured how many US troops it would take to topple and defeat Saddam's military .... and then maintain security until an indiginous power structure could take over. They were basically correct in their force numbers.

I think Shiniski (and perhaps others) were (pre-liberation) referring to the worst case scenario ... which never occurred militarily ... even though it might have seemed that way due to the tremendous havoc caused by insurgents with crude IED's and ambush explosives.

But the decision was made in April 2003 (a huge blunder in retrospect)... to disband the mainstream Iraq army and send them home, which allowed many soldier-aged Iraqi men to simply continue doing what they were trained to do only months before... which was fight Americans.

Secondly, Rumsfeld and others were wrong in that they expected the many tribal factions in Iraq to quickly recognize they were outgunned, and fall into place behind an Iraqi-led leaders.

In March, April, and May of 2003 .. if the US commanders would have taken the territories and then "held the territory" so to speak... the war would have gone much better, I believe.

We wrongly assumed that ALL Iraqi's would be happy to be free of Saddam, and eventually cooperate. (it didn't help that Saddam Hussein was not killed or captured until 10 months later, which gave these insurgent terrorists hope)

That was perhaps the biggest blunder of the early war.... NOT that we had too few troops.

The Iraqi army could have and perhaps should have been kept conscripted under super tight control.... until an Iraqi command structure could have been put in place friendly toward the US.

By giving up all that territory in the summer of 2003, and allowing terror insurgents to formulate in outlying areas... we gave them a second life.

It was not so much a 'numbers' mistake as it was a strategic blunders which yes, can and should be placed on Rumsfeld's head.

It was a tough situation. Asymetrical warfare is something the US military has had little if any experience in dealing with.... especially a country so large and diverse as Iraq.

[Carley]

And to make matters worse, all the new berets were made in China.

The man is an idiot.

[SLB]

From the May 7, 2001 edition of "Hong Kong Trade Development Council Journal."

DOD Says No to Berets "Made in China"

Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz announced on 1 May that a decision had been made by the US Army "that US troops shall not wear berets made in China or berets made with Chinese content". Wolfowitz's statement added, "Therefore, I direct the Army and the Defence Logistics Agency to take appropriate action to recall previously distributed berets and dispose of the stock." Following a waiver of the Berry Amendment, which requires the Pentagon to award clothing contacts for the Armed Services to domestic suppliers, a contract had been awarded to a firm in the United Kingdom with a production plant in Mainland China. Most such waivers have been issued for domestically unavailable component parts used in the manufacture other items, not for finished goods such as berets.

[centurion316]

I think the beret is fine enough as an item of uniform, but that’s all it is. We have plenty of badges, bobs, and dangles to take care of the needs and desires of the badge collectors. Marine supply clerks wear exactly the same uniform as Marine Force Recon - they don’t seem to have a problem with it.

[centurion316]

Don’t blame them, make sure they send me a resume.

[eaglesiniowa]

Got it and know the history as i wore the black one as a tanker before going to SF. Was there for most of the period inclusive of Shinseki wearing my green beanie. But i still had little use for him and some of the policies he went along with under Clinton the Corruptible. I commend him for his service in VN, but he still became too political for my tastes - but then i state the obvious since in order to make general you have to have political aspirations or clout or both.

[centurion316]

but then i state the obvious since in order to make general you have to have political aspirations or clout or both.

There are a few exceptions, but they tend to prove the rule.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

The military is most of the way there. Officers major and above get all kinds of medals for butt-kisser desk jobs. Fetching coffee for a colonel and doing his PowerPoint briefing slides is a real career enhancer. Forget taking an organization in trouble and shaping it up, or doing a good job on deployment. Being an office golden-boy is where the promotion opportunities are.

[eaglesiniowa]

Your analysis is spot on. Petraeus recognized the shortfall and developed the plan to rectify it.

[centurion316]

Very well said and very accurate IMO. What most people don't know is that the Clinton WH played hands off the Pentagon after the "Don't Ask ... " and Les Aspin debacles. The vacuum was filled by political appointees running amok in the Pentagon.

I was in the Pentagon when this person was running wild in the corridors.

Yes, indeed. Claudia had quite the party girl reputation when she was younger and it was well and truly earned from my observations. Completely clueless about warfighting, of course, that wasn't her strong suit.

[centurion316]

Shinseki and HRH Wesley are entirely different kettles of fish and Shinseki is not of the perfumed crowd to be sure. Neither may be to your taste, but the Prince of Darkness is in a league all his own.

[Gondring]

Isn’t he the same a-hole that decided ALL troops should wear a beret, not just the special forces guys who actually earned it?

Yeah, and argued for The Surge against the Bush Administrations objections.

[Gondring]

That was the press conference where Rumsfeld denied there was any insurgency and tried to make Gen. Pace look like a fool but was shown up himself, right?

[Gondring]

You might enjoy...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2144318/posts?page=28#28

[Gondring]

This general said it would take 400,000+ troops.

Citation?

[centurion316]

A very good analysis, I think that you’ve got it just about right. We did have too few troops, but we got away with it through good luck and damned fine performance by the three divisions that executed the mission.

The plan called for 5 U.S. divisions. Rumsfeld cut one and then couldn’t get the 4th Division into Turkey. That left us two short and there was no reason to take that kind of risk except to prove Rumsfeld’s point that you didn’t need large ground forces anymore.

We got into trouble after the fighting was over. Disbanding the Iraqi Army was a monumental blunder, especially since we didn’t have the numbers of boots on the ground to replace them and the local police to keep order and snuff out the nascent insurgency.

[centurion316]

Being an office golden-boy is where the promotion opportunities are.

Actually, not so. Most of the guys getting the nod today have spent at least 3 of the last five years away from their families in command assignments in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you are not in the box, you are not going anywhere.

[60Gunner]

Shinseki is an idiot and a perfect example of a Clinton general

Donald Rumsfeld was a more profound and negligent idiot for first ignoring the growing AQI threat, for not responding swiftly and decisively when that threat was identified, for never acting to secure Iraq's borders to Syria and Iran, and for resisting the surge, which ultimately was the thing that broke the back of AQI. Rumsfeld was WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

Rumsfeld's idiocy cost a lot of lives, and for that, the only salute he'll ever get from me is the back of my hand.

[driftdiver]

Ahh but the thread is not about Rumsfeld. And all of this mistakes fail to reach the level of what the Dems have done let alone what they plan to do.

[Gondring]

In March, April, and May of 2003 .. if the US commanders would have taken the territories and then "held the territory" so to speak... the war would have gone much better, I believe.

EXACTLY. This is why your other comment about it being "intelligence not troops" is mostly correct, except in the vital core point that we couldn't "hold the territory" without more troops.

Time and again, I'd hear such frustration from officers of having to retake areas that were previously peaceful, as the enemy would melt away and pop up elsewhere. When I asked why they didn't follow the proven examples of how to operate (e.g., British experience), they told me they just didn't have enough troops in theater to do that.

Sec. Rumsfeld was a great asset in the offensive phase of the war, but a lot of damage was done when he failed to recognize the change in mission. His denials of the insurgency* and undercutting of his general staff were bad, but I suppose the responsibility ultimately falls upon Pres. Bush, for failing to accept Sec. Rumsfeld's resignation.

Perhaps there's a better beret for him...

"There is no insurgency... God will roast their
stomachs in hell at the hands of Neocons."