Ex-Defense Official Assails Colleagues Over Run-Up to War

The Washington Post ^ | March 9, 2008 | Thomas E. Ricks and Karen DeYoung

[RDTF]

In the first insider account of Pentagon decision-making on Iraq, one of the key architects of the war blasts former secretary of state Colin Powell, the CIA, retired Gen. Tommy R. Franks and former Iraq occupation chief L. Paul Bremer for mishandling the run-up to the invasion and the subsequent occupation of the country.

Douglas J. Feith, in a massive score-settling work, portrays an intelligence community and a State Department that repeatedly undermined plans he developed as undersecretary of defense for policy and conspired to undercut President Bush's policies.

Among the disclosures made by Feith in "War and Decision," scheduled for release next month by HarperCollins, is Bush's declaration, at a Dec. 18, 2002, National Security Council meeting, that "war is inevitable." The statement came weeks before U.N. weapons inspectors reported their initial findings on Iraq and months before Bush delivered an ultimatum to Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Feith, who says he took notes at the meeting, registered it as a "momentous comment."

-snip-

Powell, Feith argues, allowed himself to be publicly portrayed as a dove, but while Powell "downplayed" the degree and urgency of Iraq's threat, he never expressed opposition to the invasion. Bremer, meanwhile, is said to have done more harm than good in Iraq. Feith also accuses Franks of being uninterested in postwar planning, and writes that Condoleezza Rice, Bush's national security adviser during most of Feith's time in office, failed in her primary task of coordinating policy on the war.

He describes Bush as having wrestled seriously with difficult problems but as being ill-served by subordinates including Powell and Rice. Feith depicts former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld with almost complete admiration, questioning only his rough handling of subordinates.

-snip-

[saganite]

Feith depicts former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld with almost complete admiration, questioning only his rough handling of subordinates.

Then Feith’s judgement is suspect because Rummy stood in the way of putting more troops on the ground in Iraq which ultimately turned the tide there.

[SubMareener]

The success of the surge was not due as much to the additional number of the 30,000 or so added to the force in Iraq. The success of the surge was due to a change in the tactics employed by the forces in Iraq from “Force Protection” to “Counter Insurgency”. The Army brass that wanted 400,000 to 500,000 troops to go to Iraq were the “Force Protection” crowd. Having 400,000 troops in hunkered down in the bases would only have made things worse.

[rlmorel]

Agreed.

[Zechariah11]

In his book, Feith defends the intelligence activities on grounds that the CIA was "politicizing" intelligence by ignoring evidence in its own reports of ties between Hussein and international terrorists.

Why does this not surprise me?

God, save this country from what should be our own intelligence services.

[Amelia]

Douglas J. Feith, in a massive score-settling work, portrays an intelligence community and a State Department that repeatedly undermined plans he developed as undersecretary of defense for policy and conspired to undercut President Bush's policies.

Why is my immediate reaction to think he's saying "It's all screwed up because they didn't listen to MEEEEE!" ?

[pointsal]

Submission of the opponent often comes after fierce over-whelming force...

sounds like boots on the ground and bombs from the air...

even nitwits should be able to run with that sound-bite!

[Eagles6]

"Despite its bulk, the book does not address some of the basic facts of the war, such as the widespread skepticism inside the top of the U.S. military about invading Iraq, with some generals arguing that doing so would distract attention from the war against global terrorists."

And the "washington lost" documents this "fact" how?

[Tribune7]

It sounds more like he's responding to what's out there than trying to make himself look smart.

A lot of what he says as per the Post article is what Freepers have been saying all long i.e. Powell was a lousy Sec of State and the CIA can't be trusted.

[ChinaThreat]

I agree about your Rumsfeld comment. I’ll be interested to read this book. Feith has taken a lot of heat from a lot of folks involved with Iraq planning. I’m curious to hear his side of the story.

[Valin]

Thank you! Well put.

[G Larry]

Perhaps it is your judgement that is suspect?

If Franks, Bremmer, Powell, & Rice had done their jobs, the initial results in Iraq would have been different.

“The Surge” became necessary after those initial failures.

[saganite]

My judgement is fine. What’s wrong with yours?

[dominic flandry]

Yet Bush gave Bremer, Franks, and Tenet Presidential Medals of Freedom. He said they did a great job. In this case it truly is Bush's Fault. He should have canned Rumsfeld in the Spring of 2007.

[Enchante]

Well it’s generally good to have your cynicism “ON” but in this case the guy has been endlessly smeared and slandered by the Demagogues and by lib MSM clowns who don’t know jack, so he certainly ought to present “his side” of the story at last. Each of his claims will need to be assessed on their own merits, but I for one welcome his book and hope that it improves the public record, even if too late to counter a lot of the “conventional lack-of-wisdom” about the Iraq War.

[G Larry]

>He should have canned Rumsfeld in the Spring of 2007.<

Uh....Rummy resigned the morning after the 2006 elections.

Don’t ask me to explain Bush’s habit of rewarding the people who undermined him at every turn.

[Nicholas Jenkins]

Don’t forget that Iraq was expecting a larger force would be used. The fact that we attacked with what we did led to tactical and operational surprise.

[Tamzee]

And this perfectly demonstrates the Democrat hypocrisy and “bush lied” leftie treason...

Doug Feith’s leading man who documented the evidence of links between Saddam and Al Qaeda was Chris Carney, the gent who briefed the White House and the CIA/Tenet on his research... the same Pennsylvanian gent who the Democrats elected to Congress in 2006 with financing from Moveon.org.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/28/us/politics/28carney.html?_r=1&fta=y&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

And Carney stands by his work linking Saddam and Al Qaeda. “”Some of the party disagrees with me on this, but I know what I saw.”

http://www.nysun.com/article/42019?page_no=3

Either Carney AND Bush lied or neither did... if Carney lied, why did Democrats elect him to Congress in 2006? And if Carney DID “know what he saw” regarding a working relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda, why did he allow the frothing, rabid leftwing masses AND the US media to continue to churn the BUSH LIED meme?

Moveon is vile, they KNOW Bush didn’t lie...
And Carney is vile, he KNOWS Bush didn’t lie...

And yet they both do their utmost to see the country split violently in half over a smear for political gain.

/spit

[Red6]

“Feith depicts former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld with almost complete admiration, questioning only his rough handling of subordinates.

---

The media hated him because he embarrassed them, and didn't pander to them. Some senior DoD officials were disgruntled because he pissed all over their turf (i.e. Crusader and Comanche which in hindsight were good ideas to cut). Some senior generals probably didn't appreciate his selection of Schoomaker, seeing how that too was a bit atypical but made complete sense. Those not playing along and asked to retire, they too today might shoot their mouth off and validate their unproffessionalism when bad mouthing him (Their boss they didn't support). The peace-nicks, the far left hated him because he was a defense secretary in war that did his job. Some foreign allies were perturbed because of his statements such as “old Europe,” or “Axis of weasels.” How dare he insult those who politically sabotaged the US after 911 and even went so far as taking actions with Iraq that jeopardized the lives of US soldiers!? He was a lot of things to many different people who for various reasons in politics, media, foreign, or within the left fringes of society disliked him.

However, Rumsfeld was not a bad SECDEF. As SECDEF he probably was the most qualified ever. He had vision, courage, he had no political agenda's (outside his realm of backing the DoD), no future political aspirations (This was the end of the road for him), he was extremely intelligent, and aggressive enough to push through the needed changes “talked about,” that for years were not happening. It was under Rumsefeld where FCS which was on shaky ground was brought to life and funded. He backed the F22, JSF, missile defense; he understood that future wars will be more nonlinear and the Special Forces community saw sweeping changes even before 911. The Army began a major push towards reorganizing and realigning in a way that makes it more effective and viable to deal with present and future threats (i.e. New force structures etc.)............

He was one of the most influential Defense Secretaries we have had in the post WWII era, and most don't even realize this. Those who bad mouth him either have a personal grudge or simple parrot what others say. For those that do the parroting and follow the general “mood” or “consensus,” when you pin these folks down, seldom do they have facts or any clue what they are talking about. They just want to sound cool or fit in.

Sometimes the right people end up in just the right job at the right time. Rumsfeld was such a case.

[nascent skeptic]

Thanks for your insightful comments on Rumsfeld.

I think (informed) history will be kind to him, at least I hope so...whatever his shortcomings, he stands out to me as someone who was willing to endure the slings and arrows of the left because, in his heart of hearts, he loves America and wanted to protect us.

Someday I would like to thank him personally.