Hagel sounds alarm over Iraq

Omaha World-Herald ^

[iconoclast]

If you think that we will have zero presence in Iraq when all is said and done then you are wrong.

Save such comments for a time when you're fortunate enough to be conversing with a fool.

[iconoclast]

If you think that we will have zero presence in Iraq when all is said and done then you are wrong.

Save such comments for a time when you're fortunate enough to be conversing with a fool.

[PISANO]

"I believe that there can be a good outcome in Iraq," he said. "I also believe there could be a very bad outcome for Iraq.

So "WE ARE LOSING" but we have a chance to win. The outcome in IRAQ will "DEFINITELY" either be a good one or a bad one. We have a chance to win, but we could lose.

FOR THIS........the legionnaires gave him a standing ovation??

I JUST DON'T GET IT!!

[nairBResal]

Replies #161 and #162

Double posts, interesting.

[iconoclast]

interesting.

A mildly amusing comment when made by the little German character on the old Laugh In show.

[meema]

Rumsfield cut the original troop lists and retired any General who disagreed with him.

I know that at least the first part is true. However Gen Shensiski (sp) was "fired" and stayed in place for over a year, and continually dissed. The other Generals were dissed and ignored, and left no choice but to retire. "Up or Out"
Gen Zinni (sp) is one who comes to mind.

[Racehorse]

However Gen Shensiski (sp) was "fired" and stayed in place for over a year, and continually dissed.

Don't you believe it.

General Sheneski simply completed his full term as Chief of the Joint Chiefs and retired as he had announced and scheduled it in April 2002.  His differences over troop levels did not occur until 2003.

The other Generals were dissed and ignored, and left no choice but to retire. "Up or Out"
Gen Zinni (sp) is one who comes to mind.

General Zinni delivered his retirement speech during March 2000.  He was long gone from the scene.

What other General Officers do you think were purged?

[meema]

I believe your dates are wrong re Shensiski. There was much reporting re troop numbers throughout 2002. Much of my info came frome NRO and The WS on this 'war of the numbers'.
That is wrong to say there was no disagreement about troop numbers until 2003. WE entered Iraq in 2003! There was a year long discussion on what was required.


I used quotes re "fired", because of course he was not fired. His replacement was announced aprox 15 months before his retirement date. I hold no brief for him of the black barrets, but he was at least more right than wrong on the numbers of troops required to provide security right after the 3 week war.

[Racehorse]

You are, of course, correct to say there was discussion and disagreement over troop levels dating from early to mid 2002.  How could there not be?

The disagreement I'm pointing to, and one I probably ascribed too quickly to you, was the public disagreement drawn out by Senator Levin (who else?) during an Armed Services Committee hearing in February 2003.  This is the spectacle most people use to justify the claim Shinseki was forced to retire.

Levin led Shinseki into the trap with the question, "General Shinseki, could you give us some idea as to the magnitude of the Army's force requirement for an occupation of Iraq following a successful completion of the war?"  Shinseki was not given much wiggle room.

Shinseki:  In specific numbers, I would have to rely on combatant commander's exact requirements.  But I think . . .

Levin:  How about a range?

Shinseki:  I would say that what's been mobilized to this point, something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers, are probably, you know, a figure that would be required.

But, the truth is there is always disagreement among the service chiefs, not only over how many troops are needed for any particular phase of an operation,  but over how operations should be conceptualized and executed.

The working relationship between General Franks and the Joint Chiefs was set during his planning for Afghanistan.  Shortly after the first briefing given the Chiefs, reeling from the service specific bickering,  Franks bluntly told the Chiefs they had their input into the plan through their respective three stars who served on his CENTCOM staff.  If the Service Chiefs did not trust their three stars, Franks told them, they should fire and replace them.

Whether Shinseki will be proven more right than wrong will be debated for a long time to come, and will probably never be decided.  Like you, apparently, I have faith in the Powell Doctrine.  Overwhelming, crushing force will always carry the day.  But, will it?

No one really criticizes Franks' plan or its execution during the first three phases of the war.  The major criticism comes from perceived deficiencies in the Phase IV plan, what we did the day after Saddam fell.  Among the claims is that a better plan would have prevented or at least curtailed the rampant looting and lawlessness that went on, and would have undermined the sudden appearance of private militias.

But would better planning and a larger force have done that?  I don't know and I have come across no recent defense by Franks or his staff concerning the execution of Phase IV.  I do wonder whether any number of troops could have dealt with what happened.  Here in the U.S., consider how much time and resources were required to control looting and violence during race riots in Detroit, Los Angeles, and Baltimore?

One thing is certain.  We'll have plenty of time to talk about it.

(BTW, do you remember the link to the NRO article you mentioned?) 

[meema]

It looks to me that we are far more in agreement than first thought.

I never give the time of day to anything Levin says...and I can't stand Hagel. (or McVain, for that matter) I think that hearing to which you refer, was watched by me. Was that the one where Cordesman and Zinni (among others) testified? I also watched the AEI, Hudson Inst., Heritage F., CSIS, etc. etc. etc. programs.

Tommy Franks was a loyal soldier to his civilian overseers.
And he remains that loyal. What we have is 3rd person accounts of Rummy & Co. sending him back to square one until he came up with numbers that pleased DOD.

I don't have any assistance to offer re NRO columns. There were many more of this variety in the Weekly Standard at the time. Too long ago for me to remember specific's...Sorry, my brain is getting elderly.

We may never know if some other way might have worked better. Or if there was ANY way to do this.

Much as I cared for W, I personally would not have gone into Iraq. Too many of the serious problems that have befallen us were very foreseeable. I am glad that SH has been put in jail, and very glad that those sons of his are dead.

I have always felt that if I didn't want to lose MY sons and/or my grandsons in such a place for such reasons (such as bringing Democracy to the ME), I have no right to ask for such service from others.
If we had gone in there to just remove that SH&Co., and then gotten out right quickly, that would have been fine with me.

I pray daily for all our sons and daughters who are there, and ask God to watch over them and bless them. That is all this grandmother can do now.

I have enjoyed our little talk. Please don't think bad thoughts about my not liking what is happening.

[meema]

...U.S.Marine general named Paul Van Riper.

Thanks, Child, for reminding me of that episode in the war games, 2002!!! He was terrific! His part in this made me worry even more.

Racehorse, if you are still interested, check this post out. You'll fine it very interesting, though you may be aware of it from a few years ago.

[txrangerette]

Was it a Senator? Or was it House Member Barbara Lee, Democrat from California? I know she voted against the resolution in the House, and got a lot of attention for being the only one. I think some might have abstained. But I can't recall a Senator who did...