[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.