ALRIGHT! Whats going ON here?

[irishgrl]

US Miscalculated security for Iraq

August 28, 2006
The bodies of five people killed during last Tuesday's United Nations bombing in Baghdad arrive in coffins draped with the U.N. flag, at the Amman airport, en route to their home countries.
(AP)

By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


Top Bush administration officials grudgingly acknowledge that their post-Saddam Hussein plan for rebuilding Iraq has been substantially flawed on the security front.
Some defense officials said privately in interviews that the plan in place for security after Baghdad's fall has been an utter failure. They said it failed to predict any significant resistance from Saddam loyalists, much less the deadly combination of Ba'athist holdouts and foreign terrorists preying daily on American troops.
"Every briefing on postwar Iraq I attended never mentioned any of this," said a civilian policy adviser.
Since President Bush declared an end to major hostilities on May 1, guerrillas have killed 65 American troops. That is far short of the 112 killed in action during the six-week war to topple Saddam. An additional 78 have died in accidents and other noncombat circumstances since May 1. Since the war began March 19, 177 Americans have been killed in action and 103 in nonhostile actions.
Officials say the prewar miscalculation is providing a new opportunity for the Bush administration. Iraq, like Afghanistan, has become a battlefield for fighting violent Muslim fundamentalists. A second U.S. victory in Iraq, after toppling Saddam, would deliver a significant defeat to Islamist terrorists and perhaps lessen their appeal in the Arab world, officials believe.
This week, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who vigorously defended every aspect of his post-Saddam plan, acknowledged some shortfalls but chalked them up to unforeseeable circumstances.
Asked by a reporter whether conditions in Iraq were deteriorating, the defense secretary said, "With respect to the planning that took place, it began well before there was a decision to go to war. It was extensive. Like any planning, once you hit reality, the plan needs to be adjusted and modified."
Then Mr. Rumsfeld asked, "Was it possible to anticipate that the battles would take place south of Baghdad and that then there would be a collapse up north, and there would be very little killing and capturing of those folks because they blended into the countryside and they're still fighting their war?"
Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said in an interview this week with regional reporters that the Bush administration "underestimated" two developments.
"The first is that 35 years of Saddam Hussein's reign instilled into the hearts and into the souls of the Iraqi people a greater degree of terror than we understood," Mr. Armitage said. "The second was the nature or the extent to which Iraq had become full of criminal enterprise."
Mr. Armitage suggested that U.S. forces were facing thousands of resisters when he listed the varied enemy: two divisions of Republican Guard soldiers who did not fight during the invasion, Ansar Islam terrorists, foreign fighters, Ba'athists and "a certain amount of criminal enterprise."
Richard Perle, a member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, told the Le Figaro, a French daily, that the postwar plan failed to provide for the Iraqis themselves to take control as soon as possible.
"Of course, we haven't done everything right," said Mr. Perle, a strong proponent of toppling Saddam. "Mistakes have been made, and there will be others. ... Our principal mistake, in my opinion, was that we didn't manage to work closely with the Iraqis before the war, so that there was an Iraqi opposition capable of taking charge immediately."
Mr. Rumsfeld and other officials said it was not possible to predict that thousands of Saddam fighters would leave the battlefield unscathed, reorganize and launch a deadly insurgency that would continue 4½ months after the fall of Saddam's statue in Baghdad.
In candid remarks delivered after a fact-finding trip to Iraq, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said, "There was a plan, but as any military officer can tell you, no plan survives first contact with reality. ... Some conditions were worse than we anticipated, particularly in the security area."
He listed three: Contrary to U.S. hopes, no Iraqi army units defected to the allies where they could be used to impose law and order. Second, the Iraqi police department needed a "massive overhaul" before officers could be put back on the street.
"Third, and worst of all, it was difficult to imagine before the war that the criminal gang of sadists and gangsters who have run Iraq for 35 years would continue fighting, fighting what has been called a guerrilla war," Mr. Wolfowitz said
Once U.S. Central Command realized it had a guerrilla war on its hands, it changed tactics. It organized a series of sweeps in the area known as the Sunni Triangle north of Baghdad. Soldiers arrested hundreds of Saddam loyalists and foreign fighters, and seized tons of armaments.
By June, commanders also realized they had underestimated the massive caches of weapons that Saddam had stored across the country. Bomb-making equipment, rifles, ammunition and rocket-propelled grenades now seem to be in endless supply.
The resistance's most effective weapon is the improvised explosive device, or IED. Iraqis place a remotely controlled bomb on a roadside and simply wait for an American convoy to approach. While the 70-ton M1-A1 tank can withstand such explosions, Humvees and trucks cannot.
In July, commanders noticed the guerrillas, or their jihadist allies, had turned to outright terrorism by attacking civilians and assassinating Iraqis who cooperated with the coalition.
"This enemy is not like any enemy we've fought before," Gen. Richard B. Myers, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, told the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention this week. "They are still very shrewd, and they are still evil."
Lost in the weekly casualty count of American dead is the progress being made. Officials point out that many feared disasters, such as food shortages and oil well fires, haven't happened. Schools, banks and many businesses are open.
"Our forces helped deliver more than a million tons of food and thousands of tons of medical supplies," Gen. Myers said. "Of course, there are still many challenges and much room for improvement, but there is no food or medical crisis in Iraq despite dire predictions."
The death toll went up by another two soldiers yesterday, as IEDs exploded in Baghdad and in the troubled town of Fallujah.
The administration also missed projections on oil revenue. Mr. Wolfowitz said before the war that Iraq's oil wealth would fund reconstruction. But the coalition discovered that Iraqi wells, refineries and pipelines needed long-term upgrades before they could pump significant amounts of oil. What's more, looters capitalized on the lack of security by stealing critical oil-pumping gear.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Bush is not quoted there

And your article is dated July 2003, well after the mission accomplished speech and when the insurgency had started to take hold.
Let us not forget that in the first several years of his presidency, Bush rarely spoke publicly at all. Most of the talking was done by people like Rumsfeld, Powell, Cheney and Scott McLellan. Trying to quote him directly on any subject during that particular time would be difficult.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

No he did not - he always cautioned America that it would be a long and difficult process and that we must stay the course. In fact, he is still saying that

well, Jason today is a new day and Ive re-read the original story and once again, you committed a red herring:

faulted the Bush administration

so.........Im thinking it was probably Rummy that ORIGINALLY figured this was going to be easier than it was. Which is why he only sent the number of troops he did initially.

[strandinthewind]

I agree that the insurgency could be related to SH, but I think that is mostly unlikely in that the insurgency appears to be part of a power struggle and there is no way SH will ever be in power again, much less be alive after the next year.

So, I stand by my statement that the initial US invasion was well done and its mission was indeed accomplished. If there are any facts to support that the initial invasion and removal of the prior administration was not a success, I do not recall them

However, as pointed out in that article, it is the administration's lack of a coherent or realistic plan after the toppeling of SH that has lead to the current sad state of affairs we are dealing with now.

In any event, W and his administration have consistently said the entire campaign in Iraq will be a long struggle and the quotes Goldie gave only refer to the initial invasion, where, again, history suggested we would be met with little opposition, which sadly was not the case.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

well, Jason today is a new day and Ive re-read the original story and once again, you committed a red herring:



so.........Im thinking it was probably Rummy that ORIGINALLY figured this was going to be easier than it was. Which is why he only sent the number of troops he did initially.

Again, two events occured, the initial invasion, which most experts agreed would be relatively easy and it was -- in fact, we were as predicted mostly greeted by the population as liberators as demonstrated in that footage. No one ever said the initial invasion was going to be hard, long, etc.

Then, the plan for rebuilding Iraq, which has been a fiasco. But, even in that, my recollection is Bush has always cautioned America that it would take a long time. In fact, he is still saying that

[irishgrl]

the comments that Mc Cain objects to:

"Stuff happens, mission accomplished, last throes, a few dead-enders. I'm just more familiar with those statements than anyone else because it grieves me so much that we had not told the American people how tough and difficult this task would be."

Those phrases are closely associated with top members of the Bush administration, including the president.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

And your article is dated July 2003, well after the mission accomplished speech and when the insurgency had started to take hold. . . . .

Right, but the initial invasion was over and it was accomplished with a fair amount of ease. Again, I cannot recall anyone in the Bush Administration or Bush himself saying that the rebuilding of Iraq could be accomplished in weeks like the initial invasion, etc. My recollection is the opposite consistently was said as evidenced by that July 2003 article.

To be clear, I think the Bush Administration's plan for rebuilding Iraq has been horrible. But, I cannot say that they said it was going to be easy, which is what McCain said they said.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Again, two events occured, the initial invasion, which most experts agreed would be relatively easy and it was -- in fact, we were as predicted mostly greeted by the population as liberators as demonstrated in that footage. No one ever said the initial invasion was going to be hard, long, etc.

Then, the plan for rebuilding Iraq, which has been a fiasco. But, even in that, my recollection is Bush has always cautioned America that it would take a long time. In fact, he is still saying that

yes, because to say otherwise would be rank stupidity I always thought he was saying that the fight against terrorism would take a long time, not the Iraq invasion? Also, why are you separating the initial invasion from the rebuilding? Isnt it all ONE campaign?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

the comments that Mc Cain objects to:

The mission was accomplished He clearly was not referring to the entire rebuilding of Iraq, which you seem to want to associate that banner with. It had not even begun to occur yet

And McCain's statement "it grieves me so much that we had not told the American people how tough and difficult this task would be" - is a red herring because he refers to the comments lauding the success of the initial invasion and ignore the consistent warning about how hard it would be as evidence by the July 2003 article, etc.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Right, but the initial invasion was over and it was accomplished with a fair amount of ease. Again, I cannot recall anyone in the Bush Administration or Bush himself saying that the rebuilding of Iraq could be accomplished in weeks like the initial invasion, etc. My recollection is the opposite consistently was said as evidenced by that July 2003 article.

To be clear, I think the Bush Administration's plan for rebuilding Iraq has been horrible. But, I cannot say that they said it was going to be easy, which is what McCain said they said.

Go back and look at the phrases he highlighted....whenever there were setbacks, the Bushies pooh-pooh'd them. brushed them aside as if they were nothing to worry about...THAT'S what Mc Cain is talking about! And the President himself goofed when he said "Mission Accomplished" prematurely....

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

yes, because to say otherwise would be rank stupidity I always thought he was saying that the fight against terrorism would take a long time, not the Iraq invasion?

He said both.

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Also, why are you separating the initial invasion from the rebuilding? Isnt it all ONE campaign?

I am separating them because they were, though related, essentially two different events. The campaign to invade and liberate Iraq was fought with massive airstrikes and troops on the ground. Once the govt. had been secured and relatively most of the country under control (e.g. mission accomplished) - the campaign moved to phase two, which was the rebuilding of Iraq, which required a different kind of effort altogether. I get that they are related, but the comments cited earlier refer to the initial invasion and not the rebuilding, the latter of which has always been said by the administration to take a huge effort, long time, etc.

So, I again conclude that McCain is full of bull when he said or implied that the administration said or implied that the entire Iraq war would be a day at the beach. The facts do not support him here.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

The mission was accomplished He clearly was not referring to the entire rebuilding of Iraq, which you seem to want to associate that banner with. It had not even begun to occur yet

And McCain's statement "it grieves me so much that we had not told the American people how tough and difficult this task would be" - is a red herring because he refers to the comments lauding the success of the initial invasion and ignore the consistent warning about how hard it would be as evidence by the July 2003 article, etc.

I think he's looking at the overall picture And I clearly remember Rummy and Cheney making "stuff happens" sort of comments.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Go back and look at the phrases he highlighted....whenever there were setbacks, the Bushies pooh-pooh'd them. brushed them aside as if they were nothing to worry about...THAT'S what Mc Cain is talking about! And the President himself goofed when he said "Mission Accomplished" prematurely....

The mission he refered to on that boat was accomplished. The people on that boat had successfully and with relative ease invaded and liberated Iraq. Do you not see that?

Moreover, W and his administration consistently said the task of rebuilding Iraq would would long and arduous. If you can find quotes where W or his administration said essentially "Hey, the initial invasion is over and in about two weeks the neew govt. will be in place and everything will be hunky dory" let's see them. My research indicated that while the administration has always pointed out the good things and the progress made, they always cautioned that we would be there a long time, etc. Thus, I conclude that McCain's statments are false.

But, if you can come with the quotes to the contrary, I'll gladly admit I am wrong.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

He said both.



I am separating them because they were, though related, essentially two different events. The campaign to invade and liberate Iraq was fought with massive airstrikes and troops on the ground. Once the govt. had been secured and relatively most of the country under control (e.g. mission accomplished) - the campaign moved to phase two, which was the rebuilding of Iraq, which required a different kind of effort altogether. I get that they are related, but the comments cited earlier refer to the initial invasion and not the rebuilding, the latter of which has always been said by the administration to take a huge effort, long time, etc.

So, I again conclude that McCain is full of bull when he said or implied that the administration said or implied that the entire Iraq war would be a day at the beach. The facts do not support him here.

but he's pointing out (and objecting to) the actual comments the Bushies used whenever there were setbacks

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

The mission he refered to on that boat was accomplished. The people on that boat had successfully and with relative ease invaded and liberated Iraq. Do you not see that?

Moreover, W and his administration consistently said the task of rebuilding Iraq would would long and arduous. If you can find quotes where W or his administration said essentially "Hey, the initial invasion is over and in about two weeks the neew govt. will be in place and everything will be hunky dory" let's see them. My research indicated that while the administration has always pointed out the good things and the progress made, they always cautioned that we would be there a long time, etc. Thus, I conclude that McCain's statments are false.

But, if you can come with the quotes to the contrary, I'll gladly admit I am wrong.

Jason, we havent liberated Iraq~ those people are going thru even more Hell than they were when Saddam was in
power!

I have to get ready for work, but I'll be looking for material later.