Who's Sorry Now?

[khaosworks]

Report: Rumsfeld Ignored Pentagon Advice on Iraq
Sun Mar 30, 3:17 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly rejected advice from Pentagon planners that substantially more troops and armor would be needed to fight a war in Iraq, New Yorker Magazine reported.

In an article for its April 7 edition, which goes on sale on Monday, the weekly said Rumsfeld insisted at least six times in the run-up to the conflict that the proposed number of ground troops be sharply reduced and got his way.

"He thought he knew better. He was the decision-maker at every turn," the article quoted an unidentified senior Pentagon planner as saying. "This is the mess Rummy put himself in because he didn't want a heavy footprint on the ground."

It also said Rumsfeld had overruled advice from war commander Gen. Tommy Franks to delay the invasion until troops denied access through Turkey could be brought in by another route and miscalculated the level of Iraqi resistance.

"They've got no resources. He was so focused on proving his point -- that the Iraqis were going to fall apart," the article, by veteran journalist Seymour Hersh, cited an unnamed former high-level intelligence official as saying.

A spokesman at the Pentagon declined to comment on the article.

No surprise. This is what comes from having politicians who have no military experience or education conduct warfare. At least Lincoln educated himself on strategy before second-guessing his commanders. I doubt Rumsfeld has even bothered. And of course, the most eager to go to war are always those who have never fought in one.

Best friend Logam and I were talking Saturday night - as has been the topic du jour for the last few months, it was about the war. Logam said he saw Bush on the TV saying how proud he was to be the commander-in-chief of the troops and finally saw what everyone had been saying about Bush - that he was an idiot who didn't realize the cost of war. He was horrified at how Bush could stand there and say that war was something to be proud of in the face of casualties. At least Blair had the intellect to express regret at the fact that war was being waged.

Best case scenario for the war? Out of Saturday night's session - my hope is that Saddam gets ousted, definitely. It should never have been started in the first place, but now that the US is committed, it must follow through, not like Somalia in 1993. For Saddam to remain in place having effectively defeated the US Army would make the situation in the Middle East intolerable.

However, it is also my hope that in doing so, the US gets such a bloody nose, in terms of cost in casualties, economy, materiel and diplomatic goodwill, that it, or any other country, will think twice in the future before ordering a pre-emptive war. And that finally, the American public will see this and decide that the victory did not justify the cost and vote him out of office come November 2004.

I know it sounds callous, like I'm hoping for high body counts for the troops. I hope the same thing can be achieved with the least amount of human life lost, but... I don't know. Even without my hopes, I think it's going to surpass even my darkest estimates.

In any case, I will be watching the returns on November 9, 2004, getting ready to get stinking drunk in celebration or despair as the case may be.

Comments

Re: I saw you on my friendsfriends list

[khaosworks.livejournal.com]

Oh believe me, I understand - I served two and half years in my country's military as part of National Service from 1988 to 1991, and before I got taken off the active list for medical reasons late last year I was a 81mm mortar operator in the Reserves. I understand the POV of the grunt, because I was one, when it comes to taking orders and having no choice - which is why I recognize the callousness of what I'm hoping for.

I don't honestly want soldiers to die in a war not of their making. But at the same time, I'm not sure what else will wake the American public up.