Generals call for Rumsfelds resignation.

[Pure]

Rather than participate any further in the soapbox thread praising Rumsfeld, Bush and the Pentagon and dismising all rational and factual discussion, I'm starting a new thread. I would urge all to resist replying to 'soapbox' and 'canned' contributions to this thread, including ones with mudslinging, attacks on persons and motives. etc.

Incidentally, Maj. Gen. Batiste, a critic interviewed last night said, "I'm a lifelong Republican and voted for Bush in both elections." We are looking at a critique based on military reasoning [and direct Iraq experience], not politics.

General Swannack, more than two years ago said the US is winning tactically, but not strategically. I understand this to mean the US army wins most direct encounters, face to face, but is not succeeding in pacifying the country.


http://www.forbes.com/technology/ebusiness/feeds/ap/2006/04/14/ap2670645.html


Associated Press
Update 4: Analysis: Criticism Mounts vs. Rumsfeld

By TOM RAUM , 04.14.2006, 12:58 AM

Crusty and unapologetic, Donald H. Rumsfeld is the public face of an unpopular war and a target of unrelenting criticism. A growing number of commanders who served under him say he has botched the Iraq operation, ignored the advice of his generals and should be replaced.

The White House insists the defense secretary retains President Bush's confidence. Few close to the administration expect him to be shown the door.

"The president believes Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a very fine job during a challenging period in our nation's history," Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said Thursday as the administration circled its wagons around the embattled Pentagon chief.

Two more retired generals called for Rumsfeld's resignation on Thursday, bringing the number this month to six.

Retired Army Major Gen. John Riggs told National Public Radio that Rumsfeld fostered an "atmosphere of arrogance." Retired Army Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack told CNN that Rumsfeld micromanaged the war. "We need a new secretary of defense," he said.

Military experts say the parade of recently retired military brass calling for Rumsfeld's resignation is troubling and threatens to undermine strong support Bush has enjoyed among the officer corps and troops.

With public anti-war sentiment increasing, "the president and his team cannot afford to lose that support," said Kurt Campbell, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense.

Yet for Bush to try to distance himself from Rumsfeld "would call into question everything about the last three years' strategy in ways the White House worries would send a very negative message," said Campbell, now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Joining the criticism earlier this week was retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who served as an infantry division commander in Iraq until last November. He called for a "fresh start at the Pentagon," accusing Rumsfeld of ignoring sound military decision-making and seeking to intimidate those in uniform.

Earlier calls for Rumsfeld's replacement came from retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, retired Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold and retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton.

 

[Pure]

Batiste's comments

Batiste identifies himself as a lifelong Republican.


Retired General Calls For Rumsfeld to Go

Agence France-Presse | April 12, 2006

Another retired general called for the resignation of US Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Wednesday, adding to a drumbeat of pressure from the military for new leadership and fresh thinking on Iraq.

Major General John Batiste, former commander of the US Army's 1st Infantry Division, criticized Rumsfeld for ignoring military advice and failing to provide sound military planning.

"You know, it speaks volumes that guys like me are speaking out from retirement about the leadership climate in the Department of Defense," Batiste said in an interview with CNN.

His was the latest in a groundswell of calls for Rumsfeld's resignation by respected retired generals who served in Iraq or key positions in the military hierarchy. Batiste led the 1st Infantry Division during a year-long Iraq tour in 2004 and 2005.

General Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, came to Rumsfeld's defense on Tuesday and said the military fashioned, debated and vetted the war plans for Iraq.

"As far as Pete Pace is concerned, this country is exceptionally well served by the man standing on my left," the general said at a press conference with Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld shrugged off the criticism as not "new or surprising," and said it had not affected his ability to do his job.

The generals have blamed Rumsfeld for the failure to commit enough troops to Iraq and plan for the post-invasion insurgency that has tied down the 130,000-strong US force for more than three years.

But they also have bitterly criticized him for an arrogant style that they say shuts out opposing viewpoints.

"We need a leader who understands team work, a leader who knows how to build teams, a leader that does it without intimidation," said Batiste.

"Conversely, I think we need senior military leaders who understand the principles of war and apply them ruthlessly, and when the time comes, they need to call it like it is," he said.

So far, no serving general other than Pace has spoken out publicly on the issue.

But retired lieutenant general Gregory Newbold, a Marine who served as the operations director of the Joint Staff during the Afghanistan campaign, urged serving officers to speak out.

He blasted the senior military leadership for their timidity in an opinion piece published over the weekend by Time magazine.

None of the retired generals who have spoken out so far have called for a withdrawal of US forces from Iraq.

"Whether we agree or not with the war in Iraq, we are where we are and we must succeed in this endeavor," Batiste said. "Failure is frankly not an option."

Sound Off...What do you think? Join the discussion.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I'm inclined to believe Rumsfeld has made some serious istakes. But in fairness, it should also bepointed out he has been pushing hard for a leaner, smaller overall military. there is no doubt some angst against him for political decisions.

That said, he is a civilain, and he has been heavy handed in making decisions that should be left to profressional soldiers. Often he has made them over the strenuous objections of comeptant field commanders.

Time and again, military meddeling by unqualified politicans has lead to outright disater. rumsfeld dosen't have that on his resume, but had the enemy been less incompretant than projected, it could have happened. AS is, some at least of the deaths there are direct results of his actions.

Is that enough to replace him? At first glance, it seems so, we are talking abou tlives of men here. On second galnce, the Sex. of Defense is going to have some lives on his head in any situation wehre the troops are deployed to a fire zone.

I don't know just how incompetant or meddeling he has been, but the indictment of so many flag rank officers certainly raises some troubleing questions.

 

[Pure]

Yes, Colly, I don't automatically fault the Sec Def or the Pres. Generals often have bad ideas or are overzealous--like MacArthur in Korea. OTOH, one pentagon historian interveiwed could not remember a comparable event (6 generals making public announcements, writing books, etc.).

Swannack, OTOH has been on the ground a lot, and if you google his name, he's been often in the news.

I think the problem is to be able to 'hold territory.' The lean mean machine is designed to confront enemy units.

I believe Gen Zinni, on the Jon Stewart show said this, when asked about the assessment of many Iraq regional areas as 'secure'. Jon asked, 'why doesn't the US leave all the secured areas as a way of starting to withdraw troops?' the answer was 'the areas are 'secure' because of the presence of US troops. if they were withdrawn, these areas would fall apart.'

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Yes, Colly, I don't automatically fault the Sec Def or the Pres. Generals often have bad ideas or are overzealous--like MacArthur in Korea. OTOH, one pentagon historian interveiwed could not remember a comparable event (6 generals making public announcements, writing books, etc.).

Swannack, OTOH has been on the ground a lot, and if you google his name, he's been often in the news.

I think the problem is to be able to 'hold territory.' The lean mean machine is designed to confront enemy units.

I believe Gen Zinni, on the Jon Stewart show said this, when asked about the assessment of many Iraq regional areas as 'secure'. Jon asked, 'why doesn't the US leave all the secured areas as a way of starting to withdraw troops?' the answer was 'the areas are 'secure' because of the presence of US troops. if they were withdrawn, these areas would fall apart.'

I think the real problem is a systemic one, and it's centered in the political theories of the Neo-cons. Specifically the ieda that once you "liberate" and area it will stay liberated and the people will become ohio republicans overnight, because obviously our system is superior and it's the one everybody secretly yearns for.

It's a very simplistic worldview, very childish really and naive on a level that seasoned statesmen should know better than to buy into.

In that mindset, your military need only be intervetionist. Large enough and technlogically advacned enough to route the current regime's troops. Within the context of an interventionist mentality, the lean mean model might acctually work.

The problem is, Iraq isn't an intervention, it's an occupation. You aren't deploying a few spec ops guys and following them up with a hard hitting air mobile unit or two and maybe some marines. You're deploying combined arms units in division or even corps strength. It's a whole different critter.

Our military can take and hold ground, but if the opposition dosen't do exactly as the neo-cons predict, and you haven't made contingency plans for that, it can get very ugly. anyone will recognize that in a long, overland advance, your supply lines are vulnerable to action by enemy irregular units. Unless of course, there are no enemy irregular units, cause they have all turned in their guns and joined the parades where they are helping to throw rose petals at the feet of your liberating army.

It really comes to a head when that worldview is overlain on the military neccessity and the political world view trumps the military. We should have had Air moblie units, partolling the suply routes. We should have had advance logigistics bases along the route of advance stocking everything from beans to bullets. We should have had escort of convoy units detailed to protect the unarmed or lightly armed vehicles delivering the goods. But when the civilians at the top deem such measures as unneccessary, by simply wishing away the enemy irregular units, you're heading for disaster.

Competant military planners, in general, don't plan for what the enemy should do. They plan for what he is capable of doing. This is really where you see the huge diference in professionals and amateurs. To the amatuer, the battle plan is like a script and the enemy will do what he is supposed to, just like in the script, and you wipe the walls with him and it's miller time. to the pro, the actual plan is only the begining, significant effort is expended on preparing for the contingencies on what the enemy might do, could do, and how you will deal with it if he dosen't follow his script.

 

[Pure]

good points, Colly,

particularly about the expectation that people will a) rise up, and
b) install democratic government.

what is also an issue, as things progress is that the people *see* what type of new gov. the US installs, and it generally ain't what was put in Japan in the late 1940s (with Japanese cooperation).

the Shi'ites in Iraq are not above being authoritarian, and having their own 'death squads'. Kharzai in Afghanistan is not exactly for democracy as we know it. Neither set of American picked leaders is all that friendly to women's rights and power.

are you familiar with Fukuyama-- the first major neoCon thinker to 'defect'. his new book discusses this impulse to over-reach and belief that the world can be made just as a US admin wants it to be. he calls what you're talking about 'triumphalism.' heres a review/summary.

http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/politicsphilosophyandsociety/0,,1739099,00.html

 

[Colleen Thomas]

particularly about the expectation that people will a) rise up, and
b) install democratic government.

what is also an issue, as things progress is that the people *see* what type of new gov. the US installs, and it generally ain't what was put in Japan in the late 1940s (with Japanese cooperation).

the Shi'ites in Iraq are not above being authoritarian, and having their own 'death squads'. Kharzai in Afghanistan is not exactly for democracy as we know it. Neither set of American picked leaders is all that friendly to women's rights and power.

are you familiar with Fukuyama-- the first major neoCon thinker to 'defect'. his new book discusses this impulse to over-reach and belief that the world can be made just as a US admin wants it to be. he calls what you're talking about 'triumphalism.' heres a review/summary.

http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/politicsphilosophyandsociety/0,,1739099,00.html

I haven't read him, but I'm not really up on the neo-con's and their core philopsophy. Seeing what I have of it in action, I tend to think reading about it would only serve to really aggravate me.

Triumphalism does, however sound like an appropos moniker. Hearkening back to the triumph a roman conqueror was afforded.

 

[Pure]

For Fukuyama, the term 'triumphalism' is linked to the US sense of bringing about the fall of the Soviet Union and sense that Reagan and his approach accomplished that (or administered the coup de grace). After all, the 'evil empire' was done in and at least some Russians wanted parliamentary democracy (not sure about some other Republics, like Uzbeckistan) and had a go at setting it up.

I think too, the evangelicals have a sense of 'triumph' too, since the OT has a few tales of vast armies (until the Babylonians!) crumbling magically before the tiny brave armies of God's People.

Randians too have their triumphalism, not unlike Marx. The Capitalist State is the embodiment of rationality and manifestation of humans' universal desire for freedom (different state, same idea in Hegel and Marx)--which in the long run can't be resisted.. Given the chance, then they will opt for it. We need only 'strike off their chains' as it were. Clear impediments. Only irrationalists and lying scum stand in the way.

All these currents show in the present talk of Iran, and as you know, some Republicans are hankering to 'take it out'. (And presumably Iranians will be happy to be free of such militarism in their theocratic rulers. Who will indeed fall of their own dead weight of lies.)

 

[Wildcard Ky]

Politicians micro managing a war in never a good thing. Vietnam taught us that.

I believed, and I still believe that removing Saddam was the right thing to do. It's plainly obvious that things have badly mishandled since Saddams government fell though. Is Rumsfeld to blame? I don't know. I think that only the people in the inner circles truly know where blame lies. I do think these Generals speaking out against him is very bad mojo though.

 

[Pure]

HI Wild one,

Those point are well taken. There are both ideologues and practical (on the ground)persons involved as in the genesis and maintenance of the Vietnam War.

Rummy along with Cheney make convenient targets, because of their obvious power. Remember too, it was Cheney who kicked off the "Iraq's going nuclear" campaign-- but again the Iraq adventure was planned by a group, including smart folks like Carl Rove.

Rummy too bears a portion of responsibility for the ruthlessness of the Iraq effort, the attempts to end-run the Geneva accords, set up indefinite detentions of suspected terrorists and associates.

I think Rummy and the whole group had a very limited understanding of Iraq, its factions, and history; the ideas of democracy and 'majority rule' were thought to be obviously saleable and workable. Iran has had majority rule for a while, and the Algerian military had to stop that countries drift to Islamic State (majority support).

We have as well to question the concept of 'terrorism'. While much of the talk is just PR, we have to assume some of it is believed--that there's a monolithic network that just 'hates us' and 'hates freedom' and whose 'bad guys' just have to be located and 'taken out'. Here is where Rummy goes a little weird, since it's unclear how this 'lean mean' robotic, hi tech military is going to work. It certainly 'took out' Iraq's infrastructure and the laser bombs with cameras make great TV. The recent drone attack on where Zarqawi was alleged to be is another hi tech wonder-- which didn't succeed. I think, getting back to the thread theme, there is a lack of understanding of what has to happen on the ground.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

I think Rummy and the whole group had a very limited understanding of Iraq, its factions, and history; the ideas of democracy and 'majority rule' were thought to be obviously saleable and workable.

You're exactly right. Everyone involved orchestrated and carried out a brilliant plan for winning the "war" aspect of it. By war, I mean the defeat of the standing military and government. It was literally a textbook campaign against a military adversary.

From that point forward is where things went wrong. I don't think any of them understood the people or the culture. There wasn't a good plan for winning the peace.

I can't remember his name, but before the invasion an Army General was basically relieved of his duties and forced to retire because he wouldn't sign off on the whole plan. He kept saying that the military victory would be easy, but to win the peace would be next to impossible.

 

[Pure]

an email to generals, active and retired, has gone out;

it is fron the DOD and gives various talking points like how many generals there are (thousands), and how often Rummy talked to Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Two generals have taken to the TV to defend their boss.

 

[rgraham666]

I think Rummy and the whole group had a very limited understanding of Iraq, its factions, and history; the ideas of democracy and 'majority rule' were thought to be obviously saleable and workable.

My take is that the neo-Marxists have a mind set very similar to that mentioned about the Japanese during WWII a few days ago.

Rumsfeld and company don't believe they need to know anything about Iraq. The idea of 'America' and all the freedom and wealth that implies is too grand an idea for anyone to deny.

This is one of the reasons I call them neo-Marxists. They are strict economic determinists. Once 'capitalism' is installed, the Gravy Train will begin its ride to the sea and nothing can stop it.

 

[Pure]

yes, rg

i agree that Ayn Rand in particular, and many neocons have a determinist view of history: it is GOING in this direction, toward this goal e.g. freedom.

That is Marx-like, but also Hegel-like. I would simply can it determinism and/or dogmatism; some label it 'historicism'. The postmoderns call it a 'metanarrative,' an alleged account of where things have been and will be going.

Lately it seems to involve definite magical thinking so as 'if we just get our message out, they'll take it up, and like us.' Or there is the view that dictatorships just crumble when the 'battle cry of freedom' sounds
(like the walls of Jericho).

As you say, now we have clear indications of what happens when 'capitlaism' is installed. Sometimes it's like Japan, true. Sometimes it's like Russia, a pretty crazy and dangerous place. But many times, esp in our hemisphere, it's just dictators that allow American companies to do as they please, e.g., the fellow, the US installed in Guatemala, after they helped depose Arbenz.

Oh, we certainly know what a kind of 'crony capitalism' looks like in the Saudi case.

In short, 'history' suggests that the results of either 'democracy' or capitalism in the case of Iraq are pretty hard to predict, but it does seem like the outcome won't be favorable to US (overall) interests, though some US companies are and have been getting very rich. (The most extreme US fuckup, of course was Iran; the US helped deposed the Shah (whom they once supported) and installed Khomeini.

Getting back to generals. They like defined tasks. They want markers of victory--e.g. the enemy has no further will to resist. If you tell them Rummy-style things (cf. MacNamara) like "Kill the bad guys and ease off to win hearts and minds before withdrawing, and leaving it to the locals" it drives them nuts.

It also angers and demoralizes them when told "We must take control of this area, capture X at any cost" then "We will move to another area, another set of battles, and let the locals mop up and fix things and get things on track (through their new political process)." then, after a bit, " We'd like you to re-take X!"

 

[rgraham666]

Ah yes. Warfare as a 'rational' process. Body counts, throw weights, megatonnage. When the numbers are right, we win.

My favourite authour goes into great detail in his first book about the history and effects of this.

It's why the West hasn't won a real war since WWII.

 

[rgraham666]

Ah, Hegel. "The real is the rational and the rational is the real." What a wanker.

 

[amicus]

'Perspective' and 'context':

There are several thousand retired Generals and Admirals from all the services.

A 'handful', have spoken in opposition.

But then, the Left has little else to speak about as they have no agenda, no war plans, no 'post war' plans, no, 'win the peace' plans; no plans at all except to criticize and they comically move from issue to issue. From 'quagmire' to recalcitrant Generals, what next? Who cares? Let them whine.

amicus...

 

[Wildcard Ky]

It's why the West hasn't won a real war since WWII.

Has there been a "real war" since WW2? My answer to that would be no. IMO everything from Korea to present day has been a politically driven conflict, not a true war.

An American general told the German public after WW2 that we were there as a conquering army, not as liberators. IMO, that's where the difference lies.

True war is an all or nothing campaign aimed solely at conquering an enemy, and making them subservient to you. No conflict since WW2 has met that criteria.

 

[Pure]

Slippery as usual,

The claim of a 'handful' of generals of thousands is entirely misleading.
Batiste was third in command [in the army] in Iraq for some time, and was offered a promotion and the number two position.

So I'd listen to him over certain opinionated persons around here:

Rumsfeld Rebuked By Retired Generals
Ex-Iraq Commander Calls for Resignation

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 13, 2006; Page A01

The retired commander of key forces in Iraq called yesterday for Donald H. Rumsfeld to step down, joining several other former top military commanders who have harshly criticized the defense secretary's authoritarian style for making the military's job more difficult.

"I think we need a fresh start" at the top of the Pentagon, retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004-2005, said in an interview. "We need leadership up there that respects the military as they expect the military to respect them. And that leadership needs to understand teamwork."

Batiste noted that many of his peers feel the same way. "It speaks volumes that guys like me are speaking out from retirement about the leadership climate in the Department of Defense," he said earlier yesterday on CNN.

Batiste's comments resonate especially within the Army: It is widely known there that he was offered a promotion to three-star rank to return to Iraq and be the No. 2 U.S. military officer there but he declined because he no longer wished to serve under Rumsfeld. Also, before going to Iraq, he worked at the highest level of the Pentagon, serving as the senior military assistant to Paul D. Wolfowitz, then the deputy secretary of defense.

Batiste said he believes

 

[amicus]

Quoting an interview on CNN, the Ted Turner/Jane Fonda Network, is like preaching to the choir, don't you think everyone knows that?

And a handful out of thousands is not misleading. What was and is misleading, is the liberal left press, emailing every retired officer hoping for airtime and an anti Bush agenda to expose.


The 'Batiste' you reference, also served under commander in chief Bill Clinton, and was probably instrumental in advising against response against terrorist activities that took American lives.

You keep digging yourself a deeper hole as you attack with impunity as you have nothing to defend.

amicus...

 

[Pure]

The 'Batiste' you reference, also served under commander in chief Bill Clinton, and was probably instrumental in advising against response against terrorist activities that took American lives.

jeez, scraping the bottom of the barrel, aren't you. you forgot to mention that a guy in the bar told you that Batiste repeatedly fucked Rover, his dog.

if he was so terrible, why, with Rummy's approval, was he offered the nuimber two position?

This story too, indicates the importance of the position that Batiste held:


http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=11833088

Retired US Iraq general demands Rumsfeld resign

Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:53 PM

By Will Dunham WASHINGTON (Reuters)

- A recently retired two-star general who just a year ago commanded a U.S. Army division in Iraq on Wednesday joined a small but growing list of former senior officers to call on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign. "I believe we need a fresh start in the Pentagon. We need a leader who understands teamwork, a leader who knows how to build teams, a leader that does it without intimidation,"

Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the Germany-based 1st Infantry Division in Iraq, said in an interview on CNN. In recent weeks, retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton and Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni all spoke out against Rumsfeld.

This comes as opinion polls show eroding public support for the 3-year-old war in which about 2,360 U.S. troops have died. "You know, it speaks volumes that guys like me are speaking out from retirement about the leadership climate in the Department of Defense," Batiste said. "But when decisions are made without taking into account sound military recommendations, sound military decision making, sound planning, then we're bound to make mistakes."

Batiste, a West Point graduate who also served during the previous Gulf War, retired from the Army on November 1, 2005. While in Iraq, his division, nicknamed the Big Red One, was based in Tikrit, and it wrapped up a yearlong deployment in May 2005.

 

[amicus]

Ah, Pure, I am sure you know, but others may not, so I offer a bit of background...

President George Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, after the eight years of inaction by the Clinton administration and the systematic downsizing of military forces and intelligence agencies (as the democrats are wont to do), instituted new policies that outraged many high ranking military officials who came to power under the Clinton administration.

Those 'new' policies included making due with a smaller force (brought about by Clinton) and reduced budgets, (brought about by Clinton), to institute a leaner military with less expensive 'troops on the ground' and more high tech, state of the art equipment that could be financed with the remaining funds.

During the early Bush years, there was a structured rebuilding of military capabilities of quick strike special forces and tactical units with rapid mobility.

The structure changed from the 'land war in Europe' structure of Soviet dominance in Europe, to a more mobile and transportable force that could be deployed quickly, worldwide.

Thirty year military officers, suddenly finding themselves obsolete in the 'new army', became obsolescent and were transferred to harmless desk jobs to fullfill their careers.

They all retired at the earliest convenience.
And are now getting the Andy Warhol, 15 minutes of fame.

We did not need 600,000 troops on the ground to take Baghdad, we needed and got, 150,000, well trained and equiped, mobile forces that could move quickly with devastating effect.

You might relate this to world war one and the cavalry generals who insisted the horse would be there forever, or the battleship admirals pre world war two, when Bill Mitchel proved that air warfare and aircraft carrier were the wave of the future.

There have always been disgruntled Generals when time passed them by, imagine being a mogul in the typewriter business when the computer keyboard became supreme, no one likes to be left behind.

A very weak argument, Pure, surprised you dared present it.


amicus....

 

[Pure]

numbers

ami: We did not need 600,000 troops on the ground to take Baghdad, we needed and got, 150,000, well trained and equiped, mobile forces that could move quickly with devastating effect.

Taking Baghdad is not the problem; keeping order in it, and in Iraq generally, and quelling a civil 'strife' is a problem. What evidence do you have that 150,000 is adequate?

 

[amicus]

ami: We did not need 600,000 troops on the ground to take Baghdad, we needed and got, 150,000, well trained and equiped, mobile forces that could move quickly with devastating effect.

Taking Baghdad is not the problem; keeping order in it, and in Iraq generally, and quelling a civil 'strife' is a problem. What evidence do you have that 150,000 is adequate?

~~~~~~~~~~

The evidence is proliferant. You know the history of elections and the progress towards a democratic form of government. You know that 14 of the 18 provinces in Iraq are peaceful. You know that the infrastructure neglected by the Saddam Regime is being rebuilt.

Was there a miscalculation concerning the number of troops required to quell 'civil strife'? No, not really. What is lacking, in my opinion, is the will to interdict Syrian and Iranian and even Egyptian mercenaries hired by agents of international terrorism.

There is also a delay in the Iraqi people to realize, 'holy jumpin up Christ!" we are free!" And then take the responsibility and act to protect their freedom.

And that, as the President said, is their decision, we cannot make it for them.

If you had even a clue as to the value of human freedom, you would understand all of this.

amicus...

 

[Pure]

Let's stick to facts:

Amic: You know that 14 of the 18 provinces in Iraq are peaceful. You know that the infrastructure neglected by the Saddam Regime is being rebuilt.

P: Yes, I've seen those figures. General Zinni was interviewed on this and was asked "Why don't Americans leave these provinces then, and return to the US; why not start withdrawal from them?"
Zinni: The provinces are peaceful becuase American troops are there; remove them and they crumble.

Am Was there a miscalculation concerning the number of troops required to quell 'civil strife'? No, not really. What is lacking, in my opinion, is the will to interdict Syrian and Iranian and even Egyptian mercenaries hired by agents of international terrorism.

P: Let's stick to persons, here. WHO lacks that will?