What Rumsfeld Got Right
Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has released an 800-page memoir titled Known and Unknown. As usual, punditry commented on it prior to reading it; in keeping with that tradition, I feel obliged to do the same. Rumsfeld’s memoir should reignite several debates of the past decade. The debate most worthy of revisiting is not whether the war in Iraq was justified, but rather how, in retrospect, the United States should have executed the war.
Here is the caricature: Rumsfeld wanted a rapid and “light” war. This would have vindicated his view that the U.S. military ought to transform into a faster, leaner, quicker, more flexible, agile, and technological force able to do more with less — more like the Special Forces. He would walk around the Pentagon saying “speed kills.” Therefore, Rumsfeld sent enough troops to capture Baghdad in three weeks, but not enough troops to secure the rest of the theater.
We “won the war” in April 2003, but “lost the peace” by that summer. The subsequent chaos inspired an insurgency which continued for nearly four years, due to Rumsfeld’s doctrinaire arrogance. Then in 2007, after Rumsfeld’s resignation and the retirement of his generals, General Petraeus took over and implemented the “surge” strategy of 30,000 additional U.S. troops. The Petraeus-led counterinsurgency pacified the war-torn country.
That’s the caricature. Though there is some truth to this, it evades the overriding question of the war: having overthrown Saddam Hussein in April 2003, should the United States have occupied Iraq in the first place?
One of the great ironies of the war, often overlooked by contemporary historians, is the fact that the invasion’s biggest proponents in the United States — the so-called “neocons” in the Defense Department: Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, even Bolton at the State Department, etc. — all opposed militarily occupying Iraq after ousting Saddam. Rumsfeld was in line with this thinking. This group saw the distinction between liberation and occupation, between supporting Iraqi democrats and the mission-creep of nation-building.
There are those who say this view of military intervention is naïve, even reckless. Colin Powell and the Pottery Barn rule come to mind: “You break it, you own it.” Senator John McCain frequently derides Rumsfeld and prides himself on championing the “more-troops” strategy long before President Bush executed it in 2007-08.
But that’s not necessarily what the neocon-types had in mind. They felt the Iraqis were better equipped to run their country than Paul Bremer and the Coalitional Provisional Authority. Sovereignty and political authority ought to have been transferred to the Iraqi National Congress (INC) the moment Saddam’s statue fell in Baghdad’s Firdos Square. Yes, that INC — led by the infamous Ahmed Chalabi. I do not know what is in Chalabi’s heart (though I am Facebook friends with him). It doesn’t matter what’s in his heart. He’s become something of a scapegoat.
This article touches on a number of points that I’ve been thinking about since the war started. It comes to a different conclusion than the one I have always held, which is that we *had* to occupy Iraq once we invaded it, and having occupied it we’re taking a pretty big gamble leaving as quickly as we are. I believe sincerely that what’s going on in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Libya, and Jordan is a result of what happened in Iraq and to a lesser extent Afghanistan. Iraq is especially important, though, because the rest of the Arab world sees it as a modern, sophisticated Arab country. If it has a functioning democracy with a peaceful opposition, that proves that the argument of the leadership of the rest of the region–we have to be dictators in order to ensure stability and oppose Israel–is just b.s. spread around by the leadership to justify looting the public coffers for themselves. While I see the author’s points about occupying Iraq–it definitely cost the U.S. the lives of a lot of soldiers–not occupying the country, just deposing Sadaam and then leaving, would have resulted almost certainly in some form of dictatorship. Certainly the chances of that would have been much greater than they are now. The result of the democratic elections there was profound on the rest of the region–the specter of citizens holding up their inked thumbs was electrifying. As the region slowly transforms itself, and democracies take hold, real ones with minorities who have rights, and dissenters who are protected by the laws of the state, they will become less violent and more peaceful. Maybe we can even get past our fear of Islam (believe me I worry about them almost as much as anyone). After all, war typically doesn’t work out even for the victors, at least not completely. People get killed, and fighting is expensive these days. Your tanks get blown up, planes shot down, and the soldiers who are fighting aren’t doing something in the civilian world. Civilians get killed too. Buildings get destroyed, industry laid waste, crops damaged. Trade is disrupted, sometimes even curtailed or completely stopped. Much better to be peaceful, and try to prosper.
I’m not sure it’s all sunk in yet, but I think they’re beginning to get the message. Without our occupying Iraq I don’t see how it would have happened.
Where do I begin? Dude…I hate to rain on your naïve parade, but the so-called “functioning democracy” in Iraq, thanks to former ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, a Muhammadan who managed to penetrate our illustrious State Department, is really a Sharia state, as Sharia was enshrined in Iraq’s constitution. Just like it was too in Afghanistan’s constitution as well, thanks again to you know whom: former ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad.
Now, correct me of I’m wrong, but the last time I checked the only freedom that Sharia allows is the freedom for Muhammadans to become more devout slaves of Allah. Hence, not only will both Iraq and Afghanistan remain failed states, but also they will both inevitably rejoin the global jihad as soon as we leave. In fact, for all intents and purposes, they already have.
As a matter of fact, Afghanistan sentences citizens that convert from Islam to Christianity to death on a regular and routine basis. Some democracy! Nevertheless, we are still propping it up.
Also, if you think that what is happening in Egypt and now what is happening throughout the Middle East is a movement that will eventually lead to Western style democracy, I have a bridge for sale I need to sell you.
Finally, you are damn right I’m afraid of Islam, but that’s because I actually understand what it is. While you, on the other hand, clearly don’t have the first clue.
…. (Secretary Rumsfield and the “neocon-types” KNEW the Iraqis were better equipped to run their country than were Peter-Principle poster-person, Powell and Paul Bremer and the rest of the self-anointed and self-appointed basta*d offspring of the Soviet-agents, Alger Hiss et al, Foggy Bottom brahmanas and the rest of that gangs goons, in the form of its carefully cloned for their uniform stupidity Foreign(er) Service(ing) Simps ….
We won the war and the Department of State, by far and away America’s deadliest and longest-on-the-job enemy, lost the peace.
Or, from its perspective — and that of Soros and the rest of its Socialist International masters — won it. For their side.
Rumsfeld’s biggest accomplishment was how he managed to reorganized CIA without stepping on anyones toes. Of cause this will go completely unnoticed by virtually everybody. But the effects will have far more impact and last for far longer than anything else he did.
In my fan club of one person, I will hold Rumsfeld in the highest regard for this. And every time some lefty complains about what the CIA did in the 70′ties, I will laugh to my self and think: “If only they understood, what Rumsfeld did to address their grievances”.
Well, sure, if we had kept the Iraqi military in power, some other Iraqi general with a black beret would have taken over as Saddam light. Or, if we left the Iraqi Army in power and just left, there would have still been a civil war with the Shias and Sunnis slaughtering each other for a power grab, with the Kurds in the north staying out of it and defending their own territory. Then Iran would have helped the Shia majority (as they did) and probably would have taken over most of the country, except for the Kurds. No, it would have been a mess any way you look at it.
And it ain’t over yet. Once we leave this year, nobody really knows what’s going to happen. Once we leave, they still could have their civil war with Iranian intervention. And, with all of the political turmoil in Iran right now, the mullahs would probably like nothing better than to have an Iraqi civil war serve as a distraction from their own political problems.
People have to realize that Iraq was never supposed to be a country. It was created by a bunch of western diplomats out of thin air during the Versailles Treaty negotiations after World War I and it never took into account all of the different ethnic groups living in the area. I still don’t think we fully grasp the tribal nature of the country, even though you have these people in the United States saying how “secular” the Iraqi people are. Bunk. An Islamic tribe is a tribe is a tribe. You can’t expect thousands of years of ethnic differences to simply vanish just because we want it to be that way. Sorry, I’m not too optimistic about what is going to happen once we leave. Either the Army will take over in Iraq and you’ll get another man with a black beret taking over, or you’ll get another mullah taking over. We should maintain bases with the Kurds (some of the few people in the area who actually LIKE us) and hope for the best. At least with some bases in the area we can keep an eye on the region. If we can’t do that, then we should leave, now, before the civil war starts in earnest.
Our installing Bremer was a mistake. But once we put in Bremer and did not turn governance over to the Iraqis almost immediately, the option of turning the matter over to the Iraqis almost immediately was foreclosed and the need to defeat an al Qaeda supported insurgency arose, so that the belatedly handling of sovereignty to the Iraqis and the Iraqi adoption of a democratic system of government could succeed. And once we were faced with the task of defeating the al Qaeda supported insurgency, that task could not be accomplished by a light footprint strategy favored by Secretary Rumsfeld, but did entail the implementation of the clear hold and hold surge strategy that was in fact trumpeted first by Senator McCain and adopted by President GW Bush.
We don’t know whether the option of turning governance over to the Iraqis almost immediately, as favored by Paul Wolfowitz and others, would have worked. Maybe it would have, and that would have been great; but maybe not if outside forces of radical Islam intervened in a way not to allow a stable Iraqi government to take hold. It is too glib to say, as Mr. Guariglia does, that the locals will always accept the responsibility if they are given it, as if that is the answer. While we can say that it is the first and far more preferable option and not one lightly to be dispensed with, the willingness of the locals to take responsibility is not the only factor in the mix.
Certainly allowing DeGaulle to administer our “occupation” of France caused us many headaches in WWII, but it relieved us of other headaches. Many collaborators were given a chance to redeem themselves in French Foreign Legion. An interesting and creative approach that was not on the table for a US occupation authority.
Conrad Adenauer administered our chunk of occupied Germany, and caused us some headaches, but relieved us of other headaches.
Belisarius was able to reconquer North Africa for Justinian, but occupied Vandal North Africa provided less resistance to Islam than an independent Vandal North Africa would have. Justinian would have been better served to keep the Vandals in their place, and accept tribute.
An Iraq under IRC would have caused trouble for us, but probably less trouble than we had, and local self rule would provide greater resistance to Iran/Syrian imported foreign trouble makers.
Defending Rumsfeld is a brave move, and a necessary one. The knee-jerk demonization of his war plan and him in general is counterproductive to good analysis.
While it is impossible to prove a negative, I believe the case can be made that his light footprint plan was a good one that would have been effective if carried to it’s conclusion. After our move to Baghdad, quick, efficient and effective, we had effectively cowed the neighboring tyrants with our show of force. By stepping back into a supporting role after Baghdad fell, we would have been able to maintained some influence on the resulting power vacuum and the parties that moved in to fill it, while not inflaming the opposition that could use the general, ignorant, hatred of the West and The U.S. to form the insurgencies that have fed off of our continued occupation role. Once we had their attention, and their respect (through fear of our ability to overthrow them if we deemed necessary or desirable), we could have parlayed that into a much better result with a lighter hand. Unfortunately, we didn’t seize that opportunity and it was lost. The resulting surge was necessary and too long in coming.
Even If it can’t be proved, I still maintain that Rusted was right.
It seems a more fundamental discussion should be had about the underlying ideology of the Middle East and Iran which has destroyed the region and threatens to destroy the world. This is the pink elephant in the room which everyone wants to ignore. But it won’t go away based on anything we have done so far.
The pink elephant is Islam.
Islam is what makes the Rabs hate ebpveybody else around them,a nd makes them hate themselves. Islam is what makes Iran seek nuclear WMD and the genocide of America (and Israel). Islam is what makes the filthy Saudis sponsor most of the mosques across Dar ul Harb, the so-called “House of War”, as the Muslims refer to our “infidel” dominions. Islam is what makes the Imams at those mosques preach hatred of us, and which prompts the to espouse treasonous insurrection in these Muslim so-called houses of worship.
Islam makes Muslims hate infidels.
Islam encourages Islamic maniacs to strap on bombs and blow up innocents.
Islam excites Muslims to fly planes filled with innocents into buildings filled with innocents, immolating all to the cheers and ululations of women across the Muslim world.
Islam inculcates an insane sense of superiority in the most abject failures of the human race; the Muslims. It convinces them that they should properly be the rulers of everybody else, despite it’s grotesque track record of abuse, corruption, and incompetence.
Islam is a destroyer of worlds – a destroyer of civilizations. It has gobbled up and spat out numerous far far superior civilizations during its 1400 year rape of civilization, yet few are discussing this fact. Few are discussing the fact that morons in our government helped craft the constitutions of both Iraq and Afghanistan wherein we enshrined the hideous laws of Islam and elevated them above the laws of man in both nations. This guarantees that eventually eve ephemeral gain for which our soldiers died will turn to dust in the hands of Muslims.
Let’s begin to have THAT discussion before two trillion more is wasted on propping up our Islamic Frankensteins, and before three or four trillion more petro-dollars fall into their bottomless maw to wage Jihad.
Still not the root.
The only reason the west is so “hesitant” with the Middle East is because there is a powerful faction with a vested interest in keeping the conflict going. This is the root of political corrrectness, of all anti-Israeli sentiment, of tolerance for blood-thirsty head choppers, of the gift of petro-trillions to goat herders who happened to be squatting in the desert when what was garbage to them turned into liquid gold, and that is just counting the Middle East. The powerful faction is the Cuddly Bear marxists/statists/neo-FeudalLords (pick your own term), and their vested interest is that the Islamic world is a convenient and cheap distraction while they merrily subvert freedom.
Remove the Cuddly Bears and it the “fog” and “difficult choices” of the Middle East become clear. Muslims are barbaric throwbacks with no place in, no skills to survive in, and no desire to accomodate to the modern world. Either they discover some sanity, or they will go the way of hundreds of other dead civilizations that preceded them.
Calling Bremer’s decision “haphazard” does not come close to it’s destructiveness. Bremer was told point blank what his stupidity would accomplish (namely building an equipped insurgency overnight). He chose to ignore that. One has to think he knowingly created the insurgency for some arcane political goal (to return the democrats to power?). For Nancy Pelosi Mr Bremer was the best thing to happen to the US effort. For the US and the Iraqi people he was more destructive than the war. What he did was criminal, it’s a shame no-one has taken him to task.
I have been saying something like this for years and this is the very first time I’ve ever seen an article written about this. The concept is very simple. Our military is VERY good at one thing – blowing things up. They’re not so good at this nation-building stuff because we, as a nation, don’t have the stomach for it. To successfully build a nation, the VERY FIRST thing to do is get order and maintain it. However that could require brutality if the locals are not willing to lay down arms. Only with order is it possible to build courts, respect for law, etc. Historically, the brits showed the way in many of their former colonies – and they truly were brutal at maintaining order. We did the same in Japan and Germany. And also, it’s expensive to occupy a nation for a generation – the brits could only afford it by exploiting their colonies.
I never liked Powell’s “You broke it, you own it theory” either. Our policy should be “You get out of line and we’ll come kick your ass”. Even if enemies take over after we shortly leave a situation, it’s still cheaper and easier to just quickly go back in 5-10 yrs later if they get out of line again.
Yep.
It’s good to see that Powell has become irrelevant, and we should all hope he stays that way.
There was a time when he was the most dangerous man in America. If he had been elected POTUS instead of GW, we’d be in far worse shape now.
The idea was not to stay, as it wasn’t for Townsend back in 1917, when he entered Baghdad. The Downing plan, did go down the ‘memory hole’, State
wanted Pachachi, who was the up and coming thing in 1967, not so much 36
years later. CIA wanted a Republican Guard General like Khawaji, that would
have been a Baathist without the Tikriti label, they also held out for Allawi, who had been their man, along with MI-6.
This is an interesting thesis but it is compromised by the strange hypothetical example of a Hezbollah government in Lebanon. The point of taking over Bagdad only is that Sadams power was centralized in a military structure based there and he had little support outside of his hierarchical center of power.Controlling Beirut would simply fragment the tiny artificial country again. Hezbollahs power base is so effective and has survived the Israelis is because it is a much more distributed popular, guerilla army embedded in the shia communities but especially throughout southern Lebanon. Hezbollah is known to be stronger than the Lebanese army itself so its not as if sustaining the Lebanese army could keep stability as it could have in Iraq. Capturing Beirut would be like controlling Kabul, its vital but not sufficient as Hezbollah, like the taliban, can control the rest of countryside. Hezbollah doesnt need Beirut to control Lebanon as proven by their strategy for the past 10 years up until recently. The only way to defeat Hezbollah will be a sustained occupation (including much unavoidable slaughter within shia communities) or defeat of its Iranian and Syrian partners.
I dont understand why the author injected this very different situation into this article.
I think it’s a little late in having “buyer’s remorse” about what happened with the Iraq incursion. Also, the author misses the major point, which is fiscal in nature. Instead of raising taxes to pay for the war, the Administration chose to fund it by borrowing and deficit spending, adding to the national debt.
that was so random good luck with your education
Only problem with your reasoning is that numbers don’t add up: despite nation building US debt decreased during all the Bush administration. More exactly it decreased until he was saddled with a Democratic congress then it went sharply up. But the debt he left to Obama was microscopic compared to what it is now.
What’s the basic rule of war? It ain’t gonna go like you planned it. In this case, it certainly applies if the notion of “the war” is expanded to the immediate aftermath of Shock and Awe in Iraq.
Which means that second-guessers, blessed with knowledge of what happened, are easy geniuses in retrospect, but are likely to have done no better at the time of the conflict. Even if their retro-strategy is obvious, given the known facts looking back, the same strategy would have played out differently in reality, because a different strategy would have caused different reactions than actually happened. Call it the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of war.
So what to do? imho, attack, win, and leave. If we have to attack again, live with it. We should apply this principle to Afganistan today. Knock out as much of the Taliban as possible lightening fast and then come home. There is no way that country is going to change from a medieval nest of bandits to anything else in a generation or less.
(note: post-WWII was an exception because so much of the destruction happened to our allies and because Germany had already demonstrated the ability and willingness to rebuild and rearm after a major defeat. No doubt, there should be other exceptions as well, but not Afghanistan.)
While I agree that the occupation was a disaster and that the INC should have been supported, the author still thinks in Western democratic terms like “the Iraqi people turned to those sectarian parties with militias” and “Iraq could have been Grenada-on-steroids.” This ignores the fact, now clearly in view, that there wasn’t an “Iraqi people” then just like there isn’t a “Bahreini people” now, only a Sunni minority oppressing a Shia majority; the schism between Sunni and Shia is the important thing from their point of view. On top of that, we upset the balance of power and therefore Iran would have supported the Shia and Arab countries would have been forced to support the Sunni. Al-Sadr would still be there and a civil war would have probably happened anyway. Not all problems have a solution. It’s all hypothetical, of course, but the balance of power now favors Iran.
It is vital to look at history without rose colored glasses. The article, and comments make valid points; I would add a few. The American concept of nation is not universal. We have a legalistic horror of “violating” sovereign borders” which mean nothing to our enemies. The left exploded when we bombed Cambodia but cared nothing about the sanctuary it gave to people who were killing us in ‘Nam. The Pakistan- Afghanistan border has two rules of engagement: our enemy can cross it with impunity, we must not desecrate holy ground. Iran can flood Iraq with IEDs, but the US can only send hikers into their land. Syria can created and sustain the dominate military in another nation, Lebanon, but we can do nothing even when they shell our ally, Israel. Rules matter: if black jack wins with 24, you hit different cards. Or lose.
There are two fundamental errors which Rumsfeld, and his boss made (in spite of their historic contributions to our nation). They led Republicans to war, without putting pressure on the Democratic to “fish or cut bait”. The Democrats played politics while Americans died in combat. Bush never led one unified nation into war.
As noted, we were a disaster at nation building because our leaders had no clear strategy to end a war they began. Our military can conquer any other field military. Then what? If we bug out, after conquest, the internal ancient power conflicts will quickly turn to genocide in most nations. Can we sit out the slaughter of millions as viewed on Facebook? Walter Cronkite asked Reagan this at a White House dinner, if TV had covered WWI battles which killed 500,000 people. The President gagged, could not eat.
A corollary to the above is the reality of replacing one monster, or incompetent, with another. If George Washington led Afghanistan, we would have more options than working with drug lords, our allies. We can choose our enemies: we are stuck with our allies.
And then, there is the bomb. Obama faces the identical problem with Iran, that Bush faced with Iraq, “When will they get a deliverable bomb?” We are certain that Israel will die the next day. Why? Because we followed the exact same strategy in 1945 with our enemy du jour.
And there is multiculturalism, a vague but lethal concept. The are a billion Muslims who fear us, and dislike us, but are peaceful people. There are a few thousand who will die to kill us. They swim in a sea of Muslims who will not contest their murderous conduct. Without the help of the masses of Muslims, from Morocco to Pakistan, we, and they, will not have peace, for the next few centuries.
And finally, there is oil. For generations, we have placed our survival on the need to obtain fuel from the most unstable region on earth. Why? Because nuclear power plants are dangerous, and coal may flood our coasts three hundred years from now.
We are committing national suicide.
DoD consistently wins “wars”, and then watches haplessly as State loses the Peace.
I’m halfway through the book (9/11 just happened) and mostly impressed with Mr. Rumsfeld.
As someone deeply involved with the government in the ’60s, ’70s and naughties, he takes for granted the Imperial Federal Government.
It would be great to hear him step a little further away and ask questions like: “Would a stronger Congress, which could have force W to request a proper, Constitutional declaration of war before undertaking regime change in Iraq, have been an improvement?”
The Constitution does not define what a “Declaration of War” is.
According to most legal scholars, the two (Afghan in ’91, and Iraq in ’92) Authorizations for the Use of Military Force satisfy the Constitutional requirement of a Declaration of War by the Congress.
There was also the AUMF of October 2002 for Iraq, which reinforced the earlier Congressional authorization.
Sorry you can polish a turd to shine brightly, but it is still a turd. Rummy and Bremmer together caused you more problem than you can count. If anything had gone sideways with the “Lightening strike” you would have been in a sorry world of hurt trying to extract your troops without major causalities. Had they been able to deploy chemical weapons (which were considered a potential threat) or get an organized defence into place, those 50,000 troops would fighting for their lives. As it was the “thunder runs” were a pretty near thing in some places. Your logistic route would have been highly vulnerable also.
As for the peace, disbanding the army and jumpstarting de-baathistication was poor planning. Also the looting was predictable as it has happened at every power change in the country. Had the army and power structure been left intact, then you could have pulled out much sooner and with less losses.
Had the invasion not taken place, France, China and Russia would have been given access to the oil fields in exchange for their war debt, which means sanctions would have failed completely, leading to Saddam rapidly re-arming (with help from Pakistan and NK) and facing off with a soon to be nuked armed Iran. This in my opinion would lead to a new Iran-Iraq war with the possibility of tactical nukes being exchanged.
Quite a few assertions without any authoritative back-up.
Would you like to share your scholarship with the rest of the readers?
Uh…are you smoking something? If Saddam HAD let off some chemical warfare, the whole issue of who was or wasn’t backing us, did he, did he not have WMD, would have been moot. NATO would have been invoked and the US would have had major military backing, not put up with the holier than thou BS from our allies who were simultaneously hoping for our success and praying for our failure.
The Saudis would have crapped their pants and let in anybody who was going to protect them from getting gassed next. It would have been Gulf War II with a different ending for Saddam.
But, he didn’t, we didn’t, they didn’t and as far as I’m concerned, Rumsfield was both wrong and right. The reality of anyone leading a war effort. There is no such thing as 100% correct. NOt even 80%. If it were so, we would send one bomb to one strategic location that would instantly end any conflict.
The problem with blaming Bremer was that no one, not even Rumsfield, was on the ground having to deal with people telling you every day that they suffered the most horrors from the Sunni led/staffed military. It would have been like keeping the freaking SS and Gestapo in place with the same name and leadership after they just killed millions.
Frankly, the back biting and historical what ifs are ridiculous. It is what it is. The only way to have prevented what happened was not to invade Iraq at all. No invasion of Iraq, no democracy movements in mid east. No democracy movements in mid east (even those including Islamists), then the only way we challenge the ever pervasive, Islamist ideology being fostered by our alleged allies in SAudi Arabia and churning out little jihadists every two hours, is by killing them in the craphole that is Afghanistan while they hide out in Pakistan whom we equally have no power to do anything over because they have nukes while the Saudis have oil. Oh, let’s not forget the every loving Iranians.
We want to win this fight or keep fighting it forever like Osama and Zawahiri said we would?
If we want to win then we have to go at things by the back door. That inlcudes doing something costly in the short run in order affect the long term future.
I have read a few chapters of Rumsfeld’s book and I agree with him it wasn’t still isn’t a “war against terrorism” which is a tactic. It is a war against Islamist Jihadis, though an asymmetrical war.
And I believe the army does not hit and run. Just consider Germany and Japan where there are still military bases. First they had to be defeated, then the grandfathers, the die-hards and fathers had to pass away and possibly the third generation would be effective with their form of democracy initiated by American and England.
However, I liked the fellow though we never met, and his light and fast military is a hell of an idea. But I am not a soldier so what do I know other than what I read and hear.
A number of reports suggest that the Iraqi army disbanded itself. When Coalition forces entered Iraq, many Iraqi soldiers simply took off their uniforms and went home. Bremmer made the announcement that made it official, but it seems to have been a reality before that.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, the INC was not comprised of U.S. puppets — nothing could be further from the truth.
Yes, it was comprised of Iranian puppets, as Generals Sanchez, Petraeus and Odierno ended up realizing when they shut out Chalabi.
Rumsfeld will be remembered as one of the biggest blunderers in history for his insistence on an inadequate occupation force and for thwarting the State Department’s detailed plan for restoring government in Iraq.
The truth is as soon as GWB broke his campaign promise to make the foolish unhinged decision to occupy Iraq for the purpose of pursuing a fantasy based nation-building mission ostensibly to the win hearts and minds of Muhammadans, who are obligated to hate our kafir infidel guts no matter what, and to lift Muhammadans up out of poverty, despair, and hopelessness, the fiasco that ensued, not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan as well, became preordained. Especially when you consider that it was based on fantasy based political correct myths like Islam is a Religion of Peace™ being hijacked by a tiny minority of radicals.
I had no problems whatsoever with targeting OBL and AQ in Afghanistan in retaliation for 9/11 and also with the ouster of Saddam in Iraq, but the subsequent decisions to occupy both countries to pursue fantasy based nation-building missions based on political correct myths are the two biggest strategic blunders in American history.
Don’t forget the blunder of occupation of the US south, to nation build, the occupation of Germany, the occupation of Italy. None of those had any history of limited government or democracy, and of course none of them turned out well.
or did they…
Add Kosovo. Add Bosnia. Add Croatia. Add Slovenia.
Now add Japan. Now add the Phillipines. Add Puerto Rico. Add Panama. Heck, throw in the various Indian reservations. Add Korea.