Bremer Criticizes Troop Levels

[Amused]

What I Really Said About Iraq
By L. PAUL BREMER III

Published: October 8, 2004 NYT

In recent days, attention has been focused on some remarks I've made about Iraq. The coverage of these remarks has elicited far more heat than light, so I believe it's important to put my remarks in the correct context.

In my speeches, I have said that the United States paid a price for not stopping the looting in Iraq in the immediate aftermath of major combat operations and that we did not have enough troops on the ground to accomplish that task. The press and critics of the war have seized on these remarks in an effort to undermine President Bush's Iraq policy.

This effort won't succeed. Let me explain why.

It's no secret that during my time in Iraq I had tactical disagreements with others, including military commanders on the ground. Such disagreements among individuals of good will happen all the time, particularly in war and postwar situations. I believe it would have been helpful to have had more troops early on to stop the looting that did so much damage to Iraq's already decrepit infrastructure. The military commanders believed we had enough American troops in Iraq and that having a larger American military presence would have been counterproductive because it would have alienated Iraqis. That was a reasonable point of view, and it may have been right. The truth is that we'll never know.

But during the 14 months I was in Iraq, the administration, the military and I all agreed that the coalition's top priority was a broad, sustained effort to train Iraqis to take more responsibility for their own security. This effort, financed in large measure by the emergency supplemental budget approved by Congress last year, continues today. In the end, Iraq's security must depend on Iraqis.

Our troops continue to work closely with Iraqis to isolate and destroy terrorist strongholds. And the United States is supporting Prime Minister Ayad Allawi in his determined effort to bring security and democracy to Iraq. Elections will be held in January and, though there will be challenges and hardships, progress is being made. For the task before us now, I believe we have enough troops in Iraq.

The press has been curiously reluctant to report my constant public support for the president's strategy in Iraq and his policies to fight terrorism. I have been involved in the war on terrorism for two decades, and in my view no world leader has better understood the stakes in this global war than President Bush.

The president was right when he concluded that Saddam Hussein was a menace who needed to be removed from power. He understands that our enemies are not confined to Al Qaeda, and certainly not just to Osama bin Laden, who is probably trapped in his hide-out in Afghanistan. As the bipartisan 9/11 commission reported, there were contacts between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime going back a decade. We will win the war against global terror only by staying on the offensive and confronting terrorists and state sponsors of terror - wherever they are. Right now, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Qaeda ally, is a dangerous threat. He is in Iraq.

President Bush has said that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. He is right. Mr. Zarqawi's stated goal is to kill Americans, set off a sectarian war in Iraq and defeat democracy there. He is our enemy.

Our victory also depends on devoting the resources necessary to win this war. So last year, President Bush asked the American people to make available $87 billion for military and reconstruction operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The military commanders and I strongly agreed on the importance of these funds, which is why we stood together before Congress to make the case for their approval. The overwhelming majority of Congress understood and provided the funds needed to fight the war and win the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan. These were vital resources that Senator John Kerry voted to deny our troops.

Mr. Kerry is free to quote my comments about Iraq. But for the sake of honesty he should also point out that I have repeatedly said, including in all my speeches in recent weeks, that President Bush made a correct and courageous decision to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein's brutality, and that the president is correct to see the war in Iraq as a central front in the war on terrorism.

A year and a half ago, President Bush asked me to come to the Oval Office to discuss my going to Iraq to head the coalition authority. He asked me bluntly, "Why would you want to leave private life and take on such a difficult, dangerous and probably thankless job?" Without hesitation, I answered, "Because I believe in your vision for Iraq and would be honored to help you make it a reality." Today America and the coalition are making steady progress toward that vision.


L. Paul Bremer III, former chairman of the National Commission on Terrorism, was the administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq from May 2003 to June 2004.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Amused
Without hesitation, I answered, "Because I believe in your vision for Iraq and would be honored to help you make it a reality."

He certainly did make it a reality.

The title of this thread is still accurate. He criticized troop levels. Sure, he also apparently loves pointless wars and attacking Mexico instead of Japan, but he still criticized troop levels. Yet another administration official who thinks thinks things could have done better.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Yet another administration official who, in hindsight, thinks things might have gone better, but admits to not knowing for sure and even professes doubts:

It's no secret that during my time in Iraq I had tactical disagreements with others, including military commanders on the ground. Such disagreements among individuals of good will happen all the time, particularly in war and postwar situations. I believe it would have been helpful to have had more troops early on to stop the looting that did so much damage to Iraq's already decrepit infrastructure. The military commanders believed we had enough American troops in Iraq and that having a larger American military presence would have been counterproductive because it would have alienated Iraqis. That was a reasonable point of view, and it may have been right. The truth is that we'll never know.

Of course, it's human nature to look back on ourselves and analyze a process to assess methods for improvement. It's proper to say "If we had done that, things may have turned out differently." The fact is that we don't know for sure and never will know, so making the claim that more troops would have have solved the initial problems is bogus and assumptive because solving one problem by creating another is not a solution.

 

[JHoNNy1OoO]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Yet another administration official who, in hindsight, thinks things might have gone better, but admits to not knowing for sure and even professes doubts:

It's no secret that during my time in Iraq I had tactical disagreements with others, including military commanders on the ground. Such disagreements among individuals of good will happen all the time, particularly in war and postwar situations. I believe it would have been helpful to have had more troops early on to stop the looting that did so much damage to Iraq's already decrepit infrastructure. The military commanders believed we had enough American troops in Iraq and that having a larger American military presence would have been counterproductive because it would have alienated Iraqis. That was a reasonable point of view, and it may have been right. The truth is that we'll never know.

Of course, it's human nature to look back on ourselves and analyze a process to assess methods for improvement. It's proper to say "If we had done that, things may have turned out differently." The fact is that we don't know for sure and never will know, so making the claim that more troops would have have solved the initial problems is bogus and assumptive because solving one problem by creating another is not a solution.

What problem would more troops in Iraq created? More troops mean more force, more force means more control. How could that have any negative affects? Supply lines were still running strong. They wanted to do this war on the cheap and it backfired. Greatly.

Always better to have something and not need it than need something and not have it. Having more troops wouldn't of had any negative affects. On the other hand not enough troops caused the present.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Did you read the bolded portion of my post? It explains right there, in Bremer's words, how more troops could have had an adverse effect and contradicts your assertion that more troops would not have been an issue.

 

[JHoNNy1OoO]

Alienated Iraqi's? How so? By protecting them?

I just don't see that as a valid or substantial "negative" for more troops. Can you imagine if that crap came out in the conversations leading to the war?
-Hey sir, we need more troops to control Iraq.

-Sorry, we might alienate the Iraqis.

-But sir, if we go in there without enough troops we won't be able to secure all the weapon sites or the borders. Just the Oil Infrastructure.

-No, No, forget about that. I'm more concerned about alienating the Iraqi's. :/

Of course this anecdote is in retrospect but there is just no valid substantial reason for not having more troops. If they felt they were "alienating" the Iraqi's you just move the troops back or you discharge them. Like I said, Always better to have something and not need it than need something and not have it. This administration tried to do the war on the cheap and it backfired.

Thought I might add some comedy to this. Check out this Daily Show talk about Bremer's comments. Link

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: JHoNNy1OoO
Alienated Iraqi's? How so? By protecting them?

Protecting "them?" From what? From themselves? Was the US to set up armed guards over every business, every school, every public building in Iraq to prevent looting? Such an undertaking wouldn't be possible in Baghdad let alone the remainder of the country.

It couldn't be done. The US didn't and doesn't have even close to the amount of troops required for such a massive undertaking. Was it stupid to assume that Iraqis wouldn't steal and vandalize their own stuff? I don't think so. It had been ingrained in Iraqis by Saddam for decades that theft had severe or often fatal consequences (Unless, of course, you were a Saddam suckup, then it was OK.). Why should one assume they'd suddenly run amuck stealing and destroying everythign in sight?

And you somehow believe that the presence of hundreds of thousands of additonal troops wouldn't send the wrong message? The idea in the first place was to limit visibility, to attempt not to further damage Iraqi pride and ego by having US troops everywhere Iraqis turned, reminding them over and over that their country had just been invaded. That's part of their gripe with the current forces in effect. Could you imagine tripling or quadrupling those numbers and the effect it would have had?

But make jokes if you think it's funny. Have a blast laughing while turning a blind eye to human behaviour and the psychological implications of men in military garb, fully armed and amassed on every street corner and in front of every business and public building. You apparently only want to point fingers of blame anyway and if the US had had massive amounts of troops there, the very same crowd that's claiming we didn't have enough would instead be bitching that we had too many, that we overcommitted, we spent too much money unnecessarily, yada, yada, yada.

If the left gave the impression that they actually cared about the Iraqis more than bitching about anything and everything the US admin does, I wouldn't claim that. Unfortunately, that's not the perception they give and I think it's sad they seem more concerned about their own little partisan preferences and personal agendas than anything to do with the Iraqis, the ME, or terrorism.

 

[Infohawk]

Ahh it's the old 20/20 hindsight problem... EXCEPT if you listened to other people you would have heard people warning about everything that went wrong FROM the beginning. Generals said we needed to have more troops. And they gave reason. It's not 20/20 hindsight when you predict problems from the beginning, give the right reasons, and your predictions become true for the reasons you mentioned.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Ahh it's the old 20/20 hindsight problem... EXCEPT if you listened to other people you would have heard people warning about everything that went wrong FROM the beginning. Generals said we needed to have more troops. And they gave reason. It's not 20/20 hindsight when you predict problems from the beginning, give the right reasons, and your predictions become true for the reasons you mentioned.

It's still 20/20 hindsight regardless of what other people said. They were making predictions at the time, not stating a fact. Other experts disagreed with them and all concerned came to an agreement and made a choice. Those who disagreed ended up being wrong but those are the breaks in a planning phase. You make your decision and live with it. Hopefully you learn from it for the next time around, if there even is a next time.

Other than that, all this shoulda, woulda, coulda, is nothing but unproductive bitching. The decision was made and it ended up being the wrong one, which we fallable humans often do. So we address the problem and move on. We are far, far past the point of moving on concerning this issue.