Report: Rumseld Ignored Pentagon Advice on Iraq

[SilverThief]

Reuters
Saturday, March 29, 2003; 5:33 PM


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.
Rumsfeld is known to have a difficult relationship with the Army's upper echelons while he commands strong loyalty from U.S. special operations forces, a key component in the war.
He has insisted the invasion has made good progress since it was launched 10 days ago, with some ground troops 50 miles from the capital, despite unexpected guerrilla-style attacks on long supply lines from Kuwait.
Hersh, however, quoted the former intelligence official as saying the war was now a stalemate.
Much of the supply of Tomahawk cruise missiles has been expended, aircraft carriers were going to run out of precision guided bombs and there were serious maintenance problems with tanks, armored vehicles and other equipment, the article said.
"The only hope is that they can hold out until reinforcements arrive," the former official said.
The article quoted the senior planner as saying Rumsfeld had wanted to "do the war on the cheap" and believed that precision bombing would bring victory.
Some 125,000 U.S. and British troops are now in Iraq. U.S. officials on Thursday said they planned to bring in another 100,000 U.S. soldiers by the end of April.

 

[Siddhartha]

Hmmmm.... who should get the blame?

 

[Conky]

Typical media second-guessing.

*Hello McFly* The original amount of troops stationed on Iraq's border were an attempt to make Iraq comply with something they had already agreed to comply with.

The next wave of troops is meant to end this nasty little business. No more nice guy.

Rumsfeld is a very smart man and anybody who doubts him will look like a serious fool.

 

[KenGr]

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
Hmmmm.... who should get the blame?

Blame for what? The troop strength in place has advanced as fast as imaginable. A larger force would be straining supply lines even more. Additional troops are coming in according to plan (per the military) and not as a reaction to anything that has happened.

 

[Michael]

Every time I see reports of the Army complaining about Rumsfeld, I remember that he has been strongly pressuring the leadership to modernize and change their way of thinking. Most of the good reporting I have read on his efforts before this war have lauded his drive to take costs out and focus the armed forces on more modern problems.

I don't see any reason to "blame" anyone right now. Decent progress is being made in Iraq and if it takes another week of intense bombing to dislodge the Republican guard, so be it. Previous experience has shown that there is a point during the bombing where the forces can't take it anymore and break.

Michael

 

Originally posted by: CrazyfoolRumsfeld is a very smart man and anybody who doubts him will look like a serious fool.

I hope you are kidding. Rumsfeld should have went in with overwhelming power. The fact of the matter is that those additional ground troops could be dealing with the cities that the original force bypassed AND secure the supply lines, while the main force assaulted baghdad. We would have to wait days for the assault to begin and maybe end, but instead now we are waiting weeks and looking like idiots. For Gods sake, he held back an entire tank division, and now we gotta wait till mid April for that same division to arrive with their equipment. Rumsfeld put our troops are a greater risk than they should be, and he is smart for this? Leave the war planning to the generals I say, not to high and mighty civilians who think they know what they are doing.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: KenGr

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
Hmmmm.... who should get the blame?

Blame for what? The troop strength in place has advanced as fast as imaginable. A larger force would be straining supply lines even more. Additional troops are coming in according to plan (per the military) and not as a reaction to anything that has happened.

I have seen a bit of finger pointing, this article is an example of it, about the war lately.

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: CrazyfoolRumsfeld is a very smart man and anybody who doubts him will look like a serious fool.

I hope you are kidding. Rumsfeld should have went in with overwhelming power. The fact of the matter is that those additional ground troops could be dealing with the cities that the original force bypassed AND secure the supply lines, while the main force assaulted baghdad. We would have to wait days for the assault to begin and maybe end, but instead now we are waiting weeks and looking like idiots. For Gods sake, he held back an entire tank division, and now we gotta wait till mid April for that same division to arrive with their equipment. Rumsfeld put our troops are a greater risk than they should be, and he is smart for this? Leave the war planning to the generals I say, not to high and mighty civilians who think they know what they are doing.

You got nice armchairs, Mr. quarterback?

Rumsfeld is not standing in the way of anything. Where does all this liberal bullcrap come from anyway?

 

Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: CrazyfoolRumsfeld is a very smart man and anybody who doubts him will look like a serious fool.

I hope you are kidding. Rumsfeld should have went in with overwhelming power. The fact of the matter is that those additional ground troops could be dealing with the cities that the original force bypassed AND secure the supply lines, while the main force assaulted baghdad. We would have to wait days for the assault to begin and maybe end, but instead now we are waiting weeks and looking like idiots. For Gods sake, he held back an entire tank division, and now we gotta wait till mid April for that same division to arrive with their equipment. Rumsfeld put our troops are a greater risk than they should be, and he is smart for this? Leave the war planning to the generals I say, not to high and mighty civilians who think they know what they are doing.

You got nice armchairs, Mr. quarterback?

Rumsfeld is not standing in the way of anything. Where does all this liberal bullcrap come from anyway?

Yes, god forbid anybody EVER question the leaders. My apologies.

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: CrazyfoolRumsfeld is a very smart man and anybody who doubts him will look like a serious fool.

I hope you are kidding. Rumsfeld should have went in with overwhelming power. The fact of the matter is that those additional ground troops could be dealing with the cities that the original force bypassed AND secure the supply lines, while the main force assaulted baghdad. We would have to wait days for the assault to begin and maybe end, but instead now we are waiting weeks and looking like idiots. For Gods sake, he held back an entire tank division, and now we gotta wait till mid April for that same division to arrive with their equipment. Rumsfeld put our troops are a greater risk than they should be, and he is smart for this? Leave the war planning to the generals I say, not to high and mighty civilians who think they know what they are doing.

You got nice armchairs, Mr. quarterback?

Rumsfeld is not standing in the way of anything. Where does all this liberal bullcrap come from anyway?

Yes, god forbid anybody EVER question the leaders. My apologies.

You didn't just question the man, you insulted him and insulted anybody who thinks that guy might know a little bit more about the situation than either you or me.

I am not arrogant enough to claim to know more about that situation than the Secretary of Defense of the USA.

Perhaps you do know more than him, but I seriously f***ing doubt it.

 

[mastertech01]

We can second guess the tactics of war forever. Every war is different and the circumstances change after the first shot in each case. I believe we caught Iraq with thier pants down by moving when we did. If we had given it 3 more weeks Iraq would likely have had every male over 10 armed and dug in by the time we got our backups positioned and ready to make a massive strike. The world would have been outraged even more than they are now at the slaughter of Saddam's forced into combat children. We have a huge stronghold on them now and pre-emptive strikes have greatly reduced organization of a defense against us and command and control is virtually non-existent. I personally think its going very well and with little loss of our own troops and certainly fewer civilian casualties than would have been present if we made blanket massive attacks. The absolute greatest loss of civilian life has come at the hands of the Iraq regime itself.

 

[drewshin]

they should have waited the extra couple weeks to get those armored divisions in. but it looked like saddam was actually starting to comply, so they needed to get it started quickly. then it became not a matter of destroying weapons, as he started to do, but for him to leave iraq, which they knew he would never do.

 

[Michael]

From what I read, Franks was the one who held the equipment off of Turkey. He really wanted to open the second front and was hoping until the very end that Turkey would allow it. Also, from what I read, there were massive traffic james in Kuwait in the opening days of the war. I don't know if they could have staged another division in Kuwait and had it do anything in the opening days of the attack.

Maybe deciding to send the ships with the tanks south 1-2 weeks earlier so they would be arriving now would have made the most sense.

I also remember that the media predicted total disater in Gulf War 1 and total disaster in Afganistan and was wrong.

Opening second guessing our leadership is a freedom that we enjoy, and I think that debate and critical thinking is good for the long-term improvement of our Armed Forces.

I think this shows we probably need more heavy transport aircraft so we can move more equipment more quickly.

Michael

 

[drewshin]

You got nice armchairs, Mr. quarterback?

Rumsfeld is not standing in the way of anything. Where does all this liberal bullcrap come from anyway?

Yes, god forbid anybody EVER question the leaders. My apologies.

[/quote]


You didn't just question the man, you insulted him and insulted anybody who thinks that guy might know a little bit more about the situation than either you or me.

I am not arrogant enough to claim to know more about that situation than the Secretary of Defense of the USA.

Perhaps you do know more than him, but I seriously f***ing doubt it.

[/quote]

oh so there's probably all liberals in the pentagon and cia who were telling him differently. this guy has a serious stick up his a$$ and needs to start to listening to people that DO know more than him. he's an idiot (and i do know more than him).

 

[mastertech01]

Originally posted by: drewshin
they should have waited the extra couple weeks to get those armored divisions in. but it looked like saddam was actually starting to comply, so they needed to get it started quickly. then it became not a matter of destroying weapons, as he started to do, but for him to leave iraq, which they knew he would never do.

Werent you around when the first Gulf War occured? Saddam played games for months while we build up our forces, acting like he would comply, then backing out... over and over.. It was like he was playing the role of the King of Egypt holding back the people of Israel, always backing off and then his heart would be hardened. Saddam had NO intention to comply, only to play games to gain more world wide support by decieving them into believing he was the innocent victim of America. Just wait till its all over and we dig up what he was hiding. IMHO

 

[Siwy]

Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: CrazyfoolRumsfeld is a very smart man and anybody who doubts him will look like a serious fool.

I hope you are kidding. Rumsfeld should have went in with overwhelming power. The fact of the matter is that those additional ground troops could be dealing with the cities that the original force bypassed AND secure the supply lines, while the main force assaulted baghdad. We would have to wait days for the assault to begin and maybe end, but instead now we are waiting weeks and looking like idiots. For Gods sake, he held back an entire tank division, and now we gotta wait till mid April for that same division to arrive with their equipment. Rumsfeld put our troops are a greater risk than they should be, and he is smart for this? Leave the war planning to the generals I say, not to high and mighty civilians who think they know what they are doing.

You got nice armchairs, Mr. quarterback?

Rumsfeld is not standing in the way of anything. Where does all this liberal bullcrap come from anyway?

Judging from your previous posts you sound like another american-blind-sheep who will follow and listen to whatever their government will tell them. Just look at the recent American history and see for yourself how many times officials in government lied, and how many times they put on a brave face even though they knew they were in a deep booboo. I?m not saying Runsfeld is not smart, he most likely is, but keep in mind that the biggest mistakes and miscalculations in the world were made by smart people who had too much power.

Yes, god forbid anybody EVER question the leaders. My apologies.

You didn't just question the man, you insulted him and insulted anybody who thinks that guy might know a little bit more about the situation than either you or me.

I am not arrogant enough to claim to know more about that situation than the Secretary of Defense of the USA.

Perhaps you do know more than him, but I seriously f***ing doubt it.

 

[Siwy]

Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: CrazyfoolRumsfeld is a very smart man and anybody who doubts him will look like a serious fool.

I hope you are kidding. Rumsfeld should have went in with overwhelming power. The fact of the matter is that those additional ground troops could be dealing with the cities that the original force bypassed AND secure the supply lines, while the main force assaulted baghdad. We would have to wait days for the assault to begin and maybe end, but instead now we are waiting weeks and looking like idiots. For Gods sake, he held back an entire tank division, and now we gotta wait till mid April for that same division to arrive with their equipment. Rumsfeld put our troops are a greater risk than they should be, and he is smart for this? Leave the war planning to the generals I say, not to high and mighty civilians who think they know what they are doing.

You got nice armchairs, Mr. quarterback?

Rumsfeld is not standing in the way of anything. Where does all this liberal bullcrap come from anyway?

Yes, god forbid anybody EVER question the leaders. My apologies.

You didn't just question the man, you insulted him and insulted anybody who thinks that guy might know a little bit more about the situation than either you or me.

I am not arrogant enough to claim to know more about that situation than the Secretary of Defense of the USA.

Perhaps you do know more than him, but I seriously f***ing doubt it.

Judging from your previous posts you sound like another american-blind-sheep who will follow and listen to whatever their government will tell them. Just look at the recent American history and see for yourself how many times officials in government lied, and how many times they put on a brave face even though they knew they were in a deep booboo. I?m not saying Runsfeld is not smart, he most likely is, but keep in mind that the biggest mistakes and miscalculations in the world were made by smart people who had too much power.

(Sorry about the last post, I screwed it up.)

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Siwy

Originally posted by: Crazyfool


You didn't just question the man, you insulted him and insulted anybody who thinks that guy might know a little bit more about the situation than either you or me.

I am not arrogant enough to claim to know more about that situation than the Secretary of Defense of the USA.

Perhaps you do know more than him, but I seriously f***ing doubt it.

Judging from your previous posts you sound like another american-blind-sheep who will follow and listen to whatever their government will tell them.

There are those who never question their Government whether it be the USA, Canada or even Iraq.

 

[mastertech01]

SIWY, do you believe the Canadian government has always told you the truth and nothing but the truth? Please don't judge others by what you percieve the truth to be, by judging which government tells the better, more believable lies. You nor I will EVER know the absolute truth, and that is a fact.

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: Michael
Every time I see reports of the Army complaining about Rumsfeld, I remember that he has been strongly pressuring the leadership to modernize and change their way of thinking. Most of the good reporting I have read on his efforts before this war have lauded his drive to take costs out and focus the armed forces on more modern problems.

Rumsfeld only spouts sense when it is a ploy to get his way. He never introduced anything revolutionary.

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: mastertech01
I believe we caught Iraq with thier pants down by moving when we did. If we had given it 3 more weeks Iraq would likely have had every male over 10 armed and dug in by the time we got our backups positioned and ready to make a massive strike.

Saddam has been starving his people this past year and has set the Shiites up for massive starvation. Waiting alot of more time would have been beneficial to the American force and a burden to the majority of the Iraqi people, Shiites. Rumsfeld had used the "needs" of the Iraqi people to get his way. Hopefully Iran looks upon this as a gesture of humanity and continue to support the action. The people over there don't really think like westerners so its hard to gauge what they're thinking. Its equally as likely that they think the relief brought in by the west is meant to poison the Iraqis with the idolatry of western ideals.

 

[Siwy]

Originally posted by: mastertech01
SIWY, do you believe the Canadian government has always told you the truth and nothing but the truth? Please don't judge others by what you percieve the truth to be, by judging which government tells the better, more believable lies. You nor I will EVER know the absolute truth, and that is a fact.

What does Canadian government have to do with anything? I never mentioned Canadian government let alone try to portray it as a better government. All I?m trying to say is that there are way too many blind followers, who never question their government?s actions be it American or Canadian. The only difference is that American decisions tend to affect the world or at least part of it, hence I?m here trying to enlighten the lost souls

 

[ToBeMe]

Jesus H Christ..............is everyone from media to average Joe second guessing everything now days????? We're barely over a week in and are withing walking distance of Baghdad.....................reenforcements/supplies/hardware are within 72 hours now days at all times if *need* be......................the writer of that article is already catching all sorts of flack from everyone including Franks......................let's wait and see a while longer before we nail anyone for anything OK!

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ToBeMe
Jesus H Christ..............is everyone from media to average Joe second guessing everything now days????? We're barely over a week in and are withing walking distance of Baghdad.....................reenforcements/supplies/hardware are within 72 hours now days at all times if *need* be......................the writer of that article is already catching all sorts of flack from everyone including Franks......................let's wait and see a while longer before we nail anyone for anything OK!

This is a direct result of the Mistake made to include Imbedded reporters with the troops.



Bullsh!t from those reporters on the frontlines

 

[SilverThief]

This is a direct result of the Mistake made to include Imbedded reporters with the troops.

You sir hit the nail right on the head. This has been the biggest mistake made in this war so far.
I watched about 30 seconds of a Cen Com press briefing this morning....it was all I could stomache. A jackass Australian reporter stands up and asks Franks how he would feel if an invading army was marching on Midland TX. (or something to that effect)

Idiots.