Who's Lying about Troop Deployment in Iraq?

[Narmer]

I was reading The Economist from two weeks ago (I'm trying to catch up with all these mid-terms). In the Letters section there was a letter from Dorrance Smith, the Assistant secretary of defence for public affairs at the Department of Defense. This is what she wrote:

Defending strategy in Iraq
SIR ? You assert that difficulties in Iraq can be explained by errors such as ?disbanding Iraq's army [and] committing too few American troops?, which you claim are the fault of Donald Rumsfeld, America's secretary of defence (?Five years on?, September 2nd). A few facts are in order. Although officially disbanded in May 2003 by coalition officials in Iraq, the Iraqi military had already largely disbanded itself by then. As the commander of the top division in the Iraqi Republican Guard explained: ?I started the war with 13,000 soldiers. By the time we had orders to pull back to Baghdad, I had less than 2,000; by the time we were in position in Baghdad, I had less than 1,000. Every day the desertions increased.?

It is also incorrect to suggest that Mr Rumsfeld opposed sending more troops to Iraq. The secretary has regularly asked General John Abizaid, who took command of the mission in the summer of 2003, if he had all the necessary resources, and, if not, what more was required to carry out a successful campaign. Commanders in the field have consistently said that they need more intelligence and Iraqi forces, not American troops. General Tommy Franks, General Abizaid's predecessor, told the Senate in July 2003, when he was still in command in Iraq, that: ?There has been [the] suggestion that perhaps there should be more troops. And in fact, I can tell you...that if more troops are necessary, this secretary's going to say yes.? Reliance on the counsel and advice of experts continues today.
Dorrance Smith

Assistant secretary of defence for public affairs

Department of Defence

Washington, DC

link

Now, in a CNN Presents documentary about Donald Rumsfeld, around the 24th minute of the program, Rumsfeld reportedly browbeat Franks into reducing his original estimate of 400,000 troops needed to defeat, occupy, and pacify Iraq. There are also other ex-Generals that said before and after the invsaion that they needed more troops. Rumsfeld dismisses them like they're minor annoyances. I don't have a transcript of the show, but I'm wondering why the Department of Defense would still defend what has proven to be wrong by history and by many ex-Generals? What's the point? Why use Franks own word knowing full well that his initial figures were talked down? Is General Franks a capricious figure who can't stand up to Rumsfeld or are they all in cahoots? Is someone in the position of Abizaid or Franks (when he was in charge) a political figure, military figure, or a hybrid?

 

[Witling]

As you may know, I think this war was the biggest political mistake I've seen in my life, and I'm 61.

Your last paragraph talks about Rumsfeld browbeating Franks. It doesn't happen that way. When you get up at Franks' level, you know which way the wind is blowing. At Franks' level, it's primarily political, not military. Rumsfeld didn't have to browbeat him. A mere lifted eyebrow would do it.

Second, although I was at the peon level in the military, it's very common to tell your immediate superior something and then add, "But I never told you that." This also works downstream. The military, the cops, etc., are generally tight cohesive groups. Real information is valued and frequently shared with the kind of "I never told you this." tag.

 

[Lemon law]

There is an old saying---you can't win the lottery if you don't play---and in Donald Rumsfeld army you don't retain command if you are honest with Rumsfeld--as Shinseki found out.

Its very a very chilling and demoralising message to send to your professional military---that only Donald knows best.---and the honest man who tells the truth must leave the army.
And to stay in the army--you must live a lie.

But thats why the army has a war college---to study history and past occupations---and 400,000 troops was the number needed to occupy Iraq---250,000 might have been enough,
But the pitiful small number Rumsfeld sent was enough to win the war--but it also lost the peace---and we lost Iraq the day the looting started.---now, no amount of troops will undue
that mistake---even replacing Rummy at this late date is simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

But the military is muzzled---and the next job is muzzling the press. And if the USS Bush sinks in Iraq--its time for that old standby--blame the democrats.

 

[dmcowen674]

It's all Clinton's fault

 

[1EZduzit]

They don't have enough soilders to maitain the troop level they have without forcing people to extend their tours, do 2 tours, etc. How can they claim that "all the commanders need to do was request more troops." and expect anybody to believe them?? ESPECIALLY considering their track record for lying?

 

[Hacp]

Bush is lying. Simpletons do not make good Presidents. They don't even make barely passable ones.

 

[Lemon law]

The other thing to consider is that we have had roughly 135,000 troops give or take a small percentage since day one 3.5 years ago. While less than 3000 of our guys and girls have died,
naerly 20,000 have been fairly severly wounded---or a casuality rate of 1 in 6 or so----which is huge in any army---and near fatal given current conditions.

But I am pleased to report that Rumsfeld---Rice--Cheney--and GWB are among the group that are not wounded in the least.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Hacp
Bush is lying. Simpletons do not make good Presidents. They don't even make barely passable ones.

See my sig. Better yet, listen to the whole song. While you're at it, read the lyrics, and share the links with your friends.

Anyone who wants to perform the song or use it as part of a political campaign can email me about it, here. It is copyrighted material, but I ask no money for using it, except if you intend to use it as part of any commercial project such as an album for sale.

 

[zephyrprime]

The department defends the policy because they've been ordered to. It's that simple. You aren't free to do or say whatever you want while in the military. Remember, rumsfield is boss of every single person in the military.

This is why the comments by retired military is so telling. They're the only military people that can talk freely.

 

[techs]

How the H*LL can we even talk about this like its an issue?
Rumsfeld stopped the military from asking publicly for the troops it needed.
Rummy even STOPPED ships on the high seas that were headed for Iraq with American troops and turned them back to the U.S.
This has been documented to the point where only the terminally brainwashed or ignorant still contest it.
Rummy wanted to prove he knew more than the military.
He initially wanted to start the war with 15,000 troops!!!!!

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: Narmer
Now, in a CNN Presents documentary about Donald Rumsfeld, around the 24th minute of the program, Rumsfeld reportedly browbeat Franks into reducing his original estimate of 400,000 troops needed to defeat, occupy, and pacify Iraq. There are also other ex-Generals that said before and after the invsaion that they needed more troops. Rumsfeld dismisses them like they're minor annoyances. I don't have a transcript of the show, but I'm wondering why the Department of Defense would still defend what has proven to be wrong by history and by many ex-Generals? What's the point? Why use Franks own word knowing full well that his initial figures were talked down? Is General Franks a capricious figure who can't stand up to Rumsfeld or are they all in cahoots? Is someone in the position of Abizaid or Franks (when he was in charge) a political figure, military figure, or a hybrid?

That statement about Franks seems strange considering that his own military philosphies focused on smaller, fast-moving assaults leveraging technology to overwhelm larger forces. Read his book, he goes into detail . . . he does indicate that there were some personality conflicts between he and Rumsfeld, but not in the regards of troops or any other resources, but rather general military philosophy. IIRC, they didn't think Franks was asking for enough troops as the size he was planning for was significantly smaller than the one in the first Gulf War.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: XMan

Originally posted by: Narmer
Now, in a CNN Presents documentary about Donald Rumsfeld, around the 24th minute of the program, Rumsfeld reportedly browbeat Franks into reducing his original estimate of 400,000 troops needed to defeat, occupy, and pacify Iraq. There are also other ex-Generals that said before and after the invsaion that they needed more troops. Rumsfeld dismisses them like they're minor annoyances. I don't have a transcript of the show, but I'm wondering why the Department of Defense would still defend what has proven to be wrong by history and by many ex-Generals? What's the point? Why use Franks own word knowing full well that his initial figures were talked down? Is General Franks a capricious figure who can't stand up to Rumsfeld or are they all in cahoots? Is someone in the position of Abizaid or Franks (when he was in charge) a political figure, military figure, or a hybrid?

That statement about Franks seems strange considering that his own military philosphies focused on smaller, fast-moving assaults leveraging technology to overwhelm larger forces. Read his book, he goes into detail . . . he does indicate that there were some personality conflicts between he and Rumsfeld, but not in the regards of troops or any other resources, but rather general military philosophy. IIRC, they didn't think Franks was asking for enough troops as the size he was planning for was significantly smaller than the one in the first Gulf War.

OMG. How can you be so deluded???
There have been like 20 books and dozens of retired military who were involved in the planning for the war who have said on the record that Rummy browbeat Franks and that Franks consistently wanted far more troops than Rummy would allow.
And now you try to twist history by saying Franks wanted less troops?
Franks sold his soul (and the lives of his troops) on Rummys alter.
Yeah, he sold some books and made some money.
Yet the TRUTH can easily be judged when dozens of honorable men say one thing happened and a single person with something to gain says another.
In fact, even RUMMY has admitted pushing for less troops. He PUBLICLY put down the military as having an outdated mindset.

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: XMan

Originally posted by: Narmer
Now, in a CNN Presents documentary about Donald Rumsfeld, around the 24th minute of the program, Rumsfeld reportedly browbeat Franks into reducing his original estimate of 400,000 troops needed to defeat, occupy, and pacify Iraq. There are also other ex-Generals that said before and after the invsaion that they needed more troops. Rumsfeld dismisses them like they're minor annoyances. I don't have a transcript of the show, but I'm wondering why the Department of Defense would still defend what has proven to be wrong by history and by many ex-Generals? What's the point? Why use Franks own word knowing full well that his initial figures were talked down? Is General Franks a capricious figure who can't stand up to Rumsfeld or are they all in cahoots? Is someone in the position of Abizaid or Franks (when he was in charge) a political figure, military figure, or a hybrid?

That statement about Franks seems strange considering that his own military philosphies focused on smaller, fast-moving assaults leveraging technology to overwhelm larger forces. Read his book, he goes into detail . . . he does indicate that there were some personality conflicts between he and Rumsfeld, but not in the regards of troops or any other resources, but rather general military philosophy. IIRC, they didn't think Franks was asking for enough troops as the size he was planning for was significantly smaller than the one in the first Gulf War.

OMG. How can you be so deluded???
There have been like 20 books and dozens of retired military who were involved in the planning for the war who have said on the record that Rummy browbeat Franks and that Franks consistently wanted far more troops than Rummy would allow.
And now you try to twist history by saying Franks wanted less troops?
Franks sold his soul (and the lives of his troops) on Rummys alter.
Yeah, he sold some books and made some money.
Yet the TRUTH can easily be judged when dozens of honorable men say one thing happened and a single person with something to gain says another.
In fact, even RUMMY has admitted pushing for less troops. He PUBLICLY put down the military as having an outdated mindset.

So Franks lied in his own book, then? It came out in July of 2004 . . . very soon after he retired.

No offense, but I'll take words from the man himself as fact more than your own vague, un-cited conjecture.

Franks himself agreed with Rumsfeld that the days of massive armies were over. He said as much in his book.

Spend the four bucks and buy a used one from Amazon.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: XMan

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: XMan

Originally posted by: Narmer
Now, in a CNN Presents documentary about Donald Rumsfeld, around the 24th minute of the program, Rumsfeld reportedly browbeat Franks into reducing his original estimate of 400,000 troops needed to defeat, occupy, and pacify Iraq. There are also other ex-Generals that said before and after the invsaion that they needed more troops. Rumsfeld dismisses them like they're minor annoyances. I don't have a transcript of the show, but I'm wondering why the Department of Defense would still defend what has proven to be wrong by history and by many ex-Generals? What's the point? Why use Franks own word knowing full well that his initial figures were talked down? Is General Franks a capricious figure who can't stand up to Rumsfeld or are they all in cahoots? Is someone in the position of Abizaid or Franks (when he was in charge) a political figure, military figure, or a hybrid?

That statement about Franks seems strange considering that his own military philosphies focused on smaller, fast-moving assaults leveraging technology to overwhelm larger forces. Read his book, he goes into detail . . . he does indicate that there were some personality conflicts between he and Rumsfeld, but not in the regards of troops or any other resources, but rather general military philosophy. IIRC, they didn't think Franks was asking for enough troops as the size he was planning for was significantly smaller than the one in the first Gulf War.

OMG. How can you be so deluded???
There have been like 20 books and dozens of retired military who were involved in the planning for the war who have said on the record that Rummy browbeat Franks and that Franks consistently wanted far more troops than Rummy would allow.
And now you try to twist history by saying Franks wanted less troops?
Franks sold his soul (and the lives of his troops) on Rummys alter.
Yeah, he sold some books and made some money.
Yet the TRUTH can easily be judged when dozens of honorable men say one thing happened and a single person with something to gain says another.
In fact, even RUMMY has admitted pushing for less troops. He PUBLICLY put down the military as having an outdated mindset.

So Franks lied in his own book, then? It came out in July of 2004 . . . very soon after he retired.

No offense, but I'll take words from the man himself as fact more than your own vague, un-cited conjecture.

Franks himself agreed with Rumsfeld that the days of massive armies were over. He said as much in his book.

Spend the four bucks and buy a used one from Amazon.

Have you read Plan of Attack?
Do you think Franks or anyone would write a book condemming himself for his mistakes and that make him look like a wuss?
And it is documented that Rummy even turned ships around which had troops that were desperately needed.
And this was confirmed by Colin Powell who tried to intercede on the Armies behalf with Rummy.
You need to put down the Kool Aid and take a reality pill.

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: XMan

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: XMan

Originally posted by: Narmer
Now, in a CNN Presents documentary about Donald Rumsfeld, around the 24th minute of the program, Rumsfeld reportedly browbeat Franks into reducing his original estimate of 400,000 troops needed to defeat, occupy, and pacify Iraq. There are also other ex-Generals that said before and after the invsaion that they needed more troops. Rumsfeld dismisses them like they're minor annoyances. I don't have a transcript of the show, but I'm wondering why the Department of Defense would still defend what has proven to be wrong by history and by many ex-Generals? What's the point? Why use Franks own word knowing full well that his initial figures were talked down? Is General Franks a capricious figure who can't stand up to Rumsfeld or are they all in cahoots? Is someone in the position of Abizaid or Franks (when he was in charge) a political figure, military figure, or a hybrid?

That statement about Franks seems strange considering that his own military philosphies focused on smaller, fast-moving assaults leveraging technology to overwhelm larger forces. Read his book, he goes into detail . . . he does indicate that there were some personality conflicts between he and Rumsfeld, but not in the regards of troops or any other resources, but rather general military philosophy. IIRC, they didn't think Franks was asking for enough troops as the size he was planning for was significantly smaller than the one in the first Gulf War.

OMG. How can you be so deluded???
There have been like 20 books and dozens of retired military who were involved in the planning for the war who have said on the record that Rummy browbeat Franks and that Franks consistently wanted far more troops than Rummy would allow.
And now you try to twist history by saying Franks wanted less troops?
Franks sold his soul (and the lives of his troops) on Rummys alter.
Yeah, he sold some books and made some money.
Yet the TRUTH can easily be judged when dozens of honorable men say one thing happened and a single person with something to gain says another.
In fact, even RUMMY has admitted pushing for less troops. He PUBLICLY put down the military as having an outdated mindset.

So Franks lied in his own book, then? It came out in July of 2004 . . . very soon after he retired.

No offense, but I'll take words from the man himself as fact more than your own vague, un-cited conjecture.

Franks himself agreed with Rumsfeld that the days of massive armies were over. He said as much in his book.

Spend the four bucks and buy a used one from Amazon.

Have you read Plan of Attack?
Do you think Franks or anyone would write a book condemming himself for his mistakes and that make him look like a wuss?
And it is documented that Rummy even turned ships around which had troops that were desperately needed.
And this was confirmed by Colin Powell who tried to intercede on the Armies behalf with Rummy.
You need to put down the Kool Aid and take a reality pill.

Tommy Franks a wuss . . . LOL! Riiiiiiiiiiight. You obviously know nothing of his career. He makes John Kerry look like a piker.

Colin Powell and Franks disagreed about how to conduct the war. Powell was old-school, massive invasion force. Franks preferred smaller, more responsive forces. Of course they were going to clash.

The book is hardly Franks worshipping at the altar of Rumsfeld, as you so quaintly put it. He tears Douglas Feith to shreds and grudgingly admits respect for Rumsfeld.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: XMan
Colin Powell and Franks disagreed about how to conduct the war. Powell was old-school, massive invasion force. Franks preferred smaller, more responsive forces. Of course they were going to clash.

Of course, there's always the small matter of who was actually right in that discussion. Nothing like almost 3,000 U.S. dead and tens of thousands wounded and an ongoing, worsening position, today to make the point.

And it isn't like others didn't tell them before they started. Ronald Dumbsfeld claimed their pre-war planning included plenty of troops to handle foreseeable problems in the aftermath of their invasion, despite warnings from Army Chief of Staff, Eric Shinseki that they would need around 300,000 - 400,000 troops to do the job.

The Bushwhacos didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him. :|

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: XMan


That statement about Franks seems strange considering that his own military philosphies focused on smaller, fast-moving assaults leveraging technology to overwhelm larger forces. Read his book, he goes into detail . . . he does indicate that there were some personality conflicts between he and Rumsfeld, but not in the regards of troops or any other resources, but rather general military philosophy. IIRC, they didn't think Franks was asking for enough troops as the size he was planning for was significantly smaller than the one in the first Gulf War.

That's the key problem though - using technology to overwhelm larger forces. This isn't a large force we're fighting. It's a bunch of tiny groups scattered throughout a large area.
It strikes me as similar to the Revolutionary War. We fought with little regard to the rules of war at the time - stand up in front of each other in lines, and shoot. We didn't do that. We couldn't, or our military would have been completely outgunned and just overpowered. So we fought dirty, and it ultimately worked. Granted, we had some help, but that was needed due to one other key thing: the British sent sufficient reinforcements.
That's what we are NOT doing - sending enough troops to utterly overwhelm our enemies. We've got so few there now, spread so thin, that they are more like solitary lions surrounded by hyenas. The lion can put up a good fight, and is quite strong, but the hyenas can just keep picking away by attacking quickly, and then falling back.

Sometimes, brute force is simply a necessity. If you're fighting an organized military force with a centralized headquarters, sure, you can use technology. Send in stealth bombers, advanced fighters, and cruise missiles to kill the troops and destroy the HQ. This force we are fighting is not organized, nor is it centralized.
If you want to invade a country and not piss off the regular civilians, it's going to take a human touch. Large-scale bombs and cruise missiles are fine for destroying buildings, unfortunately, they might not damage ONLY the building you're after. If Bob's Bar & Grill happens to be next to where an Al-Queda leader lives, and a bomb hits the leader's house and devastates half of Bob's shop, Bob is probably going to hate whoever dropped the bomb. If a few hundred soldiers surround and infiltrate the leader's building, Bob might get worried about the shooting next door, but his shop is ok, he's ok, and the bad guy next door isn't there anymore. Bob is grateful that there were enough troops there to get the job done without risking the deaths of civilians by way of a massive airstrike.

 

[Lemon law]

If you think about it---its the American people who have been palyed for suckers on this whole Iraq gulf war 2 deal.

First all the neo-cons make the round of talks shows detailed how mean nasty and powerful Saddam was---about how how Saddam was a threat to his neighbors--had WMD--biological weapons---and maybe nukes. Mushroom clounds under every bed--better get him now.

When all along they had reliable intel to the effect that the Iraqi army was a shell of its former self--crippled by Gulf war 1 over a decade ago and never rebuilt---and ripe for the pickings.
No wonder Saddam was not so eagar to dispel the WMD myth---or any of his neighbors could have pushed him over with a troop of boy scouts with some BB guns.

And then GWB&co. invaded with a light force---no probs getting to Bagdad in a week---but not enough troops to replace the the Iraqi government---and now we have a really entrenched insurgency.

But they lied about the war---thats sin 1---then they blew the peace---and that was just plain old fashioned incompetence---and very poor planning.

Leaving us in the USA with a government run by lying incompetents---and the Iraqi's with no effective government---can it ever get any better than that?

Why is it that I think we could dig up their first grade teacher evaluations and find---Too often acts without thinking, narristic, poor impulse control, and can't get along with others. ---for the lot of those neo-cons.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Leaving us in the USA with a government run by lying incompetents---and the Iraqi's with no effective government---can it ever get any better than that?

Sure. Iran's probably next in line. Maybe that's what they're saving the full strength of the military for.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: XMan
Tommy Franks a wuss . . . LOL! Riiiiiiiiiiight. You obviously know nothing of his career. He makes John Kerry look like a piker.

As if Kerry needs any help doing that. :laugh:

What I find ironic is how desperate the liberals are to throw blame on someone. They used to hate Powell, until he was critical of some aspects of the current ordeal. Now he's a saint. Franks, likewise, was once widely admired and agreed (even by the left) as a hell of a guy. Now he's another scapegoat for their hatred of this Administration.

 

[wiin]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: XMan
Tommy Franks a wuss . . . LOL! Riiiiiiiiiiight. You obviously know nothing of his career. He makes John Kerry look like a piker.

As if Kerry needs any help doing that. :laugh:

What I find ironic is how desperate the liberals are to throw blame on someone. They used to hate Powell, until he was critical of some aspects of the current ordeal. Now he's a saint. Franks, likewise, was once widely admired and agreed (even by the left) as a hell of a guy. Now he's another scapegoat for their hatred of this Administration.

Not only are they desperate to blame someone, they're also so desperate to show that they care about the soldiers that they put a pic of a soldier from another country on their website Democratic Party Fauxtoshops Veteran

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: wiin
Not only are they desperate to blame someone, they're also so desperate to show that they care about the soldiers that they put a pic of a soldier from another country on their website Democratic Party Fauxtoshops Veteran

LOL, yeah, saw that on Malkin earlier.

The uniform is actually a Canadian one!

No surprise. It isn't like military people in uniform are jumping to pose with members of a political party who don't support them.

 

[Lemon law]

So some possibly democratic idiot at some website does some photo doctoring----by Rush Limbaugh logic all democrats do it---maybe you need to go support Tammy Duckworth--or maybe you just think her legs were edited out with trick photography.

The fact is that many US soldiers support the democratic position---as do many of our generals---and nearly all rational Republicans are pretty unhappy with Rummy.

But bringing up trivial side issues can't disguise the fact that there is deep divisions over Iraq.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: XMan
Tommy Franks a wuss . . . LOL! Riiiiiiiiiiight. You obviously know nothing of his career. He makes John Kerry look like a piker.

As if Kerry needs any help doing that. :laugh:

What I find ironic is how desperate the liberals are to throw blame on someone. They used to hate Powell, until he was critical of some aspects of the current ordeal. Now he's a saint. Franks, likewise, was once widely admired and agreed (even by the left) as a hell of a guy. Now he's another scapegoat for their hatred of this Administration.

Just like the Republicans are all totally willing to accept any responsibility for the whole Foley mess. :roll:
Just like the Republicans blame Clinton for everything.
Mhmm.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: wiin
Not only are they desperate to blame someone, they're also so desperate to show that they care about the soldiers that they put a pic of a soldier from another country on their website Democratic Party Fauxtoshops Veteran

LOL, yeah, saw that on Malkin earlier.

The uniform is actually a Canadian one!

No surprise. It isn't like military people in uniform are jumping to pose with members of a political party who don't support them.

I suspect folks in the military would appreciate you not speaking for them, especially when you're just using them as cheap prop to bolster your silly arguments. "Supporting the troops" indeed, I think most folks in the military would prefer NOT being used as a political ploy, no matter what their personal political views are. If you want to "support the troops", that's great, but don't fake it just because it looks so much better on your bumper sticker than "Support George W. Bush" or "Support the War".