6/30/08

U.S. army study says Iraq occupation was understaffed

No Kidding?
U.S. army study says Iraq occupation was understaffed
DENVER - A nearly 700-page study released Sunday by the army found that "in the euphoria of early 2003," U.S.-based commanders prematurely believed their goals in Iraq had been reached and did not send enough troops to handle the occupation.

FULL STORY

While bush was claiming that major combat operations had ended:

Planners in the Iraq headquarters said 300,000 troops would be needed for the occupation. Even before the invasion, some planners had called for 300,000 troops to be sent for the invasion and occupation.

...snip...

Some commanders told the authors they asked about plans for making the country stable and got no answers.

...snip...

Its writers said it was clear in January 2005 that the Army would remain in Iraq for some time, the writers concluded.
That was only about 7 Friedman units ago.
Take heart, dear reader, that our fearless leader took his military commanders advice on troop levels and... Oh wait! he ignored the military, never sent in the 300,000 troops they wanted and lied about the Friedmans too.

I would feel used if I didn't know this since the day they sacked General Shinseki for telling them, and us, the truth about needed troop levels.
Retired generals speak out to oppose Rumsfeld:
"In this, Powell echoed former Army chief of staff Gen. Eric Shinseki, who told Congress just weeks before the 2003 invasion that several hundred thousand US troops would be necessary to secure Iraq after the invasion. For this he was publicly contradicted by then Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. Rumsfeld named General Shinseki's replacement a year before he was to retire and broke custom by not attending his retirement ceremony."
--- csmonitor.com
In case you don't remember exactly what Shinseki said to get pushed out the door by the bush administration:
McCain makes a good point with his "whackamole" comment, but clearly the only other thing that McCain is correct in when he talks about sending 20,000 more troops to Iraq is at the end of the video where he says, "I don't know where the troops are going to come from."

He hasn't a clue that it would take a draft to get enough troops. Firstly, because we already don't have the troops to spare. And, secondly, because you need to be looking at the several hundred thousand pairs of boots on the ground deemed neccessary by General Shinseki, before he was chased out of the military by the neocons for being honest, if you really want to secure Iraq and you get the idea of how wrong McCain is.

Something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers, are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We’re talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that’s fairly significant with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so, it takes significant ground force presence to maintain safe and secure environment to ensure that the people are fed, that water is distributed, all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a situation like this.” [Sen. Armed Services Committee testimony, 2/25/03]

Now, of course, several years later we have a bush flack in charge named Petraeus. Nothing more than a yes man for the neocons and eternal war. He took over from a reasonable Admiral that stood in the neocons way when it came to attacking Iran.

All they need is to get their warmongering McCain in to the White House and we can be sure to be playing whackamole in Iran for a hundred years too!

2 comments:

Beach Bum said...

People hotly debate this with me but if McCain gets in office a draft will come. Not exactly sure how it will get passed, whether he takes advantage after another 9/11 or through some compromise with the Democrats who always seem ready to rollover and assume the doggy style position.

Connecticut Man1 said...

If a draft happens, I guarantee that it will end everything in Iraq and any nonsense about Iran.