Too Few Troops In Anbar

The NY Times rehashes yesterday's WaPo coverage of a Marine Corps report from Anbar Province in Iraq.  The WaPo has more today.

From the Times:

The political and security situation in western Iraq is grim and will continue to deteriorate unless the region receives a major infusion of aid and a division is sent to reinforce the American troops operating there, according to the senior Marine intelligence officer in Iraq.

The assessment, prepared last month by Col. Peter Devlin at the Marine headquarters in Anbar Province, has been sent to senior military officials in Iraq and at the Pentagon.

...

Marine commanders have been mounting a campaign to secure the province in the face of a virulent insurgency. But they have had to cope with seriously short-handed Iraqi Army units and a Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad that has tended to view the area as a low priority for government spending and programs.

Elements of the assessment were reported Monday in The Washington Post. Military officials familiar with the document disclosed additional material and provided several quotations from the assessment.

One factor that has hampered the American counterinsurgency effort has been the limited number of American troops. As a general rule, a substantial number of troops are required in a counterinsurgency campaign to protect the population from attacks and intimidation by insurgent groups.

There are about 30,000 marines, soldiers, airmen and sailors in Anbar, a region that borders Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia and is roughly the size of Louisiana.

American forces can generally maneuver where they want and are fighting to regain control of Ramadi, the provincial capital, neighborhood by neighborhood. But there are areas of the province where the Americans have not established a persistent presence, the assessment says.     

Macranger has an email from the Pentagon providing backspin.

UPDATE:  The Wednesday Times digests the Pentagon push-back and burps up with this:

Grim Report Out of Anbar Is Disputed by General

  

By MICHAEL R. GORDON

 

WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 — The senior Marine commander in Iraq said Tuesday that he had sufficient forces to carry out his mission but that the mission did not include defeating the insurgency.

   

Ouch.  Unfortunately, they have the quotes to back up their lead:

“For what we are trying to achieve out here I think our force levels are about right,” said Maj. Gen. Richard C. Zilmer, who defined his primary mission as training the Iraqi forces who ultimately would be responsible for security in the area.

“Now, if that mission statement changes — if there is seen a larger role for coalition forces out here to win that insurgency fight — then that is going to change the metrics of what we need out here,” General Zilmer added.

The Marine general commands a force of 30,000 troops who are charged with securing Anbar Province, a vast region in western Iraq that borders Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. He spoke to reporters in a telephone interview from his headquarters at Camp Falluja.

...

The classified intelligence assessment, according to military officials familiar with it, also said that the region would continue to deteriorate unless there was an infusion of aid and a division was sent to reinforce General Zilmer’s command, known as MNF-W, for Multinational Force-West.

In his telephone discussion with reporters, General Zilmer declined to discuss the specifics of the report but indicated that he agreed with the intelligence assessment.

At the same time, he insisted that the United States was winning the war, while acknowledging that the effort was hampered by sectarian differences and the belief among Iraqis in Anbar that the Baghdad-based government was not meeting their needs.

“Until those things change, until those long-term effects are realized, then trying to solve the insurgency out here is going to be problematic,” he said.

General Zilmer said that sending additional American troops would help in the short run, but was not the key to “achieve long-term security and stability out here in Anbar” because that ultimately depended on the Iraqis.

The general’s comments contrasted with those of some of his subordinate officers in the field. Regimental Combat Team 7, which reports to General Zilmer, has recommended that additional forces be deployed in its sector, its officers have said.

The general’s account of his mission — training Iraqi forces — was also a narrow one.

President Bush has suggested an expansive strategy to achieve victory by using American forces to clear contested towns of insurgents, holding them with Iraqi security forces and then spending funds to rebuild the infrastructure and win the support of the Iraqi people.

Comments

[clarice]

As I recall Ricks who wrote the piece for the WaPo once had his press pass to the Pentagon pulled for his made up reporting. Read the Wa Po article and you'll find he never saw the memo and was relying on scuttlebutt.

Just a few days before I read how Fallujah was not Edenic.

The media motto out to be "We sling merde on the wall and you tell us if it sticke"

[Dale in Atlanta]

Tom: I just "discovered" your blog, about 2 weeks ago, and so far, it's proving quite interesting for me.

Anyways, I'll post this response over at Mac's as well.

I happen to know Col Pete Devlin, personally!

He's the Marine Officer who wrote the original report, that was leaked to the WashPo!

Pete did NOT leak it; I don't know who did, but the WashPo quotes some "Army" sources; so again, it's 4th estate types, in our own military, trying to damage the President, the war in Iraq, the troops, and providing aid and comfort to the enemy by doing so, for reprehensbile, selfish, political gain.

Pete is an outstanding officer, not only Marine, but Intel; one of the finest the Corps has, and one of the finest I served with.

I met Pete 15 years ago in Northern Iraq, and we also served in Okinawa together.

Pete is valuable to the Marines and other service men & women out in Iraq, he's valuable to our Corps, and he's thus valuable to the Nation.

Pete is a straight shooter, and he doesn't sugarcoat stuff, to gain "points" with anyone.

That said, that report he wrote, was NOT for distribution, outside Classified channels, and it was NOT for publication on the frontpages of the WashPo or the NYT!

Additionally, he didn't write it for the doom and gloom aspect of it, that's being played up in the MSM.

It was an honest look, at the situation, with no sugar coating, and it was meant to be an Internal document, a lessons learned type of thing, and most important, it was meant, to not Reflect what was going on in ALL of Anbar Province, but to show what had happened in "Indian Country", out in the styx, and what could happen, if remedial actions and some policy changes weren't implemented.

I wasn't aware of the report, or it's contents, until I read about it last night, via a link on the CT Blog; and this morning I called on a few friends, to check on it, and to find out what the impact could possibly be on Pete.

Because that's the real upside to this leaking by these assholes, not only in the Pentagon who leaked it for Political purposes, but also the WashPo & NYT.

They very likely, put a VERY valuable, and great Marine & Intel Officer's career in jeopardy, because of their callus, traitorous act, and it pisses me off; all the more because I happen to know the individual, personally, who wrote something up in Confidence, to appraise his Seniors of the situation, and now some asshole, has decided that it's best if it shows up on the frontpages of the NYT & WashPO, so that they can use it to attack the Bush Administration!

Complete Assholes...and excuse the language!

[boris]

Behold unbold!

Gotta watch those tag closes!

[Dale in Atlanta]

boris, you're killing me! yes, I missed it, thanks; can't take it back now...

[danking70]

I'm not trying to hijack a thread but this C.Hitchens interview is such a hoot.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1738468.htm

[Sara (Squiggler)]

The CENTCOM document isn't spin, it is the assessment from Maj. General Zilmer:

Title: a href="http://192.31.19.143/sites/uscentcom1/Lists/Press%20Releases/DispForm.aspx?ID=3748&Source=http%3A%2F%2F192%2E31%2E19%2E143%2Fsites%2Fuscentcom1%2FLists%2FPress%2520Releases%2FCurrent%2520Releases%2Easpx">STATEMENT ON THE STATUS OF Al ANBAR PROVINCE BY MAJ. GEN. RICHARD ZILMER Release Date: 9/12/2006 Release Number: 06-09-01P Description: FALLUJAH, Iraq – Recent media reports fail to accurately capture the entirety and complexity of the current situation in the Al Anbar Province of Iraq. The classified assessment, which has been referred to in these reports, was intended to focus on the causes of the insurgency. It was not intended to address the positive effects Coalition and Iraqi forces have achieved on the security environment over the past years.

That said, there is an active insurgency in Anbar. The enemy we face has no concern for the welfare of the Iraqi people, nor any peaceful vision for their future. We believe the Iraqi people want something more and are willing to fight and die for it.

We are making steady progress in the accomplishment of our primary mission to train and develop the Iraqi Security Forces to defeat the insurgency. This is due in large measure to the successful recruiting and training of thousands of Iraqi Police and improvements in the overall capabilities of the Iraqi Army.

This has resulted in the transfer of increasing responsibilities to the ISF for fighting the insurgency. Finally, the progress we have made has been due to the dedicated and heroic actions of both US and Iraqi forces.

Despite these consistent advances in the security environment, we have found making the same progress politically and economically, throughout all of Anbar, to be much more challenging. In areas where the presence of Iraqi Security Forces is combined with an effective local civil government, we have seen progress made. Not just in the area of security, but in economic development and the establishment of social order and public services. These are the conditions which must be set that will result in the support of the local people, and ultimately cause the defeat of this terrorist backed insurgency.

For lasting progress to take place, comparably effective advances must be made in the development of governmental and economic institutions at the local, provincial and national levels. Only then, will the people of Al Anbar be able to realize their goal of long-term security, prosperity and confidence in their government.

This is another instance where the anti-Bush/anti-Rumsfield group still in residence at Defense is leaking. Sort of like the leak to John Murtha about Haditha Marines a week before Murtha was briefed by those who really knew what was going on. I call them the Clinton/Wesley Clark wing.

[clarice]

They certainly are, Sara..

(I erred in my orginal post. I ment to say I'd just read Fallujah was NOW Edenic. Indeed, reports indicate it is one of those places well on its way to order.)

[Javani]

Yawn. This is old news, like Bush ranting about intrusions from Syria.

There was always not enough troops. This was leaked from the beginning. Rumsfeld wanted to prove his light footprint theory and push back calls for cuts in near worthless but big ticket defense projects like Star Wars.

Things got worse in Baghdad so they moved troops from Anbar and elsewhere, and things got worse in the places they left.

Sound familiar? Only the deepest Bushbot can keep the faith here with "stay the course" type nonsense when Condi herself said there were "thousands of mistakes" made in post-war Iraq.

The proper thing to do now is to flood the theater with three or four more divisions but that will never happen because people will ask why this wasn't done before. Rumsfeld will never admit he has blood on his hands.

[Appalled Moderate]

Dale. Please keep up the comments (if you aren't doing yourself harm in the process). You have great insights most of us do not.

None of the reporters (WaPo or NYT) have seen the report. The NYT reporter seems to have talked to folks who were able to quote from it -- which is better than WaPo did.

I am curious what the spin-free story is in Anbar, and don't expect we'll get it. (At least, not until Michael Yon or somebody like him goes there) I'd hate to see somebody's career fried because they spoke the truth and followed procedures.

[pagar]

I think the bold print was just the right
emphasis on a critical subject. The American
leftist know they have to destroy the military types, currently on duty, who actually support
the mission and try to do their job; if the left is to gain political power again. We've had far too many leaks, many of them had to deliberately planted against good people. We've seen photographers claiming that split second life and death decisions are deliberate
acts in violation of written rules. Everyone knows the average picture is forgotten in minutes, if its not surrounded by controversy. So what if a good Soldier or Marine's effective military career is ruined. Leave the investigatiors sort it out, except investigators are human too. Some are good, some are OK, and some are probably not OK. Everyone probably heard"""
All charges against Marine 2LT Ilario Pantano have been dropped. """"""after he was accused of murder of two Iraqis. But at what cost to the Marine, his unit, and our
country? How many others have been needlessly treated the same way.
There are politicians accusing Marines of murder, before the reports are completed.
We've already been thru all this. Every
military member who served in Vietnam was
Accused of war crimes by John Kerry in his
speech in front of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on 22 Apr 1971."""""They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war.""" Every military member is required to report incidents such as he described by military rules. Not reporting them is a serious violation of the USMJ. John Kerry also testified that he had met with the leaders of the Communist lead government officials in Paris. An crime specificly
outlined in Art III, Sec III of the US Constitution.
This country needs to start enforcing
laws that prohibit crimes such as leaking
classified material, meeting with foreign
agents, etc and leave the American military
do one of the toughest jobs in the world without being stabbed in the back by the American leftist every time they take any
action.

[Dale in Atlanta]

Appalled: thanks for your concern; No, I'm not doing myself any harm; I left the Institution some years back, and they have no hold over me.

Besides, as I said, the report was not leaked to me, and neither should it have been, I have no current need to know, nor clearance for it.

I only found out about it via the WashPo last night, but I was then able to call and talk to some people.

Mainly the thrust of my inquiry was to make sure Pete was okay.

It's fine for him to give an honest assessment to his Seniors, in the chain of command, that's his job as an Officer, a Staff Officer, an Intel Officer.

But when some traitor, leaks that, for Political reasons, to damage the President in some way, then, it unfortunately becomes a "Political" matter, and one that is/was outside Pete's control.

He didn't leak, someone in the Pentagon did, and they're spinning it to look as bad as possible, and it's plain wrong, and typical of what the MSM has been doing to our President, the troops, and the GWOT since right after 9/11, and they're scum, frankly, as well as their enablers in the Pentagon, CIA, etc., that leak this stuff to them.

Now, depending upon how "hot" the political football becomes, it can impact an innocent man's career.

Not because he did anything political, or tried to make it political, but because other people who don't care about him, or the troops, or our missions, did it to him!

It's disgusting, but also typical of the MSM and their enablers!

[Dale in Atlanta]

PS: Javani, have your college roommate ducttape you back in the closet, so you can light up your bong!

[Sara (Squiggler)]

I am sick to death of the left's arguments. They hate the military and every military success is like red pepper to their eyes as it points up their total loser mentality and woosiness. Anyone who thinks that either the President or Rumsfield would not send more troops if the commanders on the ground asked for them is a lunatic and thinks the military is run like they want their own nanny-state pathetic p.c. lives run. It makes me want to wretch!

In addition, I'm sick of this lefty spin that keeps talking about us being at war with Iraq. We haven't been at war WITH IRAQ since the fall of Saddam. We are at war against terrorists and Iraq is our ally in this endeavor. The Iraqis, overwhelming, say they want us to stay. They remember well how we left both the southern Shia and the northern Kurds high and dry after the Gulf War after encouraging them to rise up against Saddam and what the consequence of that were. The last thing they want is for us to leave until the country is secure.

But just as one must help an abused wife regain her confidence and self-esteem and be able to make sensible decisions after she manages to escape (something that can take a year or two or longer depending on how bad and how long the abuse went on), the Iraqi people have to find their way and they have been doing a pretty darn good job of it considering the short amount of time. They have now taken over the defense of their own country in all but the Anbar province. They still don't have all their support functions fully operational and until they do, we will be there to help them.

This is a country that literally had to start from scratch. Every ministery had to be restaffed and retrained. Every institution had to be recreated and retrained. They have had to try to rebuild their ecomony from scratch, their infastructure virtually from scratch. We have expected them to complete this enormous task in a year, when here in America it took us nearly a century and included a violent and bloody civil war in the process.

Of course the left, who live in the world of 40 minute hours of TV and instant gratification of war with their video games, has no conception of what was necessary, the incredible strides that have been made, some of the problems that have had to be dealt with in order to move forward.

God forbid that they should ever read the Mudville Gazette or any of the terrific first-hand accounts of what is truly going on with the boots on the ground. They rely on pundits who have either never set foot inside Iraq, or if they have, never left their barstools and hotel roofs.

[lurker]

Hey, Dale in wrongly-called state by me, you're a good guy. Keep up with your posts.

[Javani]

Dale writes:

"PS: Javani, have your college roommate ducttape you back in the closet, so you can light up your bong!"

That's deep Dale.

BTW, your emboldened comments prefaced with "ALL" of Anbar is an argumentation that I would say, if I were in college, lame-o.

What parts of Anbar do we not have problems with--most of it which is just desert?

Did you really fall for that "ALL" spin/qualification, or you just keeping the faith here?

[JM Hanes]

Javani:

"The proper thing to do now is to flood the theater with three or four more divisions but that will never happen because people will ask why this wasn't done before."

I stand awestruck at depth of your military expertise Gen. Janvani. IIRC, there have, in fact, been troop increases in recent months. Perhaps, given your detailed recommendations, you have access to the statistics that prove me wrong. Considering the volume of leaks, however, it seems worth noting that we're not hearing about urgent requests the field being turned down -- unless, of course, you're one of the folks who is convinced that the military brass don't have the guts to ask.

[JM Hanes]

Dale:

I can't imagine your pal would have much to fear -- especially given the kind of distribution described by the Post. Leaks of this sort have almost always come from the Pentagon back home, a fact which is certainly all too well known to the folks in charge.

[Javani]

"I stand awestruck at depth of your military expertise Gen. Janvani."

Don't call me a general.

"IIRC, there have, in fact, been troop increases in recent months."

At last, some battalions. Still not enough.

"Perhaps, given your detailed recommendations, you have access to the statistics that prove me wrong."

It has nothing to do with statistics. I can't say details here, but suggest you read mil blogs if you don't know any people in the service.

"Considering the volume of leaks, however, it seems worth noting that we're not hearing about urgent requests the field being turned down"

You're deaf. And don't know about military decorum re civilian superiors.

" -- unless, of course, you're one of the folks who is convinced that the military brass don't have the guts to ask.""

They got fired and right books. You might read one or two.

How about Paul Bremer? Is he a liar too?

You are reacting to the Dembot/Bushbot chattering classes. You don't hear the truth about Iraq because one, The Repubs want to paint it in the best light, and 2, the dems want to paint it in the worst light. Dems won't point out mistakes because mistakes can be corrected and such undermines their theme that the venture was a total mistake from the start.

[boris]

Don't call me a general

Jenrel it is then.

[boris]

want to paint it in the best light

Brother's been there on two tours with the Army Corps of Engineers interfacing between military and contractors doing reconstruction and bases. The only way we lose is if the Dems cut and run. True enough for ya?

[Javani]

"Brother's been there on two tours with the Army Corps of Engineers interfacing between military and contractors doing reconstruction and bases.""

"The only way we lose is if the Dems cut and run. True enough for ya?"

No, but agree some Dems want to cut and run.

[Javani]

"Brother's been there on two tours with the Army Corps of Engineers interfacing between military and contractors doing reconstruction and bases.""

Great! Bet he tells you some good SNAFU stories.

[Specter]

Javani,

I love to hear from the left when they are losing an argument. They delve deeply into empty rhetoric and name calling. LOL. It never changes - facts are facts and unfortunately you can't change them...no matter how hard you try...and no matter how many times the NYT gets it wrong. Didya notice that Bush's poll numbers climbed 3 points today? I feel sorry for you now that people are actually getting a dose of the truth. Plamgate - Nada - big scandal dreamed up by the left. Sorry. GWOT - root cause - failed Clintonian policies. Bushed Lied - scandal dreamed up bya the left - again Nada. Sorry. Clinton had more people in his admin that left in shame (due to inquiries, charges, etc) than any president in history - left wanted to cover that up. Sorry. Eventually the truth gets out.

[Dale in Atlanta]

Luker: no worries; I'd move to Arizona if I could!

Javani: I'm going to step it back a notch, because as usual, I started the "controversy".

Let me just say, I have no idea what you're saying, or why, or where you are coming from.

But, I get the distinct idea that you are an enlisted person, in the military, who has been to Iraq at least once?

Am I correct?

PS: I only know about the closet/ducttape thing, because my brother spent 3 years in college, and spent two of them duct-taped into the closet with his roomie and a bong, getting high!

Guess that's why he didn't get a 4th year in!

[Dale in Atlanta]

PS: yes, Bremer is an unmitigated liar!

He was/is a Democrat, and he was a mouthpiece for the Democrats, as soon as President was elected.

Within two mnnths of the President taking office, Bremer was giving speeches, criticizing the President for being "soft and weak on terrorism.."

This was as early as March 2001!

Now how could he know that, by then?

Because, the whole thing was being pushed by the Clintonistas/Clarke, to rewrite histroy, and blame Bush for Clinton's failures in the terrorism arena, and this was 6 months BEFORE 9/11!

Do you have an explaination other than that?

And then, for some unknown reason; probably because this President has the same weaknesses as his father, excessive loyalty, and he believes that everyone is a "good person"; he appointed Bremer to head Iraq for a year; the single most important overseas job, and American has had, since MacArthur was in charge of Post-War Japan!

And what did Bremer proceed to do: SCREW THE POOCH for a year!

Where we are today, in Iraq, is MOSTLY directly attributable to Bremer's incompetent, and LIBERAL attempts to remake Iraq in his own image!

And guess what, he gets to quit, walk away, get a Presidential Medal of Freedom, for being a screw-up for a year, and make money off his book and speeches!

NICE!

[Javani]

"I love to hear from the left when they are losing an argument."

I see, demonize me as a leftist, though I'm not, just because you don't agree with me.

"They delve deeply into empty rhetoric and name calling. LOL."

Shall we review all your posts? Now that actually would deserve an "LOL".

"It never changes - facts are facts and unfortunately you can't change them"

I'm here, willing discuss. What statement of mine do you challenge?

"...no matter how hard you try..."

That's strained. Your agrument lacks self-confidence.

"and no matter how many times the NYT gets it wrong."

Huh? The Times? I'm not the Times.

"Didya notice that Bush's poll numbers climbed 3 points today?"

Doesn't surprise me. Immigration is not at the fore and talking about cutting and running from the Dems elicits fears. They did this before 2004 too. They say "to win we need to talk domestic policy," discover they had none, then revert to the Vietnam war protestor template of thinking.

"I feel sorry for you now that people are actually getting a dose of the truth. Plamgate - Nada - big scandal dreamed up by the left. Sorry."

Have you read my Plame posts?

"GWOT - root cause - failed Clintonian policies."

No, the root cause is Wahabism, Deobondism, and other Salafi movements indirectly financed by their enemies' thirst for oil.

""Bushed Lied - scandal dreamed up bya the left - again Nada. Sorry.""

Why sorry? I agree with you if you mean his WMD statements.

"Clinton had more people in his admin that left in shame (due to inquiries, charges, etc) than any president in history - left wanted to cover that up. Sorry."

This has to do with post-war planning in Iraq how?

"Eventually the truth gets out."

And eventually people will accept it. The clutter of ideological and identity neuroses prevent it from being seen.

[Javani]

Dale,

Yes I've been to Iraq. Yes Bremer slants about some things but his request for more forces is borne out by others. His disbanding the Iraq army was bonehead...his explanation of it yet to be verified, though I heard there may have been pressure on him from Kuwait and Saudi not wanting a big Shiite-led Shiite-majority Iraqi Army.

Powell said something when he left, "we should have imposed our will." Damn right. For one the nation rebuilders, though well-meaning, were too slow and the administration attitude of letting the Iraqis hammer out everything themselves was wrong. We should have imposed a constitution like we did in Japan and that constitution should have expressed that Iraqi oil revenues would be treated as a national asset, not regional.

My 3 Cents...

[Dale in Atlanta]

No, the root cause is Wahabism, Deobondism, and other Salafi movements indirectly financed by their enemies' thirst for oil.

Okay Javani, you have some knowledge, I'm impressed; Deobandism, that's deep; not many people know that, I've had to post for the past 3 years on that, to get it to start to become "known", as well as Salafiyyah, Qutbiyyah, Wahabiyyah, etc.

Okay, go on...

[Pofarmer]

Does anybody remember the retired General that was to be in charge of reconstruction before Bremer? Circumstances under which he left?

[Dale in Atlanta]

Pofarmer: LtGen Jay Garner, USA!

When I was in N. Iraq; the CG of the operation was Gen Shalikashvali; later CJCS under Clinton.

His deputy, was Gen Tony Zinni; later Commander, CENTCOM!

The senior commander on the ground, in N. Iraq, was Gen Jay Garner, later "replaced" after a month on the ground in Iraq!

The senior Marine Commander, was then Col Jim Jones, later Commandant of the Marine Corps, and now, SACEUR!

Talk about a chain of command!

I'll be "polite", because he was/is a General; Gen Garner was less than "stellar" in his mission in N. Iraq, IMHO!, and the opions of many others!

He was selected by the Bush Administration, because they bought into the coventional wisdom that he had many contacts in Iraq, mainly Kurdish.

He was out of his league, and within a month that became apparent, and he was replaced, even more unfortunately, by Paul Bremer! (read my other posts about him...)

And, the Bush Administration compounded their attempt at "bipartisanship" with the Bremer/Garner appointments, for also earlier appointing Gen Tony Zinni as the "special envoy" to the Middle East, to solve the whole Palestinian-Israel issue!

That lasted a month, and then he was quietly ushered out!

Gen Zinni, is, and was, like all Clintonistas! Guilty of something! In this case, he, and Richard Clarke, and Madelaine Albright, and Sandy Berger, were the disasterous architects of the Clinton Administration's appeasement/political/law enforcement towards terrorism.

If you read the 9/11 Commission report fully, as flawed, bi-partisan, and stacked with Clintonistas as it was, it becomes painfully obvious, that the docudrama Path29/11 was dreadfully negligent in failing to show Zinni's role in convincing the blinder's on Berger/Clarke, that he was a Middle East expert, and thus he was right there with Clarke-Berger, when they were making sure that no serious Military action was ever taken against Bin Laden/Al Qaeda.

Zinni convinced the Clintonites, and himself, that he was such an expert, that he could "read" the "Arab Street", and he counseled against Covert Ops, and outright miliary action against UBL/AQ, numerous times!

I've forgotten more about the Middle East, then Zinni ever knew!

[Sue]

Comparing how the US handled post-war Japan and post-war Iraq is not fair. One was a country who had attacked us and who had surrendered. The other was a miliatary operation to remove a dictator that we believed was a danger to us in the future.

[Dale in Atlanta]

Javani: Okay, you avoided part of the question, but that's okay.

I honor service, though I don't agree with some of what you say.

Could you please explain the below, I do not know what you are referring too?

....and that constitution should have expressed that Iraqi oil revenues would be treated as a national asset, not regional.

[narciso]

The parallel is closer to Germany. It did not attack us, but it was in league with
those who did. There was no formal
declaration of war against us in the case of Iraq, but the Tikriti mafia; in the army
and security services, serve the similar function as the Junker class in interwar Germany. At the end of that war, that began to save Poland, that nation was enslaved along with the entire Eastern bloc, Germany
in particular, was split in two. The result
of the First world war, was less dramatic. Britain and France, won, but at the cost of
an entire generation of its young men, slaughtered on the battlefield. Italy and
Japan, also on the winning side, were devastated by the strife that empowered
militarists. and we all know the cases of
Germany and Russia, which were consumed by
even more vicious despotism.

[Walter]

OT and cross-posted:

Dale,

Boris gave us all a tutorial back in April that was really helpful.

(Thanks Boris, if I didn't mention it then.)

He suggested that you open the link above in a different window, copy the formating you need from his comment, and preview on that thread. When it looks good, copy it over to the thread you were reading and post. It really speeds things up when there are 500+ comments.

We all mess up at times (except TM, who is either perfect or gets to fix his errors when he catches them), but Boris' approach cuts it down a bit.

[boris]

The old one doesn't display as intended on some browsers (mozilla and possibly firefox) Here's a New One that should.

[Pofarmer]

Thanks Dale, for that on Garner.

I remember a transcript of a hearing with Zinni. He was asked what we should do in retaliation for the Cole bombing. His response was "What would you like me to do, attack Afghanistan?" At that point it was clear he didn't get the problem. Wish I could remember where I saw that.

[narciso]

As to the latter point, of whether General Garner's tenure was prematurely terminated,
history offers us a suggestion if not an
answer. Garner's crew included leading
Arabists like Eagleton & Bodine (both have
major roles in Iraq, at the time of the
Anfal campaign against the Kurds and the
parallel one against the Kurds) Bodine, has
the infamous distinction of having been the
envoy in Aden, at the time of the Cole
investigation, who frustrated John O'Neil's
crusade tio no small measure. Retaining them, would not have endeared to the Kurdish
and Shia majority. Suppressing the rash of
looting, with an iron hand directed against the Baathist kleptocracy would have likely
had a similar effect. And keeping the murderer's row of Mukharabat, Special & regular Republican Guard, under some Baathist figurehead; would have validated
the cynical view that this war, was to impose our own despot. The retrospective
wisdom of operation paperclip and overcast,
directed at the decisions of Clay, McCloy,
et al; testify to that fact.

[Specter]

Lincoln Chaffee wins! Here we go....

[lurker]

Sigh...but not a surprise. New England is as liberal as they can go.

[JM Hanes]

Javani:

"You are reacting to the Dembot/Bushbot chattering classes."

Well, yeah, because your post sure sounded like the standard Dembot argument to me, where the biggest stumbling block to success is Rumsfeld's ego, and our problems all stem from his firing Shinseki instead of taking his advice. The bots can't be bothered with any worst case assessments for the "Shinseki Plan" or potential adverse consequences of things like keeping Saddam's army intact, which include plenty of their own hair raising possibilities.

Most important of all, such retrospective arm chair complaints completely ignore the real fiasco, and one that bears directly on the current & continuous problems in Anbar. Turkey's stunning last minute reversal eliminated the critical 2nd front, leaving Baghdad's back door into the Sunni triangle -- and the swinging doors on the Syrian border -- wide open. You can thank the omniscient State Dept. for not anticipating that debacle. Maybe they were just too busy working up their own competing and much touted post-war model.

Frankly, I don't think anybody's been painting pretty pictures of Anbar. Operations along the upper Euphrates have been grim from the start, and I, personally, don't think the counter from Zilmer reads like a denial. You can hardly blame him for wanting to supply some context for what was clearly intended as an in-house memo -- and one that everyone seems to agree is being taken very seriously. Now we may, in fact, need more troops in Anbar, but somehow I doubt you've done any worst case calculations on simply flooding the zone -- especially in light of the intractable non-military problems Col. Devlin identifies, some of which have actually been exacerbated in the course of earlier shows of force. But who knows? Maybe you'll surprise me by expanding thoughtfully on the generic Dembot throw-more-troops-at-it curative. It would certainly be a welcome change.

[Dale in Atlanta]

JM: I'm not referring to Javani, because frankly, I don't understand at all, what points he is arguing, where he stands, or where he's going, so this does not refer to him.

But in general, isn't it amazing that the most ANTI-war of Democrats/Liberals/Leftists, like Kerry, Kennedy, etc., etc., their first, and major criticism of the Iraq War, is NOT ENOUGH TROOPS!

Does it not strike anyone else, as "funny", that the ANTI-war crowd, is calling for more Troops, and whinges about MORE Troops not being used in the Invasion?

Is it just me, or does that take a bit of mental gymnatics, to wrap your mind around the hypocrasy of that?

[boris]

"Not Enough Troops" is a phoney argument to explain how we are losing a war we aren't losing. It shifts the attention away from reasonable metric of progress toward a completely arbitrary nonissue.

[Neo]

I caught one piece in the noise of this yesterday, but can't seem to find it in the stories.

The story went that part of this leakered document indicated that the US was losing local support to the insurgency because tribal leaders doubted that the US was going to support them in the long term.

I wonder where they got that idea ?

[TallDave]

Sigh.

The plan has always been to train Iraqi troops to handle security, and for damned good reason: we couldn't do it if we wanted to. To have the troop-to-population ratio the French had in Algeria we'd need 5 million troops -- and the French LOST that war.

This is just another meme to get tossed around by the left, along with Bush Lied! (tm) and Joe Wilson: Heroic Truthteller (R).