US Army worried about the occupation, and tying together 3 different things

superdave · Mar 11, 2003

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7867-2003Mar10.html

While the officers believe a decade of peacekeeping operations in Haiti, Somalia, the Balkans and now Afghanistan makes the Army uniquely qualified for the job, they fear that bringing democracy and stability to Iraq may be an impossible task.

An occupation force of 45,000 to 60,000 Army troops -- the range under consideration by the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- could force an end to peace-time training and rotation cycles in a service already deployed in Germany, Korea, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo and the Sinai.
Click to expand...

Read the article; it's scary. From start to finish.

The three things?

1. The leak about the spying at the UN. The hawks here tried to say it was a fake, but the articles on day two were all, of course we're spying, everyone does. And we never denied it. So I consider that proven. Our gvt. is competent enough to spy. The import, to me, was that someone in either British or American intel wanted to a) embarass the US and UK and b) try to slow down the war train.

2. The two career diplomats who have resigned.

3. This story. Granted, it doesn't have any attributed quotes from active officers (except a reference to Shimeski's comment from 2 weeks ago). But you'd expect that. I don't think these journos are just making s*** up, esp. since the Post has been pro-war.

Here's the upshot. You have 3 different areas of gvt., intel, diplomacy, and the army. The pros, the careerists. And in each community, there are efforts to derail the war train.

Either Bush and his band of political appointees, relative newbies, are right.

Or the men and women who have made a career of this are right.

ElJefe · Mar 11, 2003

I think far too few people think about the aftermath of military action, especially when "regime change" is involved. Right now, everybody's getting all hot and bothered about going in and getting Saddam out, but nobody's thinking about what happens the day after that happens.

It's just like Afghanistan. Everybody was jazzed about how we got the Taliban out and dealt Al Qaeda a huge blow. But how much are we doing NOW in the aftermath to insure that Afghanistan will develop into a peaceful, stable democracy? Not quite as much.

Frankly, it's tough to get people jazzed about committing tens of thousands of troops to making sure that a place where we just threw out the government doesn't descend into anarchy and lawlessness and civil war and become a haven for terrorists. It's not glamourous. Pictures of troops standing guard or patrolling the streets don't excite voters. But if you want to do the job right, it's necessary. Look at the occupation of Germany and Japan after World War II and look at them now.

And in Iraq, we're not just talking about tens of thousands, we're talking possibly 100,000 or 200,000 troops. And that should be a huge question in the whole war debate: Are you willing to commit 100,000 troops to Iraq for years or possibly even a decade after Saddam is out?

If not, then perhaps you should make yourself be willing to commit that, or you should think twice about going to war in the first place.

And that doesn't even begin to address the question of where these troops are going to come from in the first place.

obie · Mar 11, 2003

I've said it here dozens of times, but in order to understand Bush II's foreign policy you need to read up on Paul Wolfowitz. Wolfowitz has an incredible resume, but he wants this war and has given Bush the justification (he thinks, at least) to do it.

Check out the bottom of this Jim Lehrer interview. Here's Wolfowitz's quote on the Iraq situation:

And that's something to remember in general, that most of the regimes that support terrorism against us support terrorism against their own people basically. They rule by terror. And one of our greatest allies against them, whether it's in Iraq or in any other parts of the world are going to be to defeat their own people. And as we develop strategies, our target is not the people. Our target is the regimes and the people are very often going to be our ally.
Click to expand...

Now here's the scary thing -- he said that on September 14, 2001. Three days after 9/11, when the entire world wanted to get Al Qaeda and Osama, Wolfowitz is thinking about Saddam.

What does this tell you? It tells me that 1441 isn't justification for this administration, it's an excuse. This guy is desperate to fix what he sees as a mistake in 1991, regardless of the long-term implications of that.

352klr · Mar 11, 2003

I'm wondering what he was doing during the gap in his resume from 67-70?

joseph pakovits · Mar 11, 2003

Originally posted by 352klr
I'm wondering what he was doing during the gap in his resume from 67-70?
Click to expand...

Wasn't Dubya AWOL from the Air National Guard around that time? Maybe they were getting fucked up together?

btousley · Mar 11, 2003

Originally posted by superdave
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7867-2003Mar10.html

Read the article; it's scary. From start to finish.

The three things?

1. The leak about the spying at the UN. The hawks here tried to say it was a fake, but the articles on day two were all, of course we're spying, everyone does. And we never denied it. So I consider that proven. Our gvt. is competent enough to spy. The import, to me, was that someone in either British or American intel wanted to a) embarass the US and UK and b) try to slow down the war train.

2. The two career diplomats who have resigned.

3. This story. Granted, it does

n't have any attributed quotes from active officers (except a reference to Shimeski's comment from 2 weeks ago). But you'd expect that. I don't think these journos are just making s*** up, esp. since the Post has been pro-war.

Here's the upshot. You have 3 different areas of gvt., intel, diplomacy, and the army. The pros, the careerists. And in each community, there are efforts to derail the war train.

Either Bush and his band of political appointees, relative newbies, are right.

Or the men and women who have made a career of this are right.
Click to expand...

Active officers are not going to comment because of civilian control over the military. Correct or not - Shinseki made his comments and Wolfowitz corrected him. There is a real difference of opinion about what it would take to occupy Iraq. Shinseki's opinion was based on conservative estimates from his experience in the Balkans occupation - Wolfowitz asserted his assumptions leading to the 200K number were wrong. But Shinseki may have not briefed OSD in advance. That is a big no no in a civilian controlled military.

Regarding peacetime training and rotation - based upon current endstrength of the military - driven by the 8 years of the Clinton administration - the Army is having a hard time handling Europe, Korea, Balkans, and now the Persian Gulf - assuming even an occupation force of 50 - 75K - there will be few soldiers left in the US to conduct peacetime training and rotation - they will be tapped out. You either have to up the endstrength or you have to dramatically reduce other committments - exactly why Rumsfeld is talking about repositioning forces in Korea and removing forces from Germany - we just don't have any choice - and we are not going to increase Army end strength by 100K anytime soon. Can you say more deficit?

Folks in the service are not trying to derail anything .. they will do just what the Commander in Chief orders them to do. Same as when we went into Somalia under Clinton's orders.

And I hope we are spying on Iraq now - geez Ritter knows that as he going in the front door to conduct inspections in the mid 90's - Iraqi's were taking stuff out the back door - how the heck do you think he knew?

tcmahoney · Mar 11, 2003

Re: Re: US Army worried about the occupation, and tying together 3 different things

Originally posted by btousley
Shinseki's opinion was based on conservative estimates from his experience in the Balkans occupation - Wolfowitz asserted his assumptions leading to the 200K number were wrong. But Shinseki may have not briefed OSD in advance. That is a big no no in a civilian controlled military.
Click to expand...

I wonder if he had just said "Oh, we'll just need a few thousand or so" even without briefing OSD in advance if Wolfowitz would have gone into a snit. Somehow, I don't think so.

Originally posted by btousley
Can you say more deficit?
Click to expand...

Are you in favor of repealing Bush's tax cuts, then?

Originally posted by btousley
Same as when we went into Somalia under Clinton's orders.
Click to expand...

Whoa whoa whoa whoa.

Bush I ordered troops into Somalia and let Clinton deal with the consequences.

Roel · Mar 11, 2003

Right wing neo-cons still think Clinton is president, Clinton is the anti-christ and Clinton is responsible for Rush Limbaugh's mom's gout.

Clinton left office 26 months ago. Get over it.

Garcia · Mar 11, 2003

Originally posted by ElJefe
But if you want to do the job right, it's necessary. Look at the occupation of Germany and Japan after World War II and look at them now.

Click to expand...

More to the point would be how Germany was treated after the Great War (WWI). It did lead to WWII, well, at least the conditions were created by the punishment of Germany rather than the "rebuilding" of the nation.

The key here is the balance of power and not just Iraq and the people alone. Iran is set to take the leadership, regional superpower role as soon as Saddam is gone. Historical relations lead to believe that payback would come in time.

Now, even as Iran becomes more moderate and open, they are still (the govt) not to our likes. Not to hate, but we have our own history with these fundamentalists.

Should rebuilding the nation include re-arming the nation? I know the limits Germany and Japan faced on rebuilding their military forces.

But, this leads us to two possible paths.

One, we spend years defending Iraq and by default run the risk of the taking on the next member on the Axis of Evil, Iran. Iran is going to get nukes during that time btw.

Second, prop up Saddam 2.0, the new and improved buddy we always needed to balance Iranian power. Ooops, sequels are never as good as the first.

All the while, our service people will be rather large targets for terrorism.

Ghost · Mar 11, 2003

Re: Re: Re: US Army worried about the occupation, and tying together 3 different things

Originally posted by tcmahoney

Bush I ordered troops into Somalia and let Clinton deal with the consequences.
Click to expand...

Bush I originally ordered soldiers into Somalia to defend UN humanitarian shipments from warlords. THe US was one day from being withdrawn from Somalia when UN General SEcretary Boutros Boutros Ghali implored Clinton to re-enter the country and help them hunt down the warlord Mohammed Farah-Aidid. That led to the Black Hawk down incident.

tcmahoney · Mar 12, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: US Army worried about the occupation, and tying together 3 different things

Originally posted by Ghost
Bush I originally ordered soldiers into Somalia to defend UN humanitarian shipments from warlords. THe US was one day from being withdrawn from Somalia when UN General SEcretary Boutros Boutros Ghali implored Clinton to re-enter the country and help them hunt down the warlord Mohammed Farah-Aidid. That led to the Black Hawk down incident.
Click to expand...

You can't even keep your story straight in the same sentence.

Assuming you're not making this up off the top of your head, I suppose Boutros Boutros Ghali would've asked Clinton for help and gotten it if Bush hadn't sent in the troops, huh? Riiighhhht.

Getting back on topic, I notice btousley tried -- in the same way that the Maryland Mania tried to play in the A-League -- to knock down only one of the three things that superdave was talking about. I notice he didn't touch the intelligence corps or the diplomatic corps.

As superdave asked, who's right? The pros or the pols?

SoFla Metro · Mar 12, 2003

Originally posted by Roel
Right wing neo-cons still think Clinton is president, Clinton is the anti-christ and Clinton is responsible for Rush Limbaugh's mom's gout.

Clinton left office 26 months ago. Get over it.
Click to expand...

Didn't you get the memo? Everything bad that has ever happened in the history of mankind, including but not limited to: Christ's crucifixion, the atom bomb, slavery, the Holocaust, man's inhumanity to man, and Ishtar are Bill Clinton's fault.

SoFla Metro · Mar 12, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: US Army worried about the occupation, and tying together 3 different things

Originally posted by Ghost
Bush I originally ordered soldiers into Somalia to defend UN humanitarian shipments from warlords. THe US was one day from being withdrawn from Somalia when UN General SEcretary Boutros Boutros Ghali implored Clinton to re-enter the country and help them hunt down the warlord Mohammed Farah-Aidid. That led to the Black Hawk down incident.
Click to expand...

So Clinton is to blame for the Black Hawk incident?

And, just as a matter of semantics, if the US was one day from being withdrawn, how could they re-enter? They never left.

Ugluk · Mar 12, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US Army worried about the occupation, and tying together 3 different things

Originally posted by tcmahoney
Assuming you're not making this up off the top of your head, I suppose Boutros Boutros Ghali would've asked Clinton for help and gotten it if Bush hadn't sent in the troops, huh? Riiighhhht.

Click to expand...

If Bush and Cheney had remained in office, they would have supported the request from the U.S. commander in Somalia for armor to support the troops in their mission. Clinton's boy Aspin inexplicably turned the request down. I guess he knew better than the commander on the ground, or more likely Clinton and co. were afraid of the perception of the high profile mission. What's more important, after all - perception of your policy or the safety of the soldiers you send into harm's way?

Had the proper support been allowed, it would not have been the blood-bath it turned out to be. Aspin blew it, not Bush. Clinton claimed ignorance, and of course I believe him.

tcmahoney · Mar 12, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US Army worried about the occupation, and tying together 3 different things

Originally posted by Ugluk
If Bush and Cheney had remained in office, they would have supported the request from the U.S. commander in Somalia for armor to support the troops in their mission. Clinton's boy Aspin inexplicably turned the request down. I guess he knew better than the commander on the ground, or more likely Clinton and co. were afraid of the perception of the high profile mission. What's more important, after all - perception of your policy or the safety of the soldiers you send into harm's way?

Had the proper support been allowed, it would not have been the blood-bath it turned out to be. Aspin blew it, not Bush. Clinton claimed ignorance, and of course I believe him.
Click to expand...

Then I guess you're making superdave's point that we should trust the pros instead of the pols, right?

And Dan Quayle was the vice president under Bush I.

Ugluk · Mar 12, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US Army worried about the occupation, and tying together 3 different thi

Originally posted by tcmahoney
Then I guess you're making superdave's point that we should trust the pros instead of the pols, right?
Click to expand...

Nice dodge. I'm making the point that Clinton and co. were more responsible for the disaster than Bush's previous policy. Just because Clinton inherited it didn't mean he had to screw it up. And if superdave is making the point that we should trust the pros, then we'll be going into Iraq with the high likelyhood of military success.

And Dan Quayle was the vice president under Bush I.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the history lesson. Quayle would have had nothing to do with the decision making. I was referring to then Secretary of Defense Cheney.

superdave · Mar 12, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US Army worried about the occupation, and tying together 3 different

Originally posted by Ugluk
And if superdave is making the point that we should trust the pros, then we'll be going into Iraq with the high likelyhood of military success.
Click to expand...

And a high likelihood of everything becoming unglued after the war is over.

Nobody doubts that the US will win this war. It's the diplomatic and financial cost, as well as the uncertain aftermath, that is troubling people.

btousley · Mar 12, 2003

Re: Re: Re: US Army worried about the occupation, and tying together 3 different thin

Originally posted by tcmahoney
I wonder if he had just said "Oh, we'll just need a few thousand or so" even without briefing OSD in advance if Wolfowitz would have gone into a snit. Somehow, I don't think so.

Are you in favor of repealing Bush's tax cuts, then?

Whoa whoa whoa whoa.

Bush I ordered troops into Somalia and let Clinton deal with the consequences.
Click to expand...

(1) OSD and Shinseki have had a running battle ever since Crusader - Shinseki is finishing up his term and does not agree on some matters with OSD seniors. In that past, all four service chiefs have testified in front of Congress without briefing OSD in advance. Rumsfeld changed that - the same as changing the "CINC" title to having only one CINC - the Chief Exec. When the service Chiefs make public comments which affect international policy - such as the number of troops which may/may not have to occupy another country - OSD does have to informed in advance. For example, any discussions of the troop reductions in Germany invariably involve the President and the German chancellor.

(2) I am not making a comment about tax cuts or deficits .. simply pointing out reality that more troops cost more to this country and that that would have an impact in terms of committments and deployments and endstrength.

(3) Bush I put us into Somalia in terms of UN humanitarian aid. Clinton established our military commitment to deal with Aideed, and approved military action. Regardless - the specific Blackhawk Down tragedy (a tactical success and strategic failure) was Aspin's fault (as others have pointed out) not Clinton's directly. While he often got involved in day to day control of things - as Mark Bowden has documented - in this situation - he was not in the loop.

Clinton is not President anymore and Al Gore was not elected either - get over Florida.

tcmahoney · Mar 12, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US Army worried about the occupation, and tying together 3 different

Originally posted by Ugluk
Nice dodge. I'm making the point that Clinton and co. were more responsible for the disaster than Bush's previous policy. Just because Clinton inherited it didn't mean he had to screw it up.
Click to expand...

Bush sent the troops into Somalia in the first place. Tell you what -- I won't argue that Clinton screwed up in Somalia if you'll call BS on btousley's claim that it was Clinton that sent them there instead of Bush, OK?

Frankly, I think Clinton learned from Somalia -- from that point on, if military action was needed, he and his administration would ask the military "We need to do this. What do you need to do the job?" The brass would say "We need this, that and the other thing," and Clinton would nod and say "Make it so."

Originally posted by Ugluk
And if superdave is making the point that we should trust the pros, then we'll be going into Iraq with the high likelyhood of military success.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt that we'll win the war, with or without UN help. It's the peace that I'm worried about, and so are the pros. Read ElJefe's post.

Originally posted by Ugluk
Thanks for the history lesson. Quayle would have had nothing to do with the decision making. I was referring to then Secretary of Defense Cheney.
Click to expand...

My bad. You're right about that.

tcmahoney · Mar 12, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: US Army worried about the occupation, and tying together 3 different thin

Originally posted by btousley
(1) OSD and Shinseki have had a running battle ever since Crusader - Shinseki is finishing up his term and does not agree on some matters with OSD seniors. In that past, all four service chiefs have testified in front of Congress without briefing OSD in advance. Rumsfeld changed that - the same as changing the "CINC" title to having only one CINC - the Chief Exec. When the service Chiefs make public comments which affect international policy - such as the number of troops which may/may not have to occupy another country - OSD does have to informed in advance. For example, any discussions of the troop reductions in Germany invariably involve the President and the German chancellor.
Click to expand...

The $64,000 question -- actually, it's probably closer to $64 billion -- is whether Shineski is right about how many troops we'll need for after the war. All the political foofahrah you've cited above pales before that vital question.

Originally posted by btousley
(2) I am not making a comment about tax cuts or deficits .. simply pointing out reality that more troops cost more to this country and that that would have an impact in terms of committments and deployments and endstrength.
Click to expand...

And I just thought I'd point out the reality of the federal government budget.

Originally posted by btousley
(3) Bush I put us into Somalia in terms of UN humanitarian aid.
Click to expand...

You know, when I'm wrong, I admit it. See my previous post.

Originally posted by btousley
Clinton is not President anymore and Al Gore was not elected either - get over Florida.
Click to expand...

So that explains all the gratuitous swipes at Clinton in your first post.

tcmahoney · Mar 12, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: US Army worried about the occupation, and tying together 3 different thin

Originally posted by btousley
(1) OSD and Shinseki have had a running battle ever since Crusader - Shinseki is finishing up his term and does not agree on some matters with OSD seniors. In that past, all four service chiefs have testified in front of Congress without briefing OSD in advance. Rumsfeld changed that - the same as changing the "CINC" title to having only one CINC - the Chief Exec. When the service Chiefs make public comments which affect international policy - such as the number of troops which may/may not have to occupy another country - OSD does have to informed in advance. For example, any discussions of the troop reductions in Germany invariably involve the President and the German chancellor.
Click to expand...

With the approval of my President, I'm going to launch a pre-emptive strike here and ask what the heck Shineski is doing testifying in front of the Senate Armed Services committee if it wasn't OK with his superiors.

This is not like sneaking to the corner bar for a few quick ones, or sneaking out to the shed to take a few quick puffs on a cigarette when you promised your wife you'd quit smoking. They actually schedule these things and there are TV cameras and reporters and other instruments of publicity there.

Is it that he was there before the Senate committee, or what he said?

btousley · Mar 12, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US Army worried about the occupation, and tying together 3 differ

Originally posted by tcmahoney
The $64,000 question -- actually, it's probably closer to $64 billion -- is whether Shineski is right about how many troops we'll need for after the war. All the political foofahrah you've cited above pales before that vital question.

And I just thought I'd point out the reality of the federal government budget.

...

So that explains all the gratuitous swipes at Clinton in your first post.
Click to expand...

Shinseki or Wolfowitz may be right - their disagreement came down to whether the peacekeeping analogy of Kosovo applied. That was where Shinseki's base of experience came from. He stated that the 250K # would be required due to the large ethnic and religious diversity in the Balkans. Wolfowitz said that OSD greatly disagreed because they felt that the same level of diversity did not exist in Iraq and felt that significantly fewer numbers of soldiers would be required. In fact - the # that Shinseki quoted would be just about the entire existing deployed US force - obviously that had not been cleared in advance and in Wolfowitz's view was inaccurate. The truth is that Shinseki just doesn't know. If the Kurd's are kept under control - the numbers could be very small - intelligence estimates indicate that once the leadership hierarchy is toppled - the country could be quickly stabilized.

I agree with your concern about deficits and tax cuts. My point is that we cannot afford more soldiers right now - not without enormous cost to the budget - which is clearly in trouble.

"Gratituous swipes about Clinton" - I served 8 of 20 years in the military under him and have too many horror stories to count as a result of his kingship. That includes stories from military, friends in the secret service and other unnamed organizations. He was a travelling salesman pure and simple. That is pretty direct. As I said in my earlier post - he did not have direct involvement in the military fiasco in Mogadishu - but clearly his administration set the tone for that strategic military failure.

btousley · Mar 12, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US Army worried about the occupation, and tying together 3 differ

Originally posted by tcmahoney
With the approval of my President, I'm going to launch a pre-emptive strike here and ask what the heck Shineski is doing testifying in front of the Senate Armed Services committee if it wasn't OK with his superiors.

This is not like sneaking to the corner bar for a few quick ones, or sneaking out to the shed to take a few quick puffs on a cigarette when you promised your wife you'd quit smoking. They actually schedule these things and there are TV cameras and reporters and other instruments of publicity there.

Is it that he was there before the Senate committee, or what he said?
Click to expand...

He simply may not have discussed that area in depth with OSD. You need to understand the critical point of military organization that as Chief of Staff of the Army his job is to steward the training, and organization and equipping of the force in general. The proper person for Congress to ask this strategic question of post war activities - would/should have been the combatant commander of that region - CENTCOM - Gen. Franks. Shinseki should have deferred that question to either Franks or OSD. But he likely felt free to offer his opinion since his term expires in about 90 days. What the heck.

SoFla Metro · Mar 12, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US Army worried about the occupation, and tying together 3 differ

Originally posted by btousley

"Gratituous swipes about Clinton" - I served 8 of 20 years in the military under him and have too many horror stories to count as a result of his kingship. That includes stories from military, friends in the secret service and other unnamed organizations.
Click to expand...

You'd think that someone who had such a horrible time in the military and "other unnamed organizations" (BS alert) under Clinton would want so hard to put it behind him and not mention it again rather than mentioning it every chance he gets.

But we're getting to be aware of the crap you're willing to pull, so I take this with a grain of salt.

tcmahoney · Mar 12, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US Army worried about the occupation, and tying together 3 differ

Originally posted by btousley
The truth is that Shinseki just doesn't know. If the Kurd's are kept under control - the numbers could be very small - intelligence estimates indicate that once the leadership hierarchy is toppled - the country could be quickly stabilized.[/B]
Click to expand...

I just want to point out that not everyone here is so casually dismissive of the questions about post-war Iraq, which is why so many of us are reaching for our Rolaids.