Iraqi democracy, two years later

[Powerman]

Originally Posted by KEVWYO

Great .... now we find out George and Crew were on crack.

Thanks for the laugh.

[ZenMachine]

I do not think that the hindsight is 20/20 argument holds much water in this case because there were people in the Bush admin. and on the ground in Iraq arguing for keeping mid-level baath party members and certain units of the iraqi army around for security. One was Colin Powell, the other was Gen. Jay Garner, not mention many others in lower level positions. Powell's plan was in line with the teachings of Sun Tzu and was focused on quickly finding those from the former government not loyal to Saddam that we could do business with and who could restore order. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz wanted to completely take out virtually every member of the baath party, which jived with the shia leaders interests we subsequently put in power.

As to Rumsfeld's initial draw-down of US forces this was clearly a mistake. He was a proponent of a blitzkrieg style invasion with a small force. This was argues against by many generals, including Gen. Shinseki, then chief of staff of the army. He resigned over the matter, claiming that the US would need close to 300,000 troops for the mission to have a chance at success. Apparently Gen. Franks had to fight and plead to get the numbers he eventually got, as Rumsfeld wanted to go in with less than 100,000 troops.

The Woodward book is really an essential read; nobody has had that kind of high level access to an acting administration and it shows clearly that there were deep divisions within the administration at to the strategy that should be used during and after the invasion. Rumsfeld's strategy eventually won out, which is strange because he has no real knowledge or training in the field of military strategy. He wanted to install a western style democracy in a country that has never had one, many counseled against this course citing Iraq's long history of sectarian conflict as a major obstacle to elected democracy.

The fact of the matter is that Rumsfeld did not listen to experts on the subject and forged ahead with what he thought was best.

[Powerman]

Originally Posted by ZenMachine

I do not think that the hindsight is 20/20 argument holds much water in this case because there were people in the Bush admin. and on the ground in Iraq arguing for keeping mid-level baath party members and certain units of the iraqi army around for security.

Not to mention nearly a decade of debate on the subject. The only reason Saddam was left in power was because we didn't know what to do with what remained in his absence. Again, this is not hindsight. It bothered me at the time of invasion. I agreed that the world would be better without Saddam, but there was no mention as to what to do when he was gone. The very thing that had stopped us from doing it for the last 8 years.

The Woodward book is really an essential read; nobody has had that kind of high level access to an acting administration and it shows clearly that there were deep divisions within the administration at to the strategy that should be used during and after the invasion.

Not to mention the division between Condi and Bremer as to what exactly was within his authority and what his course of action was. Many people, including Bremer, was uncertain of what his authority actually was. Bush gave him free reign and many disagreed.