| by Thomas E Ricks |
The debate was far more than a technical squabble about troop numbers. Andrew Bacevich observed that Shinseki's comments amounted to a broad attack on Wolfowitz's entire approach to the Middle East. "Given that the requisite additional troops simply did not exist, Shinseki was implicitly arguing that the U.S. armed services were inadequate for the enterprise;' Bacevich wrote...On the occupation:
Concern about a longterm occupation-that was discounted. The people around the president were so, frankly, intellectually arrogant;' this general continued. "They knew that postwar Iraq would be easy and would be a catalyst for change in the Middle East. They were making simplistic assumptions and refused to put them to the test. It's the vice president, and the secretary of defense, with the knowledge of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the vice chairman. They did it because they already had the answer, and they wouldn't subject their hypothesis to examination. These are educated men, they are smart men. But they are not wise men."On dissolving the Iraqi military:
Central Command was taken aback by the announcement. "We were surprised at the dissolution of the army;' said Maj. Gen. Renuart, adding mildly, "so that gave us a challenge." It is a verbal tic of the u.s. military that officers tend to say challenge when they mean problem.[ed] Agoglia, working as the military liaison to Bremer, told his boss, "You guys just blindsided Centcom." That was the day, he recalled, "that we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and created an insurgency."If you want to understand what has happened in Iraq read this book. Pair it with Bob Woodwards's "State of Denial" and you get a very good picture of the Fiasco that is the Iraq war.

0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home