22-10-2004 05:22									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara It was an experiment. That whole smaller, faster, better military thing. Iraq is just one big live fire training excercise.

To be fair, it worked extremely well for the conquest bit

The only problem is we don't have enough to prevent the constant culture flips.

	22-10-2004 05:25									#33
	Inflate your Upload Space

Personally I think we should rename this thread "How Ned is a ****"...

	22-10-2004 05:38									#34
	Suffering from ads?

Yeah Ned, why do you think Bremer dreamed this plan up and implemented it without WH approval and direction? I understand why they did it - to gain the trust and help of the non-Sunni Ba'athists who sure would not be happy if the same Iraqi army that slaughtered them in the past was put back in power.
It's a tough decision, I can see pros and cons to both plans. I suspect we could have identified enough former Iraqi officers who weren't bloodthirsty to lead the Iraqi army and that may have been the best approach...

	22-10-2004 22:13									#35
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by MOBIUS Personally I think we should rename this thread "How Ned is a ****"...

Thanks, Mobius. If you recall, I was always in the camp that we needed the Iraqi Army. This is why I am even more pissed to find out that the US Military thought that keeping the Army was necessary.

	22-10-2004 22:18									#36
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Yeah Ned, why do you think Bremer dreamed this plan up and implemented it without WH approval and direction? I understand why they did it - to gain the trust and help of the non-Sunni Ba'athists who sure would not be happy if the same Iraqi army that slaughtered them in the past was put back in power. It's a tough decision, I can see pros and cons to both plans. I suspect we could have identified enough former Iraqi officers who weren't bloodthirsty to lead the Iraqi army and that may have been the best approach...

Until the NYTimes gives us more, I assume this was a plan that was hatched by Bremer. De-Ba'athification was a broad goal of virtually everyone. The dismissal of the Army, I believe, was not part of the original plan. That appears to be a Bremer original. He made the assumption, it appears, that Ba'athist were heavily interspersed in the ranks. That was not the case.

As to this Sunni vs. Shi'ite vs. Kurd, I think that Bremer may have been listening too much to Chalabi.

	22-10-2004 22:24									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

It may have been the case, Ned (edit: that the Iraqi army was too Baathist). There was a certain logic to it.

The REAL issue, for me, is that the people who decided to invade Iraq (the Bush administration) did *NOT* do their ****ing homework on the country they were about to invade.

That alone is enough reason to fire them.

-Arrian

	22-10-2004 23:00									#38
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: As to this Sunni vs. Shi'ite vs. Kurd, I think that Bremer may have been listening too much to Chalabi.

Chalabi, who Bush has never really met or gotten to know?

	22-10-2004 23:00									#39
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: As to this Sunni vs. Shi'ite vs. Kurd, I think that Bremer may have been listening too much to Chalabi.

Or Chalabi, the friend that Bush was saying would help us lead the new Iraq?

	22-10-2004 23:05									#40
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Ned Thanks, Mobius. If you recall, I was always in the camp that we needed the Iraqi Army. This is why I am even more pissed to find out that the US Military thought that keeping the Army was necessary.

So in 1945 you would have been in that crowd defending the necessity of forgiving former Nazis to rebuild Germany?

I thought one of your big conviction was to spread democracy, not to remotely manage in an unfair albeit efficient way foreign resources.

	22-10-2004 23:27									#41
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Oncle Boris So in 1945 you would have been in that crowd defending the necessity of forgiving former Nazis to rebuild Germany? I thought one of your big conviction was to spread democracy, not to remotely manage in an unfair albeit efficient way foreign resources.

Oncle, the problem with your thesis is that the premise is wrong. The Iraqi Army was Ba'athist only at the Major General level - a fact discovered after we began our vetting of former officers. Bremer operated on the assumption that the whole of the Iraqi Army was infested with Ba'athists. He was wrong. But he could have found out the truth by simply asking the field commanders or the Joint Chiefs.

	22-10-2004 23:43									#42
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Ned Oncle, the problem with your thesis is that the premise is wrong. The Iraqi Army was Ba'athist only at the Major General level - a fact discovered after we began our vetting of former officers. Bremer operated on the assumption that the whole of the Iraqi Army was infested with Ba'athists. He was wrong. But he could have found out the truth by simply asking the field commanders or the Joint Chiefs.

Ned,
I read a long time ago that the pentagon wanted more troops and were turned down. I also read that the Iraqi army was disbanded immediately after the "war".
This is the first time I've heard you be so critical of a decision concerning the Iraqi "war". Is it just because you've been given a person that's not a neocon to take potshots at. If you disagreed with the decision then you should have spoken up long before now.
By the way, I heard Mr. Rumsfeld say prior to the war that we were using the minimum troops necessary to win the conflict i.e. efficient war and that we would use the minimum necessary to maintain the peace(efficient peace). He further more stated that if more troops were needed we would send more troops. This is not a direct qoute. He also did not say that he defers to Bremer on this or any decision. Squarely the responsibility for troop levels is the secdef.

	23-10-2004 00:15									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Pax Ned, I read a long time ago that the pentagon wanted more troops and were turned down. I also read that the Iraqi army was disbanded immediately after the "war". This is the first time I've heard you be so critical of a decision concerning the Iraqi "war". Is it just because you've been given a person that's not a neocon to take potshots at. If you disagreed with the decision then you should have spoken up long before now. By the way, I heard Mr. Rumsfeld say prior to the war that we were using the minimum troops necessary to win the conflict i.e. efficient war and that we would use the minimum necessary to maintain the peace(efficient peace). He further more stated that if more troops were needed we would send more troops. This is not a direct qoute. He also did not say that he defers to Bremer on this or any decision. Squarely the responsibility for troop levels is the secdef.

Last year, MTG and I had many spirited debates on the issue of the Iraqi Army. I thought we needed to keep it, deploy it, and to use it to get out of Iraqi ASAP. MtG disagreed, strongly IIRC.

Now it turns out that the US military also saw the need to use the Iraqi Army for three reasons 1) security; and 2) to prevent the Army from joining a resistance; and 3) to prevent several hundred thousand young men from joining the ranks of the unemployed.

That Bremer ignored all of this to prove some ephemeral point was more than foolish. It was criminal.

	23-10-2004 00:30									#44
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Sort of like Rumsfeld ignoring all the advice from the career military types and DOD/State/CIA intel resources that we would need over 200,000 troops to occupy Iraq?

	23-10-2004 01:00									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Yeah Ned, why do you think Bremer dreamed this plan up and implemented it without WH approval and direction? I understand why they did it - to gain the trust and help of the non-Sunni Ba'athists who sure would not be happy if the same Iraqi army that slaughtered them in the past was put back in power. It's a tough decision, I can see pros and cons to both plans. I suspect we could have identified enough former Iraqi officers who weren't bloodthirsty to lead the Iraqi army and that may have been the best approach...

I agree with this. It's a difficult choice that I'm hesitant to gainsay, even knowing what we know now.

	23-10-2004 02:49									#46
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by shawnmmcc Sort of like Rumsfeld ignoring all the advice from the career military types and DOD/State/CIA intel resources that we would need over 200,000 troops to occupy Iraq?

shawn, but Rummy himself may have been counting on the use of the Iraqi Army.

	23-10-2004 03:38									#47
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I just saw a sign back down the road...
"Caution. Buck passing zone."

Bush clearly is too much of a chickenshit to take responsibility for his mistakes.

	23-10-2004 03:38									#48
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Ned shawn, but Rummy himself may have been counting on the use of the Iraqi Army.

Ned,
Why are you soft on Rumsfeld? He's the SecDef, it's his job to make sure there are enough troops on the ground and that they have the right equipment. It's his responsibility by nature of his title. If he does not do that then he is responsible. Also, if he engages in activities that are really not his responsibility and they blow up in his face, he will also be responsible in that arena as well.
You can't be the SecDef and say that keeping the troops supplied and properly manned is someone else's responsibility.

	23-10-2004 04:11									#49
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Pax Ned, Why are you soft on Rumsfeld? He's the SecDef, it's his job to make sure there are enough troops on the ground and that they have the right equipment. It's his responsibility by nature of his title. If he does not do that then he is responsible. Also, if he engages in activities that are really not his responsibility and they blow up in his face, he will also be responsible in that arena as well. You can't be the SecDef and say that keeping the troops supplied and properly manned is someone else's responsibility.

He appears to have been overruled or undermined by State.

	23-10-2004 04:25									#50
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: shawn, but Rummy himself may have been counting on the use of the Iraqi Army.

Rummy might have been listening too much to Chalabi and Wolfowitz, seeing as the internal revolution didn't quite materialize as planned.

This is the same rummy who spoke about having unknown unknowns. If he was counting on the use of the Iraqi army...

Why would he factor in an unknown unknown into his calculations? I say unknown unknown because he wouldn't know if they were reliable, if they would join the americans, if they would participate in winning the peace...

	23-10-2004 04:39									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Oncle Boris So in 1945 you would have been in that crowd defending the necessity of forgiving former Nazis to rebuild Germany?

Well, actually former Nazis did rebuild Germany. Maybe the top 50 were sentenced, but a lot of more or less influential Nazis played important roles in the West German society (chancellors, ministers, judges...).

The West German society in the 50's and 60's also was very conservative.

	23-10-2004 06:11									#52
	Put an end to popups!

quote: I agree with this. It's a difficult choice that I'm hesitant to gainsay, even knowing what we know now.

True, if we kept the Iraqi military in power, would the Kurds and Shi'ites resist more or even rebel? If I was a Kurd I sure would feel betrayed if the "liberators" came in and removed just the guy in charge and a few of his henchmen and left the machinary of destruction in place.
Sometimes 20/20 hindsight is valuable, sometimes it's problematic given our inability to know what would have happened if a different course was taken.

And I'm still torn on the whole Iraqi invasion issue, it may have been a brilliant move to smoke out the terrorists instead of playing cat and mouse with them all over the globe. On the other hand, did invading Iraq motivate "fence sitters" to join the terrorist groups leaving us with even more enemies to deal with? What I'm afraid of is if we are planning on using Iraq as a staging ground for invasions of Iran and maybe Syria.

We have two options - hang around or get the hell out of dodge asap. We stayed after the first gulf war and 9/11 was the result. But we left Afghanistan and the Taliban rose to power, maybe with our blessing. Of course, we didn't get attacked because we left Afghanistan, we got attacked because of the aftermath of the gulf war. I think Bush I and Clinton really screwed up by keeping our troops in S Arabia.

[/rambling post]

	23-10-2004 06:19									#53
	Tired of ads?

Ned, proper military planning NEVER counts on an assumption like that (the enemy troops will serve with you). It's nice if that happens, you leave yourself open to that eventuality, but you plan as best as you can for the worst.

Plus there is excellent evidence it was Rumsfeld, and possible Cheney (that link is weaker), who deliberately brought in their own unit of "experts" into the DOD intelligence community. They are the people who gave Rumsfeld the answer this administration wanted. If you think Rumsfeld has no involvement, why did DOD censure Kinseki over the requisite number of troops issue? Note this is not simply about chain of command, they left the general who said remarks about Christianity versus Islam alone, even when he provided the Muslim fundamentalists a wonderful recruiting tool on Al Jezera with his inane remarks. Ain't gonna fly this time. If Bremer screwed up, so did Rumsfeld. Once is a mistake, twice? (reference Bush's trend in appointing agenda driven people who ignore disparate voices)

	23-10-2004 07:03									#54
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker I think Bush I and Clinton really screwed up by keeping our troops in S Arabia.

Either that, or not finishing the job so that we could withdraw. With Saddam in power, we had no option but to stay.

	23-10-2004 07:08									#55
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by shawnmmcc Ned, proper military planning NEVER counts on an assumption like that (the enemy troops will serve with you). It's nice if that happens, you leave yourself open to that eventuality, but you plan as best as you can for the worst. Plus there is excellent evidence it was Rumsfeld, and possible Cheney (that link is weaker), who deliberately brought in their own unit of "experts" into the DOD intelligence community. They are the people who gave Rumsfeld the answer this administration wanted. If you think Rumsfeld has no involvement, why did DOD censure Kinseki over the requisite number of troops issue? Note this is not simply about chain of command, they left the general who said remarks about Christianity versus Islam alone, even when he provided the Muslim fundamentalists a wonderful recruiting tool on Al Jezera with his inane remarks. Ain't gonna fly this time. If Bremer screwed up, so did Rumsfeld. Once is a mistake, twice? (reference Bush's trend in appointing agenda driven people who ignore disparate voices)

I keep wondering why Bush lets Kerry get away with the lie about Shinseki? No one disciplined him or fired him over what he said.

As to the Iraqi Army and police, Bush said they were counting on them post invasion to help out. Particularly the police. That they vanished into thin air was not something we planned.

Which all goes to show that Rummy was initially planning to use Iraqi police and armed forces post invasion and did not think he needed as many troops as became necessary. The fact that the Iraqi army largely joined the resistance when they were not recalled and paid, was something that everyone on the ground there foretold, but Bremer ignored or for some reason did not inquire about. But Rumsfeld clearly was undercut by what Bremer did.

	23-10-2004 07:31									#56
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Ned, Bremer couldn't piss without permission. I remember Cheney talking about dismissing the Iraqi Army before the invasion was even started. Cheney pointed out how better off Costa Rica is without a military but that totally ignores that Costa Rica's in a relatively nice neighborhood and Iraq is in the worst neighborhood in the world. If the Bush boys are all talking about disbanding the Iraqi Army before the invasion was even started then how come it suddenly becomes Bremers fault? After all Bremer was micromanaged to the extreme. Any body else think the administration is just trying to turn Bremer into a fall guy?

Oerdin
Bremer
Bremer's superiors
Disbanding the Iraqi army and then doing a joke of a job at building up a new one (the vast majority of the "Iraqi forces" Bush talked about in the debates are "shake and bake" police forces who've only had three weeks of training)

quote: Maybe. However, everyone in the Pentagon seemed to oppose it because the knew disbanding the Army was more than counterproductive on a practical level.

The majority of the Pentagon is often opposed to the more idiotic Bush administration decisions, this hardly absolves the Bush administration for its idiocies.

quote: If true, perhaps Cheney should be fired. ]

He's not the only one...

quote: It seems the Pentegon was right and Cheney/Bush were wrong on that issue. Now it seems Cheney/Bush were also wrong about disbanding the the Iraqi military and once again the Pentegon was correct. Why won't the stupid politicians realize they don't know what they're doing and let the military take the lead in military matters?

Well wars are always politicied. Its happened before and its happening how with the taking of Falluja being delayed until after the election etc. etc.

quote: That Bremer ignored all of this to prove some ephemeral point was more than foolish. It was criminal.

Same goes for his superiors.

It would've been good to keep the whole army and stick them all in desert training camps where they could be paid well for digging and filling in wholes in the sand or whatever just to keep that many otherwise unemployed and angry young men who know how to use weopons busy...

	23-10-2004 08:31									#57
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Boshko,
That is a good idea. Or better yet. Use the army for rebuilding with good pay.
Ned,
Wake-up. Any plan implemented by Bremer ultimately had to have the approval President Bush. Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell all have some(large) blame to bear. Don't you dare try to cut Rumsfeld slack. Stop being a loyal Neocon and start being a loyal american. Our soldiers are risking their lives for Neocon beliefs. Stop looking out for the Neocons and start looking out for the people who have sworn to protect you. You owe them that much.

	23-10-2004 11:52									#58
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: I keep wondering why Bush lets Kerry get away with the lie about Shinseki? No one disciplined him or fired him over what he said.

i'm amazed that anything i post is completely ignored.

actually, i'm not, because nothing i post is ever cogent or useful.

in any case, here's another thing to ignore.

when shinseki retired, rumsfeld did not send any representatives, nor did he show up himself to wish him well--an unprecendented event for a member of the jcs.

	23-10-2004 13:29									#59
	Support Apolyton

Q-Cubed - I just came back to this thread because I saw you posted. I enjoy what you write, because it typically is consistant and well thought out. In fact it might qualify for that dirty word - moderate

	23-10-2004 16:19									#60
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Q Cubed quote: I keep wondering why Bush lets Kerry get away with the lie about Shinseki? No one disciplined him or fired him over what he said. i'm amazed that anything i post is completely ignored. actually, i'm not, because nothing i post is ever cogent or useful. in any case, here's another thing to ignore. when shinseki retired, rumsfeld did not send any representatives, nor did he show up himself to wish him well--an unprecendented event for a member of the jcs.

That might be true. This is quite different, though, from Kerry's constant refrain.