MideastWeb Middle East Web Log |
log | archives | middle east | maps | history | documents | countries | books | encyclopedia | culture | dialogue | links | timeline | donations |
Search: |
|
|
Now he tells us: Paul Wolfowitz reconsiders Iraq06/23/2004
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz tiptoes toward acknowledging that he and his boss Don Rumsfeld are fools:
This cognitive shortcoming was apparent in Rumsfeld's leaked memo of last October, which defined success in Iraq exclusively in terms of "capturing or killing the top 55 Iraqis," a point that got little or no attention at the time. But last January, I got around to blasting it: ...bizarrely enough, the Secretary of Defense has chosen to analyze prospects for victory in Iraq without mentioning either the need to defeat the insurgency or the establishment of a stable, democratic postwar order -- the Administration's stated objective. It is as if he believes that victory consists only of wrapping up a few dozen major figures from the overthrown regime -- Saddam, his sons, and his key advisers and officials. By this standard, the coalition won the Battle of Iraq last month when Saddam emerged from the "spider hole" near Tikrit. And if that's so, why aren't we bringing the troops home already? Clearly, the Rumsfeld memo's conception of the conflict falls far short of political and strategic reality, not to mention military reality.The delusion that wrapping up Saddam and his top people was sufficient -- that successful regime removal was tantamount to successful regime change -- was undoubtedly necessary to launch the war in the first place, and may well explain why preparations for the postwar situation were so sorely lacking, as James Fallows chronicled earlier this year. This is presumably why Iraqi insurgents were for a long time persistently described as "dead-enders" and Saddam loyalists -- to avoid any recognition of a problem beyond overthrowing Saddam's regime. At one point, an estimate of their manpower mysteriously cropped up -- 5,000 fighters -- that served the same function, to assure that the problem was well in hand. (There were at the time about 100,000 U.S. troops in the country, and a 20:1 ratio is commonly cited as sufficient to defeat guerilla forces.) The problem was not well in hand, as we now know, and as was apparent even then. But not to Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz. Earlier, I've commented on the role of Ahmad Chalabi in fostering this mentality. (See here and here.) Now Wolfowitz, in a real breakthrough, seems to be developing the first hints of doubt about him: "Nothing in Iraq is black and white. I don't think I know of any figure we're dealing with who hasn't had in one way or another to compromise with the incredibly difficult circumstances of the last 35 years of that country's history,'' Wolfowitz said. "It's not surprising that many of them -- and Chalabi's not the only one -- made contacts with countries like Iran or Syria or others.'' ...Could it be? Could it be that critical thinking is finally creeping in? I wouldn't hold my breath. Rumsfeld is already too old for such a thing, but hey, Wolfowitz might live long enough that someday we'll get a McNamara-like mea culpa out of the guy. For what little it would be worth. Analyst
Original text copyright by the author and MidEastWeb for Coexistence, RA. Posted at MidEastWeb Middle East Web Log at http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000272.htm where your intelligent and constructive comments are welcome. Distributed by MEW Newslist. Subscribe by e-mail to mew-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. Please forward by email with this notice and link to and cite this article. Other uses by permission. by Analyst @ 10:11 PM CST [Link] |
|
Replies: 3 comments Richard Pearl, Paul wolfowitz, Douglas Faith, Abrams (Rice Deputy), Condy Rice (Kissinger Protege), AIPAC have done America great harm for the benefit of Israel. Posted by Optional @ 06/28/2004 01:29 PM CST
I think they displayed moral arrogance and complacency, chiefly because they view the Middle East through the prism of their own attitudes. Richard Sale, UPI Posted by Richard Sale @ 07/05/2004 12:11 AM CST What the civilians in the Defense Dept. do not understand is that when we were released from the military after Viet Nam we were briefed by experts who told us that if our country was ever invaded, it was our job to go into the interior of our country and fight a gorilla type or terrorist action. We were told that an enemy may control the coast but never our interior because our job was not to allow it. Now comes Iraq and what did Rumsfield expect? Open arms and be treated like heros? The same thing that is happening to us, the invaders, is what we were taught to do if it ever happened to our country. How could they have not expected this to happen? Was there no forward thinking at all? Posted by John Canfield @ 07/05/2004 07:48 PM CST Please do not leave notes for MidEastWeb editors here. Hyperlinks are not displayed. We may delete or abridge comments that are longer than 250 words, or consist entirely of material copied from other sources, and we shall delete comments with obscene or racist content or commercial advertisements. Comments should adhere to Mideastweb Guidelines . IPs of offenders will be banned. |
[Previous entry: "The Lesser Middle East Reform Initiative"] Main Index [Next entry: "Iyad Allawi takes over: A milestone in the Iraq disaster"]
ALL PREVIOUS MidEastWeb Middle East LOG ENTRIES
Thank you for visiting MidEastWeb - Middle East.
If you like what you see here, tell others about the MidEastWeb Middle East Web Log - www.mideastweb.org/log/.
Copyright
Editors' contributions are copyright by the authors and MidEastWeb for Coexistence RA.
Please link to main article pages and tell your friends about MidEastWeb. Do not copy MidEastWeb materials to your Web Site. That is a violation of our copyright. Click for copyright policy.
MidEastWeb and the editors are not responsible for content of visitors' comments.
Please report any comments that are offensive or racist.
Editors can log in by clicking here
|