U.S. commander decries Iraq timetable

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The troop levels are set by the Generals on the ground. If they want more they get more.

You're so naive it's funny.

And your so blinded by hate it's scary

So, what you are effectively suggesting is that the generals on the ground are fcuking incompetent. I, on the other hand, believe that they are being hung out to dry by an administration that won't admit that they fcuked up tremendously:

In fact, substantial evidence suggests that in developing the war plan Rumsfeld rejected the advice of top military commanders who warned that more troops would be necessary to secure postwar Iraq. And even after the end of "major combat operations," Rumsfeld reportedly squelched requests from military commanders -- as well as L. Paul Bremer III, who headed the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority until the transfer of sovereignty to Iraq in June 2004 -- for more troops.

Franks, the former commander-in-chief of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), has acknowledged that he felt more troops were needed in Iraq. He wrote in his recent book American Soldier (Regan, 2004) that he projected that 250,000 troops would be required to secure postwar Iraq, as he acknowledged in an August 16, 2004, appearance on CNN's Paula Zahn Now.

In an October 17, 2004, article on the Bush administration's Iraq policy, Knight Ridder reported that Rumsfeld successfully opposed higher troop levels that military planners thought were necessary. The article found that "[t]he administration also failed to provide some 100,000 additional U.S. troops that American military commanders originally wanted to help restore order and reconstruct a country." The article explained:

Central Command originally proposed a force of 380,000 to attack and occupy Iraq. Rumsfeld's opening bid was about 40,000, "a division-plus," said three senior military officials who participated in the discussions. Bush and his top advisers finally approved the 250,000 troops the commanders requested to launch the invasion. But the additional troops that the military wanted to secure Iraq after Saddam's regime fell were either delayed or never sent.

Four senior officers who were directly involved said Rumsfeld and Franks micromanaged the complex process of deciding when and how the troops and their equipment would be sent to Iraq, called the Time-Phased Force and Deployment Data, canceling some units, rescheduling others and even moving equipment from one ship to another.

As a result, two Army divisions that Centcom wanted to help secure the country weren't on hand when Baghdad fell and the country lapsed into anarchy, and a third, the 1st Cavalry from Fort Hood, Texas, fell so far behind schedule that on April 21 Franks and Rumsfeld dropped it from the plan.

Moreover, Gregory Hooker, CENTCOM's senior intelligence analyst for Iraq, who was deeply involved in prewar planning, described Rumsfeld's repeated desire to use fewer troops in his research paper Shaping the Plan for Operation Iraqi Freedom: The Role of Military Intelligence Assessments (Washington Institute for Near East Policy, May 2005). Hooker wrote that "near-constant demands from Rumsfeld and his aides for new versions of the war plan using fewer American troops wasted time and diverted attention from fleshing out a blueprint for the March 2003 invasion," according to a May 20 Knight Ridder article previewing the book.

New Yorker investigative reporter Seymour Hersh quoted anonymous military sources in an April 7, 2003, article -- before the fall of Baghdad and before lack of troop strength was widely recognized as an obstacle to stabilizing Iraq -- similarly describing Rumsfeld's rejection of plans calling for more troops:

Rumsfeld repeatedly overruled the senior Pentagon planners on the Joint Staff, the operating arm of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "He thought he knew better," one senior planner said. "He was the decision-maker at every turn." On at least six occasions, the planner told me, when Rumsfeld and his deputies were presented with operational plans -- the Iraqi assault was designated Plan 1003 -- he insisted that the number of ground troops be sharply reduced.

Even conservative Weekly Standard editor William Kristol has reported that "Gen. Tommy Franks had projected that he would need a quarter-million troops on the ground for that task" in a Washington Post op-ed criticizing Rumsfeld's failure to commit enough troops for "postwar stabilization."

Most famously, in February 2003, a few weeks before the invasion began, then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki, now retired, told Congress that "omething on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers ... would be required" to stabilize postwar Iraq. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz rejected this claim, insisting that he was "reasonably certain that they [the Iraqis] will greet us as liberators, and that will help us to keep [troop] requirements down." Rumsfeld shared Wolfowitz's optimism. "Rumsfeld said the post-war troop commitment would be less than the number of troops required to win the war. He also said 'the idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces, I think, is far from the mark,' " [CNN, 3/3/03]. Rumsfeld also retaliated against Shinseki. "Rumsfeld's office leaked word of Shinseki's replacement 15 months before Shinseki was due to retire, both embarrassing and neutralizing the Army's top officer," Knight Ridder's May 20 article recalled.

Similarly, though he is not a military commander, Bremer, who headed the Coalition Provisional Authority, stated in October 2004 that "We never had enough troops on the ground."

Contrary to Hume's assertion that if generals asked for more troops, "they'd get them," Rumsfeld maintained lower troop levels than commanders wanted during the post-invasion period. According to a February 7 article in Newsweek, Rumsfeld has effectively rejected at least one postwar appeal already, from Abizaid and other military commanders:

Ultimately, Bremer did ask for more troops. So did commanders in the field. But Rumsfeld and the brass balked at committing even more of the overstretched Army to bolster what they increasingly viewed as unrealistic occupation goals. Gen. John Abizaid, who took over from Gen. Tommy Franks as commander of CENTCOM, also asked for more soldiers, sources tell NEWSWEEK. He followed the usual practice, which is to dispatch a draft request to the Pentagon. But Abizaid was told not to send it up in final form. (The result, sources say, is that Rumsfeld was able to insist truthfully that no such request was received from the field.)

The April 12, 2004, New York Daily News reported that Abizaid "has been repeatedly discouraged from asking for more soldiers," according to a "senior military official." The article further quoted that official: "Rumsfeld has made it clear to the whole building that he wasn't interested in getting any requests for more troops."

Source

But you go ahead and continue with your blind hail Bush and hail Rumsfeld #######. They fcuked this thing up not the troops on the ground - which is what you are effectively suggesting. But you support the troops, eh?

Gary also seems to think that the Patriot Act is a good idea - including the parts that are deliberately ambiguous.

[GaryC 7]

Gary also seems to think that the Patriot Act is a good idea - including the parts that are deliberately ambiguous.

You betcha! We need to be flexable to deal with changing situations. I want the Patriot act strengthend and expanded. You asked me if I like the Patriot act because of the name? I think you don't like it for the same reason.

[Carol&Marc 0]

Gary also seems to think that the Patriot Act is a good idea - including the parts that are deliberately ambiguous.

You betcha! We need to be flexable to deal with changing situations. I want the Patriot act strengthend and expanded. You asked me if I like the Patriot act because of the name? I think you don't like it for the same reason.

I agree Gary! They really are concerned about peoples civil rights! Did I say civil rights! I beleive I saw in the news how San Francisco's school board eliminated the JROTC from the schools. About 1600 kids civil rights have been violated. Where in the he!! is the ACLU? Has E.T. heard about this?

************SILENCE***********

And the infamous Alex writes: (please note: no mention of a civil rights violation)

Not sure I agree here, but JROTC is totally creepy. They had them in my best friend's high school and she was in it. Poor district, of course. I can think of a lot of other reasons it's a waste of school time.

Also the fact that the guy argues that removing JROTC is not a good idea because it would fail to impact Pentagon policy in a practical sense shows that he has no ethics.

[Alex+R 0]

Here, Marc, this might help you out:

American Heritage Dictionary - pl.n.

Civil Rights

The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination.

In other news, today the Aquatennial Queen of Minneapolis had to give up her title because she is being deployed to Iraq. She is honoring a commitment she made before her senior year of high school to be part of the Minnesota National Guard.

Way to go, ROTC.

[Ban Hammer 13,636]

Here, Marc, this might help you out:

American Heritage Dictionary - pl.n.

Civil Rights

The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination.

In other news, today the Aquatennial Queen of Minneapolis had to give up her title because she is being deployed to Iraq. She is honoring a commitment she made before her senior year of high school to be part of the Minnesota National Guard.

Way to go, ROTC.

so is that why jrotc is "creepy" to you?

[Alex+R 0]

People who are underage should not be able to make life-or-death commitments. Even with parental approval.

[mybackpages 0]

Call me crazy, but I do not think our schools should be recruiting grounds for the military. JROTC may often provide some skills and discipline like any other extracurricular activity (e.g. football), but let the military recruit on its own turf.

[Ban Hammer 13,636]

People who are underage should not be able to make life-or-death commitments. Even with parental approval.

if you really thought that, you'd be against anyone under 18 driving...........

[Carol&Marc 0]

Here, Marc, this might help you out:

American Heritage Dictionary - pl.n.

Civil Rights

The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination.

In other news, today the Aquatennial Queen of Minneapolis had to give up her title because she is being deployed to Iraq. She is honoring a commitment she made before her senior year of high school to be part of the Minnesota National Guard.

Way to go, ROTC.

Alex:I thought civil rights were just that, CIVIL RIGHTS! Now I get it,Its SELECTIVE civil RIGHTS! thanks! now I understand where your comin from. Pickin and a choosin those good old civil rights,yepper! I beleive you just got owned by the sad little man on a motorcycle!

Edited November 16, 2006 by Carol&Marc

[Alex+R 0]

Marc,

Do you see JROTC in the schools as a fundamental civil right?

[DeadPoolX 9]

I think many of you are confusing JROTC with ROTC. JROTC is conducted on high school campuses while ROTC is on college ones.

JROTC does in NO WAY obligate you to enter into the military. In fact, JROTC is completely OPEN to homosexuals, unlike the military. Bascially, JROTC is a military-based extra-carricular activity take usually takes place at schools, not unlike sports. Furthermore, you need parental permission to enter.

ROTC ONLY commits you to the military if you into the full term, meaning the whole four-year program. The two-year program gives students the military experience, but without a committment to the U.S. Armed Forces. Both terms are there on a completely volunteer basis.

So as you can see, both JROTC and ROTC are not "recruitment programs." They DO NOT go looking for you; you have to seek them out and join up. I hope this has cleared up some of the common misconceptions about the JROTC and ROTC programs on our school campuses.

[Alex+R 0]

So as you can see, both JROTC and ROTC are not "recruitment programs." They DO NOT go looking for you; you have to seek them out and join up. I hope this has cleared up some of the common misconceptions about the JROTC and ROTC programs on our school campuses.

That assumes that having kids parade around in a military-like activity while becoming familiar with the U.S. military does not function as a form of recruitment.

You know, the actual military recruitment office at my school (UW-Madison) did not go seeking us all out either.

And why is it that JROTC is always in those poorer high schools? There certainly is no demand for JROTC in the suburbs.

That was almost as educational as the time you taught me about Jews.

[Carol&Marc 0]

People who are underage should not be able to make life-or-death commitments. Even with parental approval.

But a 13 year old can go to a clinic without a parents permission? hmmmmmm

Marc,

Do you see JROTC in the schools as a fundamental civil right?

JROTC is a club like situation. kinda like the boy scouts.

[GaryC 7]

So as you can see, both JROTC and ROTC are not "recruitment programs." They DO NOT go looking for you; you have to seek them out and join up. I hope this has cleared up some of the common misconceptions about the JROTC and ROTC programs on our school campuses.

That assumes that having kids parade around in a military-like activity while becoming familiar with the U.S. military does not function as a form of recruitment.

You know, the actual military recruitment office at my school (UW-Madison) did not go seeking us all out either.

And why is it that JROTC is always in those poorer high schools? There certainly is no demand for JROTC in the suburbs.

That was almost as educational as the time you taught me about Jews.

Yeah, teaching discipline, self reliance, respect and a love for country. Terrible things to expose our kids to.

I signed up for the Navy in my junior year. I was proud to do it. But you seem to want to make that decision for others. And you are showing your racism by insinuating that they only recruit in poor schools. I went to a white middle class school and they had recruitment day 3 times a year.

[Carol&Marc 0]

That assumes that having kids parade around in a military-like activity while becoming familiar with the U.S. military does not function as a form of recruitment.

You know, the actual military recruitment office at my school (UW-Madison) did not go seeking us all out either.

And why is it that JROTC is always in those poorer high schools? There certainly is no demand for JROTC in the suburbs.

That was almost as educational as the time you taught me about Jews.

I guess the gay clubs should also be removed , They PARADE around too! What do they wear