View Full Version : Army study: Iraq occupation was understaffed
Army study: Iraq occupation was understaffed
By ROBERT WELLER – 4 hours ago
DENVER (AP) — A nearly 700-page study released Sunday by the Army found that "in the euphoria of early 2003," U.S.-based commanders prematurely believed their goals in Iraq had been reached and did not send enough troops to handle the occupation.
President George W. Bush's statement on May 1, 2003, that major combat operations were over reinforced that view, the study said.
It was written by Donald P. Wright and Col. Timothy R. Reese of the Combat Operations Study Team at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., who said that planners who requested more troops were ignored and that commanders in Baghdad were replaced without enough of a transition and lacked enough staff.
Gen. William S. Wallace, commanding general of U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, said in a foreword that it's no surprise that a report with these conclusions was written.
"One of the great and least understood qualities of the United States Army is its culture of introspection and self-examination," he wrote.
The report said that the civilian and military planning for a post-Saddam Iraq was inadequate, and that the Army should have pushed the Joint Chiefs of Staff for better planning and preparation.
Retired military leaders, members of Congress, think tanks and others have already concluded that the occupation was understaffed.
At least 4,113 U.S. military members have died in Iraq, according to a count by The Associated Press.
Hundreds of commanders and other soldiers and officials were interviewed for the report released Sunday. The Army ordered the study to review what happened in the 18 months after the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime. A report on the invasion was released earlier.
The report said that after Saddam's regime was removed from power, most commanders and units expected to transition to stability and support operations, similar to what was seen in Bosnia and Kosovo.
Commanders with the mindset that victory had already been achieved believed that a post-combat Iraq would require "only a limited commitment by the U.S. military and would be relatively peaceful and short as Iraqis quickly assumed responsibility," the study said.
"Few commanders foresaw that full spectrum operations in Iraq would entail the simultaneous employment of offense, defense, stability, and support operations by units at all echelons of command to defeat new, vicious, and effective enemies," it added.
The report said the first Bush administration and its advisers had assumed incorrectly that the Saddam regime would collapse after the first Gulf War.
When Saddam was so quickly defeated in 2003, there was an absence of authority that led to widespread looting and violence, the report said. Soldiers initially had no plan to deal with that. The administration's decision to remove Saddam's followers entirely from power caused governmental services to collapse, "fostering a huge unemployment problem," it said.
Planners in the Iraq headquarters said 300,000 troops would be needed for the occupation. Even before the invasion, some planners had called for 300,000 troops to be sent for the invasion and occupation.
During an April 16, 2003, visit to Baghdad, coalition commander Gen. Tommy Franks told his subordinate leaders to prepare to move most of their forces out of Iraq by September of that year, the report noted.
"In line with the prewar planning and general euphoria at the rapid crumbling of the Saddam regime, Franks continued to plan for a very limited role for U.S. ground forces in Iraq," the report said.
The report said it wasn't until July 16, 2003, that Franks' successor, Gen. John Abizaid, said coalition forces were facing a classic guerrilla insurgency.
Even so, the coalition made some progress, only to have its optimism dashed after the insurgency boiled over in April 2004, when Sunni Arab insurgents and Shiite militias launched violent assaults in many parts of Iraq, the report said.
The authors said the Army had considerable experience and training for guerrilla wars but had not been in one like Iraq since 1992 in Somalia. They said former Secretary of State Colin Powell warned Franks "that he thought too few troops were envisioned in the (invasion) plan."
Some commanders told the authors they asked about plans for making the country stable and got no answers.
The "post-war situation in Iraq was severely out of line with the suppositions made at nearly every level before the war," the report said.
Its writers said it was clear in January 2005 that the Army would remain in Iraq for some time, the writers concluded. The report covered the period from May 2003 to January 2005.
On the Net:
Army report: http://tinyurl.com/56dyob
April 13, 2006 PBS NEWS HOUR WITH JIM LEHRER
Anthony Zinni, called for the dismissal of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld over critical mistakes made in the Iraq war.
ZINNI: There’s a series of disastrous mistakes. We just heard the Secretary of State say these were tactical mistakes. These were not tactical mistakes. These were strategic mistakes, mistakes of policies made back here. Don’t blame the troops. They’ve been magnificent. If anything saves us, it will be them.
MAJ. GEN. JOHN BATISTE: I suspect, going way back five years to the beginning of this whole war, there were ample times when people said to him, as General Shinseki did, "We need more." In the case of General Shinseki, he was retired early. And as I recall, the secretary didn't even go to his retirement ceremony; I have never forgotten that.
I think the current administration repeatedly ignored sound military advice and counsel with respect to the war plans. I think that the principles of war are fundamental, and we violate those at our own peril. And military leaders of all ranks, particularly the senior military, have an obligation in a democracy to say something about it.
JIM LEHRER: Now, General Pace, as we just played, said that you and other military officers had plenty of opportunity to speak out. Did you, in fact, speak out while you were on active duty?
MAJ. GEN. JOHN BATISTE: Of course. We all do. Within the military, it's a very special culture, and you stay within your chain of command.
There are times that you're told to do things that you don't agree with and you're given an opportunity to rebut, to give reasons why it shouldn't be that way. And at the end of the day, you either salute and execute or you make a decision to retire or resign; that's the way it is. There's always that dialogue.
JIM LEHRER: And you took the option to salute and go ahead, correct?
MAJ. GEN. JOHN BATISTE: Up until a point. In November of 2005, I retired from the Army. I transitioned. By all accounts, I had a very promising career ahead of me, but I was not willing to compromise further the principles of war.
By THOM SHANKER
Published: January 12, 2007
WASHINGTON, Jan. 11 — After President Bush told the nation on Wednesday night that he was ordering a rapid increase of American forces in Iraq, Gen. Eric K. Shinseki was not among the retired officers to offer instant analysis on television.
But the president’s new strategy, with its explicit acknowledgment that not enough troops had been sent to Iraq to establish control, was a vindication for General Shinseki, who as Army chief of staff publicly told Congress as much just before the war began in 2003.
First vilified, then marginalized by the Bush administration after those comments, General Shinseki retired and faded away, even as lawmakers, pundits and politicians increasingly cited his prescience.
“We never had enough troops to begin with,” Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said just before the president’s televised address. “A month or two ago we found out the Army is broken, and they agreed that General Shinseki was right.”
Gen. John P. Abizaid, the departing commander of American forces in the Middle East, told Congress late last year, “General Shinseki was right that a greater international force contribution, U.S. force contribution and Iraqi force contribution should have been available immediately after major combat operations.”
In his prime-time address on Wednesday, even President Bush said the main reason past efforts to stabilize Baghdad had failed was that “there were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents.”
The acknowledgment was far different from the harsh administration rebuttals after General Shinseki electrified Washington with his blunt warning that victory in Iraq would require more troops than were being deployed for the invasion.
He was the target of immediate rebuke from the Pentagon leadership, in particular from Donald H. Rumsfeld, then secretary of defense, and his deputy, Paul D. Wolfowitz. Mr. Wolfowitz dismissed the testimony as “wildly off the mark.”
Some civilians in government and military officers say General Shinseki’s treatment intimidated other top officers.
“It sent a very clear signal to the military leadership about how that kind of military judgment was going to be valued,” said Kori Schake, the director for defense strategy on the National Security Council staff from 2002 to 2005, now a fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor at West Point. “So it served to silence critics just at the point in time when, internal to the process, you most wanted critical judgment.”
General Shinseki has kept a strict public silence since retiring in June 2003 and would often say to his associates, “I do not want to criticize while my soldiers are still bleeding and dying in Iraq.”
He now splits his time between his suburban Washington home and his native Hawaii, consulting with academic organizations, private companies and military support groups. He declined to comment for this article.
“This is a man who is totally loyal to the Army, which was his life,” said David R. Gergen, director of the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. Mr. Gergen works with General Shinseki on the center’s advisory board, and the general regularly meets with students there.
“General Shinseki draws an enormous crowd, especially of former and active-duty military,” said Mr. Gergen, who was an adviser to Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton. “They hold General Shinseki in awe.”
“He has been very discreet in his comments about what happened,” Mr. Gergen added. “Just as he has been in public, he is reluctant in private to say anything that would disparage the commander in chief.”
The general, who throughout his career was known for his selfless, or at least self-effacing, bearing, did not go before Congress on that day in February 2003 planning to stir things up. But he is also not one who backs down easily; he had risen to the top of the Army after surviving grievous injury in Vietnam, and under withering cross-examination by Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, he spoke matter-of-factly.
“Something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required” to stabilize Iraq after an invasion, he said.
“We’re talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that’s fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems,” he added. “And so it takes a significant ground force presence to maintain a safe and secure environment, to ensure that people are fed, that water is distributed, all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a situation like this.”
His comments brought to a boil long-simmering tensions with Mr. Rumsfeld, who had been scrubbing the war plans to reduce the number of invading troops. And they were politically explosive, coming less than a month before the start of the war, which proponents were saying confidently would be anything but a quagmire.
Former aides to the general said his estimate summarized back-of-the-envelope calculations but had been based on experiences as a commander in postwar Bosnia, where the United States sent 50,000 troops to quiet five million people, a population one-fifth that of Iraq. American troops in Iraq reached a peak of more than 160,000 in December 2005. There are now about 132,000.
General Shinseki was not fired for his comments, but his influence as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certainly was never the same. He retired as scheduled.
During a House Armed Services Committee hearing on Thursday, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, was asked specifically why General Shinseki’s recommendation of more troops had not been adopted, and he replied: “General Shinseki was not advocating for that number as an answer. He gave that as a guesstimate of what it might take. So I just want to put that in historical context.”
Some critics say General Shinseki should have spoken out more after his Senate testimony, and others ask why he did not resign to protest the war plan if he thought it would not assure victory. Even in retirement he declined to join the so-called generals’ revolt of retired officers calling for Mr. Rumsfeld to resign last year.
These days, Army officers are pointing to another instance of his impolitic remarks coming true years later.
In his retirement speech, General Shinseki warned against trying to carry out a “12-division strategy” with a “10-division army,” counsel that the Pentagon’s leaders rejected.
In his speech on Wednesday night, Mr. Bush vowed “to increase the size of the active Army and Marine Corps, so that America has the armed forces we need for the 21st century.” That, too, could be heard as an affirmation of the general’s long-held view.
Excer from Wikipedia
Regarding the 2003 Invasion of Iraq
Personality clashes apart, Shinseki and Rumsfeld had significantly different approaches to military doctrine. For example, following September 11, 2001, Rumsfeld was in a meeting whose subject was the review of the Department of Defense's (Contingency) Plan in the event of a war with Iraq (U.S. Central Command OPLAN 1003-98).[11] The plan (as it was then conceived) contemplated troop levels of up to 500,000, which Rumsfeld opined was far too many. Gordon and Trainor wrote:
As [General] Newbold outlined the plan … it was clear that Rumsfeld was growing increasingly irritated. For Rumsfeld, the plan required too many troops and supplies and took far too long to execute. It was, Rumsfeld declared, the "product of old thinking and the embodiment of everything that was wrong with the military."
***
[T]he Plan . . . reflected long-standing military principles about the force levels that were needed to defeat Iraq, control a population of more than 24 million, and secure a nation the size of California with porous borders. Rumsfeld's numbers, in contrast, seemed to be pulled out of thin air. He had dismissed one of the military's long-standing plans, and suggested his own force level without any of the generals raising a cautionary flag.
Id.[12]
While Shinseki was not at the OPLAN 1003-98 review mentioned above, he no doubt hewed to the traditional military view concerning force levels necessary for an Iraq invasion. It is, however, unclear how strongly Shinseki communicated to the DOD head views which diverged from those which Rumsfeld had forcefully communicated to the military command structure. While Shinseki's reticence to publicly speak on the questions of possible conflicts between himself and the Bush administration is well-known, he is on record as stating that it is "probably fair" to say that he should have banged on the table and pushed harder to stop Rumsfeld from going into Iraq with too few troops.[13]
General Shinseki revealing his estimates of several hundred thousand men for the required complement to occupy Iraq. Senate hearing, February 2003.On February 25, 2003, four months before the end of his term as Chief of Staff of the Army, Shinseki told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he thought an occupying force of several hundred thousand men would be needed to stabilize postwar Iraq. He was pressed to provide a range by Senator Carl Levin (D-MI). Below is an excerpt from the exchange:[14]
SEN. LEVIN: General Shinseki, could you give us some idea as to the magnitude of the Army's force requirement for an occupation of Iraq following a successful completion of the war?
GEN. SHINSEKI: In specific numbers, I would have to rely on combatant commanders' exact requirements. But I think --
SEN. LEVIN: How about a range?
GEN. SHINSEKI: I would say that what's been mobilized to this point -- something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We're talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so it takes a significant ground- force presence.
In a public rebuke to Shinseki, Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, called Shinseki's estimate "far off the mark"[15] and "wildly off the mark". Wolfowitz said it would be "hard to believe" more troops would be required for post-war Iraq than to remove Saddam Hussein from power.[1] Specifically, Wolfowitz said to the House Budget Committee on February 27, 2003:
DEP. SEC. WOLFOWITZ: There has been a good deal of comment - some of it quite outlandish - about what our postwar requirements might be in Iraq. Some of the higher end predictions we have been hearing recently, such as the notion that it will take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq, are wildly off the mark. It is hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army - hard to imagine.
On November 15, 2006, Gen. John P. Abizaid, chief of the U.S. Central Command, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, acknowledged that in his view, and with hindsight, Shinseki had been correct in his view that a larger post-war force was needed. Abizaid noted that this force could have included Iraqi or international forces in addition to American force:[16][17]
SEN. Lindsay GRAHAM (Republican, S. C.): Was General Shinseki correct when you look backward that we needed more troops to secure the country, General Abizaid? GEN. ABIZAID: General Shinseki was right that a greater international force contribution, U.S. force contribution, and Iraqi force contribution should have been available immediately after major combat operations.
Contrary to Democratic candidate John Kerry's claim, in the first debate of the 2004 presidential election, Shinseki was not "retired" for his testimony before Congress. His official term as Chief of the Army ended four months later and he retired as scheduled.[18] However, the tension between the civilians in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and Shinseki were apparent. No senior civilians attended Shinseki's retirement ceremony. Some Army officers, such as Major General Batiste (ret.) who called for Rumsfeld's resignation, saw this as an intentional slight and sign of disrespect directed toward Shinseki by the civilian leadership.[19]
Secretary Rumsfeld, on the other hand, suggests that Shinseki did not invite any civilians to his retirement ceremony, although that claim cannot be verified since Shinseki has not commented on the issue.[20]
Douglas Feith, the former United States Under Secretary of Defense was interviewed by the CBS news magazine 60 Minutes in a segment that was aired on April 6, 2008. [21] During his interview Feith conceded that he and his colleagues didn’t realize that sending a smaller, mobile force to topple Saddam would make it difficult to establish order after he fell. "The looting that arose in the immediate aftermath of the overthrow of Saddam … was a problem that the coalition forces had to deal with. I think we paid a very large price for the fact that, you know, our forces did not get that problem under control." In his memoirs, Feith writes, "The small force strategy for major combat operations, while it saved American lives, limited the number of forces we had to deal with the looting.”
[edit] Show of support by Army officers
Shinseki has been cited by numerous retired Army officers as a prime example of Secretary Rumsfeld's disregard for military advice and abrasive treatment of senior officers. Newsweek magazine reports "ERIC WAS RIGHT" caps were on display at the 40th annual reunion of the West Point Class of 1965 (Shinseki's class).[13] Retired generals such as John Batiste who called for Rumsfeld's resignation have cited the treatment of Shinseki.
Shinseki, for his part, is not comfortable with this "martyr's" role. He has declined to make public comments on the Iraq war, Rumsfeld, or troop levels since his retirement. But at his retirement, Shinseki said of the administration's policy on troop strength, "Beware the 12-division strategy for a 10-division Army. Our soldiers and families bear the risk and the hardship of carrying a mission load that exceeds what force capabilities we can sustain, so we must alleviate risk and hardship by our willingness to resource the mission requirements."[22]
The professional military consensus of some military officers is that the United States did not send enough troops to Iraq to secure the country after the invasion.[23] The apparent success that even the relatively modest troop surge has had in abating violence in Iraq seems to validate the accuracy of Shinseki's opinion on the number of troops that should have been deployed.[24] In an interview with leading field-grade officers at the US Army's elite Combined Arms Center,[25] admiration of Shinseki's professional judgement and willingness to speak out was evident:
No, Major Montague shot back, it was more complicated: the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the top commanders were part of the decision to send in a small invasion force and not enough troops for the occupation. Only Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, the Army chief of staff who was sidelined after he told Congress that it would take several hundred thousand troops in Iraq, spoke up in public. “You didn’t hear any of them at the time, other than General Shinseki, screaming, saying that this was untenable,” Major Montague said.
However it's also clear to these officers that publicly stating contrary opinions comes with a high cost:
Yet, Major Hardaway said, General Shinseki had shown there was a great cost, at least under Mr. Rumsfeld. “Evidence shows that when you do that in uniform, bad things can happen,” he said. “So, it’s sort of a dichotomy of, should I do the right thing, even if I get punished?”
AngelsSix
06-30-2008, 01:06
The talking heads have spoken...........does it change anything? NO
Stop spending so much time listening to the media.
You will be better off in the long run.
The talking heads have spoken...........does it change anything? NO
Stop spending so much time listening to the media.
You will be better off in the long run.
So even if the people speaking up are teaching the citizens what was the wrong way to approach the War in Iraq, and even though it doesn;t change a thing, they should not speak up? Why, because they don't support your opinion? How do you know what changes anything??
The absolute necessity in 2008 is to read, listen and gather as much info as possible. If that bothers you I am sorry for you as a citizen. Thank you very much for you service, Angel. But I'll be damned if I will sit in one spot as a republican looking through Myopic glasses.
Dont listen to the media? Is that the message? Sure they are distorted and left leaning, but FOX is right leaning as well.
I lean in the middle. And to tell a person they are better off not reading or watching any news organizations is ludicrous and idiotic. So now we should only learn from conservatives?
Lame. Maybe looking through Republican glasses does it for you. Not me.
Sigi.
Army study: Iraq occupation was understaffed
By ROBERT WELLER – 4 hours ago
DENVER (AP) — A nearly 700-page study released Sunday by the Army found that "in the euphoria of early 2003," U.S.-based commanders prematurely believed their goals in Iraq had been reached and did not send enough troops to handle the occupation.
Penn,
Thank you for posting this article. Do not feel qualified to comment as to its content, rather am trying to learn from it, for the future.
Am hopeful that those qualified will share their thoughts or opinions.
Respectfully,
Holly
How about:
US military restrained from "monkey" stomping the enemy during a declared war?:munchin
Stay safe.
I did not post this article to promote talking heads. I posted it because Rumfield and Wolfwitz F'd up!!!! The General that looked them in the eye and said no was Shinseki. He got railroaded. And if proof is in the pudding...it sure is amazing how Iraq turned around after Bush started listening to his JCOS.
And the reason I posted the 03', 06', 07' follow up articles is that once they are read and understood in context to the power sturggle that was going on in the DOD they prove onve again how important solid leadershind moral courage is. And from the tone of the Generals comments, particularly Zinni, you can see the dislike for Rumfields civilian leadership and his I know better than you attitude. That prick cause a lot of damage.
I did not post this article to promote talking heads. I posted it because Rumfield and Wolfwitz F'd up!!!! The General that looked them in the eye and said no was Shinseki. He got railroaded. And if proof is in the pudding...it sure is amazing how Iraq turned around after Bush started listening to his JCOS.
And the reason I posted the 03', 06', 07' follow up articles is that once they are read and understood in context to the power sturggle that was going on in the DOD they prove onve again how important solid leadershind moral courage is. And from the tone of the Generals comments, particularly Zinni, you can see the dislike for Rumfields civilian leadership and his I know better than you attitude. That prick cause a lot of damage.It was not because of the troop strength we supposedly needed on the ground!
"It's the way we engaged the enemy!" Anyone that tells you: the US "troop" surge was successful? I'll counter argue with...
1. Increase in IA (Iraqi Army).
2. Increase in IP (Iraqi Police).
3. Employment/Support of the SOI (Sons of Iraq).
Stay safe.
The Reaper
06-30-2008, 09:43
Sure they are distorted and left leaning, but FOX is right leaning as well.
Please cite your source for this.
When I watch Fox, they almost always cover both sides. I do not see this with the other networks.
What is this statement based on? The Huffington Post? Moveon.org?
TR
Take a look at the # of personnel eating lobster tail, steak and Baskin-Robbins ice cream that don't "EVER" step outside wire -vs- personnel that go into harms way...:munchin
They oughtta put tracking devices on troops...PTSD claims would decrease dramatically!:D I wonder how much money we spent on 700 pages?:confused:
Stay safe.
I did not post this article to promote talking heads. I posted it because Rumfield and Wolfwitz F'd up!!!!If these two screwed the "proverbial" pooch; every General Officer should have resigned immediately? HA! Did they? Nope...they waited until they retired then; and only then! Did they decide to speak up...I guess "moral" courage is only to be displayed when retired?:rolleyes:
Stay safe.
If these two screwed the "proverbial" pooch; every General Officer should have resigned immediately? HA! Did they? Nope...they waited until they retired then; and only then! Did they decide to speak up...I guess "moral" courage is only to be displayed when retired?:rolleyes:
Stay safe.
Sir,
This is a very valuable learning tool for some of us (civilian folks), to gain a better understanding of what those "in-the-know", think.
Wanted to say thank you.
Respectfully,
Holly
Guy,
With all due respect I am going to answer you, but I want to put my ducks in order before doing so; as the answer requires more that a sentence or two.
If you think General Shinseki was not on point with his estimates before congress, and that he did willing take the hit, you are sadly mistaken.
As for the other GO's...yes, they punched they're ticket saluted and moved out.
What I am referencing is civilian leadership with an idealogical agenda that subverted the military ability to execute its charge.
I will submit my point by way of comparison ASAP...as I have a few business issues this time of year.
I was under the impression that 11 senior generals did stand up and made the point the plan was flawed as to the number of troops required and all basically saw their careers ended. Is this true ?
I had a beer with a young soldier who had been in Central America in the drug intervention when Gen. Shinseki came down. He told me he would follow that man through hell. Accurate?
Civilians decide when to go to war. They then need to get out of the way and give the professionals what they need. I will always detest Paul Wolfowitz for his treatment of Eric Shinseki.
Please cite your source for this.
When I watch Fox, they almost always cover both sides. I do not see this with the other networks.
What is this statement based on? The Huffington Post? Moveon.org?
TR
Are you talking about the reporting of the news on Fox, or the "News" shows that comprise the majority of the networks schedule?
It seems blatantly conservative, even to my conservative eyes.
Hannity and Colmes, where Colmes lobs softballs for Hannity to smack, and the liberal guests are handed loaded questions and aren't allowed to answer.... "Gee Bob, why do you hate America?" "isn't it the case that you just hate Christians, soldiers, and baby Jesus?"
That show is to open discourse what the Harlem Globetrotters was to basketball....
Bill O'Reilly is a conservative mouthpiece......
"Coming next, drug addicted pregnant women no longer have anything to fear from the authorities thanks to the Supreme Court. Both sides on this in a moment."--Bill O'Reilly (O'Reilly Factor, 3/23/01)
That's showing both sides all right.....:rolleyes: I can give a million more examples of this clown at work.
And then there's the staff.....
Fox's founder and president, Roger Ailes, was for decades one of the savviest and most pugnacious Republican political operatives in Washington, a veteran of the Nixon and Reagan campaigns.
Fox daytime anchor David Asman is formerly of the right-wing Wall Street Journal editorial page and the conservative Manhattan Institute. The host of Fox News Sunday is Tony Snow, a conservative columnist and former chief speechwriter for the first Bush administration. Eric Breindel, previously the editorial-page editor of the right-wing New York Post, was senior vice president of Fox's parent company, News Corporation, until his death in 1998; Fox News Channel's senior vice president is John Moody, a long-time journalist known for his staunch conservative views.
Fox's managing editor is Brit Hume, a veteran TV journalist and contributor to the conservative American Spectator and Weekly Standard magazines. Its top-rated talkshow is hosted by Bill O'Reilly, a columnist for the conservative WorldNetDaily.com and a registered Republican (that is, until a week before the Washington Post published an article revealing his party registration--12/13/00).
The abundance of conservatives and Republicans at Fox News Channel does not seem to be a coincidence. In 1996, Andrew Kirtzman, a respected New York City cable news reporter, was interviewed for a job with Fox and says that management wanted to know what his political affiliation was. "They were afraid I was a Democrat," he told the Village Voice (10/15/96). When Kirtzman refused to tell Fox his party ID, "all employment discussion ended," according to the Voice.
Catherine Crier, who was perceived as one of Fox's most prestigious and credible early hires, was an elected Republican judge before starting a career in journalism. (Crier has since moved on to Court TV.) Pundit Mara Liasson--who is touted as an on-air "liberal" by Fox executives--sits on the board of the conservative human-rights group Freedom House; New York magazine (11/17/97) cited a Fox insider as saying that Liasson assured president Roger Ailes before being hired that she was a Republican.
The Special Report with Britt Hume is another obviously conservative show.....
So the news itself may not be overtly biased (though arguments have been made that they only run "Republican friendly" items), but the shows which take up 99 percent of teh day are overwhelmingly conservative....
"Who would be the most likely to cheat at cards-- Bill Clinton or Al Gore?"--Fox News Channel/Opinion Dynamics poll (5/00)
I would say that the Network is pretty clearly slanted to the right, but that's just my opinion...
BTW, Several watchdog agencies (such as FAIR) have analyzed the number of conservative vs. liberal guests and speakers on Fox, and found that it leans heavily to the right.... but I guess you could attack the motives of FAIR in doing the study.
The Reaper
06-30-2008, 20:45
...The host of Fox News Sunday is Tony Snow, a conservative columnist and former chief speechwriter for the first Bush administration....
Where do you get this stuff?
Have you ever watched Fox yourself?
By way of this example, and there are others, consider this.
Tony Snow left FoxNews Sunday several years ago due to his ongoing fight with cancer. He eventually went on to work in the Bush Administration before he retired again for health reasons.
He was replaced on the show years ago by Mike Wallace's son, hardly a conservative shill.
Do you ever check the sources for your "facts"?
TR
First of all, I agree with you Guy. Increases in Iraqi numbers and their increased participation have made a huge difference. I personnaly feel it was a mistake to disband the IA after the initial ground war. We should have maintained those formations, moved them were they would be of use, and started their training. Otherwise.....
The President and SEC DEF are dependent upon their advisors. Seems to me from Tommy Franks on down they had some pretty reputable advisors. (A bit too conventional for my blood but) decisions were made taking many things into consideration and if mistakes were made, and they always will be, then call it what it is, war.
If the President or Donald Rumsfeld purposefully enacted a pernicious policy or course of action which adversely affected our war fighting capability such as what LBJ and McNamara did in Vietnam; or perhaps like what Clinton and Les Aspen did in Somalia; and what about Clark who tried to have the Brits fighting Russians in Kosovo. Then sure, go after them. Remember though, all of these examples of ineptness which I just mentioned have one thing in common. They’ve all either reacted to, or found a political motive for their decisions and this is what happens when politicians fight wars. Except perhaps Clark whose politics came later, he was just too stupid. (But I digress)
I feel there is a difference in this war; Right or wrong, George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld heard what Gen Shinseki said but bought into what other commanders were saying. Albeit, other commanders who told them what they wanted to hear but, isn’t that true of all of them throughout our history? They picked their commanders, and then let them command. Ultimately, commanders came and went. Same as it ever was.
That said, does this mean we shouldn't identify and try to implement changes based upon our lessons learned, of course not but, when planning for the next war, remember that war is an inherently unpredictable reality and no two are the same. I think that Gen Franks thought he was correct every bit as much as Gen Schwarzkopf did, with plenty of reservations. I used to tell my students that hindsight is a ten meter target and if we’re going to use hindsight to throw darts then we’re being stupid. Call it what it is folks, militarily it is still a successful war with mistakes, we could always do better. The problem with the posted article is that it’s not a good AAR, it is too accusatory, too political. It insinuates that our President and former Sec Def were maliciously negligent in their decisions, if I thought that were true I'd be screaming to. I don't feel that way though.
Throughout our nations history we've encountered victory in spite of failure at all levels of our military and our government. Soldiers understand this better than anyone for we're the ones who ultimately live or die by those results, especially the failures. As much as some politicians with their agendas have always wanted to capitalize on, or promote failure. Militarily, in this war, I know otherwise......jd
Where do you get this stuff?
Have you ever watched Fox yourself?
By way of this example, and there are others, consider this.
Tony Snow left Foxews Sunday several years ago due to his ongoing fight with cancer. He eventually went on to work in the Bush Administration before he retired again for health reasons.
He was replaced on the show years ago by Mike Wallace's son, hardly a conservative shill.
Do you ever check the sources for your "facts"?
TR
I actually do watch Fox on accasion, though not all of the programs...... I do remember Snow being on there at one time, and was aware that he went on to work for GWB. I admit that I overlooked that when pasting the article.
It is still a fact that he was on there, as were all of the other people listed.... all of whom are documented conservatives. I also stand by my critique of the Hannity and O'Reilly programs.
The piece quoted is dated, but I think it still demonstrates why FNN earned the "conservative bias" reputation.
I've always thought of Hannity and Colmes as a pretty balanced show. The difference is in their personalities. Hannity is more verbal and loud about his views, but Colmes always makes his point of view very clear.
There are no more commentary-based news shows on Fox than on any other network.
I believe that the so-called conservative bias on the network is mainly due to being so used to the liberal bias on every other network...
I've always thought of Hannity and Colmes as a pretty balanced show. The difference is in their personalities. Hannity is more verbal and loud about his views, but Colmes always makes his point of view very clear.
That is the Sean Hannity show....Colmes is furniture. Does he even talk? :D In all seriousness, does Colmes articulate his point? Yep. In a 2 second soundbite. Hannity is a loud mouthed jackass who only "wins" debates by shouting down guests and asking ridiculous, unanswerable questions.... By design, he dominates the show.
I agree that there is a liberal bias in many MSM outlets. Everyone knows that. I just think that denying Fox has a conservative bias is absurd. It was founded by a conservative, staffed almost solely by conservatives, routinely solicits commentary from Michelle Malkin, Ann Coultre, etc.... The phrasing of the headlines is pro conservative....
Guy,
With all due respect I am going to answer you, but I want to put my ducks in order before doing so; as the answer requires more that a sentence or two.
If you think General Shinseki was not on point with his estimates before congress, and that he did willing take the hit, you are sadly mistaken.I would agree that he took a hit on his pre-war troop #s.
As for the other GO's...yes, they punched they're ticket saluted and moved out.
What I am referencing is civilian leadership with an idealogical agenda that subverted the military ability to execute its charge.Hopefully you reference the Clinton administration also...:cool:
Stay safe.
......Are you talking about the reporting of the news on Fox, or the "News" shows that comprise the majority of the networks schedule?.......
There is a difference in Broadcast vs Cable TV "news". The 24 hour cable news channels have news hours scattered through the day. The rest is filled with commentary.
Your opinion of which way each show "lean" is based on which way you lean. To me FOX is a bunch of liberal bed wetters.
FAIR?:D
I spend a lot of time in my car driving through the rural South. A couple of years ago I got Sirius radio, which has two NPR channels. NPR has the most balanced news reporting I have found. For balanced, fair discussions of current affairs the Diane Rehm show is unsurpassed. The panel discussions always represent both sides of the issue.A few weeks ago she had an interesting interview with Mickey Edwards and panel discussions about the sub prime mortgage crisis to name a couple of interesting shows. I skip some of the shows originating out of San Francisco. When that has all been heard I can go to the BBC for world news and then when my mind has absorbed all it can I go to the Blue Collar Comedy Channel and listen to Larry the Cable Guy et al. Makes the driving a lot more tolerable.
To me FOX is a bunch of liberal bed wetters.
FAIR?:D
And Balanced.;)
The Reaper
07-01-2008, 10:14
Your opinion of which way each show "lean" is based on which way you lean. To me FOX is a bunch of liberal bed wetters.
FAIR?:D
Concur.
I find them significantly to the left of my center.
TR
I suppose the resentment I have towards Cheney, Wolfwitz & Rumsfield is based on the complete disregard for the use of force. It is my view that above individuals did the following:
1. They undermined the tenants of Powell/Weinberg doctrine. Which stated that the following conditions had to be meet when putting boots on the ground: First, there must be an exit strategy, and two, the use of overwhelming force. Both of which they ignored These two doctrines were layered on top of an existing structure that was developed to prevent the civilian leadership misuse of force. (There is a post I made that details that structure and why it was implemented. It is in the library section under “The New American Militarism”).
2. It was the intent of the New Bush Presidency (Cheney, Wolfwitz & Rumsfield) to execute a policy based on the Neo-con position of proactive/pre-emptive use of force as a policy tool. As evidence, I think the attached quote’s support that statement. From Secretary Paul O’Niell’s book :“Price of Loyalty” The book is based on The Treasury Secretary experience in the first two years of the Bush administration; written in conjunction with Ron Suskind
It is important to note that the agenda for Iraq was considered “at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.”
“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic A 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11. [/I][/I]“From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”
As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as Why Saddam? and Why now? were never asked.
It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’ says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U..S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”
And that came up at this first meeting, says O’Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.
He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. “There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,’ adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001.
3. That the structure that was in place was understood by men like General Skinseki because they had witnessed that type of misuse first hand in RVN by civilian leadership.
4. The invasion of Iraq was a fabricated national security issue. The carnage we have seen is a result of their arrogance and disregard for the military leadership.
I suppose the resentment I have towards Cheney, Wolfwitz & Rumsfield is based on the complete disregard for the use of force.You need to take a look at the leadership, that was under the Clinton administration. Those same individuals that prospered (promoted) under Clinton are the same one's screaming foul now.
We became so PC under Clinton that this quote below is so true!
"Somewhere a True Believer is training to kill you. He is training with minimal food or water, in austere conditions, training day and night. The only thing clean on him is his weapon and he made his web gear. He doesn't worry about what workout to do - his ruck weighs what it weighs, his runs end when the enemy stops chasing him. This True Believer is not concerned about 'how hard it is;' he knows either he wins or dies. He doesn't go home at 17:00, he is home.
He knows only The Cause.
Still want to quit?"
NousDefionsDoc
www.professionalsoldiers.comRemember 9/11...they didn't wake up one morning with that plan.;)
Stay safe.
I...It was the intent of the New Bush Presidency (Cheney, Wolfwitz & Rumsfield) to execute a policy based on the Neo-con position of proactive/pre-emptive use of force as a policy tool. As evidence, I think the attached quote’s support that statement. From Secretary Paul O’Niell’s book :“Price of Loyalty” The book is based on The Treasury Secretary experience in the first two years of the Bush administration; written in conjunction with Ron Suskind
......It is important to note that the agenda for Iraq was considered “at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.........
4. The invasion of Iraq was a fabricated national security issue. The carnage we have seen is a result of their arrogance and disregard for the military leadership.
Iraq and changing it's leadership was an issue and talked about under both Bush 1 and Clinton.
Neither could muster the political will to do it.
Using P. O'Neill's book for facts? Hmm, Interesting. Sometimes when taken out of the times in which it is done an act looks different - in hindsight.
Many like to rag on Bush 1 for not taking out SH in the first Gulf War. They forget how flimsy the Arab coalition was at the time of the ground attack.
Like it or not politics have had and will continue to impact our military operations.
Are you both; Guy & Pete, implying that you agree that the invasion of Iraq was a fabricated national security issue? We are not in disagreement with SH being a SHead, or that he needed to go, but he was contained and controlled by the no fly zones. Hell, Russia was contained for 45 years!!! What was the rush to war if in fact the disicion was made 8 months before 9/11? What was the policy issue that put this plan into motion. It wasn't WMD's that was the excuse.
My instinct tells me the reason Rumsfield went with a smaller force was not because he thought it reasonable, but because he did not want to call up the full force as was done in GW1. It was a PR decision.
What do you say to the complete disregard to the Powell/Weinberg doctrine concerning a exiting strategy and the use of overwhelming force. Rumsfield, Weinberg & Co are responsible, as the well respected General Zinni stated: gross negligence on a strategic level that cost an untold amount of lives.
It will be interesting to see how history treats these people....but is not of some interest that the four Big Oil companies that were once involved in Iraq are now receiving NO BID contracts to operate there again, oh, I forgot about NO BID KBR, Hallibarton contracts etc, etc. If you can honestly( look in the mirror honest) and support this group of people I’d be amazed!!!
This is not a statement of I don’t support the war, but I support the troops. Its, if you are going to commit boots to the ground, do it with the full force at your disposable and don’t look back, cause the only thing you should see is the charred earth you just passed over.
Are you both; Guy & Pete, implying that you agree that the invasion of Iraq was a fabricated national security issue?......
Nope, didn't say that.
I'd say "About time!"
Are you both; Guy & Pete, implying that you agree that the invasion of Iraq was a fabricated national security issue?
Sir, is it possible that Iraq was (and, perhaps, is) a very real national security issue - just not the precise issue that we were told about?
What do you say to the complete disregard to the Powell/Weinberg doctrine concerning a exiting strategy and the use of overwhelming force. Rumsfield, Weinberg & Co are responsible, as the well respected General Zinni stated: gross negligence on a strategic level that cost an untold amount of lives.
Might it be that we have no intention of withdrawing? Furthermore, could it be that we dare not withdraw?
It will be interesting to see how history treats these people....but is not of some interest that the four Big Oil companies that were once involved in Iraq are now receiving NO BID contracts to operate there again, oh, I forgot about NO BID KBR, Hallibarton contracts etc, etc. If you can honestly( look in the mirror honest) and support this group of people I’d be amazed!!!
As you say, Sir, the verdict of history will be most interesting. I suspect it will be at least 50 years before a dispassionate and thorough study of the facts can be conducted.
You make mention of oil companies. Had a person purchased shares of Exxon in 1980, the value would have increased 16 fold today. That doesn't count the 10% dividends that would have been paid each year. Both the President and Vice President have backgrounds in the oil industry. It strains imagination that they would not know the significance of oil depletion, as well is its potential impact on the US economy. Perhaps they acted on that knowledge.
Due to sanctions and poor management, the Iraqi oilfields may not have been well-developed. It is possible that Iraq is one of the great untapped reserves of hydrocarbons available. In addition, it sits in the middle of a strategically essential resource - crude oil distributed in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iran. If we suppose the possibility that our nation depends on cheap and abundant crude oil, as I believe it does, and if we also suppose that our leadership was aware of these factors, then perhaps protection of our economy was the true national security issue. If that happens to be the case, then it seems unlikely that we can fully withdraw anytime soon.
Would the great majority of people be willing to fight a war for purely economic purposes? I suspect not - at least, not yet. Should a leader pursue a course for one reason, while claiming a different reason? I'll leave that question to folks wiser than I.
Pete, Thanks for not be too vague about your position...lol
Nmap, you're most likely correct. Excuse me while I go scream at the moon.
AngelsSix
07-02-2008, 22:28
Penn.....you ever watch the show "The West Wing"? I liked that fact that they portrayed the things that go on in the White House and in politics in general are beyond the scope of the average citizen. There are a lot of handshakes, backslapping and lunches that make decisions in this country. That is why it is called politics. We can talk a big game about things that we think happened; but just like the history books, if we weren't there we cannot speculate on a lot of these issues. Point I am trying to make is that people are inherently human and want to do good. But they also want to protect their hides. If you find that you don't agree with the politicians, that is your right as a citizen. But bad decisions happen. I see them every day in the military....ask the folks that failed to report Spc Touma missing. Sometimes we drop the ball. Generals and politicians are not infallible.
Are you both; Guy & Pete, implying that you agree that the invasion of Iraq was a fabricated national security issue?NO!
We are not in disagreement with SH being a SHead, or that he needed to go, but he was contained and controlled by the no fly zones. Hell, Russia was contained for 45 years!!! What was the rush to war if in fact the disicion was made 8 months before 9/11? What was the policy issue that put this plan into motion. It wasn't WMD's that was the excuse.1. The no-fly zone was BS! The Kurds and Shiia's suffered a great deal with the no-fly implemented.
My instinct tells me the reason Rumsfield went with a smaller force was not because he thought it reasonable, but because he did not want to call up the full force as was done in GW1. It was a PR decision.Negative...w/our technology we have an advantage of using a smaller force. Also, the MSM hampers our ability to fight with their self-righteous beliefs of; we can accomplish "every" thing thru diplomacy. Wars have been fought since humans have been around. What makes people think, that they'll end in our generation?
What do you say to the complete disregard to the Powell/Weinberg doctrine concerning a exiting strategy and the use of overwhelming force. Rumsfield, Weinberg & Co are responsible, as the well respected General Zinni stated: gross negligence on a strategic level that cost an untold amount of lives.I noticed in your initial post that Powell name was not mentioned?:confused:
It will be interesting to see how history treats these people....but is not of some interest that the four Big Oil companies that were once involved in Iraq are now receiving NO BID contracts to operate there again, oh, I forgot about NO BID KBR, Hallibarton contracts etc, etc. If you can honestly( look in the mirror honest) and support this group of people I’d be amazed!!!As much money the US has spent on Iraq! Why should we NOT let our oil companies have first shot at Iraqi oil contracts?
This is not a statement of I don’t support the war, but I support the troops. Its, if you are going to commit boots to the ground, do it with the full force at your disposable and don’t look back, cause the only thing you should see is the charred earth you just passed over.Call me an a$$-hole if you want however...I'd secure the North & South of Iraq and let Baghdad AO have at it. Baghdad reminds me of DC with a twist for religious extremism.:D
Stay safe.