Army study: Iraq occupation was understaffed

[Dad]

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.

[mdb23]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

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..... 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]

Originally Posted by mdb23

...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

[uplink5]

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

[mdb23]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

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.

[moobob]

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...

[mdb23]

Originally Posted by moobob

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? 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]

Originally Posted by Penn

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...

Stay safe.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by mdb23

......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?

[Dad]

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.

[mdb23]

Originally Posted by Pete

To me FOX is a bunch of liberal bed wetters.

FAIR?

And Balanced.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Pete

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?

Concur.

I find them significantly to the left of my center.

TR

[Penn]

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.

[Guy]

Originally Posted by Penn

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.com

Remember 9/11...they didn't wake up one morning with that plan.

Stay safe.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Penn

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.