Telling Them What They Don't Want To Hear

[Darwins Friend]

Then Rummy’s very swift and stern response was for………..(?)……..(help me out here).

 

[tim_duncan2000]

The question I have about these generals coming out of the wood work right now is where the hell were they when the decisions were being made? The idea that these guys could not speak out for fear of losing their jobs is a cop-out. When the lives of American men and women are on the line, they had damn well better speak out! If those stars on their shoulders are/were more important than the lives of their subordinates they should be taken out and summarily executed for dereliction of duty and conspiracy to murder.

Here's a great article about that:

At an April 11 press conference Joint Chiefs chairman, Gen. Peter Pace answered Newbold and other like-minded critics about how the process worked building up to Iraq:

First of all, once it became apparent that we may have to take military action, the Secretary of Defense asked Tom Franks, who was the commander of Central Command, to begin doing some planning, which he did. Over the next two years, 50 or 60 times, Tom Franks either came to Washington or by video teleconference, sat down with the Secretary of Defense, sat down with the Joint Chiefs and went over what he was thinking, how he was planning. And as a result of those iterative opportunities and all the questions that were asked not once was Tom told, “No, don’t do that; no, don’t do this; no, you can’t have this; no, you can’t have that.” What happened was, in a very open roundtable discussion, questions (were raised) about what might go right, what might go wrong, what would you need, how would you handle it, and that happened with the Joint Chiefs, and it happened with the Secretary. And before the final orders were given, the Joint Chiefs met in private with General Franks and assured ourselves that that plan was a solid plan and that the resources that he needed were going to be allocated.

That agreement on resources having been reached, the Joint Chiefs went to Rumsfeld and then to President Bush, assuring them about the plan and the necessary resources. Pres. Bush asked specific questions about whether the proper amount of resources had been allocated.

He did that with us and then again when all the combatant commanders were in from [around] the globe well before a final decision was made.

Gen. Pace stressed the fact that there was every opportunity for anyone with qualms or disagreements to speak their minds. He concluded:

I wanted to tell you how I believe this system works, and I wanted to tell you how I have observed it working for five years, because the [critical] articles that are out there about folks not speaking up are just flat wrong.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5414

I guess people who have this viewpoint must be liars, right? They had every opportunity to voice these concerns and they only now, with the benefit of hindsight I might add, are doing so.

Also, here is another interesting article about Gen Zinni's criticism of the Iraq war:

General Zinni assumed command of CENTCOM in August of 1997, and, as a highly credentialed soldier-statesman, embarked upon a program of “engagement” with the various corrupt, medieval rulers in the Middle East and Central Asia. Later, Gen. Tommy Franks would describe engagement as “establishing a personal rapport with the region’s government and military leaders.” Supposedly, this was one of the necessary evils to gain information about adversaries in the Central Region since CENTCOM had no permanent large-scale troop presence and no established intelligence apparatus in the area.

Nevertheless, in February of 2000, long before President Bush assumed office, Zinni felt confident enough to provide a strikingly familiar threat assessment on Iraq to the Senate Armed Services Committee:

• Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf region. This is primarily due to its large conventional military force, pursuit of WMD [emphasis mine], oppressive treatment of Iraqi citizens, refusal to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR) …

• Despite claims that WMD efforts have ceased, Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research, retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions, … Even if Baghdad reversed its course and surrendered all WMD capabilities, it retains the scientific, technical, and industrial infrastructure to replace agents and munitions within weeks or months. [Emphasis mine]

• The Iraqi regime’s high regard for WMD and long-range missiles is our best indicator that a peaceful regime under Saddam Hussein is unlikely.

• … extremists may turn to WMD in an effort to …overcome improved U.S. defenses against conventional attack. Detecting plans for a specific WMD attack is extremely difficult, making it likely such an event would occur without warning. [Emphasis mine]

• Extremists like Usama bin Laden …benefit from the global nature of communications that permits recruitment, fund raising, and direct connections to sub-elements worldwide. Terrorists are seeking more lethal weaponry to include chemical, biological, radiological, and even nuclear components with which to perpetrate more sensational attacks. [Emphasis mine]

• Three (Iraq, Iran and Sudan) of the seven recognized state-sponsors of terrorism [emphasis mine] are within this potentially volatile area [CENTCOM], and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan has been sanctioned by the UN Security Council for its harboring of Usama bin Laden.

Also read the sections on Iran in Zinni’s testimony for a horrifying intelligence picture concerning the mullahs. Given current circumstances, his view of Iran is proving very prescient. For example: [Iran] continues to assemble an indigenous nuclear infrastructure. But I digress.

Yet, the value of intelligence gained over a decade of engagement operations by Zinni and his predecessors would later prove problematic (as Zinni now claims) when Gen. Franks was formulating plans for his campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq as part of the War on Terror. One would think that Zinni’s conclusions on Saddam’s capabilities were based on a multitude of classified bits and pieces that were analyzed and ordered into a sound threat evaluation. But in response to a question from incoming commander Gen. Tommy Franks about enemy threats in the AOR [Area of Responsibility], Zinni said,

“I wish I could tell you.” Tony spread his hands in resignation. “You’ll find our intelligence picture for this region is pretty sad. That’s another reason engagement is so important. We need friends out there who can give us the true picture. I’d like to know a lot more about what’s happening in Iraq, and with Osama bin Laden and AQ [al Qaeda]. But the fact is I do not.”[emphasis mine]

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5415

 

[Carla Abdo]

At the risk of sounding like Micheal Moore (who is pretty cool, actually, but we'll get into that later) everything about the Iraqi war is just plain senseless. Bush said that there were nuclear arms there...they found none. The U.N. security council went against the U.S. declaration of war against Iraq...they went through with it anyway. The U.S. went in to Iraq claiming that they wanted to "democratize the Iraqis." Well, no darlin', that's not what's happening. Let me show you why.

The price of oil was (and still is) sky-high...the U.S. needed a source whereby they could get oil far cheaper.

The U.S. economy was in bad shape before the war. Declaring war means creating jobs; people make arms, bullets, aircrafts, and take over jobs that soldiers in Iraq previously held before leaving.

The U.S. needed a presence in an ARAB country in the Middle East (not just Israel).

After the Sept.11 attacks, the U.S. was under pressure to do something to show strength via retaliation. Iraq had nothing to do with it, but that's the target they went for anyway.

The U.S. went to war for their own benefits, not to fight any war on terrorism. Face it, everyone...our government screwed up big time.

 

[Gunny]

At the risk of sounding like Micheal Moore (who is pretty cool, actually, but we'll get into that later) everything about the Iraqi war is just plain senseless. Bush said that there were nuclear arms there...they found none. The U.N. security council went against the U.S. declaration of war against Iraq...they went through with it anyway. The U.S. went in to Iraq claiming that they wanted to "democratize the Iraqis." Well, no darlin', that's not what's happening. Let me show you why.

The price of oil was (and still is) sky-high...the U.S. needed a source whereby they could get oil far cheaper.

The U.S. economy was in bad shape before the war. Declaring war means creating jobs; people make arms, bullets, aircrafts, and take over jobs that soldiers in Iraq previously held before leaving.

The U.S. needed a presence in an ARAB country in the Middle East (not just Israel).

After the Sept.11 attacks, the U.S. was under pressure to do something to show strength via retaliation. Iraq had nothing to do with it, but that's the target they went for anyway.

The U.S. went to war for their own benefits, not to fight any war on terrorism. Face it, everyone...our government screwed up big time.

Wow. In one single post you have proven yourself about as ignorant to reality as one can get.

Michael Moore is an extremist political hack, making a living off fools like you who pay to see/hear the garbage he spews.

Bush's assertion was that Saddam possessed WMDs, not "nuclear arms." A belief that at the time was generally held by most of the world, to include you fence-hopping libs. WMD is a term not used only in reference to nuclear weapons. It includes ALL nuclear. bilogical and chemical weapons, and even conventional weapons capable of having the effect the term implies -- mass destruction.

We didn't go after Iraq as a result of 9/11. We invaded Afghanistan. Where have YOU been? We invaded Iraq after "Round 6,434" of Saddam screwing around with the weapons inspector and not accounting for stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons he was known to have. Weapons that to this day have not been accounted for.

 

[Gunny]

Only problem is I don't really see any analysis that states why Iraq was a mistake. I see analysis that the strategy we used was a mistake. But not that the purposes of going in were.

The problem is the old "double-edged sword" variety. Saddam was a complete piece of human garbage and deserves worse than what he'll probably get.

At the same time, his despotism DID accomplish one thing -- he kept the Islamofascists in Iraq in check. If they so much as peeped out of the no-fly zones we had established, they got dead quick.

Ruthless, yes. Effective, yes. The problem with democracy in Iraq, as it is here, is it also allows all the wrong people filled with hate and lies to be just as big and bad as they can manage. I am not suggesting there is a better way, only that it IS a drawback to democracy.

Invading Iraq and removing Saddam from power unleashed all the ethnic/religious hatred that is prevalent throughout the Middle East. The military predicted this during the first Gulf War. It was a fact of reality ignored in favor of idealistic, "they'll be ever-so-grateful and embrace democracy" wishful thinking.

A "good" plan, IMO, would have been when we initially invaded to keep the different religious/ethnic factions isloated as they were. Not very PC, and does little to differentiate us from Saddam in that regard, but effective. Build up the government and military and let THEM deal with it.

At one time, I worked for LtGen Newbold. He was a good Marine and a good man. He voiced his opinion but in the end did what all of had to do and followed the orders of those appointed over us, whether or not we agreed with them.

It's easy to sit here and say "well why didn't he say something THEN," but how many of us are actually willing to piss away 15-50+ years investment when we KNOW it isn't going to affect the outcome? Had he said something publicly, he would have been shoveled into a corner and told to quietly retire. Not to mention Rumsfeld WOULD HAVE crucified him in the media. Think not? What's he doing NOW?

The administration has not answered the criticism with facts to prove it wrong. They have answered it with personal attacks against the generals speaking out.

I personally would find the former much more credible.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

They wouldn't have had to say anything publicly. According to the article, there were plenty of times where they discussed concerns about the planning and they wanted their input and they did not bring up any of this.

Also, I don't buy it that they are speaking out now because they care about the troops. If that was the reason, they would have spoken out before then but they cared more about their careers than anything.