The Belgravia Dispatch: More Rummy

May 16, 2006

More Rummy

Ladies and gentlemen, your Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.

Once in Iraq, he believed some of his reservations were justified. Like most units in Iraq at the time, the 1st Infantry Division's humvees lacked armor. His soldiers contracted with Iraqis to weld whatever metal they could find to the sides of their humvees.
He also felt the unit didn't have enough reconstruction funds. When Mr. Wolfowitz came to visit in June 2004, Gen. Batiste said that his division had spent $41 million in three months on rebuilding. It had $23 million left for the remaining six months of the year. That wasn't enough, he says, to repair infrastructure destroyed by decades of misrule and sanctions, such as sewer, electrical or health-care systems. In addition, reconstruction funds put unemployed Iraqi men, who offered a potential recruiting pool for the enemy, on the U.S. payroll.

Over the course of the year-long tour, Gen. Batiste says he had to deal regularly with troop shortages. On three occasions, he was ordered to send soldiers to help other U.S. units in the cities of Najaf and Fallujah to put down revolts. Typically, the Army holds a couple of units in reserve to deal with unforeseen flare-ups. But the desire to keep the force as lean as possible meant there were no extra troops in Iraq.

Each time his soldiers left their area, attacks, intimidation and roadside bombs spiked, Gen. Batiste says. "It was like a sucking chest wound," he says. Relationships that soldiers had painstakingly built with local sheiks -- who had been persuaded to cooperate with U.S. forces at great risk to themselves and their families -- were lost when the soldiers were sent elsewhere, he says.

A "sucking chest wound". Rumsfeld's legacy. And, of course, also the legacy of those who supported the war, like BD, without fully accounting for the serial bungling that would occur at the strategic oversight level.

Posted by Gregory at May 16, 2006 05:12 AM | TrackBack (0)

Comments

So, basically, every time Bush got up and said he was giving the generals everything they asked for, that was a lie, right?

And not just a lie, but a stab in the back to the guys he had sent out to the front lines, right?

And how many times did Bush stand up and say that line?

Posted by: keeping at May 16, 2006 07:34 AM | Permalink to this comment

Greg, perhaps some day you can explain why people like yourself supported this war after months of months of indisputable evidence that the administration was lying about Iraq's WMDs, support for Chalabi and his ilk, and an obviously complete lack of understanding of the Iraqi (and Middle East) political dynamics. Was it 9/11? We all went a little nuts when that happened, but why did it take intelligent people like you so long to figure it out, when "liberals" were able to separate the tragedy from Bush policy much more quickly?

I'm serious here -- not being snarky. Why did it take you so long to figure out the actual character of the Bush administration?

Posted by: p,lukasiak at May 16, 2006 07:50 AM | Permalink to this comment

Sheesh, Lukasiak, give the guy a break. Everyone - including you - has their blind-spots; spots that prevent the assimilation and processing of objective data.

Greg has been born again hard and he's willing to be frank about his past errors of perception. What more do you want from him?

If this country has a collective character that resembles Greg's, we're going to move forward with our ideals in tact.

Posted by: avedis at May 16, 2006 12:15 PM | Permalink to this comment

I was part of that 10% that did not approve of Bush after 9/11. I could see ominously just where he was going to head with this new found political capital, and I could tell right away it was not going to be pretty.

on topic though, Rumsfeld's legacy will forever be torture and abuse. That is how history will remember him. It isn't just Rumsfeld that needs to be fired. Obviously his boss thinks Rumsfeld is "right for the job," and needs to go also. If Bush thinks "sucking-chest-wound" Rumsfeld is right for the job, what does that say about Bush?

Posted by: Daniel at May 16, 2006 04:42 PM | Permalink to this comment

Daniel, lay off the "Pro-war" crowd. Your arguments aren't new. You bulldog people, not debate and you reapeatedly want to argue emotions, not fact. Internet Debate isn't a competitive sport, yet you treat it as it is. Go find a new hobby, like basket weaving.

Posted by: left of insanity at May 16, 2006 05:26 PM | Permalink to this comment

The DemocracyArsenalization of Djerejian continues... where wars and foreign policy are neatly plotted on white boards in think tank conference rooms.

Are we still complaining about armor on humvees? Considering the damage done to the nation by the Saddam Hussein's regime, to the infrastructure by the United Nations, and to the oil industry by Total/Elf (e.g. water-cutting); I think the rebuilding of Iraq is going rather well.

The most alarming problem is the political situation, but even that has not reached "gloom-n-doom" proportions.

Posted by: Indigent Blogger at May 16, 2006 06:16 PM | Permalink to this comment

left of insanity,

eh, I think I've made some good points. I'm not trying to win any debate. I want my country back from the brink of war and more war. I think it is reprehensible that some Americans are not satisfied yet with the amount of blood we've spilled around the world and are itching for more. I find that to be the antithesis of what America stands for and will continue saying so. If you feel offended, perhaps you should not read my comments.

Posted by: Daniel at May 16, 2006 06:39 PM | Permalink to this comment

Daniel, you don't offend me. Your points are not new. How could they be good, if they aren't new? I'm not offended by your points of view. Your use of purple prose bemuses me, but we all can't be good writers. You won't win anyone over to your cause unless you step off the soapbox.

Posted by: left of insanity at May 16, 2006 07:04 PM | Permalink to this comment

left of center,

I honestly don't see how my writing is really any different (except perhaps in the quality of writing), than most bloggers out there, so I am curious why you are singling me out. What is a blog but a soapbox?

Posted by: Daniel at May 16, 2006 07:33 PM | Permalink to this comment

Keeping, great comment!

"Typically, the Army holds a couple of units in reserve to deal with unforeseen flare-ups. But the desire to keep the force as lean as possible meant there were no extra troops in Iraq."

Ah, nothing like discarding -- I dunno -- 3000 years of military tactics in the name of Transformation!

Posted by: Chris at May 16, 2006 07:36 PM | Permalink to this comment

Hey, Indigent Blogger, read this story.

Then realize you wrote this:

"Are we still complaining about armor on humvees?"

Then turn off your p.c. for a month so we can all keep from losing our minds after your comments.

As for your Hitchensesque justification of this war, Saddam was evil. But Bush has his fair share of catastropher on his slate. Both were and are a plague on humanity. Just because you can point to another's faults does not relieve you of your own moral culpability.

KTHX.

Posted by: Chris at May 16, 2006 07:41 PM | Permalink to this comment

Heh, an addiction to only wanting "new facts" may be somewhat antithetical to analysis in general, and surely is antithetical to trying to analyze such a spin-infested administration as we have now?

Posted by: frank wallace at May 16, 2006 08:59 PM | Permalink to this comment

Chris,

First, I read the story and it says "despite upgrades", which leads me to believe that these casualties are occuring in humvees that have upgraded armor. Or was the point for me to be shocked that there are casualties in war?

Second, I did not offer a justification for the war. What I said was that things were going fairly well, all things considered.

Finally, the only people I find fault with are the completely clueless individuals who find some relative comparison between Saddam Hussein and President George W. Bush.

Posted by: Indigent Blogger at May 16, 2006 10:08 PM | Permalink to this comment

Greg, you again strongly imply that you think the war was wrong without addressing what the alternatives were. Obviously the post "Mission Accomplished" actions of this administration have disgraced this country, but I still think that Saddam was a rabid dog that could not be tolerated indefinitely. Someone, sometime, was going to have to deal with the can being kicked down the road. Bush decided it was better before a new abu Nidal got his hands on some of the goodies being cooked up by Dr. Germ, or before the prancing and preening Joe Wilson's of the world learned that Saddam's reps were not interested in buying goats in Niger.
You write this on the same day the State Dept announces we are re-establishing ties to Libya, do you honestly think Kaddaffi would have given up his WMD if we were still allowing the thugs of the region to push us around?

Posted by: wks at May 17, 2006 04:30 AM | Permalink to this comment

Indigent, as for your first point, you are correct. But, your remark was callous and bothered me.

Your second point is also correct, as you originally said: "I think the rebuilding of Iraq is going rather well."

But, when I read that I think it smacks of a rationalization -- if not a justification. If I read too much into that, then that is my mistake.

And you call me clueless! Thanks.

"I think the rebuilding of Iraq is going rather well."

OK, you are either ignorant by nature or choice. The Baghdad morgue averages 70 mostly sectarian killings a day. Basra has destabilized. Most American reconstruction dollars have dried up. This is how you define "rather well"?

I must be clueless.

Posted by: Chris at May 17, 2006 06:36 PM | Permalink to this comment

Finally, the only people I find fault with are the completely clueless individuals who find some relative comparison between Saddam Hussein and President George W. Bush.

Indigent, I'd find fault with completely clueless people regardless whether they thought that Saddam and Bush were comparable.

But I agree they are not comparable. Like, imagine that it was Saddam running the US government and Bush running the iraqi government.

We would own iraq. And Saddam would have approval ratings in the high 90's, compared to Bush in the high 20's.

No comparison.

;)

Posted by: J Thomas at May 17, 2006 10:45 PM | Permalink to this comment

I like it, J.T.

Let's go to the videotape. I wrote:

As for your Hitchensesque justification of this war, Saddam was evil. But Bush has his fair share of catastropher (sic) on his slate. Both were and are a plague on humanity. Just because you can point to another's faults does not relieve you of your own moral culpability.

Sentence one and two, drop the wordy prepositional phrase:

Saddam was evil. But Bush has his fair share of catastropher (sic) on his slate.

Evil vs. a bad record. Actually, that would be a juxtaposition and the two clauses are not synonyms. It compares them, but does not liken them to one another. What is does liken is the negative consequences of their actions, which I then deem:

Both were and are a plague on humanity.

Maybe Bush is only a bad head cold. Maybe he's an ulcer. He is an affliction though. Then I state something about morality:

Just because you can point to another's faults does not relieve you of your own moral culpability.

That comment is nothing new. I can think of an ancient philsopher who asked that planks of wood be removed from the critic's eyes before they delve into splinter-removal.

Posted by: Chris at May 18, 2006 10:48 PM | Permalink to this comment