No less an authority than Paul Bremer now claims the Administration's failure in Iraq stems from insufficient troops and the resulting inability to maintain order. (Other than that, their reconstruction plan was spot-on.) Specifically, he said:
"We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness. We never had enough troops on the ground." And regarding the reconstruction itself, he said: "There was planning, but planning for a situation that didn't arise.
Hmm . . . Quite a bit like Naomi Klein's hypothesis, when you think about it.
The Washington Post article says:
Bremer's comments were striking because they echoed contentions of many administration critics, including Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry, who argue that the U.S. government failed to plan adequately to maintain security in Iraq after the invasion. Bremer has generally defended the U.S. approach in Iraq but in recent weeks has begun to criticize the administration for tactical and policy shortfalls.
Guess who's not getting a Christmas card from George and Laura . . .
Posted by Vernam at October 5, 2004 07:37 AMKerry's plan is to say whatever is popular on a given day. You're welcome.
Posted by: TOF at October 5, 2004 10:24 PMBush's #1 man in Iraq says the post invasion planning sucked. No thanks to that, troops & innocents continue dying and money continues to be wasted in this debacle. Bush hasn't articulated a plan to change the current course. On the contrary, he stubbornly refuses to acknowledge how fucked up it all is - unless saying it's hard work 11 times in the debate is acknowledgment.
Kerry has a plan. That is where this election decision will be made. No nuances, new leadership, thank you.
Posted by: deano at October 5, 2004 04:52 PMIn keeping with VC's need for context, here is more of what Bremer said:
At the time President Bush went to war, Bremer said, the United States and other nations had intelligence suggesting that Saddam had:
1)Provided a safe haven to terrorist groups.
2)Used chemical weapons against Iran and his own people.
3)Lied about the possession of weapons of mass destruction for almost a decade.
No United Nations weapons inspection teams had been allowed in Iraq for almost four years, Bremer said, so there was a "real possibility" that Saddam might provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups that have vowed to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans.
"The status quo was simply untenable," Bremer said.
If Bremer is the expert, it looks like we should all agree that removing Saddam was the right thing to do. Yippee!! It's certainly fair to quibble over the tactics. Have at it. I'll accede to the minor point (a Knight) because you have, apparently, acceded to the major point (a queen). If your're happy with this trade, then it's a Win-Win.
Posted by: TOF at October 5, 2004 09:54 AM