Rumsfeld and his Critics, Did the military really have a better understanding of Iraq?

[qrayjack]

Rumsfeld and His Critics
Did the military really have a better understanding of Iraq?
by Mackubin Thomas Owens
RealClearPolitics


SECRETARY OF DEFENSE DONALD RUMSFELD has taken a serious beating recently. His critics, including several retired Army and Marine Corps generals, have accused him, in essence, of being personally responsible for perceived failures in Iraq. His critics charge that he ignored military advice and insisted on a plan for Iraq that employed too small of a force, that he failed to adapt to new circumstances once things began to go wrong, that he failed to foresee the insurgency that now rages, and that he ignored the need to prepare for post-conflict stability operations.

The first thing to realize is that disagreements between civilians and soldiers about the conduct of a war are not uncommon in American history. But the critics' charges against Rumsfeld are based on two false premises: (1) in general--that the military, is always right when it comes to military affairs; and (2) in particular, that the things Rumsfeld got wrong in Iraq, the military got right.
MORE (http://www.weeklystandard.c om/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/174umpux.asp?pg=1)

And here is the last paragraph: "Retrospective criticism is easy. Rumsfeld's detractors would be much more credible if they could point to an instance in which their ability to discern the future was substantially superior to that of the man they have attacked."

[papajaxxx]

After the fact, we're all geniuses!

To make the call before the action starts is the difficult part.

The generals are full of it.

Just my opinion.

[Luckyme]

papajaxxx, I agree. It's so much easier to find the mistakes after the actions are over.

No one can say if the generals plans would have done any better.

[billybigrigger]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">The first thing to realize is that disagreements between civilians and soldiers about the conduct of a war are not uncommon in American history. [/QUOTE]

That's the exact point I was trying to make in the other threads. It's not un-common. Patton, McArthur both had disagreements with the civilian leadership and both lost as they should have.

[thefederalist]

While I admire Rumsfeld, I think that the Generals have valid criticisms of him. His failure to have a larger invasion force is very evident. With a larger invasion force, the borders into Iraq could have been sealed and prevented an invasion of foreign fighters. Also the lack of a larger force in the North resulted in many Bathists fleeing northward and taking refuge in friendly towns. Furthermore, order could have been created early on and reconstruction would have happened smoother. Rumsfeld is a big fan of force transformation; believing that large forces are not necessary and that the job of keeping highways safe from bandits, bathist and foreign fighters can be done from airplanes. The truth is there is a lot of hindsight with Iraq, but Rumsfeld didn't plan for many things that were known to be a strong possibility for. In the military you never take anything forgranted and Rumsfeld took too much forgranted (ie: Iraq would be completly peaceful after Saddam was removed, ignoring the idea of a power vacume). Rumsfeld has done many good things for the Pentagon, many which are controversial and upset the brass (cancelling programs that were outdated, but popular in the pentagon such as the commanche). However, when it comes to pre-Iraq war planning, Rumsfeld ignored the Generals when he should have listened and he continued to ignore experienced war fighters even after the mistake became evident. The Generals are right on this one.

[qrayjack]

&quot;Retrospective criticism is easy. Rumsfeld's detractors would be much more credible if they could point to an instance in which their ability to discern the future was substantially superior to that of the man they have attacked.&quot;

These brilliant ex-generals who say Rumsfeld is incompetent just don't seem to be able to do that, do they?