Wednesday, April 19, 2006

The Generals' Discontent

Dean Godson in the Times of London"
What of these charges? Mr Rumsfeld was right in believing that the war itself could be won with a much smaller force than was used in the first Gulf War of 1991, not least because the Iraqi army had halved in size. He was right effectively to send Tommy Franks away with a flea in his ear when the then US commander presented the original war plans, as General Franks has conceded. Pace George Galloway, there was no Stalingrad by the Tigris.

This was no McNamara-style micromanagement of targeting when Pentagon “whiz-kids” constantly encroached upon professional military prerogatives. Rather, Mr Rumsfeld’s big picture approach is exactly what civilian control of the military is supposed to be all about: in other words, asking what would be the price in blood and treasure of a particular plan? Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, did much the same as Defence Secretary in 1990 when he asked Norman Schwarzkopf to revise his plans for a costly frontal assault on the Iraqi forces in Kuwait.

What about the postwar period? General Jack Keane, the Army Vice-Chief of Staff during this critical period, told me that it was just as much the military’s responsibility to anticipate the insurgency, if not more so. “We had no plans for that”, he said. “It was our fault, not Donald Rumsfeld’s.”
It seems pretty clear that Rumsfeld's remark about going to war with the army you've got was spot on. If the military wasn't ready for the orders it received, why is it the fault of the ones giving the orders?

Also, Austin Bay relays some specific comments about General Zinni, whose reversal from earlier testimony certainly doesn't make him look too bright. That won't hurt him with the Fever Swamp, but it should with thinking people.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home