One of Pres. George W. Bush’s latest delusions is that history will view him more kindly than he is seen today, just as Pres. Harry Truman has become a beloved figure over the course of the five decades since his presidency. But it was Truman, a Democrat, who once famously said that the “buck” stopped with him — that he was ultimately responsible for all the decisions made by his administration.
— Pres. Bush
At a news conference yesterday, Bush casually shifted blame for the early failure of his war in Iraq away from himself and his Sec. of Def. Donald Rumsfeld onto a subordinate, Gen. Tommy Franks, proving, once and for all, that he is no Harry Truman, and never will be:
[FOX NEWS REPORTER:]Thank you, sir. You have spoken passionately about the consequences of failure in Iraq. Your critics say you failed to send enough troops there at the start, failed to keep al Qaeda from stepping into the void created by the collapse of Saddam’s army, failed to put enough pressure on Iraq’s government to make the political reconciliation necessary to keep the sectarian violence the country is suffering from now from occurring. So why should the American people feel you have the vision for victory in Iraq, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: Those are all legitimate questions that I’m sure historians will analyze. I mean, one of the questions is, should we have sent more in the beginning? Well, I asked that question, do you need more, to General Tommy Franks. In the first phase of this operation, General Franks was obviously in charge, and during our discussions in the run up to the decision to remove Saddam Hussein after he ignored the Security Council resolutions. My primary question to General Franks was, do you have what it takes to succeed? And do you have what it takes to succeed after you succeed in removing Saddam Hussein? And his answer was, yes.
Now, history is going to look back to determine whether or not there might have been a different decision made. But at the time, the only thing I can tell you, Wendell, is that I relied upon our military commander to make the proper decision about troop strength. And I can remember a meeting with the Joint Chiefs, who said, we’ve reviewed the plan. I remember — and seemed satisfied with it. I remember sitting in the PEOC, or the Situation Room, downstairs here at the White House, and I went to commander and commander that were all responsible of different aspects of the operation to remove Saddam. I said to each one of them, do you have what it takes? Are you satisfied with the strategy? And the answer was, yes.
The reason the generals answered the president in the affirmative is because they knew that saying otherwise would get them in deep caca with their boss, Bush’s Sec. of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.
But even if it were true, Bush’s blame-shifting yesterday serves to underscore his weakness as a leader. The truth is, Gen. Franks knew what all the top brass knew: Generals who disagreed with Rumsfeld, Bush and the party line were fired.
Franks certainly has some responsibility for the failures in Iraq, but ultimately, history will lay the blame on his bosses:
The authors [of COBRA II, military correspondent Michael Gordon and military historian and retired Marine Corps general Bernard] suggest that Franks was worn down by repeated pressure from U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to reduce the number of U.S. troops in war plans and cancel the deployment of the 1st Cavalry Division, a scheduled follow-on unit that was slated for deployment in April of 2003 … More generally, they argue Franks’ command was somewhat understandably focused on the immediate task in front of it — defeating Saddam Hussein and taking Baghdad — and few were willing to divert resources away from that effort and toward the long-term post-war needs.
In an interview last September, Brigadier General Mark Scheid, chief of the Logistics War Plans Division after 9/11, and one of the people with primary responsibility for war planning, placed the blame on his superiors:
Shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan, he says, Donald Rumsfeld told his team to start planning for war in Iraq, but not to bother planning for a long stay:
“The secretary of defense continued to push on us … that everything we write in our plan has to be the idea that we are going to go in, we’re going to take out the regime, and then we’re going to leave,” Scheid said. “We won’t stay.”
Scheid said the planners continued to try “to write what was called Phase 4,” or the piece of the plan that included post-invasion operations like occupation.
Even if the troops didn’t stay, “at least we have to plan for it,” Scheid said.
“I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that,” Scheid said. “We would not do planning for Phase 4 operations, which would require all those additional troops that people talk about today.
“He said we will not do that because the American public will not back us if they think we are going over there for a long war.”
…”In his own mind he thought we could go in and fight and take out the regime and come out. But a lot of us planners were having a real hard time with it because we were also thinking we can’t do this. Once you tear up a country you have to stay and rebuild it. It was very challenging.”
Scheid is not the only general who places the blame on Rummy:
Army Major General John R. S. Batiste (Commanded the First U.S. Infantry Division in Iraq): “We went to war with a flawed plan that didn’t account for the hard work to build the peace after we took down the regime. We also served under a secretary of defense who didn’t understand leadership, who was abusive, who was arrogant, who didn’t build a strong team … I believe that Secretary Rumsfeld and others in the administration did not tell the American people the truth, for fear of losing support for the war in Iraq.
Secretary Rumsfeld and the administration are fighting a war in secret that threatens our democratic values. This needs to stop right now, today.Iraq didn‘t have to be the way it was. We created this insurgency. We let it grow. We let it develop. We let it blossom.”
Army Major General Paul Eaton (In charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003-2004): “We had no problem and expected no problem in reducing the Saddam threat. The real issue in everybody‘s mind was Phase 4. We went in on the cheap, we went in with too many assumptions that failed, and we did not have enough soldiers on the ground to do what any government really owes the governed, and that is security.”
Marine Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold: “My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions — or bury the results.”
Army Major General John Riggs: “They only need the military advice when it satisfies their agenda.”
Marine General Anthony Zinni:”We grow up in a culture where accountability, learning to accept responsibility, admitting mistakes and learning from them was critical to us. When we don’t see that happening it worries us. Poor military judgment has been used throughout this mission.”
Army Major General Charles Swannack:”I really believe that we need a new secretary of defense because Secretary Rumsfeld carries way too much baggage with him. … I think we need senior military leaders who understand the principles of war and apply them ruthlessly, and when the time comes, they need to call it like it is.”
Army General William E. Odom (Director of the NSA under Reagan from 1985 to 1988, Army Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence from 1981 to 1985, Military Assistant to the President’s Assistant for National Security Affairs, Zbigniew Brzezinski from 1977 to 1971): “The invasion of Iraq I believe will turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history.”
The question that remains is, when — if ever — will George W. Bush be held accountable for the worst military blunder in American history, and one of the worst in the history of the modern world.
Eventually mister Bush will piss off enough of his former pals to the point that one of them will spill his or her guts.