Bremer Criticizes Troop Levels in Iraq
Thread Starter
VIP Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,064
From: Detroit, Where the weak are killed and eaten...
Car Info: 02 Impreza WRX Sedan & 2008 GMC Sierra 4x4
Bremer Criticizes Troop Levels in Iraq
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6180514/
I am interested to see Salty and Oaf's take on this. Do you guys think that we should have had more troops on the ground to deal with the insurgency?
WASHINGTON - The former U.S. official who governed Iraq after the invasion said yesterday that the United States made two major mistakes: not deploying enough troops in Iraq and then not containing the violence and looting immediately after the ouster of Saddam Hussein.
Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, administrator for the U.S.-led occupation government until the handover of political power on June 28, said he still supports the decision to intervene in Iraq but said a lack of adequate forces hampered the occupation and efforts to end the looting early on.
"We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness," he said yesterday in a speech at an insurance conference in White Sulphur Springs, W.Va. "We never had enough troops on the ground."
Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, administrator for the U.S.-led occupation government until the handover of political power on June 28, said he still supports the decision to intervene in Iraq but said a lack of adequate forces hampered the occupation and efforts to end the looting early on.
"We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness," he said yesterday in a speech at an insurance conference in White Sulphur Springs, W.Va. "We never had enough troops on the ground."
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8,675
From: Wherever Sucks the Most
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
IMHO. The looting is something we should have stayed away from. We needed to utilize our ground forces to secure the borders to neighboring countries before worrying about a stolen television as much.
Of course we needed to control the looting but there's only so much you can do with that. All we had was our occupying force seeing how we didn't have the opportunity to implement any current Iraqi police force -or- any US trained Iraqi forces for that matter.
They needed to focus on the other aspect Bremer mentioned by including heavier patrols on the Iranian, Syrian, Jordanian and Saudi Arabian borders (In that particular order). The more troops the better, but that could have lead to total exhaustion in our troops and a reduction to the "force multiplier"... I guess a draft or IRR would have been the next answer.
Just too hard to say...
But that's just me...
Of course we needed to control the looting but there's only so much you can do with that. All we had was our occupying force seeing how we didn't have the opportunity to implement any current Iraqi police force -or- any US trained Iraqi forces for that matter.
They needed to focus on the other aspect Bremer mentioned by including heavier patrols on the Iranian, Syrian, Jordanian and Saudi Arabian borders (In that particular order). The more troops the better, but that could have lead to total exhaustion in our troops and a reduction to the "force multiplier"... I guess a draft or IRR would have been the next answer.
Just too hard to say...
But that's just me...
I think there are good counter-arguments to this. Having too many troops may have agitated the already uncomfortable patriotic Iraqis even further. If there were so many Americans that everywhere they turned, they saw U.S. uniforms and tanks, I think they might feel a lot more hostile to the whole operation.
Also, I don't know how foreseeable looting was. I honestly believe it was reasonable before the battle to assume the Iraqis would try to organize and respond to the U.S. presence in a somewhat orderly fashion, or that they would at least try to protect their own from theft and vandalism.
Also, I don't know how foreseeable looting was. I honestly believe it was reasonable before the battle to assume the Iraqis would try to organize and respond to the U.S. presence in a somewhat orderly fashion, or that they would at least try to protect their own from theft and vandalism.
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Troop levels are always a two-edged sword: too many, people back home get pissed. Too few, trouble on the battlefield.
I don't know how many troops initially went into Iraq, but it wasn't enough.
There have been many errors made in carrying out this operation, but that's nothing new with the military.
Now, if you're asking "what would you have done differently", I don't have the time to get into it here/now.
I don't know how many troops initially went into Iraq, but it wasn't enough.
There have been many errors made in carrying out this operation, but that's nothing new with the military.
Now, if you're asking "what would you have done differently", I don't have the time to get into it here/now.
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8,675
From: Wherever Sucks the Most
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally Posted by subaruguru
I think there are good counter-arguments to this. Having too many troops may have agitated the already uncomfortable patriotic Iraqis even further. If there were so many Americans that everywhere they turned, they saw U.S. uniforms and tanks, I think they might feel a lot more hostile to the whole operation.
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8,675
From: Wherever Sucks the Most
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
What I Really Said About Iraq By L. PAUL BREMER III
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/auslan...322066,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/auslan...322066,00.html
The military commanders believed we had enough American troops in Iraq and that having a larger American military presence would have been counterproductive because it would have alienated Iraqis. That was a reasonable point of view, and it may have been right. The truth is that we'll never know.
But during the 14 months I was in Iraq, the administration, the military and I all agreed that the coalition's top priority was a broad, sustained effort to train Iraqis to take more responsibility for their own security. This effort, financed in large measure by the emergency supplemental budget approved by Congress last year, continues today. In the end, Iraq's security must depend on Iraqis.
Our troops continue to work closely with Iraqis to isolate and destroy terrorist strongholds. And the United States is supporting Prime Minister Ayad Allawi in his determined effort to bring security and democracy to Iraq. Elections will be held in January and, though there will be challenges and hardships, progress is being made. For the task before us now, I believe we have enough troops in Iraq.
The press has been curiously reluctant to report my constant public support for the president's strategy in Iraq and his policies to fight terrorism. I have been involved in the war on terrorism for two decades, and in my view no world leader has better understood the stakes in this global war than President Bush.
The president was right when he concluded that Saddam Hussein was a menace who needed to be removed from power. He understands that our enemies are not confined to Al Qaeda, and certainly not just to Osama bin Laden, who is probably trapped in his hide-out in Afghanistan. As the bipartisan 9/11 commission reported, there were contacts between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime going back a decade. We will win the war against global terror only by staying on the offensive and confronting terrorists and state sponsors of terror - wherever they are. Right now, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Qaeda ally, is a dangerous threat. He is in Iraq...
...Our victory also depends on devoting the resources necessary to win this war. So last year, President Bush asked the American people to make available $87 billion for military and reconstruction operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The military commanders and I strongly agreed on the importance of these funds, which is why we stood together before Congress to make the case for their approval. The overwhelming majority of Congress understood and provided the funds needed to fight the war and win the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan. These were vital resources that Senator John Kerry voted to deny our troops.
Mr. Kerry is free to quote my comments about Iraq. But for the sake of honesty he should also point out that I have repeatedly said, including in all my speeches in recent weeks, that President Bush made a correct and courageous decision to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein's brutality, and that the president is correct to see the war in Iraq as a central front in the war on terrorism.
But during the 14 months I was in Iraq, the administration, the military and I all agreed that the coalition's top priority was a broad, sustained effort to train Iraqis to take more responsibility for their own security. This effort, financed in large measure by the emergency supplemental budget approved by Congress last year, continues today. In the end, Iraq's security must depend on Iraqis.
Our troops continue to work closely with Iraqis to isolate and destroy terrorist strongholds. And the United States is supporting Prime Minister Ayad Allawi in his determined effort to bring security and democracy to Iraq. Elections will be held in January and, though there will be challenges and hardships, progress is being made. For the task before us now, I believe we have enough troops in Iraq.
The press has been curiously reluctant to report my constant public support for the president's strategy in Iraq and his policies to fight terrorism. I have been involved in the war on terrorism for two decades, and in my view no world leader has better understood the stakes in this global war than President Bush.
The president was right when he concluded that Saddam Hussein was a menace who needed to be removed from power. He understands that our enemies are not confined to Al Qaeda, and certainly not just to Osama bin Laden, who is probably trapped in his hide-out in Afghanistan. As the bipartisan 9/11 commission reported, there were contacts between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime going back a decade. We will win the war against global terror only by staying on the offensive and confronting terrorists and state sponsors of terror - wherever they are. Right now, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Qaeda ally, is a dangerous threat. He is in Iraq...
...Our victory also depends on devoting the resources necessary to win this war. So last year, President Bush asked the American people to make available $87 billion for military and reconstruction operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The military commanders and I strongly agreed on the importance of these funds, which is why we stood together before Congress to make the case for their approval. The overwhelming majority of Congress understood and provided the funds needed to fight the war and win the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan. These were vital resources that Senator John Kerry voted to deny our troops.
Mr. Kerry is free to quote my comments about Iraq. But for the sake of honesty he should also point out that I have repeatedly said, including in all my speeches in recent weeks, that President Bush made a correct and courageous decision to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein's brutality, and that the president is correct to see the war in Iraq as a central front in the war on terrorism.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Salty
Teh Politics Forum
2
Jul 29, 2005 12:22 PM
Salty
Teh Politics Forum
6
Sep 23, 2004 06:00 PM



