Donald Rumsfeld wanted to invade Iraq with 50,000 troops and has steadfastly refused to deploy enough troops to quell the violence there.
So what to make of this?
The presence of several thousand extra U.S. troops in Baghdad in recent weeks showed that sectarian violence can be quelled by force of arms. But Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the gains will be lost unless the Iraqi government reconciles rival religious sects.
"There ... is no question but that you can go in and clear out an area and achieve a reduction in violence, and the test is not that," Rumsfeld told reporters in a joint appearance Friday at the Pentagon with Iraqi Deputy President Adil Al-Mahdi.
"The test is what happens thereafter. And the important thing is for the Iraqi government to achieve success with respect to its reconciliation process," he said. "It's important that they deal with the militia issue."
So let me get this straight. More troops actually does equal more security? And so, as Iraq has spiraled more and more out of control, we've refused to send more troops because.... why? Because what's more important is the reconciliation process, as if that's supposed to take hold while Sunnis and Shiites are killing each other due to an inadequate security presence.
He's right that a reconciliation process is the only way to achieve long-term stability. But he just blithely ignores that short-term stability is needed to get the reconciliation process started.
Further, Rumsfeld is taking credit for the local success of a strategy that he and the administration have fought against, tooth and nail, since the Iraq invasion was nothing but a gleam in their neocon eyes. A strategy that everyone with any experience in peacekeeping was practically screaming at them to adopt.
And now not only does he brag on the success in Baghdad, but he point-blank refuses to draw the larger lesson.
Why does this guy still have his job?
Rumsfeld, Iraq, politics, midtopia
2 comments:
LOL I mentioned this at Centerfield when Rumsfeld made the remark. I recommend FIASCO by Thomas Ricks for all to read.
If I were Rumsfeld right now, I would make a deal with Saddam to spare his life in exchange for his rallying Sunnis behind America's stand toward Iran. Let him blame his insanity on Iranomania. Jordan and Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia, Libya and Saudi Arabia must be told to stand up or Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Iran will leave them in chaos. McCain says eliminate Sadr. Sunnis in Iraq must be brought into the process so when we do attack Iran, they can counter the expected Shiite reaction. Man did we botch Iraq.
Of course the Russians are going to screw us, as they were planning to do in Iraq. here is an article
Hey, Max. Good to see you back.
Rumsfeld is a piece of work, isn't he?
We may end up having to take sides in the Iraq civil war. But won't it be ironic if we become the new Saddam, once again propping up the Sunni minority in opposition to the Shiite majority? That may make sense from a geopolitical standpoint narrowly focused on Iran, but man, what a mess that would be.
I'd favor a partition of Iraq over that scenario.
Post a Comment