News Did the White House Ignore Critical Advice on Iraq in 2003?

[Ivan Seeking]

...The White House ignored an urgent warning in September 2003 from a top Iraq adviser who said that thousands of additional American troops were desperately needed to quell the insurgency there, according to a new book by Bob Woodward, the Washington Post reporter and author. The book describes a White House riven by dysfunction and division over the war.

"The book says President Bush’s top advisers were often at odds among themselves, and sometimes were barely on speaking terms, but shared a tendency to dismiss as too pessimistic assessments from American commanders and others about the situation in Iraq.

"As late as November 2003, Mr. Bush is quoted as saying of the situation in Iraq: 'I don’t want anyone in the cabinet to say it is an insurgency. I don’t think we are there yet.'

"...and so hostile toward Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser, that President Bush had to tell him [Rummy] to return her phone calls.

...The American commander for the Middle East, Gen. John P. Abizaid, is reported to have told visitors to his headquarters in Qatar in the fall of 2005 that 'Rumsfeld doesn’t have any credibility anymore' to make a public case for the American strategy for victory in Iraq."
[continued]

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003188619

A White House driven by dysfunction? Is there any new information?

I love Bob Woodward.

 

[Astronuc]

Bush Whitehouse - like any dysfunctional family.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-09-29T213926Z_01_N29406167_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-USA-RUMSFELD.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C2-TopNews-newsOne-10
By David Alexander

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush's former chief of staff tried twice to persuade Bush to fire Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld but failed, according to a new book by investigative reporter Bob Woodward.

The book describes a White House divided by infighting over how to handle the unexpectedly tough Iraqi insurgency. It claims Bush resisted demands to increase the number of U.S. troops and is misleading Americans about the level of violence in Iraq, according to news accounts of "State of Denial."

Woodward wrote that White House chief of staff Andrew Card urged Bush to replace Rumsfeld with former Secretary of State James Baker following the 2004 election, The Washington Post reported on its Web site.

Bush decided not to do so after Vice President Dick Cheney and political adviser Karl Rove convinced him it would be seen as an expression of doubt about the direction of the war and expose him to criticism, according to the book.

Card, with the backing of first lady Laura Bush, tried a second time to persuade Bush to fire Rumsfeld around Thanksgiving 2005, the book says. But the president again refused to act.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

...And I think what we're learning from the book, which I had had glimmers of and all of us covered had glimmers, that a lot of the people in the administration understood the cataclysm that was in front of them. And they were complaining about it, maybe not as vociferously as they would, but they had a grip on reality.

And that grip on reality occasionally made it into the Oval Office, and yet nothing was done. And the question is: Why was nothing done? And I have two beliefs.

One, the president likes Rumsfeld because he's a tough guy, and he likes tough guys. And, second, politically, every single day, they asked a question day-by-day, "Would today be a good day to get rid of Donald Rumsfeld?" And no specific day was the good day, because it would have created a storm.

But they never stepped back and said, "Overall, what's the big problem here?" And they're going to live with that decision. [continued]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec06/sb_09-29.html

 

[Astronuc]

White House Steps Up Rhetoric, Denies Charges
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6168132

All Things Considered, September 29, 2006 · The White House is ramping up the rhetoric against its opponents. President Bush says his Iraq war critics are buying into what he calls "the enemy's propaganda."

Um, no! People have stopped accepting the propaganda and are starting to be more critical of the Bush regime.

The president says those critics somehow think America's "provoking" terrorists by fighting them in Iraq. But he says Iraq's not their real motivation -- they just "hate everything America stands for."

It should be quite obvious at this point that Bush has no grasp on reality.

President Bush's speech to military officers Friday included his latest blasts at critics following the leak of the National Intelligence Estimate. Democrats seized on the document's finding that Iraq is helping recruit Islamic extremists worldwide.

Thursday, at a GOP fund-raiser, Bush accused Democrats of doing nothing but complaining and obstructing. He said the Democrats have become the "party of cut and run." [More empty rhetoric!]

But at the same time, the White House was bracing for an onslaught of questions about the new Bob Woodward book, State of Denial.

The book is the third on the Bush presidency by the legendary Washington Post reporter. The first two books were seen as friendly to the president, even admiring. And they were welcomed by the White House.

This one is neither.

At more than 537 pages, the book depicts a Bush White House that has known the war in Iraq is getting worse, not better. It accuses the administration of trying to disguise a rise in attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq.

When Press Secretary Tony Snow began his Friday briefing, the questions about Woodward's book came right away.

Snow responded by offering a critique.

"You know, in a lot of ways, the book's sort of like cotton candy," he said. "It kind of melts on contact."

"We've read this book before," Snow said. "This tends to repeat what we've seen in a number of other books that have been out this year, where people are ventilating old disputes over troop levels."

Snow then said it's wrong to say that President Bush views the war through rose colored glasses. [Of course not. Bush is blind!]

Snow accused those who talked to Woodward of being in essence disgruntled employees -- people who had lost arguments within the administration and were getting their own side of the story out.

But it was also pointed out to the Press Secretary that the White House did not question the accuracy of Woodward's first two books about the administration.

"Are you saying this because you're on the losing side of the argument now," asked Martha Raddatz of ABC News. "Because you're on the losing side of the argument as to why you're defensive as to what's in that book."

"Attacks on our troops are up," Snow said. "That's no secret."

"Are you in a state of denial," Raddatz asked, "do the american public have a sense of what's going on there?"

"I think the American public have a pretty good sense," Snow replied.

I think more people are aware of the damage Bush has done to the US.

 

[Cyrus]

Watch the second half.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7292279546899698502&q=bob+wright

 

[edward]

Henry Kissinger He's baaack

I swear to god Zis guy Kissenger gave me the willies vay back in the 70's. Now he is advising Bush on Iraq. Doz he get pait for doink zat?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/28/60minutes/main2047607.shtml

 

[Cyrus]

Yuck, e-gads, why does wallace make facial expressions like he's taking a crap in his geezer pants. Those must be big adult diapers he's wearing.

P.S. You're Kizinger iz very good, ya?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This is interesting.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 — Members of the Sept. 11 commission said Sunday they were alarmed that they were told nothing about a July 2001 White House meeting at which George J. Tenet, then director of central intelligence, is reported to have warned Condoleezza Rice, then national security adviser, about an imminent attack by Al Qaeda and failed to persuade her to take action.[continued]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/02/washington/02woodward.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

 

[Skyhunter]

So that explains why Condi called the Aug 7, PDB OBL determined to strike in the US, "historical", she had already heard about it weeks before.

 

[Amp1]

Its incredible that people who bear such tremendous responsibility should not recollect blunders in judgement that they made while pursuing secretive plans, plans(I assert ,tentatively, as obviously there must have been something of more import to the admin at the time.) that distracted from the primary focus of the job of the NSA.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Has anyone else noticed all of the non-denial denials?

Ah, just like the good ole days.

 

[Astronuc]

A lot of people involved in the current White House (e.g. Cheney) have ties to the Nixon Whitehouse. Maybe they just thought they would pick up where they left off.

Dick Cheney's political career began in 1969, during the Nixon administration. He held a number of positions in the years that followed: special assistant to the Director of the OEO, White House staff assistant, assistant director of the Cost of Living Council, and Deputy Assistant to the President. Under President Gerald Ford, Cheney became Assistant to the President and then the youngest White House Chief of Staff in history. Many have pointed to this time as the point where both he and Donald Rumsfeld began consolidating political power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney#Early_White_House_appointments

 

[Skyhunter]

A lot of people involved in the current White House (e.g. Cheney) have ties to the Nixon Whitehouse. Maybe they just thought they would pick up where they left off.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney#Early_White_House_appointments

Is this an accurate representation?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...deos/toles_main.html?name=Toles&date=10032006

 

[Astronuc]

Is this an accurate representation?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...deos/toles_main.html?name=Toles&date=10032006

Seems reasonably accurate. Now we know what they were working on in Area 55. Bush has always looked a little alien.

 

[Cyrus]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4789533322439838380

 

[Astronuc]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4789533322439838380

Interesting comments by Woodward. He comments that Bush is an optimist [which is not based on reality], i.e. Bush is delusional.

Bush and Rumsfeld make the statements that the terrorists are on the run, but the reality is the attacks against US troops, the Iraqi government, and Iraqi civilians is increasing.

Apparently Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld cannot accept that they are wrong - they can't accept that they have failed - despite the evidence that they have. The US will pay a very high price for this failure - especially if Bush is allowed to continue down the path of failure. Bush is absolutely the wrong person to lead the US - he has demonstrated that he is unworthy of the privilege (based on his dishonesty and deceit) and incapable of the responsibility.

and

Return of the Taliban

Nearly five years after the Taliban were toppled, al Qaida and the Taliban continue to use Pakistan as a defacto base, virtually unchanlleged and far out of America's reach.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/

This is very disturbing. Pakistan has made a deal with Taliban who in turn supports al Qaida! Taliban and al Qaida are safe and sound and growing in the tribal areas of Pakistan.

So why is the US floundering in Iraq while al Qaida and Taliban are growing stronger elsewhere? Pakistan, Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt?, Sudan?, Libya?, Tunisia?, Algeria?, Morocco?, Indonesia?, . . . .

The people who funded al Qaida's attack on the US are still out there - somewhere - and its not in Iraq.

Interviews -

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/interviews/coll.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/interviews/crocker.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/interviews/rubin.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/interviews/saleh.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/interviews/tomsen.html

Tomsen served as President George H.W. Bush's special envoy and ambassador to the Afghan resistance from 1989 to 1992. Here he lays out the historical background of the Taliban's rise to power and its relationship with Pakistani intelligence, known by its acronym ISI. He also explains the two fears driving Pakistan's Afghanistan policy -- India and Pashtun nationalism. Tomsen believes the ISI knows exactly where Osama bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawarhiri are hiding, and that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf is not fully cooperating with the U.S.
. . .
Why did they bet on extremists to take over Afghanistan? Why the bet on the Taliban rather than a bet, say, on some other warlord -- a Pashtun, like an [Afghan resistance commander] Abdul Haq, for instance?
There were two reasons. One was … the ISI and the Pakistanis wanted to emphasize the Islamist Afghan side over the nationalist Afghan side, secular tribal leaders in Afghanistan that had come out of the ruling establishment that was running the country for the previous 300 years, … because the nationalist side, the secular side, had always stressed the need to recapture Afghanistan as it existed in the last part of the 18th century and part of the 19th century, which included the Pashtun areas of Pakistan.

The tribal areas?
And Pakistan had lost Bangladesh -- one wing of the country -- in 1971. They were very worried that if this impulse returned in Kabul, and especially if it linked up with the Indian government, they would be caught in a squeeze by which the Afghans would be pushing to pursue a reclamation or --

Yeah. So they were afraid of Pashtun nationalism?
Yeah.

So Pakistan supported fundamentalist elements in the tribal areas in hopes of having sympathetic authorities in Afghanistan. This however seems to be a recipe for instability - especially with Taliban and al Qaida flourishing in the tribal areas along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border.

 

[Astronuc]

http://elections.us.reuters.com/states/tx/news/usnN30282660.html Reuters Election 2006

Sept 30 (Reuters) - A book by U.S. journalist Bob Woodward, "State of Denial," went on sale on Saturday. Following are some key points it makes about President George W. Bush, his administration and the war in Iraq.

* Woodward, who helped uncover the Watergate scandal in the 1970s, said the administration was concealing the level of violence against U.S. troops in Iraq. He wrote that while Bush spoke publicly of progress in Iraq, a secret intelligence assessment in May 2006 showed that insurgents in Iraq were on the rise.

Bush was determined to keep U.S. troops in Iraq even "if Laura and Barney are the only ones who support me," Woodward quoted Bush as saying in 2005, referring to his wife and their Scottish terrier.

* Former White House chief of staff Andrew Card at least twice sought to persuade Bush to fire Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld but failed. He even discussed the issue with first lady Laura Bush in late 2005.

Woodward wrote that after the 2004 election, Card urged Bush to replace Rumsfeld with former Secretary of State James Baker. Bush decided not to do so after Vice President Dick Cheney and adviser Karl Rove convinced him it would be seen as an expression of doubt about the direction of the war and expose him to criticism.

* Bush made Rumsfeld secretary of defense in part to prove his father -- former president George Bush -- wrong, Woodward wrote.

"Rumsfeld and Bush's father, the former president, couldn't stand each other," the book says. "Bush senior thought Rumsfeld was arrogant, self important, too sure of himself and Machiavellian.

"It was a chance to prove his father wrong" but Bush "wondered privately to Card about pitfalls, if there was something he didn't see here."

* Woodward wrote that on July 10, 2001, former CIA Director George Tenet and his counterterrorism chief, Cofer Black, asked for a special meeting with then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice to discuss their concerns about Osama bin Laden and a possible al Qaeda attack.

He said Tenet and Black had two main points to tell Rice -- that al Qaeda was going to attack American interests, possibly in the United States, and that this was a major foreign policy problem that needed to be addressed immediately.

"They both felt they were not getting through to Rice. She was polite, but they felt the brush-off."

* Former Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan was asked by Bush's father to talk to his son in late 1997. Bandar went to Austin and met with the then Texas governor who told him he was thinking about running for president, but said "I don't have the foggiest idea about what I think about international, foreign policy."

Bandar then gave him a tutorial.

* The White House has issued "Five Key Myths in Bob Woodward's Book," disputing, among other things, the idea that Bush was not leveling with Americans about Iraq. It cited speeches over the last year in which Bush acknowledged problems. The release also said Laura Bush's office has denied she pushed for Rumsfeld's ouster.

But apparently Card has confirmed Woodward's comments, and it appears that the "Five Key Myths" issued by the Whitehouse are indeed untrue.

 

[Astronuc]

Paul Krugman wrote this back in July of this year. Entitled, "The Price of Fantasy", it would be more appropriate "The High Price of Bush's Fantasies/Delusions". The full article must be purchased from NY Times

Today we call them neoconservatives, but when the first George Bush was president, those who believed that America could remake the world to its liking with a series of splendid little wars — people like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld — were known within the administration as “the crazies.” Grown-ups in both parties rejected their vision as a dangerous fantasy.

But in 2000 the Supreme Court delivered the White House to a man who, although he may be 60, doesn’t act like a grown-up. The second President Bush obviously confuses swagger with strength, and prefers tough talkers like the crazies to people who actually think things through. He got the chance to implement the crazies’ vision after 9/11, which created a climate in which few people in Congress or the news media dared to ask hard questions. And the result is the bloody mess we’re now in.

This isn’t a case of 20-20 hindsight. It was clear from the beginning that the United States didn’t have remotely enough troops to carry out the crazies’ agenda — and Mr. Bush never asked for a bigger army.

As I wrote back in January 2003, this meant that the “Bush doctrine” of preventive war was, in practice, a plan to “talk trash and carry a small stick.” It was obvious even then that the administration was preparing to invade Iraq not because it posed a real threat, but because it looked like a soft target.

The message to North Korea, which really did have an active nuclear program, was clear: “The Bush administration,” I wrote, putting myself in Kim Jong Il’s shoes, “says you’re evil. It won’t offer you aid, even if you cancel your nuclear program, because that would be rewarding evil. It won’t even promise not to attack you, because it believes it has a mission to destroy evil regimes, whether or not they actually pose any threat to the U.S. But for all its belligerence, the Bush administration seems willing to confront only regimes that are militarily weak.” So “the best self-preservation strategy ... is to be dangerous.”

With a few modifications, the same logic applies to Iran. And it’s easier than ever for Iran to be dangerous, now that U.S. forces are bogged down in Iraq.

Would the current crisis on the Israel-Lebanon border have happened even if the Bush administration had actually concentrated on fighting terrorism, rather than using 9/11 as an excuse to pursue the crazies’ agenda? Nobody knows. But it’s clear that the United States would have more options, more ability to influence the situation, if Mr. Bush hadn’t squandered both the nation’s credibility and its military might on his war of choice.

So what happens next?

Few if any of the crazies have the moral courage to admit that they were wrong. Vice President Cheney continues to insist that his two most famous pronouncements about Iraq — his declaration before the invasion that we would be “greeted as liberators” and his assertion a year ago that the insurgency was in its “last throes” — were “basically accurate.”

But if the premise of the Bush doctrine was right, why are things going so badly?

. . . .

The crazies respond by retreating even further into their fantasies of omnipotence. The only problem, they assert, is a lack of will.

For years the self-proclaimed “war president” basked in the adulation of the crazies. Now they’re accusing him of being a wimp. “We have been too weak,” writes Mr. Kristol, “and have allowed ourselves to be perceived as weak.”

Does Mr. Bush have the maturity to stand up to this kind of pressure? I report, you decide.

Of course not.

 

[Skyhunter]

* Former Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan was asked by Bush's father to talk to his son in late 1997. Bandar went to Austin and met with the then Texas governor who told him he was thinking about running for president, but said "I don't have the foggiest idea about what I think about international, foreign policy."

Bandar then gave him a tutorial.

The frightening thing about this is that here is the appearance of collusion with Saudi Arabia, in developing American foreign policy.

Let's go to the White House on September 13 2001. Just 48 hours after 9/11, the toxic rubble at the World Trade Centre site was still ablaze. The estimated death count, later lowered significantly, was thought to be as high as 40,000.

On that afternoon, Bandar met on the Truman balcony with President Bush and the two men lit up Cohiba cigars. At the time, the White House knew that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis. It knew that Osama bin Laden was Saudi. And, as the 9/11 commission concluded, it knew that Saudi Arabia was "the primary source of money for al-Qaida", which was largely funded by wealthy Saudis via Islamist charities.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1302097,00.html

Was this part of the plan? Let OBL attack the US and use it as justification to implement the PNAC strategy? What did they talk about on that balcony?

Were they celebrating the scope of the attack, knowing that now Congress, the American people, and indeed the world would support whatever response they decided was appropriate?

It is no wonder that people believe that Bush deliberately let the WTC and Pentagon be attacked so that he could implement a foreign policy developed in collusion with the Saudi royal family.

There was a time that I would dismiss such musings as ridiculous. That time is past for me, I believe these men capable of anything.

 

[Astronuc]

From the Guardian article -

A month later, on September 11, when he was told that the terrorists had attacked, Bush spent the next seven minutes reading a children's book, The Pet Goat, with a group of schoolchildren.

I saw the expression on his face - he didn't want to believe it. Bush was so focussed (fixated) on getting Saddam, he ignored al Qaida - despite warnings from NSA and CIA. Then he wanted the intelligence community to 'establish' (fabricate) a link between Saddam and al Qaida. The complication here is that - al Qaida was enemy of Saddam. And al Qaida is enemy of House of Saud. Actually it's more complicated than that as the future will show.

Saddam was a threat to Saudi Arabia - but bin Laden and al Zawahiri were and still are bigger threats (unless the funding is a payoff on behalf of Saudi Arabia). The bigger threat could have and should have been dealt with - but it wasn't.

Now the problem has become enormously more complex and spread over a much larger geographic region.

 

[Astronuc]

An interesting complement to Woodward's "State of Denial" is Scott Ritter's "Target Iran".

It begins with a surreal exchange between Phillip Reeker, Deputy Press Spokesman, and a reporter at a briefiing. Apparently a group, Mujahedin el-Khalq (MEK), which is listed as a terrorist organization by the US government (due to the fact that they had killed some Americans in Iran and hundreds of Kurds after Desert Storm), operates freely in the US and has ties to various politically conservative groups.

Now this group was involved with assault on the US embassy in Tehran in 1979, but subsequently had a falling out with the theocrats in Tehran. MEK operated training camps in Iraq under the auspices of the Mukhabarat, Saddam Hussein's security organization.

If the information is correct, one has to wonder why such an organization has offices in the US and receives funding from the conservative establishment. Does MEK fit into the plans of the Bush administration for a regime change in Iran?

 

[turbo]

Here is a link to an old article in "Common Dreams" purporting that Iran would turn over 3 top Al Qaida members and some other suspected terrorist leaders if the US would agree to disband the MEK. One has to wonder how important stopping Al Quaida is to the Bush administration if they did not want to make that trade.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0808-04.htm

 

[Astronuc]

I wonder if Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld will feel pressure/urgency to go to war in Iran or N Korea before he leaves office.

I wonder if they plan on doing this after they leave office. I mean they and their friends have thousands of mercenaries out there who will be looking for something to do, and . . . .

 

[edward]

Consider the Source
The State Department says MEK is a terror group. Human Rights Watch says it’s a cult. For the White House, MEK is a source of intelligence on Iran.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7902719/site/newsweek/

Why would we believe any information MEK gives us about Iran? The Administration is either looking for another smoking gun in the ME, or Condi Rice wants another smoking gun for Christmas.

MEK is another totally bizarre Middle eastern group according to the links I have read.

 

[Skyhunter]

I wonder if Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld will feel pressure/urgency to go to war in Iran or N Korea before he leaves office.

I wonder if they plan on doing this after they leave office. I mean they and their friends have thousands of mercenaries out there who will be looking for something to do, and . . . .

The http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061009/lindorff should be in the Persian Gulf about a week before the US mid-term election.

 

[Astronuc]

I started reading Bob Woodward's book, which lays out how Bush collected Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, et al prior to and during the early part of the administration. I do have to agree with Armitage's assessment of Clinton's foreign policy. 'Ad hoc' is putting it mildly and politely. IMO, Clinton's foreign policy was 'piss poor'.

 

[Cyrus]

I might buy the book for my ipod and listen to it in the car on my way to school. Its about 7 hours long, so I think I could listen to it in about a week. It's only about 18 bucks.

 

[edward]

I started reading Bob Woodward's book, which lays out how Bush collected Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, et al prior to and during the early part of the administration. I do have to agree with Armitage's assessment of Clinton's foreign policy. 'Ad hoc' is putting it mildly and politely. IMO, Clinton's foreign policy was 'piss poor'.

A lot of evidence seems to indicate it was someone other than Bush who did the gathering. Sometimes I think Bush is just a pawn who needs handlers.

 

[Astronuc]

I just read the chapter where Adm Vern Clark tells Rumsfeld (and later Cheney) about avoiding the same mistakes that Clinton made vis-a-vis Kosovo. Clinton's advisors optimistically informed Clinton that the US could bomb the Serbian Army and Milosevic and it would be 'over in 48 hrs', then in '72 hrs' when Milosevic would cave. It lasted 78 days. The initial optimism was so high that the advisors had a 72 hr strike plan, but nothing afterward.

The point was not to make the same mistake.

Well, if one remembers, the invasion of Iraq lasted a few days, and the US military then took control of Baghdad. The Iraq War is now in day 1310. And it will continue as long as the US occupies the country.

Chapter 6 mentions how Tenet (Dir. CIA) and Cober Black went to Rice on July 20, 2001 with urgent concern that al Qaida and bin Laden were planning to attack US interests and possibly somewhere in the US. Rice did not take it seriously, and apparently didn't think it important to bring it to the president. A plan to go after bin Laden put developed for delivery to the president by Sept 10, 2001. Hmmm.

What should have happened was an assessment of vulnerability, based on available intelligence at the time. It was clear that al Qaida was at that point targeting planes for hijacking and the taking of hostages. A reflection on the 1970's when terrorists were hijacking planes would have been appropriate.

Two matters should have been immediately addressed - security at US airports and security of aircaft. There was a policy that no-one gets into the cockpit, and that should have been reinforced from FAA on down. But nothing happened.

 

[Amp1]

Nice observation Astronuc,

What should have happened was an assessment of vulnerability, based on available intelligence at the time. It was clear that al Qaida was at that point targeting planes for hijacking and the taking of hostages. A reflection on the 1970's when terrorists were hijacking planes would have been appropriate.

I'm 'bout to start a thread reflecting on, I believe, the claim that Iraq would not devolve into another Vietman in the lead up before the invasion and some time afterwards. Funny how the objections to those comparisons have vanished.

 

[Astronuc]

It was an observation I made late 2000, and in March, 2001, I sent an email to someone in this regard. People in Washington didn't want to believe there was a significant potential danger. I didn't know that Tenet and Black were coming to similar conclusions. I thought everyone in the administration had their blinders on - except for Saddam Hussein.

 

[Cyrus]

I finished about 1/3 of the book today on my ipod, not particularly thrilled from it. Most of it was already known to me.

 

[Astronuc]

Did you read the end of chapter 12 with quote from Abizaid "these ****** in Washington have got no idea what they are doing, . . . ." in reference to planning the War in Iraq.

And then Cheney forced Garner to get rid a top expert (Tom Warrick) who was helping Garner's team to plan for the stabilization and security in Iraq immediately after the invasion. Now why is that? Because this guy had been critical Chalabi - who has since been discredited. Chalabi was apparently seen as a candidate to head Iraq (with the Iraqi National Congress) after the war - and ostensibly he would have been very friendly with Bush and Cheney. I have to wonder if Cheney was plotting to secure oil deals for Halliburton and other oil companies in post-war Iraq. It seems Scooter Libby was involved in this little scandal.

Basically the plans for the invasion and post-invasion were and have been undermined by several people in the Bush administration.

Oh, and there is the Army intelligence officer, Col Steve Peterson, who expressed concern over the potential for insurgency after the invasion. His concerns were considered 1) contradictory to all the planning done, and 2) 'not very feasible'. Well - he hit the nail right smack on the head. What is happening in Iraq right now is exactly what Peterson was concerned about.

Bascially Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al lost Iraq in the very beginning because they didn't plan and various administration personnel undermined the plans that did exist. As far as I can tell from the book, a majority of generals knew they needed twice the number of troops to secure the country. As it was, with the 200 - 250 thousand troop number, they could secure about 26 or so of the major cities, but that leaves larger areas in which the insurgency can operate.

 

[Cyrus]

The only thing interesting so far is how little Bush knew before being president on world affairs. I.e., he knew nothing.

I was not aware prince Bandar had such an influence.

 

[Astronuc]

The only thing interesting so far is how little Bush knew before being president on world affairs. I.e., he knew nothing.

I have to wonder what Bush really does know, or understand. The first meeting with Garner - it appears that Bush is oblivious. He is planning to invade a country, in four weeks, and they still haven't figured out how Iraq would be governed, or the disposition of Iraqi military, or how they would establish internal security, . . . and Bush was not bothered by this, or something so simple and obvious was completely over Bush's head. Bush comes off as totally clueless.

I was not aware prince Bandar had such an influence.

He is one of the major players in the world.

 

[Astronuc]

Interesting coincidence - Frontline's "The Lost Year in Iraq" seems to run parallel with Woodward's book "State of Denial".

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/yeariniraq/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/yeariniraq/interviews/


In Woodward's book, Chapter 18-20 are key to understanding the current situation. Garner wanted to use the lower level Baath Party members and military as the means to provide security and reconstruction. However, Bremer, under orders from Rumsfeld et al, instituted a policy of completely eliminating any Baath members or military officers. Garner had told Rumsfeld and Bremer that it was dangerous (these people needed to feed their families), and that about 50,000 Baath members and about 300,000 former military would simply go underground. All the US needed to do was remove the top layer and fund the lower level people - which made sense. This was the policy in Japan and Germany following WWII.

So it seems Rumsfeld (and a few others) has undermined the recovery in Iraq all along! And Bush has been and apparently still is oblivious.


Bremer believes, overall, the CPA achieved a lot. Of course he does. According to Bremer,

"We put the Iraqis on the right path to a better political future and they now have, certainly, the right plans to rebuild their economy."

Wrong! The CPA went down the wrong path, and the result is the large number of unnecessary Iraqi deaths. If the Iraqis recover, it will be in spite of Bremer and Rumsfeld, and the occupation.

 

[Cyrus]

Im done with 2/3 of the book now, and I am still waiting to read something I did not already know...

I should have stuck to my gut and bought Fiasco by Ricks. I'll buy that one next. So far, this book, well...sucks.

 

[Astronuc]

Im done with 2/3 of the book now, and I am still waiting to read something I did not already know...

So, does this imply that what Woodward has written has already been told or written elsewhere? Bits and pieces have been mentioned in the Times and Post, but I think Woodward is the first to put it together in one source, no? And there are still things missing!

Has anyone read Bremer's book?

 

[Cyrus]

I would say that I knew a good 99.9% of this book before reading it. If you watch as much charlie Rose as I do, you would have heard all of this long ago.

This book is sadly not what I was expecting from Woodward.

I've heard all this stuff from Generals and the like on Rose months ago.

Actually, no. Thomas Ricks beat him to it (Washington Post)- and that will be the next book I get (And it looks like a better book too).

I don't read the newspaper, no time. I watch the news on Tv instead.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Rose, Meet the Press, This Week, The News Hour, Washington Week...

If you listen to hate radio then it would probably be Earth shattering.

 

[Astronuc]

I don't watch much TV anymore - mostly I read - I have a long list of books to read.
I used to watch Rose almost every night, and occassionally This Week, The News Hour, and Washington Week. I eventually got frustrated with what was not being reported.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/interviews/garner.html
This interview was conducted on July 17, 2003.

So if this has been reported and is not news, why are Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al still in office? It's mind-boggling. Might as well have an organized crime syndicate running the country. Oh . . . maybe we do.

It's amazing when Rumsfeld is blubbering about he's doing the best he can, when clearly he is ignoring contrary advice and is actually undermining the effort in Iraq. And he doesn't tell the president - who is his boss?!

Then again, the president doesn't seem he really wants to know what's going on.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

In short, it is all as bad as we predicted and have said all along.

I guess we're in the advanced class.

 

[Astronuc]

That it's been going wrong from the beginning and has slowly been going wrong - is utterly astounding.

How Iraq came home to haunt America
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1928670,00.html

For months doubts over Iraq have risen along with the death toll. Last week a tipping point was reached as political leaders in Washington and London began openly to think the unthinkable: that the war was lost.

Colonel Tom Vail is planning a road trip around the United States. It is his last, sad duty before returning to his family from eastern Baghdad. For when the commander of the 4th Brigade of the 101st Airborne arrives back in the States, it will be with videos of the memorial services held in Baghdad for each of his fallen soldiers to give to the families of the dead men.

He knows that some of the families will not want to see him, and he understands. Grief works in different ways, he says. For others, however, it will be an opportunity to talk, to learn something, he hopes, of the inexplicable nature of their children's deaths.

So, when he has a moment, when he is not driving round the battlefield that is eastern Baghdad, Vail examines the map and plans his flights and his car hire. And he wonders at the reception he will receive - a messenger of death, bringing the war back from Iraq to the home front.

For when Vail and his soldiers return, it will be in the knowledge that the United States that they are going home to is not the one that they left. That in their year-long absence a seismic shift has occurred in support for the war in Iraq. And that the deaths that Colonel Vail must carry back with him to grieving families - deaths that once seemed to Americans to be a necessary cost - now seem to the majority a dreadful and pointless waste.

Care of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld.

In October of 2004, the CIA identified four groups participating in the insurgency: 1) former Baathists, 2) foreign fighters (al Qaida, . . .), 3) Iraqi nationalists (who hate the occupation, and who are unemployed, without services, can't feed their families, are at risk from reprisals by other groups in Iraq), and tribal members angry over the death of family members and the heavy-handed door kicking of the coalitions military (not to mention Abu Grahib, the killing of innocent civilians, raping of women, . . .) (ref: State of Denial, Ch 24) - Parenthetical comments are mine.

Bush had a one-on-one meeting with the president, and the request of the president, and . . . Rumsfeld was livid!?

I guess there are times (rare as it seems to be) when Rumsfeld actually understands that he is NOT president, as much as he tries to be. Similarly with Cheney.

 

[Astronuc]

Meanwhile, across the pond -

Britain 'risking defeat in Afghanistan'
Mark Townsend and Peter Beaumont
The Observer, Sunday October 22, 2006
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1928583,00.html

Field Marshal Sir Peter Inge, the former head of Britain's armed forces, has broken ranks to launch an attack on the current military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, warning that British forces risk defeat in Afghanistan.

In one of the strongest interventions in the conduct of the War on Terror, Inge also charged a lack of any 'clear strategy' guiding British operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

His comments came as President George Bush met his military and political officials to consider fresh tactics over Iraq, amid a mood of crisis in Washington over the violence.

The remarks by the former chief of the defence staff, who also served on the Butler Commission into intelligence failures in Iraq, follow those by the present head of the British Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, who warned that the presence of British troops in Iraq had 'exacerbated' security problems in the country.

Inge's intervention, coming amid growing speculation about Britain's exit strategy from Iraq, is the first criticism of operations by a former head of the British army. His comments, made at a meeting of European experts on Tuesday and published here for the first time, reflect the growing dismay among senior military officers and civil servants involved in defence and foreign affairs, that in the critical areas of Afghanistan and Iraq Britain lacked clear foreign and defence policies separate from the US.

Well, the British forces have been suffering like the US forces. Are there two Rumsfelds on the lose?

 

[Astronuc]

Im done with 2/3 of the book now, and I am still waiting to read something I did not already know...

I should have stuck to my gut and bought Fiasco by Ricks.

Ricks is interviewed in Frontline's - "The Lost Year in Iraq".
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/yeariniraq/view/

One year later, as Bremer made a secret exit to evade insurgent attacks, the group left behind a thriving insurgency, economic collapse and much of its idealism. "Our grand initiative there [was] to bring democracy to Iraq," says Rajiv Chandrasekaran, former Baghdad bureau chief for The Washington Post. Instead, says Chandrasekaran, "we were leaving with our tail between our legs."

Chapter 2 is about Bremer being picked by Rumsfeld and the White House to replace Garner, becuase Garner was moving to quickly and independently to restore Iraq. Garner knew people there and knew what was going on. On the other hand, Bremer, the managing director of Kissinger Associates had no experience or ideas about the middle east - which apparently was perfect for Bush and team.

Ricks talks about the staff (children's crusade) that Bremer was putting together - former Republican campaign workers, White House interns, Heritage Foundation members, who were vetted by the White House liaison to the Pentagon. Chandrasekaran mentions that the hiring process involved questions that would have 'landed a private sector employer in jail," or at least in court. The hires were asked about their views on Rowe v Wade, whether they believed in capital punishment, . . . "a man of Middle Eastern decent was asked if he was Muslim or Christian" , people were asked for whom they voted for president!


Col. Thomas Hammes talks about a 25 yr old man (on his first job out of college) who was responsible for strategic planning of prisons. Hammes asked how many were working with this kid. The kid replies that there are four others. Hammes remarked that seemed small. The kid said, "yeah but we're really tight 'cause we're frat brothers." This in a nation that the US has just about destroyed.

Chapter 3 - "The Lost Year in Iraq" - Bremer just doesn't remember Garner and a CIA official challenging the de-Baathification plan. The first CPA order given was de-Baathification - and Bremer can't remember one of the most significant meetings in which it was challenged. Bremer is an idiot! But then he's Bush's idiot.

General Sachez was ordered to control the insurgency, so he has his troops round up young Iraqis men (it doesn't matter if they are invovled in the insurgency or not), who are then sent to Abu Graib (most notorious of Saddam Husseins prisons) and several other prisons. If these young men were neutral going into prison, they were anti-American coming out. Bremer and Sanchez blew it - they treated the Iraqis just like Saddam Hussein did.

Interview with Ricks:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/yeariniraq/interviews/ricks.html

A Pentagon correspondent for The Washington Post, Thomas Ricks is the author of Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq. He is harshly critical of the war plan and lack of a postwar plan for Iraq, calling it "the worst war plan in American history." Here he details the mistakes the U.S. made that fueled the insurgency; explains why unity of civilian/military command in Baghdad was critical; and argues that the battle for Baghdad and the future of the country is occurring now, in 2006. This is the edited transcript of an interview conducted on June 28, 2006.

Ricks

The biggest single tactical mistake probably in the fall of 2003 was the big cordon-and-sweep operations: Go out and round up all the military-age males in this area and ship them out of here, and send them down to Abu Ghraib, and stuff Abu Ghraib with tens of thousands of Iraqis who may have been neutral about the Americans when they went in but weren't when they came out.

That also swamps the intelligence apparatus. The purpose of a lot of this operation was to get better intelligence: Who was the insurgent? When you go out and you attack friend and foe and neutral by sweeping them all up, you send a signal: We don't even know who our friends and our enemies are. Then when they get to Abu Ghraib, the interrogators were so overwhelmed by this flood of people coming in that even hard-core people weren't interviewed for 90 days after they were captured. The rule of thumb on counterinsurgency is you must conduct your interrogations within 24 hours of capture; otherwise the information goes stale and is useless. And we weren't [interrogating] them for 90 days.

As you say, an insurgency training ground.

What a great opportunity. You've got a bunch of guys who aren't happy with the situation, who have been captured by the Americans, put bags on their heads, might have been beaten, might have had their dignity offended in a country where dignity is a core value. They've got nothing to do, and they're sitting on their hands. Here's an Al Qaeda guy, and here's 1,000's Iraqis sitting here with nothing to do. But what an opportunity we gave them.

As far as I know, even now we don't segregate prisoners by hard-core Al Qaeda, probable insurgent, probably neutral. We have them all intermingled. It's professionally inattentive in a way that is bothersome, because this is a clear lesson from other insurgencies. You have to first of all treat your prisoners well -- a key lesson in insurgencies. But also, you need to pay attention to the politics of your prisoners. ...

And there was the torture and humiliation as shown in pictures around the world.

 

[Astronuc]

I like Chuck Hagel, and although I don't necessarily agree with him on some issues, I do appreciate his views on the war in Iraq.

From Chapter 36 (page 39-400) of Woodward's "State of Denial" -

Hadley invited him [Hagel] down to the White House . . . Hagel, who is an earnest student of foreign policy, . . . .

Hadley met Hagel with a team of NSC staffers.

I am pleased to see that Hagel is serious about foreign policy, or at least is a serious student of the subject.

He [Hagel] left unsatisfied and gave an interview to U.S. News & World Report saying, "Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality."

Hadley and others at the White House were angry, but Hagel thought it was one of the clearest things he had ever said. His private assessment was worse: The administration had no strategic thinker. Rice was weak. The miliary was being emasculated and severely damaged by uniformed sycophants.

http://hagel.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Biography.Home

Hagel served in Vietnam with his brother Tom in 1968. They served side by side as infantry squad leaders with the U.S. Army’s 9th Infantry Division. Hagel earned many military decorations and honors, including two Purple Hearts.

Like Jack Murtha, he's been there, and he can see through the BS.

 

[Astronuc]

Still in Denial!

Bush 'dissatisfied' with Iraq war
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6084902.stm

US President George W Bush says he is unhappy with the progress of the war in Iraq, admitting that a recent upsurge in violence is a "serious concern".

"I know many Americans are not satisfied with the situation in Iraq," he said. "I'm not satisfied either."

But Mr Bush ruled out a fixed timetable for withdrawing US troops, adding that victory there was vital to US security.

His comments come two weeks ahead of crucial US mid-term elections, and amid public unease over US policy in Iraq.

In what the BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says is an unusual departure from normal practice, the US president began the press conference at the White House by outlining recent setbacks in Iraq.

He said the deaths of 93 US troops and 300 Iraqi security personnel in the last month were of "serious concern" to him.

Civilians had suffered "unspeakable violence at the hands of the terrorists, insurgents, illegal militias, armed groups and criminals," he said.

He warned that if Iraq became a failed state, extremists could gain access to oil wealth and launch fresh attacks.

If the US was not successful in Iraq, he said, extremists could use it as a base from which to try to establish a "radical empire from Spain to Indonesia".

'Tough job'

Mr Bush defended the role of Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who has faced a barrage of criticism for the way the Iraq war has been fought.

"I'm satisfied with how he's done all his jobs," Mr Bush said, calling Mr Rumsfeld "a smart, tough, capable administrator".

With opinion polls showing growing doubt over the US role in Iraq, Mr Bush said: "We cannot allow our dissatisfaction to turn into disillusionment about our purpose in this war."

"We're winning and we will win, unless we leave before the job is done," he said.

He said the administration's Iraq goals there had not changed, and that setting a fixed timetable for withdrawal "means defeat", but added that the US was constantly adapting its tactics.

Timeframe hostage to fortune in Iraq
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6080660.stm

The top US general in Iraq George Casey and the US ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad have both offered hostages to fortune by predicting an improvement in Iraq in 12-18 months.

From the heart of the "helluva mess" that is Iraq today, in the reported words of former US Secretary of State James Baker, they laid out their security and political cases that better days lie ahead.

"Success is possible", said the ambassador, adding that the Iraqi leadership "must step up to achieve key political milestones".

These "benchmarks" and "milestones" are significant. They are the new sticks to go along with the carrot of support. The line now is that it is up to the Iraqis to sort out their problems. One can foresee that the next stage, if failure follows, would be for the US to start laying the blame.

Iraqi forces

General Casey said that the Iraqi forces were "75%" along the way towards taking over responsibility (with US back-up) and this, he suggested, might be achieved within the 18 month period.

Ambassador Khalilzad, who is more of a player in Iraqi politics than a traditional diplomat, talked of a "national compact" being in place by the end of the year.

He did not say why, with the constitution already approved, a national compact was needed. He did not need to.

But it would contain, he said, a way of sharing oil wealth that "united the country", a constitutional amendment to give better democratic rights (he did not specify how), a reconciliation commission and reform of the interior ministry.

Political leaders, including Moqtada al-Sadr - leader of the troublesome Mehdi army militia - had promised to tackle the violence and an effort was being made to get Sunni insurgents reconciled with the system.

All this did not amount to a change in strategy in Iraq, it seems, but was evidence of a constantly changing shift in tactics.

Incidentally, for those on Mr Baker's Iraq Study Group, which is expected to report its recommendations on Iraq in December, there were harsh words for Syria and Iran. The Iraq Study Group is reported to be suggesting that both be brought into help but Mr Khalilzad dismissed them and General Casey called them "hostile".

Bush enters Cheney 'torture row'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6093298.stm

US President George Bush has reiterated his position that the US administration does not condone torture, following comments by Vice-President Dick Cheney.

In an interview, Mr Cheney agreed that "a dunk in the water" for terrorism suspects during questioning in order to save American lives was a "no-brainer".

His comments have provoked outrage from anti-torture and human rights groups.

When asked about the remark, President Bush said that the United States does not use torture and was not going to.

Of course not. Bush and Cheney just redefine torture as interrogation. Moreover, the US government as security forces of other countries do the torturing. One reason that US hires mercenaries in Iraq is that they are not the government, although they are paid. While the Bush administration likes to use technicalities, they in effect use torture.

 

[Astronuc]

Rice’s Counselor Gives Advice Others May Not Want to Hear
By HELENE COOPER and DAVID E. SANGER (NYTimes)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/28/world/28zelikow.html

WASHINGTON, Oct. 27 — For the last 18 months, Philip D. Zelikow has churned out confidential memorandums and proposals for his boss and close friend, Condoleezza Rice, that often depart sharply from the Bush administration’s current line.

One described the potential for Iraq to become a “catastrophic failure.” Another, among several that have come to light in recent weeks, was an early call for changes in a detention policy that many in the State Department believed was doing tremendous harm to the United States.

Others have proposed new diplomatic initiatives toward North Korea and the Middle East, and one went as far as to call for a reconsideration of the phrase “war on terror” because it alienated many Muslims — an idea that quickly fizzled after opposition from the White House.

Such ideas would have found a more natural home under President George H. W. Bush, for whom Mr. Zelikow and Ms. Rice worked on the staff of the National Security Council. They reflect a sense that American influence is perishable, and can be damaged by overreaching, as allies and other partners react against decisions made in Washington. They form a kind of foreign policy realism that was eclipsed in Mr. Bush’s first term, in favor of a more ideological, unilateral ethos, but that has made something of a comeback in his second term.

Whether Mr. Zelikow, 52, is giving voice to Ms. Rice’s private views, or simply serving as an in-house contrarian, remains unclear. Some of his ideas have become policy: he had called for the closure of secret prisons run by the Central Intelligence Agency a year before the Supreme Court decision that prodded the Bush administration to empty them.

Zelikow made several trips over the past few years in order to assess the situation in Iraq. He is frequently mentioned in the latter third of Woodward's book.

 

[Astronuc]

Playing the Blame Game on Iraq
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6398880

All Things Considered, October 28, 2006 · President Bush and U.S. commanders have conceded lately that things are getting worse in Iraq. But some military officers fear the administration may be trying to shift responsibility their way. Army Times reporter Sean Naylor, who has reported on their fears, talks with Debbie Elliott.

So much for supporting the troops. "Whatever happened to 'the buck stops here'"?

Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Feith were involved in policy, funding, decision making, and to some extent Powell and Rice. They are the ones, in addition to president Bush, who made the decision to go to war, who withheld vital support to the troops, and withheld support for the reconstruction. Bush has shown a considerable LACK of leadearship throughout, and he allowed Rumsfeld and Cheney too much authority.

Meanwhile -

Bush's Iraq Team Switches Its Rhetoric
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6369913

All Things Considered, October 23, 2006 · NPR Senior News Analyst Daniel Schorr comments on a change in rhetoric from the Bush administration. Words like "timetable," "benchmark," and "phased withdrawal" have crept into official discourse about the U.S. strategy in Iraq.

White House Downplays 'Staying the Course'
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6369925

Colin Powell, In His Own Words
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6400841
By Daniel Schorr


Baghdad Finally Calm Under Massive U.S. Presence
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6394177
by Jamie Tarabay

All Things Considered, October 27, 2006 · In Baghdad, a daytime curfew and a massive American street presence ensured a peaceful end to a violent week, in which top officials argued over timelines and security and a U.S. soldier went missing.

Monday, a U.S. soldier of Iraqi descent traveled outside the fortified Green Zone to spend the holiday with Iraqi relatives. His kidnapping prompted a major search by U.S. forces across Baghdad.

"We have detained a number of personnel for possible connection with, or knowledge of, this kidnapping," U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. Bill Caldwell said. "We're using all assets in our arsenal to find this American soldier."

This week, Iraqis celebrated Eid al-Fitr, marking the end of the holy month of Ramadan -- which was also an extremely bloody span of time in Iraq. On average, 40 Iraqis died each day, with more than 300 Iraqi soldiers and police killed.

The U.S. military marked a grim milestone, with at least 96 service members killed this month, the highest death toll since last October.

 

[Astronuc]

U.S. Is Said to Fail in Tracking Arms for Iraqis
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/30/world/middleeast/30reconstruct.html

The American military has not properly tracked hundreds of thousands of weapons intended for Iraqi security forces and has failed to provide spare parts, maintenance personnel or even repair manuals for most of the weapons given to the Iraqis, a federal report released Sunday has concluded.

The report was undertaken at the request of Senator John W. Warner, the Virginia Republican who is the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and who recently expressed an assessment far darker than the Bush administration’s on the situation in Iraq.

Mr. Warner sent his request in May to a federal oversight agency, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. He also asked the inspector general to examine whether Iraqi security forces were developing a logistics operation capable of sustaining the hundreds of thousands of troops and police officers the American military says it has trained.

The answers came Sunday from the inspector general’s office, which found major discrepancies in American military records on where thousands of 9-millimeter pistols and hundreds of assault rifles and other weapons have ended up. The American military did not even take the elementary step of recording the serial numbers of nearly half a million weapons provided to Iraqis, the inspector general found, making it impossible to track or identify any that might be in the wrong hands.

Exactly where untracked weapons could end up — and whether some have been used against American soldiers — were not examined in the report, although black-market arms dealers thrive on the streets of Baghdad, and official Iraq Army and police uniforms can easily be purchased as well, presumably because government shipments are intercepted or otherwise corrupted.

And they wonder why the insurgency has grown stronger. Then there is the matter that some Iraqi police and military may actually be militia members.