| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| WSJ Takes Bremer to the Woodshed |
| 2004-10-06 |
| Severely EFL Former viceroy L. Paul Bremer did 14 months of hard service in Iraq, so it is a special shame to see that he is now squandering that legacy by blaming others for what's gone wrong there. All the more so when he doesn't even have the history right. That's our reaction to yesterday's political tempest over quotes from Mr. Bremer faulting the Pentagon and Bush Administration for having too few troops in Iraq. To hear Mr. Bremer's version of it, he arrived in Baghdad on May 6, 2003, to find "horrid" looting and instability, and an "atmosphere of lawlessness" that was allowed to grow because "we never had enough troops on the ground" to stop it. Mr. Bremer revised his remarks slightly late Monday, saying in a statement that "I believe that we currently have sufficient troop levels in Iraq." But in a speech at DePauw University in September, Mr. Bremer said he had frequently raised the troop issue and "should have been more insistent about it," according to the local paper, adding that "the single most important change . . . would have been having more troops in Iraq at the beginning and throughout." You get the idea: Mr. Bremer isn't to blame because he was tossed into a bad situation that only got worse while his pleas for more troops were ignored. And this indeed would be a damning indictment if it were true. Trouble is, we haven't found a single other senior official involved in the war or its aftermath--in or out of uniform--who attests to Mr. Bremer's version of events. "I never heard him ask for more troops and he had many opportunities before the President to do so," one senior Administration official tells us. Or to be more precise, Mr. Bremer did finally ask for two more divisions in a June 2004 memo--that is, two weeks prior to his departure and more than a year after he arrived. Much more at the link |
| Posted by:badanov |
| #19 BTW, if anyone thinks im being hard on Bush (which i certainly am) this doesnt make a Kerry admin comforting either - while i may respect Holbrooke and Biden to some degree, at some point a Kerry admin WILL have internal disputes - it will be upto Kerry to herd the cats. I see no evidence Kerry will be any better at it than Dubya. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-10-06 5:11:46 PM |
| #18 bremer wasnt appointed by career FSO's. He was appointed by DoD with (apparently) pressure from Bush appointees at State, and MAYBE CIA. If this isnt Bush's responsibility, its certainly Rice's. Its up to the Pres and the Nat. Sec Advisor to reign in battles between DoD, State, and CIA. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-10-06 5:10:08 PM |
| #17 Both State and CIA could profit from a thorough housecleaning. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-10-06 3:31:40 PM |
| #16 Bremer definitely had limitations to his effectiveness. Getting money through the system and out onto the ground was central to HIS failings. The DoD was much more effective in this regard and built significant relationships as a result. These evaporated when the CPA/Bremmer took over and the money went to trickle speed. More BS from State if you ask me. |
| Posted by: remote man 2004-10-06 3:07:49 PM |
| #15 Faced with the closeness of the election, the leftover / fully incubated hatred & insanity of the 2000 election, and the fact that Skeery is truly dangerous to the US, I believe he is doing what must be done within the reality of what can be done, as the timeframe allows. what it sounds like youre saying, is that cause Kerry is a danger to the US, Bush is right to do whatever it takes to get reelected, including for example having appointed bremer in the first place, rather than a preferred individual. How, prey tell, did Bush and co. know in May 2003 that Kerry was going to be the nominee? Is it possible that if things had gone better in Iraq that a more hawkish Dem would have won the nomination? IF you think that Bremer is largely responsible for the mess in Iraq (and i use that word without apology, though i think its a fixable mess, and a worthwhile mess) as some on the neocon side of things have said, these become important questions. Would the US have been better off with a better CPA director than bremer, even if pissing off the State Department and UN had meant a greater likelihood of a Kerry victory? Hell, would it even have meant a Kerry victory - from the narrow political point of view, wouldnt Bush be better off having pissed off State, UN etc in May 2003, and being months farther along rebuilding Iraq and its military Iraq now? |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-10-06 1:36:40 PM |
| #14 Whether it's border security / immigration, Iran, the UN, "Ally" perfidy, etc. - it all comes down to the limitations imposed because we are in our silly season right now. I doubt that anything has been said here on RB on any of the hot topics of our day that hasn't been beaten bloody from 10 different angles by the Bush admin. No matter what recommendations a working group forwards up the chain - it gets put under the political microscope... and tested for its effect upon Bush's chances for re-election. Sad? Bad? Yes. But it's real-politik. His first term is over - and without a second term all of these hard-working people are pissing up a rope - and so are we. Faced with the closeness of the election, the leftover / fully incubated hatred & insanity of the 2000 election, and the fact that Skeery is truly dangerous to the US, I believe he is doing what must be done within the reality of what can be done, as the timeframe allows. If Bush wins - and THEN fails to address the hot issues, then he IS a failure. I'll have no difficulty admitting it - reality just is. It's the buffoons and trolls who demand microwaved results, insta-satisfaction, and politically suicidal actions who are dhimwits and jerkoffs. If it's not realistic, it's fantastic. That which does not lie within reality is, by definition, fantasy. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-10-06 12:16:15 PM |
| #13 Another knock on Bush/Bremer: it was Bremer who moved to quash the Baghdad-based western auditors' efforts to get Oil-for-Fraud documents this summer. Bremer was clearly executing the wishes of the Bush admin, who were desperate to have the UN on board for the Allawi transition and didn't want any inconvenient publicity for the UN at the time. Bush's silence on Oil-for-Fraud is unfortunate, to say the least. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-10-06 12:00:27 PM |
| #12 LH Nuanced or not. You generate both lively discourse and critical thinking. Good on ya! |
| Posted by: RN 2004-10-06 11:56:40 AM |
| #11 lol! Ok..I promise, I won't accuse you of that :-) |
| Posted by: 2b 2004-10-06 11:51:03 AM |
| #10 2b - -i do - i often rethink things, and sometimes even waiver - but then im accused of being overly NUANCED. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-10-06 11:14:47 AM |
| #9 with that in mind LH, I hope you can reconsider some of the things you've been saying :-) |
| Posted by: 2b 2004-10-06 10:00:16 AM |
| #8 Go check out belmont club Looks like we all fell for a Dowdism here. Actually, I'm not sure it even qualifies as a Dowdism - since there is no quote. In the highest journalist standards of our MSM - they simply tell us what Bremer meant. Sullivan's source for Bremer's remarks is the Washington Post which begins its story this way: 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. What Bremer actually said was: "We paid a big price for not stopping it (looting) 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." More hemorraging of MSM credibility. |
| Posted by: 2b 2004-10-06 9:55:40 AM |
| #7 rc - im expecting people to THINK, and to reconsider some of the things ive been saying here. And maybe to get beyond the partisan sniping. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-10-06 9:45:24 AM |
| #6 rc - im expecting people to THINK, and to reconsider some of the things ive been saying here. And maybe to get beyond the partisan sniping. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-10-06 9:45:22 AM |
| #5 The MSM is conveniently missing the points that: 1. Troop levels were not Mr. Bremer's business. He headed the Coalition Provisional Authority, not the U.S. Army. 2. Any American civilian there would surely liked to have been surrounded by more American troops, even if there had been 50% more there. 3. More troops may have meant more American targets and more resistance to occupation. It's not like our troops are all fluent in Arabic. 4. We don't have endless funds. 5. We do have other military interests that require troops. This is a non-story hyped up by the MSM in response to Bremer's ill-considered comments on the Monday Morning Quarterback lecture circuit. |
| Posted by: Tom 2004-10-06 9:42:52 AM |
| #4 You expecting an ovation? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-10-06 9:41:04 AM |
| #3 CLASS=ED HREF="http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.asp?HC=&D=5/1/2003&ID=13719"> Yup, yours truely expressed concern when Bremer was appointed. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-10-06 9:27:36 AM |
| #2 it would also be interesting to go back to when he was appointed, and see what the comments here were. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-10-06 9:23:56 AM |
| #1 dare i ask who appointed Bremer? |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-10-06 9:23:14 AM |