#3
Secular muslims may be quite nice, I've known a few iranian expats that were great guys. Its the practicing ones you gotta watch out for. They'll put a jihad on ya before you know what hit ya.
The announcement that retired Army chief of staff Eric Shinseki will be President-elect Barack Obama's nominee for secretary of veterans affairs has energized one of the most enduring myths of the Bush presidency. Among the media coverage in recent days: Gen. Shinseki "clashed with the Bush administration on its Iraq war strategy" (Associated Press). In "questioning the Pentagon's Iraq war strategy" (The Post), Shinseki "warn[ed] that far more troops would be needed than the Pentagon had committed" (New York Times). For his candor, he was "vilified" (Boston Globe) by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Shinseki has a chance during his confirmation hearings to set the record straight: None of those statements is correct.
The source of the Shinseki narrative was testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February 2003, on the eve of the Iraq war. Shinseki and Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan had this exchange:
Levin: "General Shinseki, could you give us some idea as to the magnitude of the Army's force requirement for an occupation of Iraq following a successful completion of the war?"
Shinseki: "In specific numbers, I would have to rely on combatant commanders' exact requirements. But I think --"
Levin: "How about a range?"
Shinseki: "I would say that what's been mobilized to this point -- something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required."
From this impromptu exchange, a legend has grown: Shinseki was a stalwart opponent of the "Rumsfeld" war plan. He voiced those concerns and, after being "snubbed" by Pentagon officials (Los Angeles Times), was forced from office (CBS radio affiliate WTOP-Washington).
Here are some facts: First, Shinseki, as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, supported the war plan. The head of U.S. Central Command, Gen. Tommy Franks, and his planning staff presented their approach to the Joint Chiefs and their staffs during the development of the plan. There was ample opportunity for the chiefs to express concerns and propose alternatives. There is no record of Shinseki having objected.
Shinseki also met with the commander in chief himself to discuss the plan. On at least one occasion at the White House, President Bush asked each member of the Joint Chiefs, including Shinseki, whether he believed the Iraq war plan was adequate to the objectives. Each said it was.
Further, Shinseki was not forced from office. He retired on time in June 2003, with the full honors due a retiring chief of staff of the U.S. Army. Much has been made of the fact that the secretary of defense did not attend Shinseki's retirement. The retiree determines who is included in the ceremony. The secretary, when included, is there by invitation. For whatever reason, and with an explanation neither required nor sought, Shinseki did not ask the secretary to speak or to attend.
But these elements are incidental to the central assertion -- that Shinseki was right about basic U.S. force levels needed in post-conflict Iraq. Even allowing that Shinseki was under pressure to respond to a U.S. senator after trying to avoid answering, his estimate turned out to be far from the number of forces actually employed. "Several hundred thousands of soldiers" suggests Shinseki believed 300,000 troops would be needed for post-conflict Iraq. As it happens, and Shinseki would have known this, as many as 400,000 troops were in the pipeline for use during major conflict operations. But nowhere near that number was used. After major conflict operations ended, the number that remained in country settled around 150,000 to 160,000 (about half of Shinseki's guesstimate). Ultimately, commanders brought troop levels down to about 135,000 on the belief that a relatively lighter U.S. footprint would minimize the perception of occupation.
As the insurgency grew, and as Iraqi security forces grew in strength and capability, there was continual assessment and adjustment of the number of U.S. forces. In fact, at least twice before the January 2007 surge, force levels rose as high or nearly as high as the surge level of 165,000.
At no time, even as a surge was being considered, did anyone recommend doubling U.S. forces to the "several hundred thousand" troops Shinseki said might be needed. That's fine; conflict is all about adjusting to conditions on the ground, and his comments were made without knowing those conditions. But the fact remains that the 2007 surge level of 165,000 was much closer to the range suggested by Franks, Gen. John Abizaid (then head of U.S. Central Command) and Gen. George Casey (the current Army chief of staff), 135,000 to 160,000, than to the 300,000 figure Shinseki provided Levin.
Shinseki has remained silent about the clash that never was. Some interpret that as honorable; he does not want to comment on relations with his prior boss. To many others, though, his silence has been deafening. He has benefited immeasurably from it, even as Rumsfeld has been grossly maligned. Rumsfeld, too, has been quiet -- except for the times he defended Shinseki for having been put in a tough spot and forced to answer a question off the cuff during a congressional hearing.
Eric Shinseki served his country with distinction and is on the cusp of having another opportunity to do so. He also has a chance to right an egregious wrong. During his confirmation hearings, he can acknowledge that he did indeed support the Iraq war plan; that he had many opportunities to express himself; and that he has no desire to play the role he has been assigned: hero in a legend that has little basis in fact.
Lawrence Di Rita was special assistant to the secretary of defense from 2001 to 2006.
#1
Maligned though he was, Rumsfeld was right about a lot of things. For one - "You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you wish you had." Even if the magic number actually WAS 300,000, where were they going to come from? Just like with the up-armored HUMVEES - we were not equipped for the war(s) we found ourselves in and it takes time to adapt (especially at the political pork levels.)
#2
Nicely done - but it only emphasizes the real crisis we've been in for a while: the dominance of myth and misinformation and the near-total absence of corrective and explanatory efforts by the administration.
You can add the Shinseki legend to the others - the alleged inadequacy of federal response to Katrina, the "widespread and systematic" abuse of detainees in the GWOT that can be linked to official policy, the idea that the Iraq war would be self-financing and that was a reason to launch it, and on and on.
While we're at it, let's toss in some other whoppers, which seem silly only because they were debunked by events that couldn't be hidden, er, ignored by what used to be called the press -the Jenin massacre, the post-ABM Treaty strategic arms race.
The other day I forced myself to skim a story about the latest "torture" "report". Di Rita's comment was the only one in it offering some counter-information and perspective, not to say dismissal, of the "findings".
Di Rita's efforts only underline how bizarrely distorted the info environment has become.
... Pakistan is about to become a failed state, and Iran and Turkey will be close behind. ... Pakistan's military-age population is far greater than those of other Muslim military powers in the region. With about 20 million men of military age, Pakistan today has as much manpower as Turkey and Iran combined, and by 2035 it will have half again as many.
Half the country is illiterate and three-quarters of it subsists on less than $2 a day, according to the World Bank. That is to say that Pakistan's young men are more abundant as well as cheaper than in any other country in the region. Very poor and ignorant young men, especially if their only education has been in Salafi madrassas, are very easy to enlist in military adventures.
The West at present is unable to cope with a failed state like Somalia, with less than a tenth as many military age men as Pakistan, but which nonetheless constitutes a threat to world shipping and a likely source of funding for terrorism. How can the West cope with the humiliation of Pakistan's pro-American president and the inability of its duly-constituted government to suppress Islamist elements in its army and intelligence services? For the moment, Washington will do its best to prop up its creature, Zardari, but to no avail. The alternatives will require the West to add several zeros to whatever the prevailing ceiling might be for acceptable collateral damage.
#1
Moderate Islam was the El Dorado of the diplomatic consensus. It might have been the case that Pakistan could be tethered to Western interests, or that Iran could be engaged peacefully, or that Turkey would incubate a moderate form of Islam. I considered all of this delusional, but the truth is that we shall never know. The financial crisis will sort them out first.
#2
The question is if Pakistan falls can any sections be saved?
Perhaps we should be promoting Baluchi independence so that if Pakistan falls a new state might suddenly appear rather than fall entirely into Chaos. A new state that has some ethnic fellows over in neighboring Iran to boot.
Perhaps we should be promoting the PUnjab elements in Pakistan to get therapy and join up with the Punjab state in India. Note this could be dangerous so I'd let the Indians be the judge on the wisdom of this but as far as thought experments go it should be thought through.
The NWFrontier is already part of Afghanistan and doesn't know it.
With a little work, luck, and well aimed pushes, Pakistan might simply dissolve into smaller, weaker states rather than be the huge nightmare everyone predicts.
#4
Personally I don't care at all what happens to this toilet states.....AS LONG AS THEY CAN'T INFECT ANYWHERE ELSE.
Take the Waki nukes and squash anyone that tries to give or sell them weapons of any kind then leave them to their chaos or peace or whatever they make of it.
#5
If Pakistan is smart, and they have all those extra military aged men they should pull a Saudi Arabia and find a place, someplace far, for them to go Jihad. Perhaps in Indonesia, the Philipines or Africa somewhere. Find the less zealot ones and get them into the Pak army and have them work as Peacekeepers at the UN's behest to gain experience and help pay their salaries.
#7
ION WAFF > IRANIANS [+ KURDS] ARE DOOMED: TURKEY MOVING AHEAD WITH PLANS TO DISMANTLE IRAN!? Turkey allegedly desires to connect the Azeribaijan region of Iran wid Turkey-Azeribaijan [former Soviet SSR] vee pre-planned NEW REGIONAL GENOCIDE AND DIASPORA OF 10-15 MILYUHN KURDS.
In adition to above, Turkey desires:
* The Formation of PRO-TURKEY = TURK-CENTRIC REGIONAL ECONOMIC UNION, +
* Training and MilPol support of PRO-TURKEY/TURKIC REGIONAL GOVTS + PROFESSIONAL MILFORS.
IFF TURKEY IS BEING NICE, THE KURDS MAY END UP ONLY BEING PUSHED OR FORCED INTO NORTHERN IRAQ [read, future sovereign KURDISTAN].
ALso, PAKISTANI DEFENCE FORUM > IRAN TO REFORM [Improve + Revolutionize] ITS MISSLE PRODUCTION UNITS/PROGRAMS.
This sentence is at the end of the article: Fox News will be broadcasting Mr. FloraŽs one-hour special in prime time on Jan. 10.
Since war became a geographically distant but very real way of life after Sept. 11, 2001, no Hollywood star has stepped up to support active duty U.S. military personnel and wounded veterans like Gary Sinise. There is no close second. And quietly, as is in his nature, he is becoming something akin to this generationŽs Bob Hope.
One step in conferring this worthy title on the award-winning actor, director and producer occurred last week when President Bush bestowed on him the Presidential Citizens Medal, the second highest civilian honor awarded to citizens for exemplary deeds performed in service of the nation. Previous recipients include Henry "Hank" Aaron, Muhammad Ali, Colin L. Powell and Bob Dole.
While the White House ceremony flew under the radar of most of the media, most notably the entertainment press, word has trickled out to many of his countless admirers in and out of the military. And on the occasion of him receiving the award, they want America to take in their words of praise for, as Sharon Tyk in the USO of Illinois put it, this "gallant American patriot."
Michael Yon, a Special Forces vet and the pre-eminent war journalist of our time, communicated his admiration in a dispatch from Bahrain: "Gary is a true friend of the American soldier. He does not hesitate to travel into war zones to express his admiration and personal support for those who defend us. He visits wounded soldiers, some of whom I personally know. All love him.
"Soldiers from privates to generals admire Gary for his dedication to a cause greater than any of us. Gary's dedication went much further. He personally supported sending millions of dollars worth of school and clothing supplies to Iraqi children. I saw this effort with my own eyes. Gary Sinise is a Great American."
In 2004, "Seabiscuit" author Laura Hillenbrand with Mr. Sinise founded Operation Iraqi Children, a nonprofit group dedicated to helping the U.S. military distribute school supplies in the war-stricken country. "For a lot of celebrities, charitable work equals photo opportunity and nothing more," Miss Hillenbrand wrote in an e-mail. "For Gary, giving of himself, and giving to his country, is what makes life meaningful and joyful. It is perhaps the most essential part of his character, and it is his passion."
Mr. Sinise not only "supports the troops," but he champions their mission as well. "I have seen Iraqi kids climbing on our soldiers and hugging them and kissing them," Mr. Sinise said. "I have seen their smiling faces and their attempts to say 'I love you' in broken English. The folks I saw had hope in their eyes and gratitude in their hearts for what was done for them." It continues to Page 2 at the site
#4
The Bob Hope of our time.
That's not something you hear every day.
Those are hard shoes to fill, but he sounds like he certainly deserves some recognition.
WHEN 10 young men in an inflatable lifeboat came ashore in Mumbai last month and went on a rampage with machine guns and grenades, taking hostages, setting fires and murdering men, women and children, they were initially described in The Times by many labels.
They were "militants," "gunmen," "attackers" and "assailants." Their actions, which left bodies strewn in the city's largest train station, five-star hotels, a Jewish center, a cafe and a hospital -- were described as "coordinated terrorist attacks." But the men themselves were not called terrorists.
Many readers could not understand it. "I am so offended as to why the NY Times and a number of other news organizations are calling the perpetrators 'militants,' " wrote "Bill" in a comment posted on The Times's Web site. "Murderers, or terrorists perhaps but militants? Is your PC going to get so absurd that you will refer to them as 'freedom fighters?' "
Continued on Page 49
#2
The stupidity of journalists never cease to amaze me. Attacking a civilian without any motive is terror. If an organisation or a country makes that a policy then that organisation is terrorist.
#3
Is anyone suprised? The NYT and other media has been giving their allies cover for years. Anyone remember Beslan? Where 'hostage takers' and 'gangsters' stormed that school in Russia?
The MSM really stretched itself to give them the cover they needed - and still haven't mentioned the bayonetted babies or raped pre-teen girls and boys. Nor did they ever mention that each of the 'hostage takers' were radical devout muslims following their faith.
And yes I do think it is a deliberate act on the part of the media.
#6
ION "FREEDOM FIGHTING/WAR-ARMY OF LIBERATION" PCORRECTNESS, WORLD MIL FORUM > NEPAL FORMALLY REQUESTS THE RETURN OF ONE-THIRD OF ITS FORMER TERRITORY NOW HELD BY INDIA [lost after Nepalese-British War, Treaty], PEOPLES LIBERATION ARMY FORCES IN TIBET SHOULD BE IN CHARGE/CONTROL OF SOUTHERN TIBET AGZ INDIA + INDIA IS BESIEGED: CHINA NEXT TO RISING, EXPLOSIVE "INDIA POWDER KEG".
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
