That CNN poll you linked to is interesting - about halfway throught the article it says that the majority of information Iraqis have about US soldiers in Iraq is secondhand, from pan-Arabic news stations, etc. Interesting.

I don't honestly know whether Donald Rumsfeld should resign.

I have to agree. I've been a supporter of this war, but I think Rummy is now more a burden than an asset in its prosecution, and it's not just about Abu Ghraib either. I could forgive Rumsfeld for the initial miscalculations regarding the troop strength required to effect the occupation (and, later, to put down the rising insurgency), but what I can't forgive is the obstinate refusal to address or even acknowledge such miscalculations, even in light of the obvious consequences.

A question if I may: will, on the occasion of the turnover of control of Iraq to Iraq on June 30, responsibility for managing Iraq be moved from the US DOD? Will it transfer to the Iraq Governing Council? Will it transfer to the US Dept of State? To the UN (ie; Brahimi)?

If so, doesn't Rummy exit the "rebuilding" phase of the campaign and return the managing what he seems to be good at, namely, security?

At this late date, what good does Rummy's resignation do? It would not help the admin in the prison scandal;it simply increases the perception of weakness. Perversely, at this point, it would probably undermine the argument that the prison problems were "just the acts of a few bad apples." Of course, my inner Machiavelli and what I think is "right" are totally at war right now, because Rumsfeld, as architect and advocate of the "we don't need so many troops" argument, is the man most responsible (other than W) for the recent Iraqi problems.

Drezner has made it clear that his belief is that Rummy's main failing is the failure to provide sufficient troops for statebuilding. If the departure of Rumsfeld meant that troop strength in Iraq was going to be dramatically increased so that there is indeed "security" in Iraq in the eye of the Iraqi people, then Rummy should go. If we're just going to get the same old crappy policy with a different guy in charge,the change in face is not worth the disruption. Better to wait for the opportunity to remove the policymaker in chief.

Why would having more troops on the ground make us more popular? This doesn't accord with human nature as I understand it, which is to resent 18-year-old foreigners who don't speak your language, carry guns, and have a lot more money than you do. Certainly close daily contact with Israeli soldiers, and the maintenance of fairly tight security, hasn't made the Palestinians into big fans of those soldiers.

That is a great point, y81. The same thing happens in Indian-administered Kashmir, where the troops are resented even as locals fear violence from militants.

This time, instead of stating it, I'll ask it -

What makes you think Rumsfeld resigning will lead to BETTER policy?

Won't his resignation be played as a head rolling for the mistreatement of Iraqi prisoners?

Doesn't that undermine the United States' position that detainees are not POW's and therefore can be asked more than "Name, rank & serial number"?

Doesn't a Rumsfeld resignation, by empowering the President's harshest critics the most, make it more likely that the policy which follows will be weaker, not stronger?

I just don't see how Rumsfeld stepping down makes success in Iraq more likely ...

"And he said all of this was done without the knowledge of their superiors in the Army chain of command.

“Our command would have slammed us,” he said. “They believe in doing the right thing. If they saw what was going on, there would be hell to pay.”
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&u=/latimests/20040514/ts_latimes/abughraibguardpaintsharrowingportraitofabuse&printer=1

This scandel _was_ the doing of a handful of renegade mps, who intentionally hid it from their superiors. How that translates into the sec def resigning I dont get. Here's the bottom line, we have a Commander in Chief. He will choose his generals and his cabinet to run this war. Its is not our place or the COngress to do so. If we dont like it, there is an election in November. Its a very bad precident to start second guessing the CICs choice of commanders in a war. Believe me, Congress is certainly not above clamoring for a new general or new joint chiefs at every military set back from here to Christmas. This is a bad kettle of fish to open up. Let our commander choose his instruments.

There still seems to be strong U.S. support for Rummy. The cries for his head come mostly from political players.

But support in the U.S. doesn't appear to matter as much to a successful PR campaign in Iraq as does support worldwide, and particulary in the mid-east. This is where removing Rumsfeld could have merit, even if the same "crappy" policy continues.

MB, I don't think we're choosing who runs this war, we're just expressing our opinions & making our judgement calls, at least 'til Nov.

Not at all scientific, but discussions last week with the group of Marine officers I work with (I'm a reservist)--who are all being sent to Iraq to help train the ICDC--generally felt Rumsfeld should resign. Their reasoning (and this group included several officers who had worked in the Pentagon):

First, he is disliked for being arrogant, abrasive, and dishonest. He shoots messengers and cannot stand anything but the party line.

Second, and most important for a Marine officer, he is the boss and the boss takes responsibility, period. Don't like that, don't take the job. (I admit from experience that this may be a particularly Marine mindset, but, there you go.)

Excellent post, excellent comments. Cheers, lancer

What, you expected this to be easy?

I'm afraid Daniel's editor has it correct.

What's most dismaying to me is how many conservatives thought this would be a cakewalk, and are now so disappointed that it's been -- gasp! -- difficult. I really thought that conservatives would have been more clear-sighted than liberals. Not the case, apparently.

Let's take Daniel's prime example:

The fact that I found most depressing over the past six weeks was the utter failure of the U.S.-trained Iraqi security forces to maintain their positions in the face of insurgent attacks, leading to a partial breakdown of order.

So, let me get this straight -- Daniel is upset because in less than a year we haven't been able to reconstitute the Iraqi security forces as a fully effective force?!?!! Hell, Daniel, did you see what the Iraqi security forces were like BEFORE WE GOT THERE??? There was a good reason we practically strolled into Baghdad, you know! We're almost starting from scratch here. Moreover, the reconstitution of the security forces has basically just begun. I suppose Daniel would say: "but we should have thrown enough resources out there to fully train (up to Western standards) 200,000 security personnel in 8 months". Come on - you couldn't do that even in the United States (with all of its facilities already in place), much less starting in Iraq where there isn't even any place to train them (which is why we're sending them to such places as Jordan to train).

So, yeah, count me as dismayed at Daniel's disappointment that Iraq hasn't been turned into Belgium yet.

I've certainly become disillusioned - not about the reconstruction of Iraq, but about conservatives like Daniel here at home... people who I really thought would realize how difficult this would be.

Al -- you're absolutely correct that, "the reconstitution of the [Iraqi]security forces has basically just begun."

Why is why it's such a policy disaster to have such a thin number of U.S. troops and simultaneously shift responsibility for prividing order to the Iraqis themselves. And Rumsfeld is the architect of this plan.

(readers are asked to provide links to even better news)

I'll reference Oxblog's note that eight Ministries have already been completely turned over to Iraqi control.

http://oxblog.blogspot.com/2004_05_09_oxblog_archive.html#108437668050465768

Not that anyone other than Oxblog's readers would have heard about it.

Why is why it's such a policy disaster to have such a thin number of U.S. troops

I know I'm a contrarian on this -- since virtually everyone from the Weekly Standard to John Kerry thinks we need to increase the number of troops in Iraq -- but I really am just not convicned about it.

You say:

The absence of a proper U.S. constabulary force, combined with a failure to guard Iraq's borders, have led Iraqis to the opinions they hold now about American troops -- and those opinions aren't good. The failure to provide security, combined with Abu Ghraib, have tarnished perceptions of U.S. power and legitimacy.

Let me say, as an initial point, that the "tarnished perception" may actually be a more realistic perception. From what I read, it looks to me as though Iraqis perceived Americans as almost omnipotent -- judging, at least, by their reaction to how quickly we took Baghdad and their more recent complaints that we have not completely fixed Iraq's economy and given everyone jobs so far (as if that was possible no matter how many resources we put into Iraq!). Now, giving Iraqis a more realistic perception of us cuts both ways, I suppose. But it's not necessarily all bad.

More importantly, though, I just don't see that a lot more troops would have made such a huge difference in the security situation. Yeah, we would have had more troops to root out the insurgents and provide security against other problems (such as crime). We also would have given the insurgents more targets. In any case, I don't think we could have completely eliminated the insurgency -- that's going to take the Iraqis themselves to build a civil society that rejects such insurgency. So, I guess, the question is, if you could double the troops (at double the cost, of course) to halve the insurgency (and crime and similar problems), would it really be worth it? Would it really have changed the perception of America there or elsewhere in the Middle East? Color me unconvinced.

I'm not saying that we have the ideal number of troops there now. I really have no idea. But I have no idea that more troops would really make a big difference either.

I find this whole discussion pointless and useless. The only winners in a Rumsfeld resignation are John Kerry and Zarkawi. This is a witch hunt.

Look at it -- the media keeps crowing about the prison mistreatment photos, while ignoring the Nick Berg head-sawed-off video or playing up his father's (irrelevant) leftist views trying to spin an anti-Bush storyline into the fact that our opponents in Iraq are psychopathic butchers.

Instead of bitching at Rumsfeld for not being perfect, why not bitch at the media for trying to make sure we lose in Iraq?

I think that you cannot understate the significance of the prisoner abuse situation. We have not shown the world that we are really serious about dealing with this tremendous black mark on our nation.

I am sure that many of you think that it is not such a big deal, that it has been blown out of proportion, and that all the people getting upset are hypocrites. But you know what? None of that matters. We are the United States of America and we hold ourselves to a higher standard of conduct.

If you have watched any of the Daily Show over the last week you know that it is a total joke to see President Bush saying that Rumsfeld is a "superb" Secretary of Defense in the midst of what has been happening.

The New York Times Editorial page today starts with the position that Rumsfeld should be gone, and then continues with a long list of things. At first glance many of them seem like over-reactions. But that is exactly what we need right now. We need an over-reaction.

The US is going to be harmed for decades as a result of the events of the last year. We need to immediately show the world we are serious, our lack of action speaks louder than our words.

In the end getting rid of Rumsfeld is not the solution, but it is the start. It has to be followed up with a variety of actions that will demonstrate that we know we made mistakes and we are going to work to fix them. But George Bush can't afford politically to admit any mistakes, so we are stuck.

Al wrote:

What's most dismaying to me is how many conservatives thought this would be a cakewalk, and are now so disappointed that it's been -- gasp! -- difficult.

Who would that be exactly? I remember the SecDef introducing the term “slog” into the vernacular and the POTUS refusing to give a definitive end-date (which would have been pounced on as a “lie” by his opponents if we ever changed it) which to me indicates that those of us who at least paid attention knew that this was going to be difficult and take some time.

It is too late. Rummy's mistakes came last year - that was when we lost control of the security situation because we had too few troops. To put more troops in now, when the political context (i.e. 80%[!!] of Iraqis distrust us) has changed would not regain the legitimacy needed to reconstitute the state. I am one of those who opposed the war from the very start but am truly surprised at how incompetently Bush and Co. have handled everything. The question is not whether we will fail, but why we have failed and how we can now reduce the death toll - of Iraqis and Americans - as we get out of the way. And don't accuse me of liberal cut-and-runism. The fault lies squarely with Bush and Cheney and Rummy. They have created a situation in which it is impossible for the US to "win."

Rummy was brought in for a specific purpose; to reform the DOD to fight 21st century wars and do it in a hurry. Unfortunately, his management style that allows him to get the job done fast also wears out his welcome fast.

I doubt if anyone really planned on him lasting into 2005. If Bush wins again, then would be the time to bring in a more concilliatory leader who would be able to mend the hard feelings in the DOD while finishing up Rummy's work.

I agree with others above that now is not the time for Rummy to go although Bush could start easing him out of the way.

2 things -- Dan, since you are so sure that replacing Rummy will help the war effort -- can I ask you what new policy in Iraq you think would be effective? "More boots on the ground"? Do you think the Iraqi people want even MORE occupation than they have today? Do you plan to keep these troops around a year, 5 years, or what? Or do you recognize that as a long-term strategy, occupation is bound to fail, and that we need to be disengaging from day-to-day police work (which our soldiers are not trained to do) and instead be available as advisors, troop and police trainers, and hard-core troops for engaging the most significant targets when needed.

Second thing, I'd love your opinion on this editorial http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/20836.htm

Do you think that perhaps the unceasing negativity of the media towards this administration may be coloring your view of what is happening in Iraq?

Matthew Cromer,

Should I add "Freedom of the Press" to the list of rights that should be sacraficed to win a war that is supposed to be protecting our freedom?

I just want to keep track of these things so I can accurately weigh the costs and benefits of Bush's policies. I ask because it sounds like you think that a free press is to blame for our situation so I am assuming that you think the right solution is a press that only acts in the best interests of our currently stated government policy.

YOu talk as if this statebuilding strategy is all Rumsfeld's. He ain't the only one in the cabinet! He lost an argument somewhere along the way at about the time the media started panicking because Iraq wasn't a democracy 3 weeks after Jay Garner arrived. Garner out, Bremer in. The two-faced policy started, and a "vital role" for the UN became paramount and a weakening attempt to "internationalize" the force became a bigger issue. He's not necessarily executing his own strategy here. He's executing the administration's strategy, which he's stuck with whether he likes it or not. That's two different things.

This whole thing is just wrongheaded. Its the equivalent of ordering a cake, sticking your head into the oven half way through the baking, and firing the cook because its a goey mess and not a cake. If our standard for defense secretary is perfection, we are going to go through an awful lot of em. Every battle plan is perfect until the first shot is fired. For the record, Cheney is _not_ the architect for the IRaq policy. Had he been given free reign their might be an argument there. Paul Bremer works for the STate Dept. So now we have 2 Rummy must go arguments, neither of which stick:
1.The prison scandal- which is becoming increasingly clear was an isolated incident that the mps intentionally hid from their superiors because they knew it wouldnt fly. There are about 10 people in the chain of command before Rumsfeld on the responsibility for oversight issue. Are we going to sack all of em? Is the Sec Def now personally responsible for the actions of every soldier in the world?
2.The Iraq Policy- Rummy certainly has responsibility for it, but what about Colin Powell and the state dept who have been calling the shots for the last 9 months? Why is this suddenly Rummys ultimate responsibility? Not to mention he won the actual war in record time.

As far as placating the world by offering up a sacrifice, the question will it do any good? The people that hate us arent going to buy it anyway. Should we give up the guy who has done a bang up job in so many ways in some Quixotian effort to get good press from Al Jazeera? More to the point should we press Bush politically to do it if he doesnt believe its a good move strategically?

...4...

The free press, Rich, is on the internet and blogs.

The "mainstream" media is a 90% democrat sea of bias and hostility to Repulicans and free markets.

I don't know what to do about it, other than to continue to beat the drum about how disgustingly partisan they really are and point out evidence of their bias and contempt for anyone who is not a left-liberal like themselves. Hopefully at some point the general public will realize that the veneer of impartiality is nothing but a collossal lie. Far better were the days of open political affiliation where the media admitted their status as partisans for one side or the other.

As for free speech, I thought the liberals decided to outlaw that with McCain-Feingold?

I realize that you don't care, Dan. But here's the information that Al, Tom, Mark and I have been referencing for the last 5 days.

http://www.defenselink.mil/cgi-bin/dlprint.cgi?http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040510-0742.html

United States Department of Defense News Transcript
Presenter: Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, Deputy Director for Coalition Operations; and Dan Senor, Senior Adviser, CPA
Monday, May 10, 2004 9:35 a.m. EDT
Coalition Provisional Authority Briefing
MR. SENOR: Good afternoon. I just have a couple quick announcements. General Kimmitt has an opening briefing, and then we will be happy to take your questions.

As we move closer and closer to June 30th, there are a number of efforts under way. I've talked repeatedly from this podium about the wide consultations that are being engaged in by Ambassador Bremer and the coalition, as well as the U.N. teams that are here, one in particular led by Mr. Lakhdar Brahimi. And the Governing Council is engaged in consultations as well with the Iraqi people. As we begin to work out the -- apparently the translation is not working.

Is the translation on? I'm being -- okay, apparently it's back on.

The coalition -- the U.N. team headed by Lakhdar Brahimi and the Governing Council are engaged in wide consultations on the formation of an interim government. But on June 30th there will not sort of be a light switch turned on or turned off, where it's just instant. It's a gradual process.

More and more authority is being handed over to the Iraqi people every single day, as we move closer and closer to the formal handover on June 30th. Iraqis will not assume all authority then; some of it they're already beginning to assume, and part of that effort has been the handover of ministries, which began on March 28th.

And the following ministries have already been handed over for daily operational management to the Iraqi people: Ministry of Education, Ministry of Municipalities and Public Works, Ministry of Science and Technology, Ministry of Culture, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Displacement and Migration, and today, the Ministry of Water Resources.

The following three ministries are scheduled to transition later this week: the Ministry of Industry and Minerals, which is tomorrow; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which is Wednesday; and the Ministry of Planning and Development, later this week, as well. And we will continue to work every single week between now and June 30th to turn over additional ministries to the Iraqi leadership.

General Kimmitt.

GEN. KIMMITT: Thanks.

Following Mr. Senor was GEN Kimmit:

GEN. KIMMITT: Thanks.

Good afternoon. The coalition continues offensive operations to establish a stable Iraq in order to repair infrastructure, stimulate the economy and transfer sovereignty. To that end, in the past 24 hours the coalition conducted 1,637 patrols, 17 offensive operations, 32 Air Force and Navy sorties, and captured 29 anti-coalition suspects.

In the northern area of operations, coalition and Iraqi security forces conducted 111 patrols, two offensive operations and captured one anti-coalition suspect.

In the north-central zone of operations, coalition and Iraqi security forces conducted 305 patrols and captured 16 anti-coalition suspects.

Two nights ago in the north-central zone of operations, coalition forces conducted a raid to disrupt anti-coalition forces near Baqubah. The targets of the raid were suspected of financing enemy forces in the area and the raid detained four targets, and all have been taken to a base camp for further questioning.

Yesterday, a coalition patrol came across a civilian truck that had been engaged with small-arms fire. There were two deceased civilians, two wounded civilians and one uninjured civilian inside. The vehicle is a truck that picked up trash from a coalition base camp. A witness told the patrol that the truck was attacked by four men. The attackers first disabled the truck and then engaged the people inside of it.

In Baghdad, coalition forces conducted offensive operations last night in Sadr City, to reduce attacks and the overall presence of the Muqtada militia.

Starting at 02:00 last evening, coalition forces conducted a cordon and search in conjunction with the destruction of the Sadr bureau building, to deny its future use by Muqtada militia members. Coalition forces observed numerous accounts of RPG fire from the alleyways directed at their elements as they approached the Sadr bureau and encountered numerous other engagements during the early morning.

Forces cordoned off and searched the buildings to identify any militia present. No one was present and coalition forces pulled back from the immediate area. Coalition forces then initiated the destruction of the building. Total roll-up over the last 24 hours from the numerous engagements in Sadr City resulted in 35 enemy killed, two enemy wounded and four coalition soldiers wounded who have been returned to duty.

Yesterday evening an IED [improvised explosive device] exploded in the vicinity of Four Seasons al-Arabiyah Hotel in eastern Baghdad. The Iraqi police service secured the site and confirmed two British citizens and two Iraqi citizens were injured.

In the western zone of operations, coalition and Iraqi security forces conducted 209 patrols. Of note, the level of contact with the enemy in Al Anbar has continued at a reduced level for several days. Fallujah has gone over a week without a violation of the cease-fire agreement.

Coalition and Iraqi security forces continued joint operations in check points around Fallujah. Just after 10:00 this morning coalition forces conducted a joint patrol in Fallujah supported by the Fallujah Brigade. With the 1st Battalion providing security along their route, Marines from the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force traveled into downtown Fallujah today to meet with city officials. The commanding general of the 1st Marine Division, Major General Mattis, met with the mayor of Fallujah and a group of tribal sheiks to discuss plans to rebuild and revitalize the city.

The Fallujah Brigade was responsible for establishing the conditions that have facilitated freedom of movement for the coalition convoy. Fallujah Brigade officers participated in the planning for the convoy and Marines took no hostile fire during their time in the city today.

Freedom of movement in Fallujah, like that demonstrated by today's visit, remains a critical component in the process of setting the conditions necessary to rebuild and revitalize this city. Greater access to the city will accelerate contracting, engineering, fiscal and employment initiatives for Fallujah.

In the central south zone of operations, coalition and Iraqi security forces conducted 82 patrols and escorted 14 convoys. Saturday there was a dedication ceremony for two renovated schools in Trehan, a village in the vicinity of Karbala. The total cost of renovating the schools was 50,000 U.S. dollars. Authorities and local media participated in the opening ceremony.

Yesterday coalition forces conducted a raid north of Mahmudiyah to capture multiple targets, suspected members of a cell who are suspected of conducting attacks on coalition forces. The unit captured four of the seven targets plus one additional suspected enemy. Yesterday a coalition patrol conducted a reconnaissance of the industrial complex across from a coalition base camp near An Najaf to kill or capture Muqtada militia and to prevent that militia from conducting future attacks at the coalition base camp. The unit came under fire by small arms and RPG, and the unit returned fire, killing three militia. The unit also captured two suspected militia and confiscated numerous RPG rounds and a machine gun.

In the southeastern zone of operations, coalition and Iraqi security forces conducted 254 patrols. The situation in Basra has seen a moderate level of anti-coalition activity with four reported attacks in the last 24 hours. The enemy in Basra continues to use RPG [rocket propelled grenade] and small arms fire to attack coalition forces. Coalition and Iraqi security forces continue to monitor the situation, and there were three coalition soldiers wounded in the past 24 hours in these attacks. The situation in al-Amarah is stable with only one indirect fire attack on coalition forces in the last 24 hours. There were no casualties or damage to infrastructure as a result of this attack.

MR. SENOR: And with that, we are happy to take your questions.

and then, of course, there were the questions. Some simple, some dry, some self-aggrandizing, and some really good ones, from something new that goes by the moniker of "Free Iraqi Press"...

MR. SENOR: And with that, we are happy to take your questions.

Yes, in the back. Could you use your microphone? We'll go to someone else and then come back to you.

Q Sir, can you explain the purpose -- this is regarding the May 19th proceedings. Can you explain the purpose of not having cameras in that courtroom? It would seem obvious that the Iraqi people would have a right to see what's going on in the courtroom.

GEN. KIMMITT: Well, the people of Iraq will certainly have the same access that the international audience will have. It's a practice of the U.S. military that in an open hearing we allow family, we allow observers, we allow print reporters. It has not been our practice in the past to allow cameras inside. I think there is a concern that this is not a show trial. But I'm absolutely confident that the gentlemen and the ladies of the Iraqi press will adequately record what happens inside that courtroom so their readers can observe it through the written word.

MR. SENOR: Yes?

Q (Through interpreter.) Bhagram Mohammed Ali -- (inaudible) -- newspaper. The first question to Mr. Dan Senor. Four days have passed on the visit of Lakhdar Brahimi. What were the results of your debates and discussions with him? And the second question is, how many attacks have been conducted from the beginning of this month and so far? And has the situation stabilized in Fallujah for the time being? Is it stable?

MR. SENOR: On your first question, I would refer specific questions on the progress that Mr. Brahimi is making to Mr. Brahimi or the U.N. I know from his public comments that he is engaged in wide consultations with the Iraqi people. I think just yesterday he said that he had met with -- or his officials, his representatives said that he had met with a group of professors, university professors. He's been reaching out to trade unions, political leaders at all levels in all regions of the country. And this will continue daily. Ambassador Bremer is holding similar meetings.

Mr. Brahimi, when he was here and held a press conference in April, talked about the general principles he has for the shape and form of the interim government. But those are to be fleshed out, right now, in the weeks ahead, based on these consultations. He has no -- to quote him or to quote one of his spokesmen -- he has no pre- cooked plan in a briefcase. He's talking to Iraqis, working through this process, and hopefully, will soon be able to unveil more information about the direction of the interim government that he's going to recommend.

GEN. KIMMITT: I believe you asked two more questions. The first one was how many attacks have there been against the coalition in the month of May. We roughly are running about 2-1/2 times -- two to 2- 1/2 times our normal average from January through April of 20 days. So I would say probably just under 500 attacks, engagements, IEDs, incidents, since the beginning of May.

On the second question, is Fallujah stable; Fallujah is quiet. We've had no cease-fire violations over the past few days. As you can see on the story board, we actually had a joint convoy of Marines as well as Fallujah brigade go to the mayor's office, sit down, discuss the issues with the mayor and come out. We have the Fallujah brigade operating inside of Fallujah right now, and we have the ICDC [Iraqi Civil Defense Corps] on checkpoints alongside Marines outside the city.

There is still work to be done in Fallujah. We still have not seen the enemy weapons that we know are in there.

We still have some other justice issues inside Fallujah. Those objectives have not been attained yet. I think if we continue to have the stability that you see today after we have attained those other objectives, then I will say we have succeeded in Fallujah and it truly is quiet. But as we continue to hold firm to our objectives inside Fallujah, it could be as we attempt to achieve those objectives that we might see an uptick in instability inside Fallujah.

And there's this very telling gem...

MR. SENOR: Yes, sir?

Q (Through interpreter.) (Name inaudible) -- from Al- Hurriyat newspaper. On your opinion, when will be an end for these blasts -- especially the minister of Interior is not capable enough of closing all these gaps. Who is responsible for having all these blasts and all these casualties from women and children?

GEN. KIMMITT: The blasts that you hear in Baghdad and the blasts that you hear throughout this country quite simply are the result of those people who are trying to stop this country from becoming a free democratic and sovereign nation. I would like to say that these blasts are going to stop tomorrow, but I can't tell you that. These are something that we've seen for many, many months now. They've actually gone up in recent days. Primarily as we get closer and closer to handover of sovereignty to the people of Iraq, we believe these groups are getting more and more desperate in their attempt to try to derail the process of you moving on to sovereignty.

How do we stop these? I think the only way we stop these is twofold. We continue to grow the capacities, the size and the quality of the Iraqi security forces, your police, your military, your border patrol, and we continue to improve the capacity for intelligence gathering amongst your citizens, because these blasts are being created by people; they don't come out of thin air. These blasts come from bombs that have to be constructed. The parts for those bombs have to be bought from somewhere, they have to be stored somewhere, they have to be constructed somewhere, they have to be placed out somewhere.

So the more that we can get the people of Iraq understanding that these blasts will be over only when everybody joins together and says we are going to have a collective determination to stop these, and you start providing the intelligence to the Iraqi authorities or the coalition authorities, and we use that intelligence in operations to go kill or capture those that would try to kill your children, kill your wives, kill your friends; until then, until we have an entire country dedicated to that process, these blasts will continue. But I can tell you that the Iraqi police forces, the Iraqi security forces, and the coalition forces in partnership are still resolved to try to minimize these to the maximum extent possible.

And I'll quit with this final question from the brief. From a gentleman who, sadly, you're beginning to sound a bit like, lately. Perhaps you are in need of an intern?

Yes, sir. Last question.

Q (Through interpreter.) Assam Hamid from Al Alba Salam.

My first question is about the detainees in Abu Ghraib. General Kimmitt, you told us in your press conference four months ago, when you talked about reduction of the U.S. forces, you said that some soldiers are attacking some detainees. They are using these methods to get rid from the Army. You know that these are personal conducts. Legally, you are responsible about these soldiers. You know the history of these soldiers, and some of them have committed crimes in America. You don't let the media or the humanitarian organizations to visit Abu Ghraib prison. You allowed the Red Cross to visit Saddam Hussein while you deny the humanitarian organizations access to Abu Ghraib prison.

My question about Fallujah. Mr. Carl (sic) talked about the Marines. He said he didn't get any results in the handover of heavy weapons and didn't get the four -- people who mutilated the American contractors. Thousands of Fallujans were killed. What did you get from Fallujah? When you compensate people in Fallujah, is this an acknowledgement that you have killed many innocent people?

GEN. KIMMITT: A couple of questions there.

On the first one, of the detainees, you say that we don't allow the media or the International Committee of the Red Cross or other humanitarian organizations into Abu Ghraib. That's not correct. The International Committee of the Red Cross would conduct visits, sometimes unannounced visits, every six to eight weeks. So the International Committee of the Red Cross has been a repeated visitor to Abu Ghraib. In terms of the media, as you know the media is allowed to come into Abu Ghraib. Many of you may have been on the media visit to Abu Ghraib today. So again, we are opening up Abu Ghraib to the media.

I know General Miller's intent is to make Abu Ghraib consistent with security and consistent with mission requirements, a transparent organization. He has made that pledge to everybody here, and he says that he will live by that pledge.

Yes, you're right; four months ago we did talk about the allegations that some soldiers had been conducting improper conduct, had been abusing detainees. I hope that you have seen from the process, since January when we first talked about that, that the U.S. military and the coalition have been very forthright and very open throughout the entire process. March 20th we talked about the criminal charges. Since then, we've had an active discourse as the process went forward, and even as recently as last night announcing the first court-martial, which will be held in this building or in this vicinity on May 19th.

And we intend to continue to be as transparent, as much as security and as much as legal requirements permit us to be because we believe that it is important for you to understand exactly the process that these soldiers will go through as they are taken to court- martial, as they are offered the opportunity for a free, fair and honest trial.

You had a question about Fallujah. You say no heavy weapons yet; we have not yet found the killers of the contractors. And you're entirely correct. That's because the mission isn't yet over. Just because we have been able to send Marines into a meeting at the mayor's office today, just because we have the Fallujah brigade inside of Fallujah, do not for a minute think that the Fallujah operations are over. We remain committed to our objectives, we remain committed to achieving those objectives through a peaceful process. But we will not flinch on those objectives and will continue to work until those objectives are accomplished.

Thank you very much.

MR. SENOR: Thanks, everybody.

(C) COPYRIGHT 2004, FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE, INC., 1919 M ST. NW; SUITE 220; WASHINGTON, DC - 20036, USA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. ANY REPRODUCTION, REDISTRIBUTION OR RETRANSMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED. UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION, REDISTRIBUTION OR RETRANSMISSION CONSTITUTES A MISAPPROPRIATION UNDER APPLICABLE UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW, AND FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE, INC. RESERVES THE RIGHT TO PURSUE ALL REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO IT IN RESPECT TO SUCH MISAPPROPRIATION. FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE, INC. IS A PRIVATE FIRM AND IS NOT AFFILIATED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. NO COPYRIGHT IS CLAIMED AS TO ANY PART OF THE ORIGINAL WORK PREPARED BY A UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE AS PART OF THAT PERSON'S OFFICIAL DUTIES. FOR INFORMATION ON SUBSCRIBING TO FNS, PLEASE CALL JACK GRAEME AT 202-347-1400.

Dan,
So, let me collect the most optimistic news about Iraq that I've seen recently and see if I should change my mind...
I think it's worth it to replace Rummy ASAP.

First you start by loading the deck against Rummy resigning, and then you are still forced to the conclusion that Rumsfeld should resign. I wonder what conclusion you would have come to if you had included the whole range of news. ABB, maybe ?

Defense Dept. study and prepares in how to make war. Rebuilding a country is not a job for Defense Department but for State Department and other gov. agencies, since State dont have much people that agree with this Admn. strategy, the burden falls in Defense Dept.

It’s probably too late for Donald Rumsfeld to currently resign. The administration could appear weak. He should be gradually squeezed out of office. Has he performed well? Whatever, a fresh face may relieve everyone involved. Rumsfeld, fairly or unfairly, has attracted much criticism and ill will. Also, when will we get rid of the grossly incompetent Colin Powell? This man has been an almost complete disaster. Why the silence?

I remain very optimistic about Iraq. As matter of fact, I am confused that Dan Drezner hesitates to share my (pollyannish?) perspective. The good news of the last few weeks, other than the prison scandal, almost encourages me to break out the champagne. For instance, when is the last time a member of the US military has been killed by hostile fire? Democracy does seem to taking hold in Iraq. One domino is starting to fall. Others will follow in the near future.

The Bush administration hesitates to accept advice from outsiders. There is a good reason for this reluctance: Except for a few people like Senator Lieberman, the Democrats have acted like rabid dogs out to destroy the President. The same, of course, also holds true for the State Department. This lack of cooperation has greatly harmed the war on terrorism and the rebuilding of Iraq.

David Thomson,
out of curiosity, how exactly do you" gradually squeeze [Rumsfeld] out of office". He's either in or out, I don't get it.

Puzzled,

I have two questions, each in two parts:

1) Who would replace Rummy, and would he/she be better or worse?

2) How much discontinuity would the replacement cause, and would Bush be able to get a plausible candidate confirmed by the Senate?

Matthew Cromer writes: "2 things -- Dan, since you are so sure that replacing Rummy will help the war effort"

Good to see the right wing has given up on that stuff about "taking responsibility" and "accountability".

Failure is to be rewarded, in the GOP.

Rumsfeld appears to be getting more criticism for his alleged lack of disclosure and the appearance of a cover-up, rather than any flat-out blame for the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse.

To those who ask "what could a new Sec-O-Def do differently", my suggestion would be: give honest assessments and full disclosure.

J Mann writes: "1) Who would replace Rummy, and would he/she be better or worse?"

Dan suggested retired General Eric Shinseki, who was rubbished in the press by Wolfowitz and Rummy for telling Congress we'd need 300,000 troops in Iraq.

It wouldn't take much to be better than Rummy.

His performance has been like a man who can charm a woman into bed, but doesn't have the strength or staying power to take care of business.

David Thompson, you need to pay attention. Our troops are still dying.

May 12: Army Spc. Jeffrey Shaver, 26, Maple Valley, Wash.; killed by an explosive in Baghdad; Army National Guards 1st Battalion, 161st Infantry; Spokane, Wash.

May 11: Army Spc. Kyle Brinlee, 21, Pryor, Okla.; killed by an explosive near Fallujah; Detachment 1, Company B, 120th Combat Engineer Battalion, Oklahoma National Guard; Pryor, Okla.

May 10: Army Pfc. Andrew Tuazon, 21, Chesapeake, Va.; killed by hostile fire in Mosul; 293rd Military Police Company, 3rd Military Police Battalion, 3rd Infantry Division; Fort Stewart, Ga.

May 9: Sgt. Rodney Murray, 28, Ayden, N.C.; killed in a vehicle accident between Baghdad and Scania when a Bradley Fighting Vehicle and his military vehicle collided; Army Reserves 351st Military Police Company; Ocala, Fla.

May 8: Army Pvt. Philip Brown, 21, Jamestown, N.D.; died of wounds suffered while on foot patrol; 141st Engineer Combat Battalion, North Dakota National Guard, Bismarck, N.D.

• Army Spc. James Holmes, 29, East Grand Forks, Minn.; died of injuries suffered while on patrol a few days earlier; 141st Engineer Combat Battalion, Company C, North Dakota National Guard, Bismarck, N.D.

• Army Pvt. Philip Brown, 21, Jamestown, N.D.; died of wounds suffered while on foot patrol; 141st Engineer Combat Battalion, North Dakota National Guard, Bismarck, N.D.

• Army Spc. Chase Whitham, 21, Harrisburg, Ore., died when he was electrocuted in a swimming pool in Mosul; 2nd Battalion, 3rd Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division; Fort Lewis, Wash.

May 6: Staff Sgt. Hesley Box Jr., 24, Nashville, Ark.; killed by a car bomb in Baghdad; 1st Battalion, 153rd Infantry, 39th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, Arkansas National Guard; Texarkana, Ark.

May 5: Army Pfc. Jesse Buryj, 21, Canton, Ohio, died in Karbala when his vehicle was struck by a dump truck whose driver had been shot at a control point; 66th Military Police Company; Fort Lewis, Wash.

• Marine Cpl. Jeffrey Green, 20, Dallas; found dead in the Euphrates River in Anbar province; 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force; Camp Pendleton, Calif.

• Marine Cpl. Dustin Schrage, 20, Brevard, Fla., found dead in Anbar province; 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force; Camp Pendleton, Calif.

Two Army soldiers died when an explosive hit their vehicle in Baghdad; both assigned to 1st Battalion, 21st Field Artillery Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division; Fort Hood, Texas:

• Spc. James E. Marshall, 19, of Tulsa

• Pfc. Bradley Kritzer, 18, of Irvona, Penn.

May 3: Marine Gunnery Sgt. Ronald Baum, 38, Hollidaysburg, Pa.; killed in Al Anbar province from hostile action; 2nd Intelligence Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force; Camp Lejeune, N.C.

• Army Staff Sgt. Erickson Petty, 28, Fort Gibson, Okla., killed in Salman Al Habb from attack of small arms fire while providing security at weapons cache; Headquarters, Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 35th Armor Regiment, 1st Armored Division, Smith Barracks; Baumholder, Germany.

Army soldiers killed in Balad when their military vehicle flipped over in a canal; all assigned to the 4th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Infantry Division; Vilseck, Germany:

• 1st Lt. Christopher Kenny, 32, Miami

• Sgt. Marvin Sprayberry III, 24, Tehachapi, Calif.

• Sgt. Gregory Wahl, 30, Salisbury, N.C.

• Pfc. Lyndon Marcus Jr., 21, Long Beach, Calif.

May 2: Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael Anderson, 36, Daytona, Fla.; killed in the Al Anbar province from hostile fire; Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 14; Jacksonville, Fla.

• Army Spc. Ervin Caradine, Jr., 33, Memphis; killed in Baghdad when his convoy vehicle hit an explosive; Army's 91st Engineer Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division; Fort Hood, Texas.

• Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Trace Dossett, 37, Orlando; killed in Al Anbar province from hostile fire; assigned to Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 14; Jacksonville.

• Army Pvt. Jeremy L. Drexler, 23, Topeka, Kan.; killed in Baghdad when his convoy vehicle hit an explosive; assigned to the Army's 91st Engineer Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division; Fort Hood, Texas.

• Navy Petty Officer 3rd Class Ronald Ginther, 37, Auburndale, Fla.; killed in Al Anbar province from hostile fire; Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 14; Jacksonville.

• Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Robert Jenkins, 35, Stuart, Fla.; killed in Al Anbar province from hostile fire; Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 14; Jacksonville.

• Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Scott McHugh, 33, Boca Raton, Fla.; killed in Al Anbar province from hostile fire; Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 14; Jacksonville.

• Army Staff Sgt. Todd Nunes, 29, Chapel Hills, Tenn.; killed in Kirkuk when his convoy was attacked by an explosive and small arms fire; 1st Battalion, 21st Infantry Regiment, 25th Infantry Division; Schofield Barracks, Hawaii.

• Army Capt. John Tipton, 32, Fort Walton Beach, Fla.; killed in Al Anbar province from an explosion during combat operations; commanded Headquarters, Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 16th Infantry Regiment, 1st Infantry Division; Fort Riley, Kan.

May 1: Army Sgt. Joshua Ladd, 20, Fort Gibson, Miss.; killed in Mosul when his convoy vehicle hit an explosive; Army National Guard, 367th Maintenance Company; DeKalb, Miss.

• Army Spc. Ramon Ojeda, 22, Ramona, Calif.; killed in Al Amarah when his convoy was attacked; 84th Engineer Battalion, 25th Infantry Division (Light), Schofield Barracks; Honolulu, Hawaii.

• Army Staff Sgt. Oscar Vargas-Medina, 32, Chicago; killed in Al Amarah when his convoy was attacked; 84th Engineer Battalion, 25th Infantry Division (Light), Schofield Barracks; Honolulu, Hawaii.

• Spc. Trevor Wine, 22, Orange, Calif.; died from injuries he received April 30 when his convoy hit an explosive in Tikrit; Army's 24th Quartermaster Company, Fort Lewis, Wash.

A lot of leadership is being willing to have faith in your course when things get bumpy. The absolute worst thing we could be doing right now is swinging wildly with every different news story that comes out. DOes that mean changes arent necessary? Of couse not. But it does mean that every single day there are calls by the media, the democrats, and even some republicans for a course shift based on whatever the news of the day happens to be. That would be a disaster. Personally I hate the current approach to rebuilding, I always have. But we are stuck with it and it may yet work. We have to let this play out one way or another before we panick and start rebuilding the ship halfway out to sea. Does the Bush admin listen to its critics? No, truly they dont (or perhaps they listen but ignore them). That has its good and its bad. Ultimately I happier for it. You cant run a war via committee. As Napoleon said, you are better off with 1 bad general than 2 good ones. If Bush let himself he'd have 280 million generals running Iraq. To his credit he hasnt let that happen. Five years from now we may well thank him for ignoring all of us.

John H,

I am not a member of "the right". I loathe the war on drugs, the war on Howard Stern, and other expressions of intolerance from the right wing.

What I am is an American who recognizes that we are in a war, and part of this war requires a liberalization in the politics and economic opportunity in the Middle East. This is the only thing that will stop the mass production of mass-murdering islamic terrorists from middle-eastern madrassas.

It's clear to me that John Kerry doesn't recognize this truth, or doesn't care. It's clear to me that Bush and his cabinet do recognize it. Do they make mistakes? Of course. As would any administration that intended to take on this challenge.

The bottom line is, if we do not fix the wretchedness of the middle east and provide for political and economic liberalization, we will continue to suffer worse and worse attacks until, in the end, NYC and DC are lost to nuclear attack, and our response will be to fight total war. And, like in WWII, our moral compass will be lost as we incinerate millions of innocents in order to eliminate the threat against us. Bush has the courage to try and prevent this total war in the only way possible -- and the liberals paint him as a bloodthirsty moonster.

"This is the only thing that will stop the mass production of mass-murdering islamic terrorists from middle-eastern madrassas....It's clear to me that Bush and his cabinet do recognize it"

Huh?

How does taking over a secular Arab state - and doing it piss-poorly - do anything about middle-eastern madrassahs, which are funded by Iraqs theocratic neighbors?

What has Bush done about that? He's in Saudi Arabia's pocket, and he hasn't done a damned thing. They own his ass. They say "jump", and Bush asks, "how high, your majesty?".

Bush and his cabinet haven't done jack shit about it except act in ways that have increased antagonism for the US.

Rich,
"I ask because it sounds like you think that a free press is to blame for our situation.."

You don't have a press that gives you the facts, for sure. Just hoaxed pictures, distorted, biased and "bowdlerised" "news".
Your press in the States (as in Europe) is nothing but a disgrace and Americans when citing the 1st. Amendment forget that the free press is denying them the true, unvarnished facts for them to make a decision based on the reality.
(News for which they have paid a fee - untruthful advertising when newspapers claim to provide one with the news?)

While kicking Rumsfeld out would appease the embarrassed American psyche and the likes of Kennedy and his ilk, the world would be smirking at the weak paper tiger. Don't forget that first and formost the crowd the US has gone to war against is betting that there is no staying power on the part of Americans. There are also the millions upon millions praying silently for a change in their lives and now to them it appears that the paper tiger has become soggy.
Don't forget that Foggy Bottom and the CIA have a heavy hand in the mess as well.
Of course that the NYT won't discuss.

"While kicking Rumsfeld out would appease the embarrassed American psyche and the likes of Kennedy and his ilk, the world would be smirking at the weak paper tiger."

I'm not sure Israel's in such good shape we should be following their example.

"What has Bush done about that? He's in Saudi Arabia's pocket, and he hasn't done a damned thing. They own his ass. They say "jump", and Bush asks, "how high, your majesty?"."

Yeh. Im sure the pro-Western, secular house of Saud is thrilled that, as you yourself just said, the previously secular neighbor Iraq is now a hotbed of Islamic revolution. Explain to me again why Saudi Arabia would want to get rid of Hussein and open Iraqis oil back to the market?

“Democracy does seem to taking hold in Iraq. One domino is starting to fall. Others will follow in the near future.”

I wrote the above comments a few minutes ago. The Drudgereport now has this story posted:

“Surveys: More Iraqis Want Democracy”

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-iraqi-attitudes,0,7660217,print.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines

The news out of Iraq is getting better all the time.

Dan,

Given your analysis of how things are going in Iraq, why don’t you also want Bremer to resign? Why don’t you hold the State Dept accountable at all? Why should Rummy resign now, if it’s not really all about Abu Ghraib and more related to other factors? You cite the poll about lack of confidence in CPA, but Bremer is the State Dept’s guy.

I believe that the situation in Iraq is not a disaster as many are saying or implying. A disaster would be a civil war. A disaster would be losing troops at a Vietnam pace. A disaster would be no plan for an interim government and no date to transfer authority to. Many have argued since last year that elections should be held fast. That seemed to be the UN position too. Then it went in and surveyed the situation and concluded it was not doable before Jan 2005. Having as fair elections as possible is much more desirable than having elections per se. They could have elections next week, and the elections could be a sham. Can there be fair elections by Sept with guarantees to minorities that this will not be the only election ever held? Promises were made about how long we’d be involved in Bosnia and Kosovo, but we’re still there. More Americans have been killed in the Kosovo occupation than were killed in the war, and Slobo’s trail still isn’t over.

Do we need more troops? I don’t know and neither do the TV and magazine pundits with the six figure incomes. Iraq doesn’t have a large scale popular uprising. There is no civil war. How many troops can fit into Karbala anyway before they’re stacked like sardines? Is this kind of guerilla activity handled well by having a huge force in the theater? More troops may mean more KIAs and wounded, and yet it’s the number of KIAs and wounded which seem to prompt the desire for more troops. The Baathists and al Qaeda play hide and seek and do not engage in W.W.II style big battles. Maybe we need more to protect the borders, but none of us are privy to the strategy the DoD is using, because there’s no way to inform the American public without simultaneously informing al Qaeda and the Baathist a**holes and the al Sadr thugs.

This gets to a problem, namely trusting those at DoD, including Rummy. Abu Ghraib is tragic in human terms but also in terms of people’s trust in DoD and Rummy. DoD has to keep certain information secret (including strategy) or they can’t really fight a war. Tolerating that secrecy means extending trust to them. The level of insurgency and Abu Ghraib, among other things, have shaken this trust. So how people feel about the DoD response to the situation is important. Are they doing the right thing now? I think so but many others probably feel differently. Resigning isn’t the only way of assuming responsibility and often isn’t the best solution to a problem. Identifying the problems and working to fix them is also accepting responsibility. The planning cannot and will not be based upon omniscience. Are they adapting to unforeseen circumstances? I think so, but one’s answer to that question steers your position on Rummy’s presence at DoD.

The events at Abu Ghraib are shameful. Still I think it is a mistake to turn that shame into a fetish and to think that moral masochism is some sort of solution. The situation in Iraq is a big disappointment (at this point) but not a disaster. The far bigger shame would be to find a fig leaf cover for bugging out before the vast majority of Iraqis are in a better position to establish representative self government and greater stability to the institutions needed to create the rule of law. We expected things to be better than they are by now. We underestimated how bad the existing infrastructure was. We did not understand that so many Baathists would not fight in the original battle and instead mount this kind of insurgency. Was it a mistake to disband the army? We might not really know the answer to that question for quite some time. I think the Administration did anticipate the entry into the country of foreign terrorists and wanted this to happen (as in “bring it on”). The uncertainty and ambiguity of the situation is stressful. It all could turn into a disaster. But I worry the more likely scenario for disaster is leaving prematurely. Leaving the majority of Iraqis at the mercy of the thugs would be disgraceful and greatly weaken the security of the US. I still think Rummy is the best person for the job. My trust is shaken but still not broken. But my trust isn’t infinite and neither should anyone else’s. You can’t replace someone with no one. Who would do a better job and what’s their plan?

Mark Buehner writes : " Explain to me again why Saudi Arabia would want to get rid of Hussein and open Iraqis oil back to the market?"

I'll grant that they must not be happy about oil hitting $10 a barrel.

Oh, wait, crude is hitting record highs, and the media is talking about it reaching $50. The Saudis must be crying themselves to sleep over it.

I'm sure OPEC would have little difficulty finding some "insurgents for hire" who can keep Iraq's oil production in a shambles, by periodically bombing pipelines and production facilities.

Great discussion. If the Battle of the Bulge had occurred in September or October of 1944 and the outcome was in doubt on election day, would the greatest generation have voted for Tom Dewey? Somehow, I don't think so.

Al writes: "I know I'm a contrarian on this -- since virtually everyone from the Weekly Standard to John Kerry thinks we need to increase the number of troops in Iraq -- but I really am just not convinced about it."

Edward Luttwak had a good explanation of the problem in an op-ed last November. Briefly, an army of 133,000 translates into 28,000 troops available for patrolling or combat at any one time.

The support echelon is so large that out of the 133,000 American men and women in Iraq, no more than 56,000 are combat-trained troops available for security duties. As for the rest, there are many command posts where soldiers operate computers not guns, there are many specialized units charged with reconstruction and civil duties, and even in the actual combat formations there is a large noncombat element. The 101st Airborne Division has 270 helicopters, which alone require more than 1,000 technicians. The Fourth Infantry Division has the usual panoply of artillery, aviation and antiaircraft units that are needed in war but have little role in peacekeeping and security duties.

And even the finest soldiers must sleep and eat. Thus the number of troops on patrol at any one time is no more than 28,000 - to oversee frontiers terrorists are trying to cross, to patrol rural terrain including vast oil fields, to control inter-city roads, and to protect American and coalition facilities. Even if so few could do so much, it still leaves the question of how to police the squares, streets and alleys of Baghdad, with its six million inhabitants, not to mention Mosul with 1.7 million, Kirkuk with 800,000, and Sunni towns like Falluja, with its quarter-million restive residents.

In fact, the 28,000 American troops are now so thinly spread that they cannot reliably protect even themselves; the helicopter shot down on Sunday was taking off from an area that had not been secured, because doing so would have required hundreds of soldiers. For comparison, there are 39,000 police officers in New York City alone - and they at least know the languages of most of the inhabitants, few of whom are likely to be armed Baathist or Islamist fanatics.

Jon H

"I'm not sure Israel's in such good shape we should be following their example."

Why on earth do you think I'm referring to Israel?
Anyway I don't think they have done anything quite like this. And they would surely not be dancing on the roof.
It's Syria and Iran for starters apart from the impact this is having on some Asian countries.
The Syrians have along with France been "cocking a snook", as the English say, at US efforts.
Unfortunately you do not have access to Arabic media and don't know what they think, unless of course the NYT wants you to think something.

The US already has a credibilty gap with the Middle East with Bush saying one thing and Powell saying another (in Amman today).
The Egyptians have made a mockery of their support for the US.
Throwing the captain overboard because of a storm (in a tea cup)is certainly not the way to get even the moral support you need.

Thorley Winston writes, in response to Al's comment about conservatives expecting the postwar reconstruction of Iraq to be a cakewalk: "Who would that be exactly?"

Paul Wolfowitz. From a sympathetic September 2002 profile in the New York Times:

Wolfowitz says he worries deeply about the risks of going into Iraq -- about disabling the small arsenal of Scud missiles before one possibly delivers poisons to Israel or the Saudi oil fields, about persuading Israel (as he personally helped do during the gulf war) not to join the war even if attacked, knowing that would tend to mobilize the Arab world against the United States, about the potential mess of urban warfare and civilian casualties. "I think the getting in is the dangerous part," he says.

He worries considerably less about the day after.

"I don't think it's unreasonable to think that Iraq, properly managed--and it's going to take a lot of attention, and the stakes are enormous, much higher than Afghanistan -- that it really could turn out to be, I hesitate to say it, the first Arab democracy, or at least the first one except for Lebanon's brief history," he says. "And even if it makes it only Romanian style, that's still such an advance over anywhere else in the Arab world."

This is a notion regarded with deep skepticism at the State Department, where Powell and others tend to see the aftermath of an invasion as a long, world-class headache administered by an American general.

Turns out that the postwar planning was mostly left to Doug Feith, according to a recent Newsweek article by Evan Thomas. James Fallows describes the postwar planning in his article "Blind into Baghdad."

"Unfortunately you do not have access to Arabic media and don't know what they think, unless of course the NYT wants you to think something."

Juan Cole, who reads the Arabic press every day, is a good source of information about what's going on in the Arab world. I'm afraid it's not very encouraging.

Juan Cole is not a serious man. He even accuses Israel of murder when it assassinates known terrorists. One should instead listen to the brilliant Bernard Lewis. He is a far more balanced thinker.

I'm starting to understand your Panglossian view of the situation, David. If you reject all evidence that things are going badly, of course you'll think that things are going well.

One wonders if Russell Wvong, a Canadian citizen, might be able to encourage his nation to cease parasitizing off the United States. Isn’t it time these people pulled their own weight? I do believe that things are going quite well in Iraq---but it would be even better if Canada helped out a little bit.

David,

Repeat after me: "Light at the end of the tunnel, light at the end of the tunnel...."

Mark Buehner wrote:

A lot of leadership is being willing to have faith in your course when things get bumpy. The absolute worst thing we could be doing right now is swinging wildly with every different news story that comes out. DOes that mean changes arent necessary? Of couse not. But it does mean that every single day there are calls by the media, the democrats, and even some republicans for a course shift based on whatever the news of the day happens to be. That would be a disaster.

I agree whole-heartedly which is what makes the criticism of our policy which is predicated on either (a) a wishy-washiness from armchair generals who think that we need to change course with every obstacle rather than making tactical adjustments (which are inevitably and wrongly decried as “moving the goalposts”) or (b) rank opportunism by the ABB crowd who simply want to snipe without having to offer anything in the way of a better or more realistic policy.

Does the Bush admin listen to its critics? No, truly they dont (or perhaps they listen but ignore them).

Just out of curiosity, can you provide an example of a previous Presidential administration that “listened to its critics” more than the Bush administration?

It seems to me that this is not an accurate charge considering that when Democrats demanded that we hold a vote on authorizing the use of force in Iraq before the mid-term elections, the Bush administration listened to their critics and supported having a vote. When they demanded that we go to the UN (for what the 18th resolution?) for another resolution, they went to the UN. They demanded that we invite the UN into Iraq and we did (until the UN decided to pack up and left). They demanded that we turn over power to the Iraqis and we are doing so – first on June 30 and nearly fully next January after their first free elections in about thirty years.

The problem is not that the Bush administration has not “listened to its critics” but rather Bush accommodated them too much and after having asked for an inch and gotten a foot, they want a mile. That and how they keep changing their demands based on the whims of whatever news is featured at the moment without any regards for trying to offer a different vision/strategy/long-term objective other than “more troops.”

"I agree that Rumsfeld has been proven correct in his warfighting strategies. I am completely unconvinced that Rumsfeld has been proven correct in his statebuilding strategies."

While Rumsfeld controls warfighting strategy, State (Powell) has controlled statebuilding strategies. To dismiss for what he is only marginally under his controll is ludicrous. And from what I can tell, a lot of the successes have come from what little the DoD has controlled, and not State.

Dennis writes: "While Rumsfeld controls warfighting strategy, State (Powell) has controlled statebuilding strategies."

This is incorrect.

The statebuilding depends on stability and security, which are under Pentagon control, thus under Rumsfeld's control.

Furthermore, Paul Bremer and the CPA, who are the embryonic Iraqi state at the moment, are under the Pentagon, not State.

Colin Powell has rather little say over what happens in Iraq. If State had more influence, we wouldn't have handed so much to lying bastard Ahmad Chalabi and his relatives. (For example we wouldn't have let Chalabi have Iraq's intelligence files). State and CIA knew him for the scam artist he is. It's the fools and rubes in the Pentagon and the American Enterprise Insitute who fell for Chalabi.

Thorley Winston writes: "The problem is not that the Bush administration has not “listened to its critics” but rather Bush accommodated them too much and after having asked for an inch and gotten a foot, they want a mile. "

No, the problem is that Bush didn't listen to the many knowledgeable insiders and allies who were willing and able to contribute their accumulated wisdom.

Instead, they pretty much ignored everyone except asshats like Don Rumsfeld , who thought we could successfully run a war with only 80,000 troops, and resisted generals who had more realistic estimates of strength needed - estimates based on real experience on the ground in Yugoslavia, not based on think tank circle jerks like the AEI and PNAC.

David Thompson writes: "One wonders if Russell Wvong, a Canadian citizen, might be able to encourage his nation to cease parasitizing off the United States. Isn’t it time these people pulled their own weight? I do believe that things are going quite well in Iraq---but it would be even better if Canada helped out a little bit."

This is like a junkie cursing his neighbor for not giving him money to feed his addiction.

Canada helps in the war on terror. I believe we even killed some of their troops that were fighting terrorists in Afghanistan.

Iraq, however, is a self-destructive sideshow. Canada has every right to refuse to be dragged down with Bush's folly.

Who knows. With the US pissing away our military might and treasure on a snipe hunt, ignoring the real war on terror, we might just turn out happy that Canada has kept their powder dry should the real War on Terror flare up again.

"Iraq, however, is a self-destructive sideshow. Canada has every right to refuse to be dragged down with Bush's folly."

It's definitely not in Canada's interest for Iraq to fall apart. Canada's committed $240 million towards reconstruction in Iraq. But there aren't any more troops for Canada to send; the Canadian government sent all available troops to Afghanistan, before the war with Iraq started.

“But there aren't any more troops for Canada to send; the Canadian government sent all available troops to Afghanistan, before the war with Iraq started.”

This excuse simply does not fly. Why does Canada spend so little on its military? Of course we already know the reason: the United States is unofficially the primary defender of Canada. Its own citizens prefer to sit on the sidelines. That is why Canadians are often so hostile toward the USA. Parasites always hold their host in utter contempt. We Americans have allowed the Canadians to mooch off us for far too long.

Support from other euro-centric allies? A lot of them are busy elsewhere...

[China, France begin naval exercises

BEIJING, March 16 (JDW) -- China and France began five days of joint exercises off the northern Chinese coast Tuesday, prompting Taiwan to claim it was a threatening show of force.

France is also lobbying EU countries to drop the 15-year-old embargo on arms sales to China, imposed after the brutal 1989 suppression of pro-democracy demonstrators, the Financial Times said.

The exercises involve staging search and rescue missions, refueling exercises and tactical helicopter exchanges.

On the diplomatic front, France angered Taiwan recently by strongly condemning President Chen Shui-bian's plan to hold a referendum on missile defense as part of this coming Saturday's election, prompting Taipei to suspend top-level ties with Paris.

Taipei-based defense analyst Andrew Yang played down the significance of the exercise's proximity to the Taiwan elections, saying the drills were similar to those conducted recently by the Chinese navy with the fleets of India and Pakistan.

"It does not have direct implications for the situation in Taiwan," said Yang, who said it was more a reflection of China's determination to forge ties with foreign fleets."]

Ohhhhh - *that* 800 lb gorilla...

Oh, right, sorry, Jon H - that's 362 kg gorilla for you...

Here is Ken Adleman, a quasi-official member of the Administration, not only predicting a cakewalk before-hand (2002), but boasting that he was right after the fall of Baghdad.

What a difference a week makes. The chump-to-champ cycle usually takes longer, even in Washington.


Administration critics should feel shock over their bellyaching about the wayward war plan. All of us feel awe over the professionalism and power of the U.S. military. Now we know.


On Feb. 13, 2002, I wrote a sleeper-cell op-ed for this page. It lay dormant, being virtually ignored, until springing to life more than a year later. Its title, "Cakewalk in Iraq," contained that "c" word (also found in the piece), which was scantly speakable one week ago

TIME magazine, June 2003:

Wolfowitz explained that "I am reasonably certain that (the Iraqi people) will greet us as liberators, and that will help us to keep requirements down." Six weeks ago [April 2003–AJL], Defense Secretary Rumsfeld was still suggesting the U.S. force in Iraq could be reduced to 30,000 by the end of the year.

How many more of these over-optimistic quotes would you conservatives like? Nobody said slogging in Iraq. Slogs are bad for re-election campaigns.

(I have a collection of these quotes, if people would like to contribute more.)

Aw-hah-hah...People saying things that they believe, going on the record - laying it out and taking a stand. Advocating action.

God - that is funny stuff, Andy. Collecting quotes, while citizens shed their blood for your ability to do so. Whoo-boy - what a great idea. You're the best. How perfectly petty, narcissistic, and hypocritical of you.

How angry and small your prison, brother?

The Hawks Loudly Express Their Second Thoughts

Samuel P. Huntington, the Harvard professor who famously predicted that the cold war's end would be followed not by the global spread of Western capitalism and democracy but by a "clash of civilizations," said he agreed with the need to combat foreign enemies with pre-emptive action in some cases. But he did not consider Iraq one of those imminent threats and opposed the invasion.

"We just didn't realize how totally different the culture is in Middle Eastern countries," he said. "Before the Iraq war, I predicted that we would quickly defeat Saddam Hussein and then find ourselves in a second war against the Iraqi people that we could never win."

Fareed Zakaria: The Price of Arrogance

On almost every issue involving postwar Iraq—troop strength, international support, the credibility of exiles, de-Baathification, handling Ayatollah Ali Sistani—Washington's assumptions and policies have been wrong. By now most have been reversed, often too late to have much effect. This strange combination of arrogance and incompetence has not only destroyed the hopes for a new Iraq. It has had the much broader effect of turning the United States into an international outlaw in the eyes of much of the world.

Whether he wins or loses in November, George W. Bush's legacy is now clear: the creation of a poisonous atmosphere of anti-Americanism around the globe. I'm sure he takes full responsibility.

Martin Wolf: Bush is not up to the job

I am a huge admirer of the US. Freedom and democracy survived the 20th century only because of American actions and values. Without the US, Hitler or Stalin would have emerged as undisputed winners of the second world war. Thereafter, the US turned defeated enemies into allies and undertook the long - and ultimately successful - task of containing and defeating the Soviet empire.

I am also neither hostile to Republican administrations nor opposed to the use of force. On the contrary, I was heartened by Ronald Reagan's efforts to liberalise the US economy and oppose the Soviet Union. I preferred Richard Nixon to George McGovern, in 1972, and George H.W. Bush to Michael Dukakis, in 1988. I supported the first Gulf war, though I opposed the one in Vietnam.

This personal history is of no intrinsic importance. But if I find the Bush administration's foreign policy disturbing, so must the vast majority of humanity. If I feel Tony Blair has allied the UK too closely, then sympathy for this alliance must be perilously low.

So what is wrong with this administration? Put simply, it fails to understand the basis of US power, mis-specifies US objectives and is incompetent in executing its intentions.

Terrorism is a technique of the powerless adapted to the age of mass communications. A war against terrorism is as empty a slogan as one against crime, drugs or disease. But proclaiming a war against terrorism justifies the indefinite suspension of the rule of law, allows every thug on the planet to ally his repressive policies to those of the US, spawns new enemies and foments a war psychosis in the US itself.

As David Scheffer pointed out in the Financial Times last Thursday, the behaviour of the guards at Abu Ghraib is the natural, almost the inevitable, consequence of the position in which the administration has - in its pursuit of its war on terrorism - put detainees. These are neither prisoners of war nor criminal suspects. Instead, they are in a legal limbo for as long as the US decides that this so-called "war" continues. Interrogators have absolute power and, as Lord Acton pointed out, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Nobody, not excluding Americans, is immune to the temptations such power creates.

The decision to wage a war of choice, not of necessity, was a great risk. It could be justified only by discovering the weaponry Mr Hussein was alleged to hold or by leaving the country, if not a Jeffersonian democracy, at least in a reasonably stable condition. Having been so resoundingly wrong on the first point, the US must now succeed on the second. Always difficult, the chances of such an outcome now seem vanishingly small. What will Iraq be a few years from now - a military dictatorship, a theocracy, a divided country, an anarchy, or a permanent US occupation? Any of these, except the last, seems more plausible than stable democracy.

The US has, rightly or wrongly, staked its prestige not just on getting rid of Saddam Hussein, but on leaving behind a thriving country. If, instead, it leaves behind despotism or chaos, it will be a grievous defeat, with huge long-run consequences. Responsibility for such a failure must rest with the White House. It cannot be blamed on any subordinate department, not even the defence department. This is the president's policy and responsibility. The buck stops there.

Crafting a foreign policy for a new era is hard. The last time this had to be done was in the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman more than half a century ago. The institutions they established and the values they upheld were the foundation of the successful US foreign policy of the postwar era. Now, a task even more complex has fallen on this president. He is not up to the job. This is not a moral judgment, but a practical one. The world is too complex and dangerous for the pious simplicities and arrogant unilateralism of George W. Bush.

I've always been a believer in giving the CIC total leeway in who he selects. As long as Bush has confidence in Rumsfeld, that should be that.

The other day when Kerry was asked who HE thought should be Sec. his answer was Carl Levin or John McCain!
These two gentlemen have polar opposite outlooks on the WOT. What the hell is Kerry thinkin'?!

Seems only fair though, if we're gonna second guess this President's choices maybe we oughtta be lookin' at Mr. Kerry in this regard as well.

Wonder how many of y'all want to open THAT pandora's box?

I didn't think so.

...3...

Here's a different angle;

I regard the claims of Rummy helping or not helping to build Iraq's government to be a false dichotomy.

The reason we have no real plans in this area is,rather simple; It's not our job, nor should it be, to create an Iraqi government. Rather, I'm convinced it's our role to provide a secure enough environment to allow the Iraqi people to build Iraq's government.

This is a fine but important line, I think most are missing here. You'd best hope that the Iraqis don't miss it, because the image of a US -installed government, however the elections actually run will ultimately defeat any progress being made there.

BTW-DRM:

I look forward to your lenthy dissertation on how much better Kerry would be for the WOT and why.

Hopefully you'll be able to cram all of Kerrys positives into the relatively limited space available on this blog.

THANK YOU

Rocketman writes: "I look forward to your lenthy dissertation on how much better Kerry would be for the WOT and why."

He can think for himself, he doesn't have to let loons like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz do his thinking for him.

While they weren't met by flowers, they weren't met by grenades either.

I'm not sure what the point is here. After all, the Iraqi people, whose private gun ownership is rivaled only by America's, didn't massively revolt against Saddam Hussein, either. For over TWENTY YEARS. And he was, as we all know, really bad.

In contrast, we've only been there one year, and we're not yet quite as bad as him.

The above comments are very useful, yet the best response to Drezner is to point out that he seems to have no notion what is meant by the word "war," nor of the consequences of the decision he advocates. To dismiss the leading general or war minister at a crisis point in a war is an admission of defeat. That's it. Nothing more need be said.

The above comments are very useful, yet the best response to Drezner is to point out that he seems to have no notion what is meant by the word "war," nor of the consequences of the decision he advocates. To dismiss the leading general or war minister at a crisis point in a war is an admission of defeat. That's it. Nothing more need be said.

> I do think that you... are falling into a kind
> of academic groupthink that is at least 160
> degrees off of reality. As I see it, Rumsfeld
> has consistently been proven correct about the
> size of the force and the appropriate methods
> for achieving our objectives.

Clearly, some of Drezner's correspondants are on crack.

...2...

I must have missed a comment. What do Tommy G's numbers mean? The number of days until he is inducted into the 101st Fighting Keyboarders?

Since you didn't bother with a substantive reply, I guess you're surrendering on the issue of whether the Administration predicted an easy war and occupation. And whether we're botching the job.

BTW, Tommy, I don't think someone who posts under a pseudonym and hasn't mentioned any combat experience (am I right?) should be so quick with the "hypocritical" label.

Never mentioned it? Well, no John F Kerry, I - so no, I don't suppose I have, directly. But were you as clever as you seem to think yourself, you should have been able to figure out over the last year and a half that I am, indeed, fully credentialed.

But what the hell does that have to do with anything? People who have never served a day in the military.. hell, people who *hate* the very idea of the american military have just as much right as I do to hold forth on defense matters.

What kind of sick fascist would argue that only those who serve can comment on it? You should know where that leads - That only those who have served can vote.

You really are a sad, sicklittle filth, aren't you, Andy? You want to play question and ph@ck!ng answer on someone else's bandwith? Fine. I'll go round 'till you get dumped. The answer to your fourth question is at the top of this post - your turn.

Now, on what logical basis do you purport that Dan Drezner, David Thomson or Jon H have no business discussing national security issues on the web?

"You wanna play it soft, we'll play it soft..."

Well, you derved that, Mr Lazarus. And unfortunately for you, you chose to validate his characterization of you by reminding everyone of Mr. "Tomorrow"'s - speaking of pseudonyms - morally bankrupt cartoon, and equally vile defense of it. Follows is my disassembly from some other blog, and, as it happens, I come to the same conclusion as Tommy does...

"Here’s the math,

STEP 1, Tom Tomorrow's defense of his cartoon:

"It is about that self-aggrandazing [sic] subset who think [sic] the war is a fine thing to fight, as long as others do the fighting. It draws a clear distinction between those who are in the field risking their lives, and those who seem to think they are fighting a war at home by maintaining a weblog. In short, the point of the cartoon, to me, is that the actual sacrifices of people who are fighting this war are cheapened by this "me too" attitude--"I'm fighting Islamofacism on my *blog*!"

Step 2: Reduce to like values

It is about that self-aggrandazing subset who think A THING is a fine thing TO DO, as long as others do A THING. It draws a clear distinction between those who are DOING A THING and those who seem to think they are DOING A THING at home by DOING A DIFFERENT THING.

In short, the point of the cartoon, to me, is that the actual sacrifices of people who are fighting this war are cheapened by this "me too" attitude--"I'm fighting Islamofacism on my *blog*!"

STEP 3: Differentiate among like terms.

It is about that self-aggrandazing subset who think A PARTICULAR ACTION is a fine thing TO DO, as long as others do A PARTICULAR ACTION. It draws a clear distinction between those who are DOING THIS PARTICULAR ACTION and those who seem to think they are SUPPORTING A PARTICULAR ACTION at home by DOING A DIFFERENT ACTION.

In short, the point of the cartoon, to me, is that the actual sacrifices of people who are fighting this war are cheapened by this "me too" attitude--"I'm fighting Islamofacism on my *blog*!"

STEP 4: Remove Summation, drop modifiers.

It is about people who think A PARTICULAR ACTION can be DONE, as long as others do it. It distinguishes between those who DO THIS PARTICULAR ACTION and those who SUPPORT A PARTICULAR ACTION by DOING A DIFFERENT ACTION.

STEP 5: Convert to 1st Person

I believe that People who think that something should be done, as long as others do it, are wrong. I distinguish between those who physically do things and those who support them yet are not actually doing it themselves.

STEP 6: Return Conclusion
I believe that People who think that something should be done, as long as others do it, are wrong. I distinguish between those who physically do things and those who support them yet are not actually doing it themselves.

In short, the point of the cartoon, to me, is that the physical actions of people who do something are cheapened by those who support them--"I'm thwarting the political progress of conservatives in my cartoon!"

Now, then. What are we to make of Mr. Tomorrow’s statement?

Clearly, his initial though is valid – not very democratic, but valid all the same. Now, I’m not sure that those who are supporting Mr. Tomorrow on this thread believe this, else they would not be posting. Unless, as I have demonstrated, they are everyone of them elected public officials.

What is not so clear is why Mr. Tomorrow, having stated what he believes quite forcefully, concludes that he, however, holds himself to no such standard.

La, that was fun. What say you, reasoned opposition?"

...1...