- The review of "In the Company of Soldiers" by Washington Post war correspondent Rick Atkinson reveals the ridiculously low estimate made by the Pentagon's civilian leadership of troops needed in Iraq. Those words echoed eerily amid news of open fighting in Baghdad between U.S. troops and Shiite militia.
In the "afterword" following his brilliant account of the actual war, Atkinson wrote: "Pentagon planners in early May had predicted that U.S. troop levels would be down to 30,000 by late summer (of 2003)."
That was the first time that prediction had been seen in print by startled readers at the Defense Department. The existing 125,000 troop-level (currently at 135,000 because of replacements) is considered inadequate by the generals.
(excerpt)
At the heart of this debate is the original belief by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's team that conquering U.S. troops would be welcomed by open arms in Iraq. In this highly political season, Democrats are replaying the debate of a year ago. Gen. Eric Shinseki, then about to leave as the Army's chief of staff, said "several hundred thousand soldiers" could be needed in Iraq. "Way off the mark," retorted Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.
(excerpt)
While Democrats roar, the generals are silent -- in public. Many confide that they will not cast their normal Republican votes on Nov. 2. They cannot bring themselves to vote for John Kerry, who has been a consistent Senate vote against the military. But these generals say they are unable to vote for Don Rumsfeld's boss, and so will not vote at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment