1
   

More generals confess to mistakes; Gen. Pace betrayed troops

 
 
Reply Tue 18 Sep, 2007 08:56 am
I have no respect for General Pace as he is one of the worst in betraying our troops by putting his career security ahead of the welfare of our troops. It also appears he's stupid and incompetent.---BBB

More generals confess to mistakes
(AP)
2007-09-18

The number of top generals willing to admit mistakes in planning for post-Saddam Hussein Iraq is increasing. The most recent mea culpa came right from the top ?- Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the outgoing Joint Chiefs chairman, who last week gave his most extensive answer to the question of what he would have done differently in 2003.

At the time, Pace was vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs and had a front-row seat in war planning sessions at the Pentagon with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

"One of the mistakes I made in my assumptions going in was that the Iraqi people and the Iraqi army would welcome liberation, that the Iraqi army, given the opportunity, would stand together for the Iraqi people and be available to them to help serve the new nation," Pace said.

He said the Iraqi army more or less "disintegrated." The Bush administration made a much-criticized decision in 2003 to disband the army rather than reorganize it, beginning the long process of building a new force from scratch.

Pace said if he could have foresaw the Iraqi army's lack of cooperation, "I probably would have made a different recommendation about the total size force going in."

There is a consensus among Democrats, Republicans and military experts in Washington that Rumsfeld, his advisers and generals botched the post-war plan.

For one, there were too few troops to safeguard government buildings, arsenals and neighborhoods.

Retired Army Gen. John Abizaid worked closely with Rumsfeld at the Pentagon as director of the Joint Staff. He eventually became chief of U.S. Central Command during the the insurgency's rise.

Asked at a 2006 hearing if Gen. Eric Shinseki, then the Army chief, was right in calling for more than 300,000 troops in Iraq, Abizaid said, "General Shinseki was right that a greater international force contribution, U.S. force contribution and Iraqi force contribution should have been available immediately after major combat operations."

Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, was not a Rumsfeld confidante during 2003 war planning, but he did command the 101st Airborne Division in the initial invasion and occupation.

In a run-up to his January Senate confirmation hearing, Petraeus provided an extensive list of the military's biggest mistakes.

"There were a number of assumptions and assessments that did not bear out," he told the committee. "Prominent among them was the assumption that Iraqis would remain in their barracks and ministry facilities would resume their functions as soon as interim government structures were in place. That obviously did not transpire."
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 436 • Replies: 3
No top replies

 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Sep, 2007 09:11 am
When do you suppose our "war president" will ever admit to his mistakes and blunders. Laughing
When the fish stinks, look to the head
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Sep, 2007 09:12 am
When do you suppose our "war president" will ever admit to his mistakes and blunders. Laughing
When the fish stinks, look to the head
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Sep, 2007 10:12 am
"Indeed, the truth about Iraq, as evidenced by Gen. David Petreaus' muted, bleak testimony before Congress just this week, is much more simple, nefarious, pathetic. Iraq is, was, and forever will be our very own massive strategic blunder, a failed land grab for position and power in a tinderbox region defined by furious instability and corruption and death.

It's the great unspoken subtext. Iraq has always been a war between our dueling national identities, a battle over how we are to move and breathe and behave in the new millennium. Are we really this violently paranoid bully, this rogue pre-emptive screw-em-all ideological war machine defined by the dystopian Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld vision of permanent, ongoing global conflict?

Or do we try, instead, to move forward and reinvent ourselves over and over again as the world's most commited, forceful peacekeeper, ever striving for balance and cooperation and tact, even in the face of hardship and fundamentalist rage, refusing to be taunted and dragged down lest we take the bait and lose our minds and engage in torture and misprision and ultraviolence and become little better, ideologically speaking, than our taunters? Have we already made our choice?
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/g/a/2007/09/14/notes091407.DTL&type=printable
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » More generals confess to mistakes; Gen. Pace betrayed troops
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/19/2026 at 02:28:11