General challenging Rumsfeld

General challenging Rumsfeld


By THOMAS M. DeFRANK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF

WASHINGTON - War is too important to be left to the generals, a French prime minister famously observed. Now, the generals have decided the Iraq war is too important to be left to the politicians.Gen. John Abizaid's decision to press for bulking up U.S. firepower is a polite but unmistakable rebuff to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who for months has rejected sending more troops to Iraq in a campaign year."What Abizaid is really doing is confronting Rumsfeld," a senior Pentagon official told the Daily News. "He's not going tolet the election calendar determine what he needs to do thejob."Civilian control of the military is a time-honored American tradition, saluted briskly if not always revered by military brass. As fighting in Iraq exploded last week, killing dozens of G.I.s, Abizaid and his senior commanders were emboldened to press the case for more combat strength, Pentagon sources said. A senior military official told The News that Abizaid, who speaks fluent Arabic and is regarded as more independent than his predecessor, Gen. Tommy Franks, has been repeatedly discouraged from asking for more soldiers because President Bush has publicly pledged to bring 25,000 troops home from Iraq before the November elections."Rumsfeld has made it clear tothe whole building that hewasn't interested in getting any requests for more troops," the Pentagon official said.To placate Rumsfeld, Abizaid has consistently said he has enough "assets" to carry out his assigned mission. Sources close to Abizaid said, however, that for months, he's wanted to expand that mission to seal off Iraq's borders.Currently, U.S. commanders don't have enough troops to stop the infiltration of foreign fighters into Iraq from Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia to bolster anti-American insurgents. In Baghdad last week, a bullish Abizaid said, "We are not headed for disaster as long as we are resolute, courageous and patient." But when asked about needing more troops, he also made clear "everything is on the table," including holding over some units set to rotate home and speeding up the arrival of replacement outfits.With Rumsfeld belatedly preparing to give Abizaid what heneeds, the Bush administration seems to have absorbed the new political reality: sending more troops to contain the upsurge in fighting may threaten Bush's electoral prospects less than bringing greater numbers of young Americans home in coffins.

What is the team Bush more interested in the safety of our troops and fighting the war as it should be fought or getting reelected? The call for more troops on the ground has been heard from many sources since before the invasion and stifled by little Caesar {Rumsfeld}. It is just one of the many mistakes made in Iraq since Bush uttered the immortal words Mission Accomplished.
Where else do you think The brain trust went wrong in it's planning and follow through?