THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Powell cricises post-Iraq war troop levels
26 Feb 2005 03:57:29 GMT

Source: Reuters

LONDON, Feb 26 (Reuters) - Former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell has criticised the number of troops allocated for dealing with the aftermath of war in Iraq, saying more soldiers should have been on the ground from the onset.

In an interview with Britain's Daily Telegraph newspaper published on Saturday, Powell said the war had been "brilliantly fought" with a limited number of soldiers but the steps taken towards "nation-building" were insufficient.

There were "enough troops for war but not for peace, for establishing order", he told the paper, which said the comments demonstrated a rift between Powell and U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

"My own preference would have been for more forces after the conflict."

The number of U.S. troops in Iraq was boosted to around 150,000 ahead of last month's election up from 123,000 a year ago. They are supported by around 26,000 foreign troops.

Following the 2003 invasion, Rumsfeld said U.S. military commanders believed there were enough troops to contain insurgents and establish peace. However, amid escalating violence and to boost security for January's Iraq elections, the troop levels were later increased.

Powell, who resigned from his post in November, said he had warned President George W. Bush in August 2002 about the problems of a post-war scenario.

"My caution was that you need to understand the difficult bit will come afterwards -- the military piece will be easy," he said he had told the president.

"This place (Iraq) will crack like a crystal goblet, and it'll be a problem to pick up the bits."

Powell said it was for this reason that Bush gave him the go ahead to embark on the ultimately unsuccessful bid to win a second United Nations resolution backing the war amid opposition from traditional U.S. allies such as France.

It was an attempt to heal the bitter differences the war had caused that prompted Bush to embark this week on a fence-mending trip to Europe. Powell said the United States needed to do more to improve its European relations.

"We've got a lot more work to do with European public opinion," he said, adding U.S. policies and the language used to express them had grated with many Europeans.

He also distanced himself from the now famous remarks uttered by Rumsfeld in June 2003 when he described France and Germany as "old Europe" compared to a "new Europe" of U.S. allies.

"I never used that phrase. It just wasn't a useful construct," he said.

"It was just something that Don used one day and became chiselled in time."

Better late than never? Who knows?

Did anybody else hear "solvers?" It seems to me that terrorist activity increased since our preemptive attack on Iraq.

ican wrote: " it was linked to future 911s. The whole argument seems to rest on the concept of imminent threat. The only way a threat can be proven to be an imminent threat is for it to have been executed. "

Not true. Check the dictionary. If verifiable evidence existed of a viable threat to US security as well of evidence that the threat was intended for immediate execution, THAT would be imminent.

We are not discussing the meaning (dictionary or otherwise) of imminent threat. We are discussing proving an imminent threat. What verifiable evidence did we have that 911 was an imminent threat "intended for immediate execution?" We had that evidence only after it became available after the first airline struck the first WTC tower. At that time it was too late to stop its execution. It was even too late to stop the second airliner from striking the second WTC tower.

By the way, binLaden actually DID attack us, not a threat, but an actual attack. Odd that Bush didn't make HIM the primary target. Then again, not so odd if one believes, as I do, that invading Iraq was on the neocon agenda long before 911.
Bin Laden threatened to attack us in 1996 and 1998 in his Fatwas. But those threats were not considered imminent threats until after they were executed. Al Qaeda is according to the 911 Comission a world wide confederation of terrorist groups that began growing rapidly long before they attacked us on 9/11/2001.

--------------------

ican wrote: "They wanted to strike before the threat of other 911s became imminent."

The doctrine of pre-emption is debatable under any circumstances, but without verification of an imminent threat, it is war based upon speculation.
We can verify an imminent threat only after it has been executed. Prior to that it is merely a judgment or speculation that a threat will be executed.

---------------------

ican wrote: "When the terrorists attacked us they weren't threatened by us until we invaded two of the countries in which they were based."

Indeed, they were based in Afghanistan, which is where our efforts ought to have been directed and concentrated. They were not based in Iraq at that time. Of course, they are now.
Oh yes they were based in Iraq at the time. They were re-established in northern Iraq with bin Ladens help in 2001 after the Kurds defeated them before 1999. We didn't invade Iraq until 3/20/2003, only after we three times asked Saddam's regime to extradite their leaders. Get your facts straight.

--------------------

ican wrote: "Spreading democracy is our administration's way of stifling terrorism". I responded "If you think about it, invading a sovereign nation and imposing democracy might have exactly the opposite effect."
ican wrote: "If pigs had wings they might be able to fly."
Cute, but neither relevant nor appropriate. The point is, the terrorists did not have a foothold in Iraq before we invaded. They do now. Connect the dots.
Yes they did have a foothold in Iraq in and after 2001. Al Qaeda was based in Iraq before we invaded Iraq. We defeated those based there after we invaded Iraq in 2003.

--------------------

ican wrote: " It is clear now that we are attempting to impose (your word) or help (my word) the Iraqis achieve what they want to achieve and have wanted to achieve for a very long time: a democracy of their own design. "

Suggesting that we ought not have invaded Iraq to help (your word) the Iraqis achieve democracy is not equivalent to suggesting that they ought not have democracy. As I suggested in my previous posts, if Bush had told the American people we were invading Iraq to institute democracy, it would never have flied, not because we think the Iraqis, or anyone else, don't deserve democracy, but because it is unlawful to invade a sovereign nation simply for purposes of regime change. Most Americans understand this. And most Americans choose to put their brave sons and daughters in harms way ONLY when necessary to defend our national security.
Most Americans Balderdash It was not simply for regime change. It was done for several reasons. Among other reasons it was done to prevent al Qaeda from continuing to develop in Iraq to the same or greater extent than it had developed in Afghanistan before we invaded Afghanistan. The basic principle is: if your government allows terrorists to be based in your country we will invade your country to stop your government from allowing that.

--------------------

I wrote: "If the Iraqis wanted democracy so badly, they ought to have revolted against Saddam and then asked for multinational help in their battle for freedom." And ican responded "This argument seems disgustingly analogous to the argument that the doctrine of separate but equal." Oh no you don't. First of all, that analogy makes absolutely no logical sense. And secondly, I loathe the notion of separate but equal. Anyone who has been on the gay rights threads knows that.
How dare you set conditions for what the Iraqis had to do or have to do to earn their freedom. Others like you did exactly the same thing with regard to setting conditions for ending "separate but equal."

------------------

ican wrote: "I have zero tolerance for ... that"
Well, finally, something upon which we agree.

------------------

ican wrote "Who are we or anyone else to dictate the conditions for people to enjoy the freedom democracy can deliver?

Exactly. Who are we to dictate anything.
We and every other non-criminal are free to dictate our own inalienable rights.

------------------

ican wrote: "I as well as a great majority of the people I know endorse spreading democracy as a rational method that will probably prove effective in not only stifling terrorist acts, but also of eventually stifling the conditions of hopelessness that promote its attraction for recruits."

Hello ? I agree completely with that concept. I just disagree that selective military invasion is the way to achieve it. And by the way, at the risk of repeating myself yet again, I still do not believe that we invaded Iraq to spread democracy.

-------------------

ican wrote: "The US has for years promoted the doctrine of working with tyrannical governments and not giving a damn about the effects of that on the people being tyrannized by such governments. OK, we can't correct those past blunders all at once. We lack the means. But we can start and continue work to rectify those blunders now."

Well said. How about we start by breaking off ties with Saudi Arabia? Pakistan ? China ?
When we have the means available I'd direct our attention first to freeing the people of Lebanon, then Syria, then Iran, and then North Korea, in that order. Then let's see who else needs our help.

-------------------

Look, ican, you and I are not that far apart in terms of how we would like to see the greater world community operate. We do disagree significantly, however, in how to achieve those goals. Specifically, I strongly disagree with the notion that the US is entitled to use its military power to impose our beliefs, however noble, upon that community. Military action, especially pre-emptive military action, is only justified when our national security is verifiably threatened.
It is now clear that we are not imposing democracy on the Iraqis or anyone else. That they want democracy is now clear.

Fighting terrorism has to be done, IMO, by the multinational world community, both overtly and covertly. Fighting poverty, assisting with heath issues, opening dialogues to promote cultural understanding, adopting balanced positions regarding long-standing political issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - all these methods can help overtly. And using the covert network of our trusted allies is equally essential to ferreting out the terrorists among us.
Talk is cheap but ineffective in the face of those dedicated to murdering you.

Invading a sovereign, eastern, Muslim state, as white, western, Christian, oil-hungry imperialists is extraordinarily counterproductive. It works in favor of the terrorists and feeds their ranks with fresh recruits for years to come.
I think your method has shown itself to be unworkable in the past. We ought not choose our method merely because it pleases us. We should also pick a method that works. We shall see if the present method works or not.

Yes they did have a foothold in Iraq in and after 2001. Al Qaeda was based in Iraq before we invaded Iraq. We defeated those based there after we invaded Iraq in 2003.

Quote:

Yes they did have a foothold in Iraq in and after 2001. Al Qaeda was based in Iraq before we invaded Iraq. We defeated those based there after we invaded Iraq in 2003.

Having a base in Iraq isn't the same thing as being based in Iraq.
Well excuse me! Gee I actually thought that having a base in X was equivalent to being based in X.


Now, there are many, many more terrorists in Iraq than there used to be. What changed to draw them there? Cycloptichorn
Members of the al Qaeda confederation came to Iraq from all over the world, because they realize that if they lose Iraq as a base, as well as Afghanistan, they are doomed. The rest of the world is better off with them concentrated in Iraq. They are more easily exterminated there. However, by far the largest number of would be subverters of Iraqi democracy are the remnant from Saddam's Baathist gangster government desperate to retrieve their lost power. Without those gangsters in power, the Iraqis are still better off even with the al Qaeda confederation's invasion of Iraq.

I vaguely remember reading something about the Sunni's executing Saddam's Bathist party members as revenge, and there isn't much the US or Iraqi security police can do, because they're busy with the insurgency.