Interesting op ed piece from Rumsfield, Michael. Very well written, argument well framed. The lack of evidence for the arguments is a given but that may change. Who knows?
A couple of points. First, the argument for a larger invasion force was not simply about the invasion itself but making certain minimal security followed it. That was Shinsiki's (sp??) argument and others. That argument is now borne out, at least in the short term. Because what is absent are not town councils but the very basics of security and the very basics of infra structure operation. More troops going in might have made that possible. But we now know that one of the reasons for the low level of troops may have been lack of troops period, not simply a military plan.
Second, if one way to assess an argument is to see how it deals with its most difficult problem and to expect that it will simply ignore it, that is certainly true here. Much of the insecurity comes from the several forms of opposition to the US occupation. Rumsfeld mentions that, slightly, and to his credit, but then slides away into the "let the Iraqis do it." And, of course, they can't let the Iraqis do it, because they fear that means a Shiite state, aligned with Iran, deeply hostile to the US, with a Sunni minority, in opposition to the Shiites and harboring an Al Q element. And with opposition from the Kurds. Not a mention.
It's a bucket of worms, as they say. |
