CNN Makes Case Shinseki Did Not Push for More Troops in Iraq

  • Bookmark and Share

On Monday’s The Situation Room, CNN correspondent Jamie McIntyre conveyed a dissenting view of whether retired General Eric Shinseki, Barack Obama’s choice for Veterans Affairs Secretary, can accurately be described as having advised the Bush administration to send more troops to occupy Iraq. McIntyre: "But Shinseki has his critics, too, who say, in fact, he never stood up to Rumsfeld, never pressed for more troops for Iraq, and, when asked in a private meeting of the Joint Chiefs if he had concerns about the war plans, never said a word, according to two people who were in the room. Asked by Newsweek two years ago to respond to the criticism he didn't press his concerns, Shinseki e-mailed back: ‘Probably that's fair. Not my style.’"

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

McIntyre began his report: "The story that's going up around General Shinseki is that he spoke truth to power and was punished for it. But the facts suggest a slightly different, perhaps a little less complementary narrative. For better or worse, General Eric Shinseki's distinguished 38-year Army career has been largely reduced to these 29 words uttered in a Senate committee almost six years ago."

Then came a soundbite from Shinseki that he gave before the Senate committee, dated February 25, 2003: "I would say that what's been mobilized, to this point, something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required."

In contrast with other media accounts which leave the impression that Shinseki had actively pushed this view at the time, McIntyre characterized those famous words as an "off-the-cuff guesstimate" in response to a question from one Senator. By contrast, as previously documented by NewsBusters, on Sunday’s CBS Evening News, Dean Reynolds blamed the high number of U.S. troop injuries in Iraq on the Bush administration refusing to take Shinseki’s advice to send more troops to occupy Iraq.

Below is a complete transcript of McIntyre’s report from the Monday, December 8 The Situation Room on CNN:

WOLF BLITZER: He’s the first Japanese-American to become an Army Four-Star General, and would be the first Asian-American ever to lead the government’s second largest agency. The retired General Eric Shinseki, Obama's pick for Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Those facts aside, there are also some other questions surrounding General Shinseki. Let's go to our senior Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre who's covered him for some time. What's the latest? Because he gets a lot of praise from critics of the Iraq war for standing up to Defense, supposedly standing up to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

JAMIE MCINTYRE: That's right, Wolf. The story that's going up around General Shinseki is that he spoke truth to power and was punished for it. But the facts suggest a slightly different, perhaps a little less complementary narrative. For better or worse, General Eric Shinseki's distinguished 38-year Army career has been largely reduced to these 29 words uttered in a Senate committee almost six years ago.

GENERAL ERIC SHINSEKI: I would say that what's been mobilized, to this point, something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required.

MCINTYRE: That off-the-cuff guesstimate just a month before the invasion of how many U.S. troops it would take to secure Iraq turned Shinseki into a poster boy for Bush administration critics. For years, they have argued the General's sage advice for a larger ground force was ignored by his civilian bosses. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his Deputy Paul Wolfowitz, who famously dismissed the high-end estimate. In naming Shinseki as his pick for Veterans Secretary, President-elect Obama seemed to be subtly rebuking Rumsfeld, calling Shinseki someone who always stood on principle.

BARACK OBAMA: No one will ever doubt that this former Army chief of staff has the courage to stand up for our troops and our veterans.

MCINTYRE: But Shinseki has his critics, too, who say, in fact, he never stood up to Rumsfeld, never pressed for more troops for Iraq, and, when asked in a private meeting of the Joint Chiefs if he had concerns about the war plans, never said a word, according to two people who were in the room. Asked by Newsweek two years ago to respond to the criticism he didn't press his concerns, Shinseki e-mailed back: "Probably that's fair. Not my style." But nobody disputes General Shinseki has had a distinguished military career, and now that he's serving a President who wants his advice and counsel, he has the potential to make a difference in the lives of tens of thousands of wounded veterans and their families.

—Brad Wilmouth is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

GENERAL ERIC SHINSEKI: I

GENERAL ERIC SHINSEKI: I would say that what's been mobilized, to this point, something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required.

 

Hmmm....lets look at that in the proper context shall we?

 

On February 25, 2003, four months before the end of his term as Chief of Staff of the Army, Shinseki told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he thought an occupying force of several hundred thousand men would be needed to stabilize postwar Iraq. He was pressed to provide a range by Senator Carl Levin (D-MI). Below is an excerpt from the exchange:[16]

SEN. LEVIN: General Shinseki, could you give us some idea as to the magnitude of the Army's force requirement for an occupation of Iraq following a successful completion of the war?

GEN. SHINSEKI: In specific numbers, I would have to rely on combatant commanders' exact requirements. But I think --

SEN. LEVIN: How about a range?

GEN. SHINSEKI: I would say that what's been mobilized to this point -- something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We're talking about posthostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so it takes a significant ground-force presence.

 

 

Once again CNN is customizing quotes to fit what they want people to believe. 

 

"I May Be Changed By War, But I Will Not Be Defeated By It" - Audie Murphy

"Once again CNN is

"Once again CNN is customizing quotes to fit what they want people to believe."

Not only that (context), but the quote they use is, IMO, completely misinterpreted. Seems to me that Shinseki said the force that was "mobilized" was adequate to what "would be required."

If you've "mobilized" a force, what more can you do, prior to the actual invasion? Or, in this case, the occupation, which, as you point out, was the real context of the question?

I think the bottom line here is, any "hold-overs" from Bush must be painted as "rebels," since the last 8 years have held to the "all things Bush are either evil, stupid, or both" meme. "Take me to the river, wash me in the water."

Maybe I'm expressing it poorly, but this is just standard agenda-driven media spin, versus actual reportage.

 

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." - The Who

Shinseki Is all about Shinseki

His biggest accomplishment while he was in charge was to take the black berret away from the Army Rangers (who had to settle for a tan one) and give it to every soldier to wear as the uniform headgear.  This was against the will of the commanders, soldiers and others who all wrote General Shinseki about the downside of changing headgear and the overall cost being too much and the money could be spent better on improvements to the quality of life of the soldier. 

He went ahead and changed to the berret to give himself a "legacy" statement.

I won't pretend to know

I won't pretend to know about all the dynamics involved in the beret decision.  I certainly disagreed with the decision, much as I disagreed with the Air Force's decision in the '80s to design "wings" (uniform badges) for every job category in the force, instead of keeping them reserved for flying categories. Such symbols are important, and handing them out like candy diminishes their significance.  I speak as one who has worn a beret in service, and who didn't earn wings, pilot/nav/jump or otherwise.

That said, it seems to me that General Shinseki has a lot more to his credit than that single decision.  And I find it hard to believe that a general with 30+ years of service at the time would see that specific decision as a legacy opportunity.

But then, I don't know the guy.  Just the job.

"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me

Shinseki's black beret

I couldn't agree more.  My husband has been in the military almost 20 years and his name is synonymous with the black beret in our household. Dumbest move by a General in recent history!  I hate to hear that we have to deal with him again. 

Hussein may have selected

Hussein may have selected Gen. Shinseki as a way to say, "I want people that President Bush doesn't like," which would be par for the course for him.  So what?  We all know what a child Hussein is.

But the fact of the matter is that the general has an over-three-decade knowledge of military life, and that certainly qualifies him to be Secretary of Veterans Affairs.  Speaking as a veteran, I'd rather see him there than some of the civilians who have held the post (or its pre-cabinet analog) in the past.

"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me

Oh, obviously

Whoever can do the best job for veterans is the best choice, whatever the reason.

It's just interesting that it has to be spun politically (and not just by Obama) in this "new and improved" political climate. But it's scary to think that such an important, non-political post could have been filled by an incompetent political hack.

Fortunately (apparently), that didn't happen. 

 

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." - The Who

One thing to note...

...is that Gen Shinseki was the Chief of Staff of the Army, NOT the guy in charge of the actual operation who was Gen Franks.  Everything thing that I have read leads me to believe that when Gen Franks was asked by Pres Bush if he had everything he needed to complete the mission, Gen Franks said "yes".

'nuff said.