Media reports on President-elect Barack Obama's selection of retired Army General Eric Shinseki commonly described the pick as a “rebuke” or “repudiation” of the Bush administration for underestimating the number of troops that would be needed to occupy Iraq, but CBS's Dean Reynolds went further as he implied abiding by Shinseki's 2003 recommendation for “several hundred thousand soldiers” would have prevented wounded troops. On Sunday's CBS Evening News, over archive video of Shinseki visiting wounded soldiers -- and leading into a soundbite from Shinseki saying “veterans who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan in particular are confronting severe wounds, some seen, some unseen” -- Reynolds declared:
Now Shinseki will deal with the consequences of a policy that rejected his advice.
Of course, many soldiers and Marines have been wounded in Afghanistan and it's hardly an established fact that more American troops in Iraq in 2003 would have precluded a large number of American casualties which would require services from the Department of Veterans Affairs.
From the Sunday, December 7 CBS Evening News:
DEAN REYNOLDS: ...In picking Eric Shinseki to head Veterans Affairs, the President-elect offered a symbolic rebuke to the Bush administration for under-estimating the insurgency in post-war Iraq that the former General memorably warned would take far more resources to fight.
SHINSEKI, FEBRUARY 25, 2003: Something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers.
REYNOLDS: Now Shinseki will deal with the consequences of a policy that rejected his advice.
SHINSEKI, ON SUNDAY: Veterans who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan in particular are confronting severe wounds, some seen, some unseen.
—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Well its hard to argue.....
December 7, 2008 - 22:50 ET by shawn228That Shinsheki was not right. If we went into Iraq with adequete troops and did a better job of protecting them from insurgents and militias, we could have won this a long time ago.
General Abazaid sure agrees.
"On November 15, 2006,
Gen. John P. Abizaid, chief of the U.S. Central Command, in testimony
before the Senate Armed Services Committee, acknowledged that in his
view, and with hindsight, Shinseki had been correct in his view that a
larger postwar force was needed. Abizaid noted that this force could
have included Iraqi or international forces in addition to American
force:[18][19]'
He had my vote
That Shinsheki was not
December 7, 2008 - 23:08 ET by Dan The Man 2That Shinsheki was not right. If we went into Iraq with adequate troops
and did a better job of protecting them from insurgents and militias,
we could have won this a long time ago
Funny how those 20/20 rear vision goggles work so well. If I remember right there was a precarious balancing act between too few and too many troops. If we sent in 205K troops and clamped down like no ones business we would have been seen as oppressors; so we tried a smaller footprint at first to see if the people would come around.
We underestimated teh terrorist factor and the old regime holdouts. We made teh mistake of hoping the matter would right itself. So we were in a steep learning curve. At the end we finally found teh right balance and we have all but won.
So Shawn do you have problems with that?
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Dan
December 7, 2008 - 23:14 ET by shawn228I do not see why we would have been seen as oppressors if there was enough troops to stop all the looting even on the first day of the invasion.
And no...I have no problems with the progress we are making in Iraq if that is what you are implying.
Would you say Shinsheki was right?
He had my vote
I do not see why we would
December 7, 2008 - 23:26 ET by Dan The Man 2I do not see why we would have been seen as oppressors if there was
enough troops to stop all the looting even on the first day of the
invasion.- there would never been enough troops. The troops were protecting the oil production infrastructure and other key spots. Looting would happen no matter what; and just think if we started shooting them.
Shinsheki was right? In the same vein as anyone who looks backwards with 20/20 vision. The invasion went off with few problems so the amount of personnel for that was about right. It was post invasion that is in question. I believe Shinskeki was talking about the invasion itself. So in that he was among the minority.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
No Dan
December 8, 2008 - 00:04 ET by shawn228He meant both, for the invasion and to secure the citizens.
He had my vote
It's not backwards 20/20
December 8, 2008 - 00:04 ET by jay_1975I was part of the invasion in 2003 and it was obvious that we didn't have enough troops as was advised by the Chief of Staff (GEN Shinsheki). We forgoed a systematic approach in which we would have secured each town on a steady march to Baghdad from the south and north as was advised by GEN's Shinsheki and Franks. Turkey would not allow us to use their airspace for anything other than humanitarian aid and we had to fly units all the way across Iraq to hit Mosul, Kirkuk etc. and couldn't bring in the armor needed. We bypassed many large towns to hit Baghdad as fast as we could thinking that if we cut off the head the body would die. As we say in the Army; failing to plan is planning to fail. Luckily SECDEF Gates came along and men like McCain had the guts to come out and say that we needed a larger pressence to stabilize Iraq and we are now reaping the benefits of actions that should have taken place in 2003.
Thank you Jay
December 8, 2008 - 00:07 ET by shawn228For your comment and your service to our country.
He had my vote
I was part of the invasion
December 8, 2008 - 00:16 ET by Dan The Man 2I was part of the invasion in 2003- as part of commanddirecting troop movements? In all wars the grunts believe things could be better and in a sense they are right, things could usually be better. The gambit worked warts and all, yall took the objectives and we won the battle. My point is from tehre it turned into a diplomatic problem, one we were on teh losing wend until we decided to get serious.
So Shineski was wrong about teh invasion but right about taht we needed more troops to secure Iraq. We had teh same problem we have securing our own borders and country.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
I don't call getting blown
December 8, 2008 - 00:23 ET by jay_1975I don't call getting blown up by IED's, mortars, RPG's, rockets and EFP's a "diplomatic problem". We had the support and the capabilities to go in there the right way. Our Generals wanted more troops and the politicians cut their feet out from under them.
I don't call getting blown
December 8, 2008 - 10:07 ET by Dan The Man 2I don't call getting blown up by IED's, mortars, RPG's, rockets and EFP's a "diplomatic problem" - And I dont either, the reference I was making was after teh initial invasion and securing of Iraq; Iraq was treated as a diplomatic exercise. IMO, which along with $5 will get you a cup of coffee, the mission was handed off to diplomats and it was in hindsight a poor decision.
But, the consensus was that if we put more troops in we would look like oppressors instead of liberators; but we were potrayed as oppressors anyway.
I am trying to say you were not part of teh "bigger" picture, teh strategic one. In WWII from what I remember the Pacific was until 1944/45 a holding battle with a small number of forces just trying to hold off teh Japanese until the forces from the European front could come into play.
So the men who fought this war also complained about teh strategy and teh equipment and so on as all men in the trenches complain about teh conditions. So as you see your role and teh problems you encountered in teh trenches. The strategy, right or wrong, is based on teh big picture and it is up to teh men in the trenches to accomplish the mission set forth.
The men told to rush teh fortified hilltop position are always unhappy.
Perhaps that is a simplified idea.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
More Troops Would Mean More Deaths
December 8, 2008 - 08:56 ET by allanfThe more troops -- the more casualties. Patreaus did it with limited troops and a brilliant counter-insurgency strategy. Leadership counts.
Lincoln struggled with his generals so did Bush.
Let me guess, they didn't
December 7, 2008 - 23:16 ET by Dave DLet me guess, they didn't mention another piece of his "advice" was to buy that new expensive artillery system. You know, the one called "Crusader". Anybody want to take a guess how fielding a system like that in Iraq would have turned out?
The Crusader was in
December 8, 2008 - 00:08 ET by jay_1975The Crusader was in development since the early 90's along with the Comanche recon helicopter. Those tools were being developed to fight a conventional army which is what we first faced (sort of) in Iraq. In open desert, armor and artillery are what you need as was proven in Desert Storm. Most of the planning was for a sort of Desert Storm 2 type fight and the insurgence caught most off guard.
The problem is that US was
December 8, 2008 - 00:32 ET by Dave DThe problem is that US was able to do incredibly well without Crusader and that was still true with the invasion phase of the Iraq war.(Maybe against the Russians or Chinese a top flight artillery would have been useful but a broken down Iraqi army?) The part that gave the US all the headaches was the occupation phase and artillery isn't particularly good at that. (Artillery isn't known for working well against guerillas hiding in a population. Of course it's made worse by the fact the people being occupied would definitely have a problem with anything named Crusader and would likely make resisitance worse.)
Rumsfeld did not think of an
December 8, 2008 - 00:39 ET by jay_1975Rumsfeld did not think of an insurgency. He thought that we would be hailed as liberaters and Iraq would be fine after a year or so. GEN Tommy Franks brought forth all of the most likely results of an invasion and showed Rumsfeld what kind of numbers and equipment we needed and he and Cheney blew him off. Franks was a great leader who left the service because of the choices made by our political "leaders".
Rumsfeld
December 8, 2008 - 09:01 ET by allanfI am not sure what Rumsfeld thought. In a conflict bad things happen and you take body blows.
The best counter to an insurgency is not necessarily more troops. Troops are there to break things and kill people. That won't quiet a population unless you want to rule by fear and intimidation.
It took Lincoln years to find Grant. It took Bush years to find Patreus. Patraeus cleaned up most of the mess using brilliant counter insurgency tactics.
The point I'm making is
December 9, 2008 - 00:20 ET by Dave DThe point I'm making is that not everything Shinseki said was great and it was that stuff that got Rumsfeld et al to not listen to him. If he thought the US would be doing anti-insurgency why was he pushing for Crusader?(Which supposedly was one of the things they had a falling out over.) If he was big on training, culture sensitivity, recon equipment that'd make sense. Of course more body army, mine resistant vehicles would also make some sense that he saw this insurgent threat. However if anybody was fighting an insurgency in an urban setting does artillery seem like a great idea? Especially when the insurgents are Arabic. (Theoretically it's just name but honestly, could they pick a more insulting name? You do remember they renamed operations specifically to prevent offending people in the middle east.)
Seriously, Crusader might have made sense against Russian or Chinese regular troops. However as soon as it became apparent that the main focus would probably be insurgent and Middle Eastern fighting dumping that system should have been a no-brainer for him, yet he didn't. More likely they weren't listening to him at all at this point because of this and everything else. So when it came time and he said he wanted more troops they probably figured he said it just to CHA if things didn't work out. (Of course when is a general going to say he doesn't need more troops? I mean that's like a politician turning down money.)
General Shinseki was an
December 8, 2008 - 04:27 ET by jdhawkGeneral Shinseki was an affirmative action dim bulb pick under Clintoon to be the Army Chief of Staff. My hope is that he doesn't run the VA like he did the Army during his tenure.
His job as the Army Chief of Staff, 1999 - 2003, he was to ensure that army had adequate numbers and that those soldiers were adequately trained and equipped. He was NOT a combatant commander. During his tenure, our troops were under trained and under armed. He was still fighting the cold war with his championing of the Crusader weapon systems, not adequately preparing soldiers for urban and unconventaional warfare and inadequately equipping them as evidenced by the three year long controversy surrounding armored vests among several other controversy in this area. Further, he did little that would jeopardise his job in fighting for more soldiers, better and modernized equipment and replenishment of supplies and materiel before congress.
His conduct was unbecoming an officer in that he would make prouncements outside his duties and responsiblities during a time of war. He should have been fired on the spot for his remarks about troops levels. He was not in the chain of command to make such remarks (the chain of command starts with commanders in the field to the command-in-chief of the area, in the case, CENTCOM, to the secretary of defense and on to the president) and he was clearly not thinking of the strategic implications of his utterances.
The facts are that if we would have put into Iraq the numbers that he called for we would have been vulnerable in other areas of the world that we had responsiblity. Further, rotation to rest and refit the troops at that troop level would have been impossible. The army has had difficulty getting our soldiers the rest and refit that they have needed throughout this conflict with the numbers as they are.
If you want to lay blame on the strategy that led to the invasion that eventually was executed, blame it on our so-called ally, Turkey. We had ensured Turkey's freedom from Soviet aggression for over 50 years during the cold war. When we asked them to return the favor, they turned us down flat. The original plan called for a two pronged attack from east and west (Turkey was briefed as to the salient points of this plan and agreed to it years in advance). A two pronged attack would have brought down the Hussein regime in days instead of weeks. It would have left the terrorists with little place to run or to prepare the counter attack they did.
Gen Shinseki
December 8, 2008 - 10:18 ET by BlondeI had many conversations at the time of Gen. Shinseki's disagreement with Donald Rumsfeld over troop levels with my military friends and aquaintances. The consensus, and my conclusion, is that the disagreement was one of doctrinal training, Eric Shinseki is an Armor officer. Bigger + More = Better.
Those on the Infantry side continued to defend the smaller footprint idea, as did Donald Rumsfeld. Which, IMO, has proven to be the correct doctrine, and has been refined to an art by Gen. David Petraeus. And don't forget, while "The Surge" included an increased level of troops, it also was a paradigm shift, the old and ineffective Rules of Engagement were replaced by Petraeus' cutting edge COIN doctrine.
You are correct in that Shinseki was not a combat commander, however, he was a troop commander, having had command of Fort Hood (1st Cav) in the mid-90's, unlike Colin Powell, whose largest troop command was a brigade.
As with most men who achieve four star rank, Shinseki attempted to "transform" the Army...with the black beret, a move received with derision from the Rangers and many other elite units who felt the privelege of a beret was to be earned, rather than bestowed. In this, Shinseki and Obama appear to have much in common.
I'm willing to give the man a chance in the Veteran's position, and would pefer to see the more cerebral and experienced General Petraeus remain on the combat side of military operations.
Political general....
December 8, 2008 - 07:58 ET by SaluteShinsheki has been a political general, thus Obama and the MSM is impressed with him as such. The main point is that he pubically disagreed with Pres. Bush adm. A "hero" in any liberal's book.
I yam what I yam....Popeye.
Political general....
December 8, 2008 - 07:58 ET by SaluteShinsheki has been a political general, thus Obama and the MSM is impressed with him as such. The main point is that he pubically disagreed with Pres. Bush adm. A "hero" in any liberal's book.
I yam what I yam....Popeye.