Wolfowitz Concedes He Was ‘Clueless,’ But Still Contends Shinseki Was Wrong On Postwar Troop Levels
Wolfowitz Concedes He Was ‘Clueless,’ But Still Contends Shinseki Was Wrong On Postwar Troop Levels
In February 2003, just before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Army Gen. Eric Shinseki told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the U.S. would need “several hundred thousand soldiers” to secure Iraq. Two days later, then-deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz dismissed Shinseki’s prediction saying it was “wildly off the mark.”
Yesterday, during a discussion of fellow war architect Douglas Feith’s new book “War and Decision,” Wolfowitz acknowledged he was “clueless on counterinsurgency” regarding troops levels after the fall of Baghdad. But he still contends that Shinseki was wrong, saying that a “sensible counterinsurgency strategy” would have involved more Iraqi forces, not Americans:
WOLFOWITZ: I think a sensible counterinsurgency strategy would not have been to flood the country with 300,000 Americans, but rather to build up Iraqi forces to be able to protect the population much more quickly.
Watch it:
However, “General Shinseki was right,” as Gen. John Abizaid admitted last year. Indeed, back in February 2003, Shinseki specifically noted that the number of troops he recommended would be used to prevent an insurgency and civil war — or what he called “post-hostilities control” and discouraging “ethnic tensions.”
Wolfowitz’s theory about a “sensible counterinsurgency strategy” ignores one key point: The U.S. did not have to “build up Iraqi forces” after the invasion because they were already there. Instead Iraq viceroy L. Paul Bremer III ordered Iraqi forces to be disbanded shortly after he took over governing Iraq.
Placing blame on others for the war’s failures is typical of those responsible for starting it. By claiming that the lack of Iraqi - not American - forces is what failed to quell the insurgency after the invasion, Wolfowitz is just another in a long series of war architects that simply cannot accept their role in the “disaster” that is President Bush’s foreign policy.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
34 Responses to “Wolfowitz Concedes He Was ‘Clueless,’ But Still Contends Shinseki Was Wrong On Postwar Troop Levels”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Why do any of these people still have a forum from which to spin their lies?
April 29th, 2008 at 2:29 pmIt's absolutely stunning to see how, after all the
blood that has been shed, people like Wolfowitz
come on TV and "intellectualize" about this
strategy, and that tactic, and all the rest of
the bull.
Number of people from Wolfies family to have been
April 29th, 2008 at 2:31 pmmurdered in the war - 0
.
REMEMBER:
It's ALWAYS the other guy's fault.
.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:31 pmBy claiming that the lack of Iraqi - not American - forces is what failed to quell the insurgency after the invasion, Wolfowitz is just another in a long series of war architects that simply cannot accept their role in the “disaster” that is President Bush’s foreign policy.
Damn those ungrateful bastood Iraqis ; we illegally and stupidly invade and occupy their country without ever being asked to be there to begin with , and they don't like it.
That's a lack of gratitude , isn't it ?
Sheesh , what complete shitheads these Chimpy administration members are...........
April 29th, 2008 at 2:32 pmThis is coming from a guy who was so corrupt that he was kick out as the head of the World Bank for throwing sackfuls of money at his girlfriend.
How is he not in jail?
April 29th, 2008 at 2:42 pmOh, right - IOIYAR.
"kick out" s/b "kicked out"
April 29th, 2008 at 2:43 pmComplicity is the core of guilt.
Wolfie, better spit shine your hair for Bubba; you'll be with him in less than 12 months...
April 29th, 2008 at 2:43 pmEnough of these idiots !!
_AIO_
April 29th, 2008 at 2:44 pmThe only way to accomplish this quick build up of Iraqi forces would have been to place the army you just defeated in charge of security. Not bloody likely. Starting from scratch hasn't worked too well either -- in fact Wolfie seems to be advocating the catastrophic policy which isn't working now. I guess he would have made the new recruits march faster or something.
I understand the neocons are spinning like crazy knowing that their only hope for ever being taken seriously in the future is to pin the blame on someone else but this is pathetic even for this pack of fools.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:46 pmI seem to recall that Bremer said Wolfowitz was the one hell-bent on disbanding the Iraqi military because all members were Baathists.
Of course all members of the Army were Baathists the same way that all citizens of the USSR were communist. They did what they needed to do to get along.
And Wolfowitz is a VERY bad tipper.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:47 pmA Wolfowitz in sheep's clothing is still dangerous.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:49 pmWolfowitz clueless?...priceless!
April 29th, 2008 at 2:58 pmSeveral hundred thousand ? C'mon now, The Iraqi people would've never been able to round up enough flowers to throw at our troops.
April 29th, 2008 at 3:04 pmWolfowitz & Perle on their war: it's everyone else's fault, not mine.
just like Hitler who blamed the lost war on Jews, Communists, his generals, the German people -everyone but himself.
April 29th, 2008 at 3:04 pmA Blast from the Past:
On Jan. 19, 2003, before the March invasion, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld what the war would cost.
Rumsfeld responded, “The Office of Management and Budget estimated it would be something under $50 billion.”
Stephanopoulos countered with, “Outside estimates say up to $300 billion.”
Rumsfeld shot back, “Baloney.”
That same day, Rumsfeld was asked in a media availability, “Mr. Secretary, on Iraq, how much money do you think the Department of Defense would need to pay for a war with Iraq?”
Rumsfeld responded, “Well, the Office of Management and Budget has come up with a number that’s something under $50 billion.”
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz would eventually and famously chime in that any high cost or large troop estimates for Iraq were “wildly off the mark.”
April 29th, 2008 at 3:05 pmreminds me of zoidberg, "I'm and idiot, so trust me"
April 29th, 2008 at 3:07 pmThere once was a Deputy Secretary named Wolfowitz
April 29th, 2008 at 3:08 pmWho dragged our great country into the pits
You see, he had not a clue
About anything the U.S. should do
For his brains were nothing but sh**s
I do believe Jefferson spoke about what to do with people who were as detrimental to our country as Wolfowitz was.
April 29th, 2008 at 3:13 pmbut rather to build up Iraqi forces to be able to protect the population much more quickly.
And, how's that going for you, General Petraeus? More Peter principal at work. Wasn't Petraeus in charge of this originally?
April 29th, 2008 at 3:22 pmThey should have just stuck to playing 'Risk' with each other, alot less people would have died.
April 29th, 2008 at 3:25 pmWhile I agree with TP's point on placing blame on others, I am even more outraged that these !#@$$ will go on TV and before Congress and make adamant statements.
Then later they are shown to be wrong and they admit that they didn't know.
And then the next time they make adamant statements, we still believe them.
April 29th, 2008 at 3:42 pmI guess this is the next get out of jail card - play clueless.
April 29th, 2008 at 4:03 pmYou cannot imagine how much I hate this cowardly warmongering neocon cretin. One of the principal architects of the Iraq war, he never met a war he wasn't ready to commit someone else to fighting.
Wolfowitz, with no knowledge of how to fight a war or win the peace, castigated an honorable man, General Eric Shinseki, for estimating that we needed several hundred thousand troops to invade Iraq. Now that the general has been proven correct, Wolfowitz is still trying to avoid the blame for all the carnage he wrought in Iraq.
April 29th, 2008 at 4:11 pmYou gotta have a dumptruckload of chutzpah to spew the incredible idiocies these neocons put out there. Jebus.
These people scare me.
April 29th, 2008 at 4:26 pmYou were clueless? You were one the major architects of this fiasco!
April 29th, 2008 at 4:37 pmOur military has a definite formula for the number of troops needed to control an insurgency. For a country like Iraq, I believe the figure is 650,000.
Actually, the key to preventing the need for a long, drawn out occupation in a country is to prevent an insurgency from arising in the first place. Iraq would be a success story by now had the administration followed prudent occupation strategy. A sufficient number of troops would have permitted a clamp down on the violence that followed in the aftermath of the invasion. It would have permitted securing of munitions and weapons dumps. It would have allowed the US to team up with the lower elements of the Iraqi army and turn them into a valuable security force. It would have allowed the US adequate training personnel to bring in Shiite volunteers to be trained as part of the military.
I may have thought that the Iraq War was unnecessary; however, a well planned and executed invasion/occupation would have been possible. The delusions inhabiting the neocons simply resulted in the mess that we see today.
April 29th, 2008 at 4:59 pmNot one of these reich wingers even has enough class to STFU and slink off into oblivion. They're all so delusional they think people should still be paying attention to them.
April 29th, 2008 at 5:02 pmWhat is this guy's training in military matters? I didn't know he was a general. Shinseki had it right. His training and experience was ignored but the historical record in Iraq vis a vis the need for an increase in troop levels for the ill conceived surge, is evidence the numbers of troops were too low. Who in that administration listened to the generals, the folks trained and experienced in war? The politicians at all levels got us in this jam. Make no mistake Iraq is a Jam and we can thank Wolfiwitz for contributing to the death and mayhem. His and Feith's excuses aside, these guys were a pox on our government.
April 29th, 2008 at 5:09 pmWOLFOWITZ: I think a sensible counterinsurgency strategy would not have been to flood the country with 300,000 Americans, but rather to build up Iraqi forces to be able to protect the population much more quickly.
What a comic that Wolfie is. Build up Iraqi forces to be able to protect the population much more quickly. We've been there for 7 years and still haven't been able to train much of an Iraqi force. And we never will. As long as the Iraqi's can depend on us to protect them, they will never step up to the plate. It's time to go folks...Lock the door and turn out the light.
April 29th, 2008 at 5:11 pmThese idiots are like rats jumping from a sinking ship. They had no experience in military tactics or planning, yet they made decisions which adversly affected our troops well being and if fact cost a great number of them their lives. This my friend is exactly why Republicans don't need to be in power. They believe in loyality above all else including common sense and doing what's right. This brave General Eric Shinseki was forced from the military by a bunch of old men in suits who didn't have enough courage among them to swallow their stupid egos long enough to consider his advice.
When American vote for someone based on bullshit like abortion, guns, and other divisive issues, you get idiots like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld,Wolfowitz, Doug Feith and all of the others. The sad part about it is half of the people in this country still haven't learned a lesson. Why? Because although 81 percent of the people say we are headed in the wrong direction, half of them still support John McCain. I told a group of friends and family last year that the attention span of the average voter is about 15 minutes. Which reminds me of the saying: "Those who forget the mistakes of the past, are doomed to repeat them"
The voters who are supporting Sen. McCain have every right to do so, but they are about to cause this country to go into a depression. Remember you read it hear first. I predict the if Sen. McCain becomes President, we will go into the second depression in the history of this country. Why? Because he seems to be playing from the same old tired Republican playbook, which focuses on taxs cuts, and giving breaks to the rich and business. Also he will be trying so hard to prove he's a conservative he'll pander to the rightwing nuts who got us into this situation in the first place.
I challenge anyone to point out how tax cuts and giving the rich more has lead to anything other than deficits so high we can't afford to pay them. Second, tax cuts also cause us to sell our country out to China, India, and the middle east. The Chinese government own America right now and it's because of the stupid voters who vote for Republicans based on stupid issues that don't matter. Any fool who doesn't realize that China owns us is living in a fantasy land. Why do you think that Bush hasn't done a one thing about China selling our children poison toys? Because they own us by buying all of those Treasury Bills which the US Government is obligated to pay on demand of payment. If the Chinese government goes to the bank on Monday and demanded payment, our entire economy would colapse. By the way, China has been engaged in a massive military build up over the past 8 years, including a Navy that is designed for international offensive operations. I wonder which country they are preparing to invade? It wouldn't be the one that they own would it? The one that owes them trillions of dollars in Treasury Bills perhaps? Their strategy is simple, cause a depression and the invasion will be a cake walk.
April 29th, 2008 at 5:33 pmNo matter what the war architects say or do the rest of their lives, their legacy of incompetence and ignorance is sealed. History won't forget.
April 29th, 2008 at 7:25 pmThe Shadow #30, said in part: When American vote for someone based on bullshit like abortion, guns, and other divisive issues, you get idiots like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Doug Feith and all of the others.
Sounds like you're calling these people "bitter". Better watch it, that statement got Sen Obama into a lot of trouble.
April 30th, 2008 at 11:39 amThe Defense Secretary is clueless on counter-insurgency, the President is clueless on democracy, the supreme court justices are clueless on justice and the people are obviously clueless on both reason and action.
No, no, not God bless humanity....
April 30th, 2008 at 1:14 pmRumsfeld responded, “The Office of Management and Budget estimated it would be something under $50 billion.”
Stephanopoulos countered with, “Outside estimates say up to $300 billion.”
Rumsfeld shot back, “Baloney.”
That same day, Rumsfeld was asked in a media availability, “Mr. Secretary, on Iraq, how much money toshiba pa3451u battery,toshiba pa3457u battery do you think the Department of Defense would need to pay for a war with Iraq?”
October 15th, 2008 at 8:25 am