Rumsfeld told Gen. he would fire anyone who talked about Iraq plan

[ProSense]

September 09, 2006
Quote of the Day

"He would fire the next person."

-- Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid, quoted by the Hampton Roads Daily Press, on what Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told him if anyone "talked about the need for a post-war plan."

From link:

Eustis chief: Iraq post-war plan muzzled

Army Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid, an early planner of the war, tells about challenges of invasion and rebuilding.

BY STEPHANIE HEINATZ
247-7821
September 8, 2006

FORT EUSTIS -- Months before the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld forbade military strategists from developing plans for securing a post-war Iraq, the retiring commander of the Army Transportation Corps said Thursday.

In fact, said Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid, Rumsfeld said "he would fire the next person" who talked about the need for a post-war plan.

Rumsfeld did replace Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff in 2003, after Shinseki told Congress that hundreds of thousands of troops would be needed to secure post-war Iraq.

Scheid, who is also the commander of Fort Eustis in Newport News, made his comments in an interview with the Daily Press. He retires in about three weeks.

Snip...

Scheid's comments are further confirmation of the version of events reported in "Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq," the book by New York Times reporter Michael R. Gordon and retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Bernard E. Trainor.

http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-21075sy0sep08,0,2264542.story?page=1&coll=dp-widget-news

[welshTerrier2]

1. there's something odd about this story

i'm not sure i trust Scheid ...

unlike many of the other Generals, he has not called for Rumsfeld to resign ... and he further points out that Rumsfeld envisioned a quick hit on Iraq to topple Saddam after which the US would immediately withdraw ...

Scheid seems to be making the case that Rumsfeld never intended a prolonged occupation ... this almost seems like positive propaganda in support of Rumsfeld ...

was the occupation imposed over his objections by someone else in the administration with a different agenda?

[ProSense]

2. Nothing odd, it all relates to Rumsfeld's miscalculations

and tyranny! He's not the only person to ever criticize the war without calling for Rumsfeld to resign.

[BrotherBuzz]

6. He retires in about three weeks

One would assume his position will change after he is officially retires and joins the other retired Generals calling for Rumsfeld's resignation.

[ProSense]

3. No plan!

Snip...

In a way, this is old news. As much as it beggars the imagination, there's been plenty of evidence all along that Bush never took the idea of rebuilding Iraq seriously. The plan was to remove Saddam from power, claim victory, and get out.

However, this is the clearest evidence I've seen yet. The guy who was actually in charge of logistics has now directly confirmed that Rumsfeld not only didn't intend to rebuild Iraq in any serious way, but threatened to fire anyone who wasted time on the idea. Needless to say, he wouldn't have done this unless it reflected the wishes of the president.

And this also means that all of Bush's talk about democracy was nothing but hot air. If you're serious about planting democracy after a war, you don't plan to simply topple a government and then leave.

So: the lack of postwar planning wasn't merely the result of incompetence. It was deliberate policy. There was never any intention of rebuilding Iraq and there was never any intention of wasting time on democracy promotion. That was merely a post hoc explanation after we failed to find the promised WMD. Either that or BG Scheid is lying.

This is an astounding interview, all the more so for the apparently resigned tone that Scheid brings to it. It belongs on the front page of the New York Times, not the Hampton Roads Daily Press.

POSTSCRIPT: An alternative explanation, based on Rumsfeld's admonition that "the American public will not back us if they think we are going over there for a long war," is that Rumsfeld and Bush were planning to stay but simply lied about it in order to build support for the war. However, based on the rest of the interview with Scheid, as well as the other evidence that there was no plan to stay and rebuild in any serious way, that explanation seems unlikely. The bulk of the evidence continues to suggest that democracy and rebuilding were simply not on Bush's radar.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_09/009469.php

[welshTerrier2]

4. the loose end to the story ...

An alternative explanation, based on Rumsfeld's admonition that "the American public will not back us if they think we are going over there for a long war," is that Rumsfeld and Bush were planning to stay but simply lied about it in order to build support for the war.

the loose end here is, IF they planned to dump Saddam and leave, why did they end up not leaving? were they really worried about "looting"? were they suddenly aware that an unstable Iraq could threaten the US supply of OPEC oil? did they wake up one morning realizing that Iran was now too powerful because Iraq no longer stood in opposition to them?

My read is that this was always about commercial gain ... i believe the Cheney "secret energy meetings" were planning this all along ... i have no idea whether Rumsfeld envisioned a "quick in and out" and that the occupation was dictated by Cheney or bush ... but it's hard to see how the "real" policy did not envision a longer stay ...

[ProSense]

5. No loose end, everyone knows why:

they mistook arrogance and power for a plan. Remember this was suppose to be a cakewalk, and it's all about oil.

[welshTerrier2]

7. i'm not clear what you're saying here ...

if "it's all about oil" and it was "supposed to be a cakewalk", what are you saying bush et al envisioned after quickly toppling Saddam?

when you say "they mistook arrogance and power for a plan", what situation did their arrogance envision after they toppled Saddam? is your view that they thought they could just withdraw the US military and do whatever they wanted to do in Iraq?

btw, i'm not necessarily disagreeing with that possibility ... maybe the CPA was the extent of their "plan" ... maybe their "plan" was they could just install a US guy for starters until a suitable puppet could credibly take over ...

but that goes back to the larger point ... it's hard to see how they didn't intend to "occupy" Iraq for a long time ... maybe the point is that they didn't envision the need for a large military occupation and thought they could gain control of the Iraqi government without any significant resistance ...

[ProSense]

8. There are

two things at play here: lack of planning and lying. In both cases, they didn't have a plan. They expected to secure the oil fields quickly and were unconcerned about post-war planning for Iraq.

They miscalculated the chaotic situation that unfolded! Who knows, maybe they didn't care, not even about being exposed to international criticism for two failed wars and a screwed up foreign policy, and whatever else is in store for them.

[_dynamicdems]

9. I've wondered if there might be more to Iraq than meets the eye.

There are some puzzling things that don't seem to add up. I don't want to sound like a conspiracy nut, but might there be another reason we either went to Iraq that also explains why we are still there? Maybe the oil fields are not secured because they don't WANT them secured yet.

This is all just a hunch. There was a reason we went to war against Iraq and it wasn't terrorism, Saddam, democracy or the fact that Jr. wanted to finish a job his dad started. And I don't think God told him to do it either. Cheney may have, but I think of him more as the Devil. Why did Bush go after Iraq really?

Any thoughts on this?

[ProSense]

10. Similar thoughts!

It's the why stop there neocon agenda!