Dexter Filkins reviews Paul Bremer’s new book:
The most startling moment in “My Year in Iraq,” L. Paul Bremer III’s memoir from his days as the head of the American occupation, comes near the end, when violent uprisings were sweeping most of the central and southern parts of the country in May 2004. With the whole American enterprise verging on collapse, Bremer decided to secretly ask the Pentagon for tens of thousands of additional American troops — a request that, as the rest of his book makes clear, was taboo in the White House and Pentagon.
Bremer turned to Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top American commander in Iraq, and asked him what he would do with two more divisions, as many as 40,000 more troops. General Sanchez did not hesitate to answer. “I’d control Baghdad,” he said. Bremer then mentioned some other uses for the soldiers, like securing Iraq’s borders and protecting its infrastructure, to which General Sanchez replied: “Got those spare troops handy, sir?”
It bears repeating that the Pentagon brushed aside concerns about troops levels in late February 2003, right before the start of the war:
“The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far off the mark,” Mr. Rumsfeld said.
Mr. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, opened a two-front war of words on Capitol Hill, calling the recent estimate by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki of the Army that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq, “wildly off the mark.”
News that Bremer asked for more troops in 2004 leaked out last month and was reported in the Washington Post:
Bremer’s memo, dated May 18, 2004, urged Rumsfeld to dispatch as many as two additional divisions — or about 30,000 troops — to Iraq, to meet myriad demands, including fighting insurgents, border control and securing convoy routes. The request, disclosed in Bremer’s new book on his year-long tenure in Iraq, reflected what he said was his fear that the United States was becoming “the worst of all things — an ineffective occupier.”
Rumsfeld, speaking yesterday at a Pentagon news briefing, recalled that he showed the Bremer memo to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff then, Gen. Richard B. Myers, saying: “This is a reasonable proposal from a reasonable person; let’s look at it.”
But after evaluating the proposal, the Joint Chiefs of Staff concurred with U.S. commanders responsible for Iraq that troop levels were adequate, said Gen. Peter Pace, who succeeded Myers as chairman of the Joint Chiefs and appeared with Rumsfeld at yesterday’s briefing.
“We did a very thorough analysis of that recommendation, and when we got done, all the chiefs agreed with the commanders in the field that the numbers of troops in the field then, as now, was appropriate to what we were fighting,” Pace said.
Rumsfeld said he then showed the response from the Joint Chiefs to President Bush. “The president, as he has consistently, said that he preferred to go with the judgments of the military commanders on the ground,” Rumsfeld said.
I’d like to see the thorough analysis that was done by the Pentagon. It must have taken up reams of paper.
The commander in the field was the torture-loving Ricardo Sanchez, and he felt that he needed two divisions just to control Baghdad. The President said he deferred troop level decisions to commanders in the field, and yet he refused to listen to Sanchez and grant his request.
Bremer’s book not only provides more evidence of the administration lying to the American people, but it exposes the criminal mismanagement of the war by Rumsfeld and Bush. It really is long past time for them to go.
Bush said he would send more troops if his military commanders asked for them, and Bremer wasn’t a military commander even if he was memoing with Sanchez’s knowledge and approval. It sounds like the White House set up a situation where the obvious needs in Iraq wouldn’t be communicated to the decision-makers in Washington. Which is negligent, criminal, and probably downright evil, but not technically lying.
yes it is lying.
Bush is the President. A contoversy breaks out because the Pentagon is saying we have enough troops and the Generals in the field are leaking to the press that we do not.
At that point, the President should have bypassed Rummy and Pace and Myers and gone straight to Sanchez. And he assured us that he knew the opinions of the ‘commanders in the field’ about 60 dozen different times in 2004.
Or he could have asked Bremer. Or Condi could have done these things for him.
This shows that the President was lying when he said he listened to the commanders in the field, or it means he was lying when he said troop levels were based on their advice?
Or…the whole DEAL is a lie.
Consider this well, people. I know it seems almost unthinkable, but if you had not been so conditioned to believe that governments work in good faith to do the best that they can for their country, perhaps it would be easier.
On the evidence…mounting evidence, enough evidence to convict these people of treason as far as I am concerned …they are NOT “working” for the United States. Nor is their aim in the Middle East any sort of peace.
Their aim is to keep the entire world at a slow boil, so that their real country…the one super-national country, CorpWorld Inc…can profit on any and every level from the unrest.
Oil supplies in danger?
Civil war?
OK…we’ll sell the weapons.
AND up the price of gas. We’ve got a monopoly, don’tcha know…
Invade?
OK…I got yer private contactors right here. Don’t you worry about them troops. WE’LL take care of things.
Rebuild after a disaster…man-made (Iraq) or man-allowed (Katrina).
Why shore, folks. Shucks. Piece ‘a cake. Slamdunk. DisneyWorld JazzWorld, comin’ right up. With CONDOS!!!
Want a living wage?
Well…I gues that’s just about how you define “living”.
WE like the Filipino definition.
And if THEY get too uppity…why, we’ve got Africa in a FINE state of disrepair. They’ll work for ASPIRIN!!!
Can’t run your own ports? (Well you could if we’d let ya, but anyways…) WE’LL help. You betcha. Just sell ’em to us and WE’LL run ’em.
Right.
Mr. Bilkey in da HOUSE, y’all.
And you still continue to labor under the mythic misapprehension that this is just a temporary aberration of business as usual.
Listen…the word “treason” as it is commmonly used has to do with committing acts against the wellbeing of your country in the interests of ANOTHER country.
But what is there IS no other regularly identifiable “country” in the mix?
What then?
Are we reduced to charges of international industrial sabotage?
Because that is what is really happening.
I mean…even the plodding superstores have better protection than the U.S. A friend of mine was pitching something to Home Depot in Atlanta, and at the sprawling home headquarters of that giant fraud, he was not allowed to walk freely in the building w/out an escort because they are so paranoid about infiltrators. That’s the word they used…”infiltrators”.
Meanwhile…the government of the United States of America is being RUN by “infiltrators”.
Representatives of the only REAL world-wide government,
CorpWorld.
It’s a new paradigm.
The REAL “New Reality”.
They have created it right in your faces and you STILL do not see what is up.
And then you wonder why I tell you the wake the fuck up.
Unbelievable.
“Bush is the President.”
Bullshit.
Bush is the store manager.
Wake the fuck up.
It’s an inside job.
News at 11.
“BIRD FLU!!!”
Bullshit
AG
yeah, it looks increasingly like BushCo. and the their Knights of Malta loving overlords have successfully put the set pieces in place to run WorldCorp. Except they have these weird ideological beliefs that keep this a strangely American operation. John Bolton and Rummy don’t need no stinking allies, or no stinking competition. As long as Bahrain or someone else (the U.S. taxpayers, our children) are footing the bill.
This is a different kind of Oldsmobile Arthur. It ain’t your fathers.
If he said he listened to their advice and he didn’t, then Bush is lying. If he said he listened to their advice and the advice they gave him was what he wanted to hear instead of the truth, then the commanders lied. I’m not sure it was necessarily the administration that did the lying, though they were clearly deliberately incompetent.
I’m not trying to quibble, I agree that they are dishonest about just about everything. What I’m saying is that they have mastered the art of being dishonest without technically telling a lie, usually by reframing the question so they don’t have to answer what was asked.
McClellan is the perfect example of this. He looks clueless when he seems to misunderstand and mischaracterize, but that is the strategy he is using to allow deniability later.
would have made the slightest difference in the outcome, except for even more slaughter of the innocent, even more resistance to the occupation. You don’t cure cancer with arsenic. When the arsenic only makes things worse, you don’t fix it by doubling the dose.
Bush lied about his intentions for Iraq from the very beginning. What this revelation shows is that even he didn’t believe any of the crap about bringing “democracy” to the Middle East. If he did, he’d have spared nothing to make it happen. But that was never the point. That’s why he should be impeached, convicted, and imprisoned.
.
Q&A by Kathryn Jean Lopez
WASHINGTON D.C. (National Review Online) Jan. 10 — An accomplished career diplomat who had never been to Iraq and didn’t know the language, Ambassador L. Paul “Jerry” Bremer III was tapped by President George W. Bush to serve as presidential envoy to Iraq from May 2003 to June 2004, heading the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad — “eight thousand miles and at least a century removed from home.” As Paul Bremer — who would frequently be dubbed “American viceroy ” — notes in his new book on his time there, My Year in Iraq: The Struggle to Build a Future of Hope (written with Malcolm McConnell), he flew into a liberated but burning Baghdad, where he “would be the only paramount authority figure — other than dictator Saddam Hussein — that most Iraqis had ever known.”
«« click on pic for Powell’s Books
A chronological behind-the-scenes portrait of his and his staff’s year in Iraq, in My Year in Iraq, Bremer details the treacherous, sweltering days, the obstacles (including Pentagon “harassment”), and the historic achievements. In writing about dealing with Washington, he names names: who was a problem; who listened; who never responded. The controversy coming from the book will be over troop levels — Bremer writes about repeated messages to principals in Washington about the “too few resources” he was working with in Iraq.
In addition to little things like the ABCs of democracy and economy building, Bremer recounts other big issues, ones more under the radar. Like the ABCs — how increasing teachers’ salaries was an early priority — “from the equivalent $3 to $150 a month” while purging “textbooks and curricula of Baathist propaganda. This meant printing and distributing over five million books before schools reopened in October,” Bremer writes.
###
Interesting interview in comparison with the NRC Handelsblad interview I translated earlier ::
His book “My Year in Iraq: The Struggle to Build a Future of Hope“ a year as governor of Iraq, Paul Bremer disavows Minister of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. “We had important differences of opinion.”
WASHINGTON (NRC Handelsblad) 9 January 2006 —
You work 18-20 hours a day in your first months as civilian administrator in a complete chaos. Rumsfeld makes a visit and tells you: “I think you don’t realize how urgent your task is”.
“I was indeed bewildered – although I kept my anger in check. He didn’t realize how hard we had to work. I think he was frustrated. The moment of his visit was shortly after the second suicide attack. We felt the pressure, everyone did, because we could not bring security to Iraq.”
Busk asks you: can Rumsfeld delegate?
“He is tough, and he intimidates people in his surroundings such, that it’s difficult to get people at the ministry to make decisions. Only Rumsfeld decides. In his case it works.”
Why did the president put forward the question?
“There were stories in the press – he was such a difficult boss.”
You describe how Rumsfeld doesn’t take the reports of looting after the fall of Baghdad seriously. What was the impact?
“Later we made a calculation the cost of looting was $12bn. One of my biggest mistakes. I didn’t urge a firm position to stop looting. I was criticized for the suggestion a shoot to kill policy for looters – I still believe that would have been the right approach. I should have made a stronger case for this policy. The true problem was, of course, we gave the impression we lacked the ability to invoke order and authority.”
At the time, education came to a standstill, when 10,000 teachers who lost their jobs through deba’athification. You consider that decision wise today?
“We wanted regime change, and this meant the Ba’ath party had to be removed from power: ‘deba’athification’. I still believe it to be the right choice. Often it’s forgotten, with our policy we wanted to eliminate the top 1% of Ba’ath-members in high position of government. I wanted the Iraqis to decide: Americans could not distinguish between an ideological Ba’ath-supporter and a teacher who was a Ba’ath member for the sole reason to hold a teaching job.
The mistake was I delegated the implementation to the CPA. It then became part of the muddy domestic-political relationships. We discovered a much larger number then the intended top 1% was removed from office.”
What was the result?
“The biggest problem were the 10,000 teachers who had lost their job. And of course the impression by the Iraqis that deba’athification meant for all Ba’ath party members. This fact led to serious ramifications in the process for reconciliation with the Sunni.”
Did this provoke the uprising of insurgency?
“I don’t think so. Although, I don’t know the answer. I believe the insurgency was to happen anyway. We found a secret document that mentioned Saddam had plans ready. But it is difficult. Our intelligence did not see the uprising coming. Equally they had no knowledge of the poor state of Iraq’s economy.”
Why did you not let the Iraqis administer a larger part of the government?
“I handed the Iraqis as much authority as they could handle. They were just not ready for it. They couldn’t even set up an organization. They didn’t have managers. They were in no position to manage – simply put – a budget.”
Is it a fact the Pentagon was so angry you didn’t want to transfer sovereignty, they developed a plan to hold you responsible for the post-war failure in Iraq?
“That’s what Andy Card told me, chief of staff in the White House.”
Nice city Washington.
“Well, you know how matters are solved here. I understood the danger.”
Iraq's former US administrator, Paul Bremer, shakes hands with the country's interim president, Ghazi al-Yawar, during the handover ceremony as Bremer's deputy, David Richmond, applauds. The Guardian
When the insurgency is on the increase, you told Bush and Cheney at the end of 2003, the Pentagon has no strategy for victory. Was the White House vigilant?
“We didn’t make gains on the ground in military terms. We entered a city, had a firefight, problems seemed solved, and our forces moved out. The same problems started all over. That’s what I explained was going on.”
Half a year later, you told Condoleezza Rice that “the worst” happened: the United States was an “incompetent occupation force”.
“We were unable to secure the country. We had all the disadvantages that belong to, what is labeled, an occupier. When this becomes a fact, at least you have to provide security to the citizens.”
The journalist Packer in his book The Assassins’ Gate portrays you as an isolated man in the secure zone of Baghdad – a long distance from the demoralized population.
“To a certain extent, that is true. Because of safety precautions I wasn’t free to walk the streets of Baghdad. It was frustrating. You are a diplomat and want to observe the country. The other side of this, I did travel throughout all of the country. I met thousands of Iraqis. But my freedom to move about was limited.”
Is terrorism fostered by the war?
“It is clear they entered Iraq – in part likely, because we closed down Afghanistan. Otherwise they would still be there, I think. But ok – what else? Should we not have liberated Iraq? I don’t understand the consequences of such an analysis. Should we have left Saddam in power?
The question illustrates that Europe still have difficulty understanding new terrorism. The Unites States were confronted with muslim extremists, who want to kill us by the thousands. That is totally different terror we experienced in the seventies and eighties. The conclusion is the U.S. cannot sit and wait. We have to preempt before we are attacked.
But Europe didn’t move, and the U.S. refuses to be passive. I wouldn’t call Europe a museum, like Thomas Friedman, that sounds too similar to `Old Europe’ of Rumsfeld. But Europe has problems, no doubt about that. When you are threatened and you don’t see this, then you are floating without any goal in sight.”
NRC Handelsblad – January 9, 2006. Translation Oui.
● My Year in Iraq: The Struggle to Build a Future of Hope
Paul Bremer III
≈ Cross-posted from Jérôme’s diary @ Booman Tribune —
Bremer says he was ‘fall guy’, confirms lack of plan in Iraq ≈
“Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”
▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY