But, it’s a pretty interesting theory, especially now that former Bush I administration officials seem to be trying to get the President to see that Rumsfeld has given him bad, or at least one-sided, advice as far as strategy.
Here are some issues that speak both for and against Kaus’ ideas.
We know that Rumsfeld came into office in 2000 determined to radically re-organize how we use the military, and how we organize units in battle. This theory goes directly against one of the main elements of the Powell doctrine (that we should use absolutely overwhelming force when we can) Rumsfeld has instead been pushing for minimal amounts of forces. Kaus speculates that this is largely because Rumsfeld’s real interest is not just in national defense, but in paving the way for an foriegn policy around the world unapologetically based on threats of military-action.
We know that the strategies were tested with some success in Afghanistan, but they were used in an only a limited way at this point, the debate not having been over, and the re-organization still underway.
War Games in 2002 based on new theories shot down and blocked moves that didn’t fit the new theories. http://slate.msn.com/id/2080814/
Not unlike the faked “success” of missle defense technology, the war games were used to present strategies as successes proven by experiment when in fact the experiments seemed rigged.
The military is moving in thousands of new troops into place ostensibly for actual battle. They say that this was always the plan, but it’s not clear that it was, entirely: the new troops could just as have easily been a clean-up/occupation force that they expected to have need of after Iraq was won, not reinforcements for the actual main invasion as they seem to need now.
Arguably, tactical elements of the battle plan so far shows that it really was designed to acheive a quick victory with minimal force: we left Iraqi broadcasts on the air, the power grid, the phone lines: all in the hope of a coup or a surrender. This was risky, and now looks to have worked out badly: Iraq has been using its propaganda outlets to spread messages about the U.S. targeting civilian areas that have enraged the populace.
Rumsfeld is still apparently pushing against having more troops be involved in the taking of Baghdad. The idea of a delay, despite that seeming to be exactly what’s happening, is not seen as a good spin point in the administration.
Constant denials that there were too few troops, and that the administration was too optimistic. Claims, that are essentially unfalisfiable, that more troops aren’t needed, that everything is just great the way it is, that things always have to be reevaluated (well, sure: but that doesn’t mean that you can’t have been majorly wrong and blinded by hubris in your original troop allocations), and that the smaller number of troops has not put anyone at risk.
Rumsfeld has made noises to te American people (as opposed to Syria directly) about Syria aiding Iraq and so forth. That fits in with the idea of a grand Middle East strategy bandied about here, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0304.marshall.html which is certainly a very real part of neo-con thinking about the Middle East.
So, what IS going on here? I have to say, even if Kaus is right, I’m not sure the claimed objectives of a Kausian Rumsfeld would be unambiguously wrong. Toppling most of the major dictators in the world would cement Bush II’s place in history as the man who, uh, well, at least got to sign the orders for other people to put their plans in action. It would be an unparalleled feat of era-altering proportions: not something to scoff at.
I for one wouldn’t mind seeing Kim Il Jung’s regime taken out as well, though that would be much much harder than this. But people: the man is so irrationally afraid of triplets that he has them separated from their parents at birth and raised in separate state facilities. He’s the very definition of an evil, utterly insane ruler.
Nah… I reject that thesis. The US had the 4th Infantry Division waiting on ships for weeks for permission to move into Turkey to provide a pincer movement on Baghdad from the north. The thesis above blatantly ignores this reality.
The 4th Infantry Division is a motherfucker heavy armour battlegroup. 62,000 men and a veritible shitload of tanks and support choppers and crew etc. Sadly, through no fault of either Donald Rumsfled or General Franks, the Turks never gave permission for the 4th to launch themselves from the north, as a result, they have since moved down through the Suez Canal and are now moving into Iraq from Kuwait.
This was just plain rotten luck at a political level. General Franks had a great plan in place and it was kyboshed by the vagaries of politics. Those extra 62,000 men from the north would have RADICALLY changed the military battlefield as we currently know it within Iraq.
As it stands, you have various spear heads of the US Marine Corps, and the 3rd Infantry Division who are essentially slowing up for a few weeks while the men of the 4th Infantry Division catch up from Kuwait - and THEN the fireworks will start - believe me. Between then and now, the Iraqi’s will play the sniper game and claim vacuous victories way WAY out of proportion to their true military context - and it’s just the way the cookie crumbles.
I gotta say though - regardless of the spin coming out of the Iraqi Ministry of Information - if I was a Republican Guard soldier? Bunkered down? Awaiting orders? I’d be fucking shitting myself. If you were to believe the TV services at the moment, you’d swear Saddam is fighting some sort of epic “Battle of the Bulge” fightback, but man, nothing could be further from the truth. Those poor bastards in the Republican Guard are getting hammered - absolutely hammered - just like they did in Gulf War One. It’s just that no one is getting close to the action with TV cameras yet.
“It would be an unparalleled feat of era-altering proportions: not something to scoff at.”
This is assuming that the US puts something better in place of the dictators it eliminates. Otherwise it will just produce instability or even anarchy until another strong man takes over. Rumsfeld and co. don’t seem to realize that knocking off the bad guys is just the first step and there is little evidence that the US has either the will, the expertise or the internatinal support to do post-war nationbuilding of any magnitude.
As for your main point there is a quite a bit of evidence that Rumsfeld has kept the size of the force smaller than what the professionals wanted.
Here is Hersh’s article: http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/030407fa_fact1
"On at least six occasions, the planner told me, when Rumsfeld and his deputies were presented with operational plans—the Iraqi assault was designated Plan 1003—he insisted that the number of ground troops be sharply reduced. Rumsfeld’s faith in precision bombing and his insistence on streamlined military operations has had profound consequences for the ability of the armed forces to fight effectively overseas. “They’ve got no resources,” a former high-level intelligence official said. “He was so focussed on proving his point—that the Iraqis were going to fall apart.” "
Which part? Some of that thesis is uncontroversial fact.
—The US had the 4th Infantry Division waiting on ships for weeks for permission to move into Turkey to provide a pincer movement on Baghdad from the north. The thesis above blatantly ignores this reality.—
So the plan was that they’d wait for permission before they went into action? Don’t you think you’d want to iron out things like this BEFORE implementing the main part of the plan?
We’re now hearing more about these Republicans and former administration officials who are complaining to the President that Cheny and Rumsfeld dominated advice being given to the President to the exclusion of other views, and this is to blame for many of the assumptions being wrong.
The question is: is this a real leak about a real crisis, or is it a pre-emptive move so that, if things go bad in a PR way, the President can be isolated from criticism?
Today, locally in Australia, the Military Defence briefing in Canberra for local Aussie journalists was asked the same question - namely - why did you start the campaign while so many reserve forces were not yet in place?
And the answer was quite a credible one - (and I paraphrase… “We (the Coalition) were given incontrovertible proof that the Saddam regime was advancing on their oil fields with a view to hot-wiring them all for total sabotage - we felt that we needed to act as soon as possible to secure the oil fields at the very minimum.”