More proof that "justification" for the Iraq war is a lie
Recently Brigadier General Mark Scheid, chief of the Logistics War Plans Division after 9/11, and one of the people with primary responsibility for war planning was interviewed. Scheid said that Sec Def Donald Rumsfeld threatened to fire any planner who even mentioned a plan for occupying Iraq after the overthow of Saddam.
As Kevin Drum says, "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 from Drum:
There you have it. No intent to bring Democracy to Iraq.
"The secretary of defense continued to push on us ... that everything we write in our plan has to be the idea that we are going to go in, we're going to take out the regime, and then we're going to leave," Scheid said. "We won't stay."
As Kevin Drum says, "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 from Drum:
"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."
There you have it. No intent to bring Democracy to Iraq.
posted by Jim at 9:46 PM
2 Comments:
I like the last line best:
"Either that or BG Scheid is lying.""
Now why does this guy deserve to be believed? You know, I'm sure, that there's a lot of politics among the big dog generals as they reach the upper limits of their careers. I seen in several places indications that not every high up military dude is on board for reasons less noble than doing the right thing. This guy could be one of them. Perhaps Drum should have investigated a little more to see if this dude has an agenda or if his views are shared by other guys. One reporter talking to one general and we're supposed to just swallow it all? I'll wait for more thank you very much. Also,
the word "occupying" can be used to mean staying forever. Maybe that's what Rummie was talking about and this dude thought otherwise. I don't know. But what I find typical, is holding up anyone who has got something negative to say about the admin as a beacon of truthfulness and then no further investigation. "Hey! Here's a guy who hates Rummie! Let's quote him!"
But Marshall, this guy isn't the only one who has said this. Read Cobra II, read Fiasco, read any number of accounts and they will tell you that that there was virtually no planning whatsoever for post victory. The whole idea, I believe, was that we would march to Bagdhad, throw out Saddam, and Chalabi and friends would set up a US-friendly state, everyone would rally around and support him and we would leave immediately. Rummy was on the verge of stopping any more inflow of troops once Bagdhad was captured and actually pulling out troops already there.
This guy is only one more source for this.
Post a Comment
<< Home