JChristin
03-26-03, 01:15 AM
from a British newspaper:
Ex-generals fall out with Rumsfeld
By Toby Harnden
(Filed: 26/03/2003)
Six days into the Iraq war, Donald Rumsfeld is already facing accusations that he has committed insufficient troops to do the job and arrogantly ignored the counsel of senior military officers.
There have been long-running tensions between the defence secretary and the Pentagon's uniformed leadership over his rough-edged style and determination to shape his own war plan.
Rumsfeld: following his own agenda
His critics now claim the rush to Baghdad has led to troops in the rear being dangerously exposed because Mr Rumsfeld repeatedly ignored requests from Gen Tommy Franks, commander of coalition forces, for extra men.
Retired generals, with the support of their serving colleagues, are openly accusing Mr Rumsfeld of underestimating the strength of Iraqi forces and mistakenly believing that the war would be a rout.
Ralph Peters, a military scientist and former Army officer, wrote in yesterday's Washington Post that a coalition victory would be achieved "despite serious strategic miscalculations by the office of the defence secretary".
He lambasted Mr Rumsfeld and his civilian aides for believing a "shock and awe" strategy of aerial bombardment would shatter the will of Saddam's regime.
"Our attempt to baby-talk Iraq's elite military forces into surrender was humane in purpose and politically attractive, and it might have minimised Iraqi casualties. But it delayed essential attacks on Iraq's military capabilities.
"This encouraged at least some Iraqis in uniform to believe they had a chance to fight and win. Now our forces advancing on Baghdad face the possibility of more serious combat than would otherwise have been the case."
According to Pentagon sources, the first plan presented by Gen Franks proposed using four or five heavy divisions moving slowly towards Baghdad. Mr Rumsfeld is said to have rejected this, stating bluntly that it was unimaginative and too similar to 1991.
Mr Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, his deputy, favoured a smaller, lighter force relying heavily on Special Forces and air power.
Although Gen Franks managed to block any "Afghan model" plan in which Iraqi opposition forces would do much of the fighting supported by as few as 60,000 American troops, the final plan bore Mr Rumsfeld's stamp.
There are around 250,000 coalition troops in the Persian Gulf but only two heavy divisions: the US 3rd Infantry and Britain's 7th Armoured Brigade.
Mr Rumsfeld took over the Pentagon determined to wrest it back from military control. During the Clinton administration, senior officers became used to having a much freer hand because of the inexperience and weakness of many of the civilian leaders.
Some senior military officers believe that civilian Pentagon officials do not understand the reality of conflict because they have never served in uniform.
Supporters of Mr Rumsfeld, who was a Navy jet pilot but never saw combat, are infuriated by that claim and have hit back by denigrating some generals as being almost pathologically cautious and reluctant to commit troops.
© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2003. Terms & Conditions of reading.
Commercial information. Privacy Policy.
Ex-generals fall out with Rumsfeld
By Toby Harnden
(Filed: 26/03/2003)
Six days into the Iraq war, Donald Rumsfeld is already facing accusations that he has committed insufficient troops to do the job and arrogantly ignored the counsel of senior military officers.
There have been long-running tensions between the defence secretary and the Pentagon's uniformed leadership over his rough-edged style and determination to shape his own war plan.
Rumsfeld: following his own agenda
His critics now claim the rush to Baghdad has led to troops in the rear being dangerously exposed because Mr Rumsfeld repeatedly ignored requests from Gen Tommy Franks, commander of coalition forces, for extra men.
Retired generals, with the support of their serving colleagues, are openly accusing Mr Rumsfeld of underestimating the strength of Iraqi forces and mistakenly believing that the war would be a rout.
Ralph Peters, a military scientist and former Army officer, wrote in yesterday's Washington Post that a coalition victory would be achieved "despite serious strategic miscalculations by the office of the defence secretary".
He lambasted Mr Rumsfeld and his civilian aides for believing a "shock and awe" strategy of aerial bombardment would shatter the will of Saddam's regime.
"Our attempt to baby-talk Iraq's elite military forces into surrender was humane in purpose and politically attractive, and it might have minimised Iraqi casualties. But it delayed essential attacks on Iraq's military capabilities.
"This encouraged at least some Iraqis in uniform to believe they had a chance to fight and win. Now our forces advancing on Baghdad face the possibility of more serious combat than would otherwise have been the case."
According to Pentagon sources, the first plan presented by Gen Franks proposed using four or five heavy divisions moving slowly towards Baghdad. Mr Rumsfeld is said to have rejected this, stating bluntly that it was unimaginative and too similar to 1991.
Mr Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, his deputy, favoured a smaller, lighter force relying heavily on Special Forces and air power.
Although Gen Franks managed to block any "Afghan model" plan in which Iraqi opposition forces would do much of the fighting supported by as few as 60,000 American troops, the final plan bore Mr Rumsfeld's stamp.
There are around 250,000 coalition troops in the Persian Gulf but only two heavy divisions: the US 3rd Infantry and Britain's 7th Armoured Brigade.
Mr Rumsfeld took over the Pentagon determined to wrest it back from military control. During the Clinton administration, senior officers became used to having a much freer hand because of the inexperience and weakness of many of the civilian leaders.
Some senior military officers believe that civilian Pentagon officials do not understand the reality of conflict because they have never served in uniform.
Supporters of Mr Rumsfeld, who was a Navy jet pilot but never saw combat, are infuriated by that claim and have hit back by denigrating some generals as being almost pathologically cautious and reluctant to commit troops.
© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2003. Terms & Conditions of reading.
Commercial information. Privacy Policy.