Official Army History: Bush Administration Neglected Afghan War, Diverted Resources to Iraq

[ProSense]

Official Army History: Bush Administration Neglected Afghan War, Diverted Resources to Iraq

<…>

Unfortunately for Rumsfeld, Rove and their neo-con allies, the Army’s official history of the first four years of the war completely contradicts their claims. The New York Times reported this week that according to the official history, as early as late 2003, the Army historians assert, “it should have become increasingly clear to officials at Centcom and that the coalition presence in Afghanistan did not provide enough resources” for a proper counterinsurgency campaign. Paraphrasing the history, the Times notes that American forces were “hamstrung by inadequate resources” and thus “missed opportunities to stabilize Afghanistan during the early years of the war.”

“A Different Kind of War,” the title of the account, to be published this Spring, is written by a team of seven historians at the Army’s Combat Studies Institute at Fort Leavenworth and covers the period from October 2001 until September 2005. Rumsfeld was secretary of defense during this entire time. The Army writes such reports after major military engagements in order to train future commanders.

Contradicting Rove and Rumsfeld, the historians blame the Iraq war for the lack of resources in Afghanistan, as well as top Bush officials and the president himself:

The historians say resistance to providing more robust resources to Afghanistan had three sources in the White House and the Pentagon.

First, President George W. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had criticized using the military for peacekeeping and reconstruction in the Balkans during the 1990s. As a result, “nation building” carried a derogatory connotation for many senior military officials, even though American forces were being asked to fill gaping voids in the Afghan government after the Taliban’s fall. <...>

Third, the invasion of Iraq was siphoning away resources. After the invasion started in March 2003, the history says, the United States clearly “had a very limited ability to increase its forces” in Afghanistan.

The historians also note that, as was the case in Iraq, Bush officials had neglected to properly plan for what to do after the government fell. (T)here was no major planning initiated to create long-term political, social and economic stability in Afghanistan,” the historians write. “In fact, the message from senior D.O.D officials in Washington was for the U.S. military to avoid such efforts.”

Despite Rove and Rumsfeld’s attempts to salvage their legacies, it’s widely accepted that the Bush administration neglected the Afghan war. But as the Times notes, these new findings are “notable for carrying the imprimatur of the Army itself.”

[IndianaGreen]

1. And Democrats and Republicans rushed to vote for Iraq War Resolution in October 2002

Both parties have the blood of innocents on their hands, and they share in the blame for the war crimes committed by the Bush/Cheney regime.

[ProSense]

2. Always looking for a way to cover the Republicans' ass, huh?

This is no less bogus than blaming Clinton for 9/11. Bush launched the Iraq war, not the Democrats. In fact, the 2004 Presidential candidate ran against Bush and never once minced words in opposing Iraq:

And the truth is that George Bush has made America weaker by overextending the armed forces of the United States, overstraining, overstraining our reserves, driving away our allies and running the most arrogant, reckless, inept and ideological foreign policy in the modern history of our country.

link

KERRY: This president has made, I regret to say, a colossal error of judgment. And judgment is what we look for in the president of the United States of America.

<...>

LEHRER: New question, two minutes, Senator Kerry.

"Colossal misjudgments." What colossal misjudgments, in your opinion, has President Bush made in these areas?

KERRY: Well, where do you want me to begin?

First of all, he made the misjudgment of saying to America that he was going to build a true alliance, that he would exhaust the remedies of the United Nations and go through the inspections.

In fact, he first didn't even want to do that. And it wasn't until former Secretary of State Jim Baker and General Scowcroft and others pushed publicly and said you've got to go to the U.N., that the president finally changed his mind -- his campaign has a word for that -- and went to the United Nations.

Now, once there, we could have continued those inspections.

We had Saddam Hussein trapped.

He also promised America that he would go to war as a last resort.

Those words mean something to me, as somebody who has been in combat. "Last resort." You've got to be able to look in the eyes of families and say to those parents, "I tried to do everything in my power to prevent the loss of your son and daughter."

I don't believe the United States did that.

And we pushed our allies aside.

And so, today, we are 90 percent of the casualties and 90 percent of the cost: $200 billion -- $200 billion that could have been used for health care, for schools, for construction, for prescription drugs for seniors, and it's in Iraq.

And Iraq is not even the center of the focus of the war on terror. The center is Afghanistan, where, incidentally, there were more Americans killed last year than the year before; where the opium production is 75 percent of the world's opium production; where 40 to 60 percent of the economy of Afghanistan is based on opium; where the elections have been postponed three times.

KERRY: The president moved the troops, so he's got 10 times the number of troops in Iraq than he has in Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden is. Does that mean that Saddam Hussein was 10 times more important than Osama bin Laden -- than, excuse me, Saddam Hussein more important than Osama bin Laden? I don't think so.

link

If the president would move in this direction, if he would bring in more help from other countries to provide resources and to train the Iraqis to provide their own security and to develop a reconstruction plan that brings real benefits to the Iraqi people, and take the steps necessary to hold elections next year, if all of that happened, we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer and realistically aim to bring our troops home within the next four years.

link

I will make a flat statement: The United States of America has no long-term designs on staying in Iraq.

KERRY: And our goal in my administration would be to get all of the troops out of there with a minimal amount you need for training and logistics as we do in some other countries in the world after a war to be able to sustain the peace.

link

You obviously don't remember that Kerry angered the Republicans one week into the Iraq war by calling for regime change in the United States?

[IndianaGreen]

4. IWR was a bipartisan resolution. They were all there next to Bush in the Rose Garden

including Dick Gephardt. The DLC was telling its puppets to vote for IWR regardless of anything, just to get that issue out of the way before the 2002 midterm elections.

Unlike you, I always supported war crimes trials for Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the neocons.

[tabatha]

5. Yes, made under false pretenses.

Most were not privy to the facts.

[IndianaGreen]

6. Bullshit, several knew that the 'evidence' was iffy at best

but they went along for political expediency.

[ProSense]

8. Bullshit! n/t

[Oregone]

15. If those politicians got fooled they are fucken worthless to begin with

I don't know how you see it...

Either the pro-IWR Democrats are idiotic and gullible morons, or they knew better and just didn't care. Either way, you don't have a lot of reason to be carrying their water for them

[ProSense]

16. You're obviously brilliant. Please explain what

this statement has to do with the IWR:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003).

[Oregone]

17. Its something that a liar says which only idiots will believe

We had the same intel, just debunked.

Bush was stringing bullshit together to justify an invasion. Everyone saw this who had a brain. Either those who voted for the bullshit had no brain, or they wanted to blow up brown people for oil or political gain.

[ProSense]

18. You are not answering the question.

What does it have to do with IWR? Also, can you provide evidence that anyone believed it?

[Oregone]

20. I have no evidence that anyone believed it. Maybe they are all just shitbags who pretended

As before, I presented an either or scenario. Either they are gullible idiots or assholes.

The intelligence source was debunked by US intelligence (not British), and therefore, its usage in a speech justifying military action in Iraq was therefore a blatant lie (the President knew the intelligence was false--but this all became public very quickly). But that being said, its rather tangential anyway. Whether or not the statement was true or not, it doesn't mean Iraq poised an imminent threat that required immediate pre-emptive military action. That is one of the most startling criticisms of the Congress that authorized the President to use military force (if he decided to, which it was clear that he would). There was never a case that an immediate invasion was in the short or long term interests of the security of the United States of America. And without that case made, either the people who voted for it were complete idiots, or just assholes looking for gain.

I don't buy for a minute that the other reasons cited in the IWR justified the death and chaos brought upon the Iraqi people. An imminent threat was needed, and it was never coherently conveyed (lies or otherwise), yet the authorization was rubber-stamped

[ProSense]

23. You are not connecting any dots whatsoever.

"Whether or not the statement was true or not, it doesn't mean Iraq poised an imminent threat that required immediate pre-emptive military action."

The statement was an utter fabrication. What you cannot do is provide a connection between that statement and the IWR. It was, in fact, made after the vote based on a fabrication made at that same time.

[Oregone]

29. Actually, as far as Ive read, it wasn't a fabrication whatsoever

The claims were stated in, I believe, the "White Paper" (official British intelligence report). The problem with the claims is that the British source was already debunked by the US intelligence community (not yet by the British). So, relying on the same US report wouldn't of worked, so Bush selected the British report that we all knew was fake anyway. It wasn't a "fabrication" so much, but rather ignoring credible counter intelligence in favor of disproven intelligence to make his case (Id call it a distortion). Any way you cut it, it was a lie.

Regardless, its still a major tangent to the IWR (IOW a big fat red herring), being that the pursuit to purchase nuclear material still doesn't translate to an imminent threat. You do get that, don't you? In fact, all the reasoning behind the IWR doesn't translate to Iraq being an imminent threat, but rather, a nuisance we are scared of:

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Ya see, it has far more reasoning behind it than the distortion you are referring to by Bush. These people you are defending voted to enact the "Bush Doctrine". And the "Bush Doctrine" isn't about pre-emptive warfare to protect America from imminent threat. Its about fucking up anything that may one day potential pose a threat to America, whether by military or economic means. And thats exactly what happen.

These people were NEVER fooled into thinking that if they didn't vote for this, Iraq would immediately attack the US. Some may of been led to believe that Iraq wasn't playing by the UN Resolutions concerning it, but to think that alone justified the mass death and chaos brought upon Iraq is a bit foolish.

War is a bitch. Everyone ought to know that by now. Its atrocity. Its destruction. Its death, famine, and everything man fears. Congressmen voted to do that to another nation without any belief that if they did not, a worse evil would instantly touch upon the earth. That is utterly indefensible

[ProSense]

31. That has nothing to do with Bush's statement. Nothing.

Bush supported his bogus claim in a letter and report to Congress.

"Ya see, it has far more reasoning behind it than the distortion you are referring to by Bush."

Keep defending the actions of a war criminal. He is the one who loaded the gun and pulled the trigger.

[Oregone]

32. I'm not defending Bush, but illustrating that the blame goes far deeper

Even his fucking lies are a red herring to the issue of what Congress did. There was no coherant case made with the lies that Iraq was an imminent threat, but rather a nuisance. Therefore, Congress signed off on the "Bush Doctrine", authorizing the president to have a pre-emptive war against a nation that wasn't actively committing genocide or posing an immediate threat to US security.

Congress signed off on atrocity, death, famine, rape, and murder against a nation that they were led to believe was a nuisance. That is indefensible, and using the "poor Congresscritters were lied to" red herring is disgusting.

[ProSense]

33. Bullshit

Bush violated the IWR. Period.

[Oregone]

34. Congress rubberstamped pre-emptive military action against a non-immediate threat. Period

[ProSense]

7. The IWR did not launch the war, Bush did. You don't know what you are talking

July 5, 2002

Iraq once again rejects new UN weapons inspection proposals.

<...>

November 13, 2002

Iraq accepts U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 and informs the UN that it will abide by the resolution.

Weapons inspectors arrive in Baghdad again after a four-year absence.

link

The IWR was designed to restart the inspections and diplomatic efforts

Following the mandate of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, Saddam Hussein allowed UN inspectors to return to Iraq in November 2002. UNMOVIC led inspections of alleged chemical and biological facilities in Iraq until shortly before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, but did not find any weapons of mass destruction. Based on its inspections and examinations during this time, UNMOVIC inspectors determined that UNSCOM had successfully dismantled Iraq’s unconventional weapons program during the 1990s.

link

To launch the war Bush lied after the IWR, violated its terms and illegally invaded Iraq:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003).

[IndianaGreen]

10. Why was impeachment put off the table?

You just said it: "To launch the war Bush lied after the IWR, violated its terms and illegally invaded Iraq."

Wasn't there a Constitutional duty to hold impeachment hearings in the House? Unless such hearings were likely to bring to light bipartisan complicity in the illegal invasion of Iraq by the US and Britain.

[tabatha]

12. No, because we would not have won the WH.

[IndianaGreen]

13. So political expediency trumping principle is what gave us IWR

and kept Bush/Cheney free to commit crimes for 4 more years, and it is political expediency that makes Obama protect scum like John Yoo and the CIA torturers from prosecution.

And you wonder why things are so screwed up?

Both political parties failed the American people. Our political institutions also failed to uphold the rule of law, allowing a nearly dictatorial "unitary" executive to infringe on our liberties.

FUBAR all around!

[tabatha]

14. Rescuing the remaining billions of people affected

by the Bush 8 years is by far the more moral choice.

Both political parties failed because the corporations own the political system.

It cannot be changed until someone who wants to change it gets into office.

Ans it is going to be an uphill battle to change it.

You are not very good at understanding cause and effect - only simplistic, out of context judgments.

So, instead of whining, let's rather make sure that the people who are bought and paid for, are taken out of office.

[karynnj]

26. We did not have the votes

The House would not have impeached Bush even after we gained control of the House. Look at history, Nixon was impeached for Whitewater, not the illegal bombing of Cambodia, as Father Drinan supported. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying to a grand jury about Monica.

Both of these are not actions taken for and in the name of the United States. This was more equivalent to Iran/Contra. Like Iran/Contra, the invasion of Iraq was something that would accuse the US of war crimes. There is no way that you would get the majority of Congressmen to have voted for impeachment.

[IndianaGreen]

27. Public hearings would have shaped public opinion

Telling people that their loved ones died for a lie, would have gotten their blood pressure way up.

[chieftain]

30. Where in the Constitution is there a "duty" to impeach an official?

There is no such duty. Why is it so important to you to paint the Democratic Party as complicitas the GOP was in launching the atrocity of the war in Iraq. 21 Democratic Senators voted against the IWR. At no time did Clinton mobilize the military and public opinion in an effort to invade Iraq. The attempt to equate the parties responsibility in the debacle is transparent and as bogus now as it was when Nader was espousing it.

[JohnnyLib2]

3. I'm glad to see this and here is why:

Future military leaders (ROTC, academies, leadership training) are given heavy doses of military history, effectiveness of strategy and so forth. If this becomes the official doctrine, it could have a ripple effect for many years.

This is a report to watch: will there be an attempt to suppress/counter it?

REC

[Brother Buzz]

9. Present military officers are already getting the straight dope

An Army War College Study blasted Bush et. al back in 2004 by calling Iraq a 'Detour'.

War College Study Calls Iraq a 'Detour'

Institute's report warns anti-terror campaign may launch 'open-ended and gratuitous conflict.

by Chuck Neubauer and Ken Silverstein


WASHINGTON — A report published by the Army War College criticizes the Bush administration's global war on terrorism as "unfocused" and contends that the war in Iraq is "unnecessary" and a "detour" that has diverted attention and resources from the threat posed by Al Qaeda.

The report warns that the administration's global war on terrorism may have set the United States "on a course of open-ended and gratuitous conflict with states and non-state entities that pose no serious threat to the United States."

The report by Jeffrey Record, a visiting research professor at the Strategic Studies Institute of the Army War College, calls for downsizing the war on terrorism and focusing instead on the threat from Al Qaeda, the terror network responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as well as other sites around the world.

"The global war on terrorism as presently defined and conducted is strategically unfocused, promises much more than it can deliver, and threatens to dissipate U.S. military and other resources in an endless and hopeless search for absolute security," Record wrote, concluding his 56-page monograph. "The United States may be able to defeat, even destroy, Al Qaeda, but it cannot rid the world of terrorism, much less evil."

<more>

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0112-01.htm

[JohnnyLib2]

11. Thanks, glad to see that.

:kick:

[Cha]

22. You'd have to have your head buried Deep

in the Sand not to see that!

[Brother Buzz]

25. I believe the military still has more than it's share of officers

with their head buried in their ass the sand; jerks that fell in lock-step with
Lieutenant General Boykin's twisted beliefs.

[Cha]

21. YES!

[Cha]

19. I can't believe this thread is

getting any shit from DUers but it looks like at least one ignore is questioning it.

Anyway, the important thing is that it's been done for an accurate history of the Army.

[ProSense]

24. Some people are making it an occupation

to engage in "Dems did it too" arguments whenever any news is presented that faults the Bush administration for incompetence.

[Cha]

28. And, obviously not caring how

how stupid they look.