Wolfowitz: Incompetent Bully
Wolfowitz, all will remember, is the one who bullied Shinseki out of the Army. Shinseki had the nerve to say to the Congress that it would take several hundred thousand more troops than we had going into Iraq to secure and maintain the peace.
I know that the mantra here at the SWJ is that more force is counterproductive, makes more insurgents, counter to the greatest and best COIN theory, and counter the notion of COIN as armed social science. I know that regardles of the OIF II and III difficulties, many here at this forum would still claim (and do still claim) that the small footprint model is the right one. Since I don't want to get into a long winded discussion about my views concerning force projection and how it is inversely related to the actual need to use that force in COIN, I will just say "notwithstanding the view of COIN as armed social science" (and my disagreement with it) and without getting into all of the things that Wolfowitz did wrong, I consider him to be an incompetent burden on society (American and international society). This man ignored the counsel of senior military leaders in favor of pet theories, threw well treaded military doctrine under the bus, bullied men out of the service, threw the U.S. armed forces into the middle of a conflict without the necessary foresight or planning or forces, and then got out unscathed.
I am disgusted by this man, and I consider him to be a dreadful human who - one day - will have much to answer for. I am sorry to see this administration continue to protect and promote him.
And in saying this, I am not really being completely forthright on exactly how I truly feel about this man because of the public nature of this forum. 'Nuff said.
Wolfotwits needs to go back to
Johns Hopkins and corrupt young minds. Total loser...
Of course, believing there's always a pony in there somewhere, I would point out that in his new appointment, he will be ostensibly working with the boys and girls from Foggy Bottom -- who probably have a more rabid reaction to him than I do. I suspect (and hope) his tenure will not be pleasant -- death by a thousand cuts.
Maybe that's Bush's subtle idea of payback for screwing things up at DoD... ;)
I think that if you really dig into that history
Quote:
It was also a consequence of a decade of national and international politics, including the "iraq liberation act".
you'll find it was, indeed, an act -- in the theatric sense. State fought it tooth and nail and bureaucratically stalled, spent money on a lot of conferences and generally did nothing. Not to mention that the CIA and DoD wanted no part of Iraq. They all did what they were told but they did it at the bare minimum level and effectively accomplished very little. All political theater.
I think you'll also find that the name and the footprint were predicated on being out of there by the fall of 2003 -- and that in early May of 2003, something (and I have no clue what) happened to change the plan.
the early doing of history (a prediction by a student of history)
Watch for short articles by neo-conservative magazines that will start to provide a counterfactual explanation tied to the current Surge with the idea of resurrecting the former Secretary from mistakes made during the early months of the war. The counterfactual will pose that if the American Army would have had a better command team in place with a better understanding of Coin doctrine, cultural awareness, HTT teams, etc then the policy goals that the former Secretary was trying to accomplish could have been achieved. These writers will use the current and apparent successes of the Surge to show how things might have been different back in 03. All of this with the idea in mind to resurrect the former Secretary and detach him from purported mistakes made by the American Army earlier in the War.
How about "The Iraq War will pay for itself?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
I think you'll also find that the name and the footprint were predicated on being out of there by the fall of 2003 -- and that in early May of 2003, something (and I have no clue what) happened to change the plan.
I'm glad Ken brought this up. I've never quite understood how we made/make key decisions in this ongoing democracy project in Mesopotamia, or for that matter, who is making the decisions.
This amounted to a pretty significant change of plans...by somebody.
I'm just amazed that Mr. Wolfowitz seems to be unfazed about how wrong he has been proven to be on various things. My personal favorite is his plan for paying for the Iraq War:
On March 27, 2003, Wolfowitz told a Congressional panel that oil revenue earned by Iraq alone would pay for Iraq's reconstruction after the Iraq war; he testified: "The oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years. Now, there are a lot of claims on that money, but … We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon.” By March 2005, two years later, oil revenues were not paying for the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq, Wolfowitz's estimation of 50 to 100 billion US dollars had not materialized, and, in light of his miscalculation, detractors criticized his appointment to head of the World Bank.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wo...o_the_Iraq_War
Author Tom Clancy on Mr. Wolfowitz
In June 2004, as reported on the MSNBC television program Deborah Norville Tonight, Tom Clancy asked about Paul Wolfowitz: "Is he really on our side?", narrating the context: "I sat in on—I was in the Pentagon in '01 for a red team operation and he came in and briefed us. And after the brief, I just thought, is he really on our side? Sorry."[74]
^ Qtd. on Deborah Norville Tonight, MSNBC, June 3, 2004, accessed April 18, 2007.
Now there is a thought for you. He is an Al Qaeda mole?? That would explain a few things in retrospect. Just have to wonder what that briefing was that he gave Tom Clancy.