Chalabigate
"Weapons of Mass Deception"
2003-03-31
Splits Surfacing In Bush War Team
(CBS) The Bush administration is divided on three major issues related to the war in Iraq and its aftermath, according to newspaper reports.
If the reports are true, the divisions would echo disagreements in the days before the war, particularly about the grounds for military action and the wisdom of seeking United Nations support.
But the reports do not necessarily reflect disunity within the government. President Bush, like his father, is said to encourage disagreement among staff members to elicit new ideas and critical thinking.
However, there are also potential points of tension between the United States and Britain.
Domestically, the current arguments concern the way the war is being fought, the responsibility for delivering aid and the structure of the post-war administration that will run Iraq.
The New York Times reported in Tuesday editions that a simmering dispute over the war strategy overseen by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has reached down to commanders in the field in Iraq, who fault the war plan for failing to include enough troops.
The complaints point to stiff resistance from Iraqi irregulars at cities like Umm Qasr, Nasariyah and Basra, which the invasion bypassed on its way to Baghdad, only to return later for tough fighting.
"He wanted to fight this war on the cheap," a colonel told the Times. "He got what he wanted."
That seemed to mirror earlier comments by an Army commander in the Iraqi theatre, Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace of V Corps, who said "the enemy we're fighting is different from the one we war-gamed against."
Other commanders told journalist Seymour Hersch of the New Yorker that Rumsfeld overruled military war planners on six occasions when they tried to field an invasion larger than the 300,000-person force in the region.
Rumsfeld has denied the accusations. "The planners are in the Central Command. They come up with their proposals and I think you'll find that if you ask anyone who's been involved in the process from the Central Command that every single thing they've requested has in fact happened," Rumsfeld said.
Central Command claims the war is going well, noting that in less than a fortnight U.S. troops have closed to within 50 miles of Baghdad. Some commanders have said the reports of dissention are overstated.
But evidence of tension between Rumsfeld and the military brass are not new. The secretary's desire to modernize and streamline the armed forces has caused conflict with some uniformed commanders.
Leading up to the war, the civilian heads at the Pentagon clashed with Army chief of staff Gen. Eric K. Shinseki over the likely size of the post-war force that will occupy Iraq. Shinseki said hundreds of thousands of troops would be needed; Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said that estimate was "wildly off the mark."
The Times also reported that Secretary of State Colin Powell has written to Rumsfeld asking that the State Department — and not the Pentagon — be in charge of handing out aid inside Iraq.
The department's Agency for International Development has experience in such work, and officials say the department wants to avoid any symbols of military occupation.
But Jay Garner, the retired general who has been tapped to lead a post-war administration and reports to military commanders, has said he will control the aid programs.
According to another newspaper, Britain's liberal Guardian, Wolfowitz has clashed with Garner over the staffing of his post-war administration.Garner is said to be upset at some of the Iraqis who will be given powerful positions in that regime.
One Iraqi likely to have a high-level post is opposition leader Ahmed Chalabi. As head of the Iraqi National Congress, Chalabi has gained the admiration of many in Congress and the Pentagon. But he has not lived in Iraq for any length of time since 1956, leaving the extent of popular support for Chalabi in doubt.
The post-war regime is also a potential source of conflict between Washington and its closest ally in the war, the British government.
Prime Minister Tony Blair is said to prefer a larger United Nations role, while the United States may seek to limit international involvement. The State Department says discussion on the issue are ongoing.
Washington and London could also be at odds over the implantation of the "road map" for Middle East peace. Blair has linked solving the Arab-Israeli conflict to disarming Iraq.
President Bush announced the week before the war began that the implementation of the road map could precede the end of the war if Palestinians confirmed a prime minister. It is widely believed this was done for Blair's benefit.
But Mr. Bush suggested the road map could still be changed, and Israel has suggested it wants to do so. The other members of the negotiating team that developed the road map, including Britain, believed it was mainly a final document.
According to the Times of London, Powell's stark warning to Syria that it faced "crucial choice" over supporting terrorism, which suggested Syria would face grave consequences if it chose wrong.
That hinted at expanding U.S. military pressure to other countries in the region, which London would resist.
©MMIII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. The Associated Press also contributed to this story.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/30/politics/main546857.shtml
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
If the reports are true, the divisions would echo disagreements in the days before the war, particularly about the grounds for military action and the wisdom of seeking United Nations support.
But the reports do not necessarily reflect disunity within the government. President Bush, like his father, is said to encourage disagreement among staff members to elicit new ideas and critical thinking.
However, there are also potential points of tension between the United States and Britain.
Domestically, the current arguments concern the way the war is being fought, the responsibility for delivering aid and the structure of the post-war administration that will run Iraq.
The New York Times reported in Tuesday editions that a simmering dispute over the war strategy overseen by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has reached down to commanders in the field in Iraq, who fault the war plan for failing to include enough troops.
The complaints point to stiff resistance from Iraqi irregulars at cities like Umm Qasr, Nasariyah and Basra, which the invasion bypassed on its way to Baghdad, only to return later for tough fighting.
"He wanted to fight this war on the cheap," a colonel told the Times. "He got what he wanted."
That seemed to mirror earlier comments by an Army commander in the Iraqi theatre, Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace of V Corps, who said "the enemy we're fighting is different from the one we war-gamed against."
Other commanders told journalist Seymour Hersch of the New Yorker that Rumsfeld overruled military war planners on six occasions when they tried to field an invasion larger than the 300,000-person force in the region.
Rumsfeld has denied the accusations. "The planners are in the Central Command. They come up with their proposals and I think you'll find that if you ask anyone who's been involved in the process from the Central Command that every single thing they've requested has in fact happened," Rumsfeld said.
Central Command claims the war is going well, noting that in less than a fortnight U.S. troops have closed to within 50 miles of Baghdad. Some commanders have said the reports of dissention are overstated.
But evidence of tension between Rumsfeld and the military brass are not new. The secretary's desire to modernize and streamline the armed forces has caused conflict with some uniformed commanders.
Leading up to the war, the civilian heads at the Pentagon clashed with Army chief of staff Gen. Eric K. Shinseki over the likely size of the post-war force that will occupy Iraq. Shinseki said hundreds of thousands of troops would be needed; Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said that estimate was "wildly off the mark."
The Times also reported that Secretary of State Colin Powell has written to Rumsfeld asking that the State Department — and not the Pentagon — be in charge of handing out aid inside Iraq.
The department's Agency for International Development has experience in such work, and officials say the department wants to avoid any symbols of military occupation.
But Jay Garner, the retired general who has been tapped to lead a post-war administration and reports to military commanders, has said he will control the aid programs.
According to another newspaper, Britain's liberal Guardian, Wolfowitz has clashed with Garner over the staffing of his post-war administration.Garner is said to be upset at some of the Iraqis who will be given powerful positions in that regime.
One Iraqi likely to have a high-level post is opposition leader Ahmed Chalabi. As head of the Iraqi National Congress, Chalabi has gained the admiration of many in Congress and the Pentagon. But he has not lived in Iraq for any length of time since 1956, leaving the extent of popular support for Chalabi in doubt.
The post-war regime is also a potential source of conflict between Washington and its closest ally in the war, the British government.
Prime Minister Tony Blair is said to prefer a larger United Nations role, while the United States may seek to limit international involvement. The State Department says discussion on the issue are ongoing.
Washington and London could also be at odds over the implantation of the "road map" for Middle East peace. Blair has linked solving the Arab-Israeli conflict to disarming Iraq.
President Bush announced the week before the war began that the implementation of the road map could precede the end of the war if Palestinians confirmed a prime minister. It is widely believed this was done for Blair's benefit.
But Mr. Bush suggested the road map could still be changed, and Israel has suggested it wants to do so. The other members of the negotiating team that developed the road map, including Britain, believed it was mainly a final document.
According to the Times of London, Powell's stark warning to Syria that it faced "crucial choice" over supporting terrorism, which suggested Syria would face grave consequences if it chose wrong.
That hinted at expanding U.S. military pressure to other countries in the region, which London would resist.
©MMIII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. The Associated Press also contributed to this story.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/30/politics/main546857.shtml
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Milton Frihetsson, 15:42
