Another article that does not support Basso's position: http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,925140,00.html Scorned general's tactics proved right Profile of the army chief sidelined by Rumsfeld Matthew Engel in Washington Saturday March 29, 2003 The Guardian This has been a terrible week at the Pentagon: the worst since the building itself was attacked more than 18 months ago. But as his limo drew up to fetch him last night, one of the most senior figures in the building might just have permitted himself the thin smile of a vindicated man. His name in General Eric Shinseki. And at a time when generals - whether on active or pundit duty - are the hottest showbiz properties in the world, hardly anyone knows who he is. Officially, he is Tommy Franks's superior, head of the United States army, a member of the mighty joint chiefs, and two months away from what ought to be honoured retirement at the end of a military career stretching back to the Vietnam war. But for the past two years Gen Shinseki has been in total eclipse after what appears to have been the most spectacular bust-up with his civilian bosses, in particular Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary. Hardly any of this the reached public domain until last month when Gen Shinseki told a congressional committee that he thought an occupying force in the hundreds of thousands would be required to police postwar Iraq. Mr Rumsfeld publicly repudiated him, saying he was "far off the mark". In semi-private, the Pentagon's civilian leadership was far more scathing. A "senior administration official" told the Village Voice newspaper that Gen Shinseki's remark was "bull**** from a Clintonite enamoured of using the army for peacekeeping and not winning wars". Then the general said it again. "It could be as high as several hundred thousand," he told another committee. "We all hope it is something less." Most of the media were too distracted by the build-up to war to notice. Serious analysts, however, were staggered by the insubordination. This appears to have been round two of another, more immediately relevant, dispute about how many troops are needed to win this war. In this case, the military prevailed over the original civilian notion that fewer than 100,000 could do it. As even more soldiers rush to the Gulf to bring the number closer to 300,000, the original Rumsfeld plan looks in hindsight to be what the army said at the time: a recipe for possible catastrophe. The full reality on the ground may not become known until Saddam Hussein has fallen, but no one can now seriously believe - as many top Pentagon civilians appear to have done a week ago - that the main problem for an occupying force will be what to do with all the floral gifts. The origins of the Shinseki-Rumsfeld war long predate any mention of Iraq. There are many ironies to it, but the most bitter seems to be that the general has found himself characterised as an obstacle to progress. This is improbable on the most personal level. He is a Japanese-American (as is his wife), born in Hawaii in 1942 when his parents were officially enemy aliens. He was inspired to join the army by the example of uncles who fought for the US then and eradicated the perception that they might be traitors. In Vietnam, "Ric" Shinseki was terribly injured twice - losing a foot the second time - yet he persisted in the army. He came into office in June 1999 with a clear vision for "transformation" and talked passionately about the army's need to adjust from thinking about traditional enemies to what he called "complicators", including both terrorists and the then little-known phrase "weapons of mass destruction". Gen Shinseki might thus have relished the arrival of a Republican team equally committed to change. Unfortunately, the two sides had very different ideas about what the words meant. The general wanted a new kind of army, one that could combine the adaptability of light infantry and the power of heavily mechanised forces. His new bosses had other ideas. "They had pre-decided what transformation meant," said one Pentagon source. "It meant more from space, more from air and it didn't involve the army much. That was the essence of the conflict." This erupted over the Crusader mobile artillery system, which Mr Rumsfeld has scrapped. Gen Shinseki told Congress a year ago it would have saved lives during Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan. By then he had already been turned into a lame duck ("castrated", according to the same Pentagon source) by the apparently unprecedented Rumsfeld decision to announce his successor 18 months in advance. He seems to have been caught in a classic bind: distrusted by his subordinates for being too radical and by his bosses for being too conservative. On Japanese-American chatlines, he is characterised as a victim of racism. Certainly in that community he is an authentic hero: "One of the most gracious, soft-spoken, low-key individuals you could meet with four stars on his shoulder," according to Kristine Manami of the Japanese-American Citizens' League. Put it all together: a nice man, a wounded veteran - and maybe right when it mattered. Despite the allegations, his politics are unknown. But if he is a Democrat and chooses to go after one of Hawaii's Senate seats, he might have a platform for some very tasty revenge indeed.
again, are you trying to say he was no longer in the military at that time that's why he was ignored? point is he was still correct.. and the arm chair warriors were wrong..
Re: WMDs to Syria... Go back and read the reports from Duelfer and others... there were no WMDs to move and even the craven dogs in the Veep's office have quit pushing the "theory." __________ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6834079/ U.S. found no evidence WMD moved from Iraq No signs that weapons were smuggled, intelligence officials say The Associated Press Updated: 2:24 a.m. ET Jan. 17, 2005 WASHINGTON - As the hunt for weapons of mass destruction dragged on unsuccessfully in Iraq, top Bush administration officials speculated publicly that the banned armaments may have been smuggled out of the country before the war started. Whether Saddam Hussein moved the WMD — deadly chemical, biological or radiological arms — is one of the unresolved issues that the final U.S. intelligence report on Iraq’s programs is expected to address next month. But intelligence and congressional officials say they have not seen any information — never “a piece,” said one — indicating that WMD or significant amounts of components and equipment were transferred from Iraq to neighboring Syria, Jordan or elsewhere. Search draws to a close The administration acknowledged last week that the search for banned weapons is largely over. The Iraq Survey Group’s chief, Charles Duelfer, is expected to submit the final installments of his report in February. A small number of the organization’s experts will remain on the job in case new intelligence on Iraqi WMD is unearthed. But the officials familiar with the search say U.S. authorities have found no evidence that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein transferred WMD or related equipment out of Iraq. A special adviser to the CIA director, Duelfer declined an interview request through an agency spokesman. In his last public statements, he told a Senate panel last October that it remained unclear whether banned weapons could have been moved from Iraq. “What I can tell you is that I believe we know a lot of materials left Iraq and went to Syria. There was certainly a lot of traffic across the border points,” he said. “But whether in fact in any of these trucks there was WMD-related materials, I cannot say.” Last week, a congressional official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said suggestions that weapons or components were sent from Iraq were based on speculation stemming from uncorroborated information. White House pushed smuggling theory President Bush and top-raking officials in his administration used the existence of WMD in Iraq as the main justification for the March 2003 invasion, and throughout much of last year the White House continued to raise the possibility the weapons were transferred to another country. For instance: # Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said in early October he believed Saddam had WMD before the war. “He has either hidden them so well or moved them somewhere else, or decided to destroy them ... in event of a conflict but kept the capability of developing them rapidly,” Rumsfeld said in a Fox News Channel interview. Eight months earlier, he told senators “it’s possible that WMD did exist, but was transferred, in whole or in part, to one or more other countries. We see that theory put forward.” # Secretary of State Colin Powell expressed concern the WMD would be found. However, when asked in September if the WMD could have been hidden or moved to a country like Syria, he said, “I can’t exclude any of those possibilities.” # And, on MSNBC’s “Hardball” in June, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said: “Everyone believed that his programs were more active than they appeared to be, but recognize, he had a lot of time to move stuff, a lot of time to hide stuff.” Claims subside Since the October report from Duelfer, which said Saddam intended to obtain WMD but had no banned weapons, senior administration leaders have largely stopped discussing whether the weapons were moved. Last week, the intelligence and congressional officials said evidence indicating somewhat common equipment with dual military and civilian uses, such as fermenters, was salvaged during post-invasion looting and sold for scrap in other countries. Syria was mentioned as one location. However, the U.S. intelligence community’s 2002 estimate on Iraq indicated there were sizable weapons programs and stockpiles. The officials said weapons experts have not found a production capability in Iraq that would back up the size of the prewar estimates. Among a series of key findings, that estimate said Iraq “has largely rebuilt missile and biological weapons facilities damaged” during a 1998 U.S.-British bombing campaign and “has expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian production.” Although the U.S. had little specific information, the estimate also said Saddam probably stockpiled at least 100 metric tons, possibly 500 metric tons, of chemical weapons agents — “much of it added in the last year.”
don't be a twit mark, i'm relating a conversation. if you don't want to believe it, that's your perogative, but juvenile snarkiness doesn't become you.
call it what you will rimmy, as i said, it was an informal conversation w/ a former senior military commander in iraq. i'm just telling you what he said. if you'd prefer the guardian, knock yourself out.
I think I see where the misunderstanding is regarding Shinseki. Basso originally said "he'd already been replaced." I believe what he meant was that a successor had already been chosen. The arguments that came afterward show that Shinseki was still at his post when he made the comments. Basso's main idea that Shinseki wasn't fired for those particular comments would still hold water... kind of. Ironically it was a bit of semantics by Basso to make that claim in the first place. It is correct to say that General Shinseki made those claims and was replaced. It is accurate. It is also accurate to say that those claims didn't please the administration. The search function will definitely show that thread, and the arguments put forward in more detail. It is just ironic that Basso who used semantics in that thread is now the victim of it in this one.
I think it is reasonable to believe the guardian to a higher degree. You yourself said that it wasn't an environment where you could ask any hard hitting questions, nor did you have the opportunity, as the guardian did, to question multiple high level sources to confirm, or corraborate what was heard. So while this may a shine light and possible hedge the impact of the guardian's story, objectively they have more information, from a wider variety of sources, gathered in situations that allowed for more intense scrutiny.
I didn't know replaced and succesor selected was the same thing.. are you saying he was not due to retire on June 2003 anyway? so bigger point now is after he spoke against the admin regarding afghanistan, they selected hi sucessor..
If you're really one of those that will protect America, I assume you're on your way to sign up. I honor your service, congratulate you on volunteering, and offer condolences to your present employer, though I'm sure they are proud of you as well. Godspeed Trader Jorge. (And please post from Boot Camp so we can know where you will be assigned.)
my problem w/ your comment was the implication that WMD for sale in Syria is anybody's wet dream. i'd much prefer they never existed. some ephemeral validation of the admin policy is much less important than securing/destroying saddam's weapons. re shinseki, and the continued confusion: as the Guardian made clear, he was a lame duck when he made the remarks. it is accurate to say he made the remarks, then he was replaced. it is not accurate to imply, as the preceeding statement might, and as so many of you are intent on doing, that he was replaced because he made those remarks.
again he was not replaced but he served his full term and retired on schedule. again he was not replaced after he made those remarks. he retired after he made those remarks. so now you agree with all of us that the Guardian is a very accurate source of information? or just for instances that it supports your arguments? yes he was a lame duck and it's all rummy's fault. talk about destroying the morale of the troops. So did Rummy make him a lame duck 14 months before his set retirement? Is this how he treats someone who lost part of his leg for the country? Doesn't that harm the troops morale more? Is he incompetent? He was right about the troops needed in Iraq thats for sure.
