|
|
| ||||||||||||||||
Reuters | Sky News |  PhotosSunday March 30, 06:46 PM |
Rumsfeld's role under scrutiny By Will Dunham
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's
influence in crafting the plan for the Iraq war is facing scrutiny as it
becomes apparent the campaign will not be as quick or easy as some U.S.
leaders had predicted.
Some retired top officers are voicing in public an opinion harboured in
private by some current military officers -- that Rumsfeld's bold vision
of a sleeker, high-tech military prompted him to take unnecessary risks in
the size and nature of the force sent to topple Iraqi President Saddam
Hussein.
Retired Army General Barry McCaffrey, who commanded an infantry
division in the Gulf War before overseeing anti-drug policies under former
President Bill Clinton, said on Sunday in an interview with Reuters, "At
the end of the day the question arises: why would you do this operation
with inadequate power?"
"Because you don't have time to get them there? But we did. Because you
don't have the forces? But we did. Because you're trying to save money on
a military operation that will be $200 billion (127 billion pounds) before
it's done?"
"Or is it because you have such a strong ideological view and you're so
confident in your views that you disregard the vehement military advice
from, particularly, Army generals who you don't think are very bright."
Rumsfeld has clashed with some top officers, particularly in the Army,
during a two-year tenure as Defence secretary. He has sought to reimpose
strict civilian leadership over a uniformed military that some
conservatives believed had run the show at the Pentagon during the Clinton
administration.
The flash point has been his quest to bring what he calls
"transformation" to the military. He has a vision of a military liberated
from its Cold War past, with smaller, swifter forces, high-tech weapons,
air power and special operations.
FAVORED SMALLER FORCE
In developing a war plan to use in Iraq, Rumsfeld rejected the advice
of many top officers that he field a force more in line with the
half-million troops used in the 1991 Gulf War. Rumsfeld favoured a much
smaller force. Analysts said Rumsfeld and war commander General Tommy
Franks reached a middle ground, fielding a force about half the size of
the 1991 one.
"Rumsfeld basically cut in half what the Army said that it needed for
the war. Basically, he has the view the Army is too big, too heavy, too
cumbersome," said analyst Lawrence Korb of the Council on Foreign
Relations, who served as assistant secretary of Defence in the Reagan
administration.
Rumsfeld told reporters on Sunday morning that he believed the war plan
was an excellent one, that is was in its early phase and that his armchair
critics did not know what the war plan was. He said Franks was doing a
"truly outstanding job."
"He's had a lot of success," Rumsfeld said, noting that the U.S.-led
coalition had captured southern oil fields and a port and that there had
been no massive humanitarian crisis or droves of refugees.
He said many of his critics had expected the kind of air war that led
off the Gulf War but after months of diplomacy and a last 48-hour
ultimatum for Saddam, the decision was to go for tactical surprise by
starting the ground war first.
In an interview with ABC's This Week, he said the war plan had the
backing of all members of the joint chiefs of staff and the White House.
He said although some 300,000 U.S. and British troops were now in the
region compared with 500,000 troops sent to the 1991 Gulf war, many of the
earlier force were not used and the Iraqi army was "35 to 40 percent as
capable as it was back in 1991."
He scoffed at suggestions by critics that he forced the slimming down
of the force sent to Iraq this time, saying this was "fiction".
'A POWERFUL PERSONALITY'
Military analyst Jack Spencer of the Heritage Foundation said Rumsfeld
is facing the huge task of bringing change to an institution, the
military, that resists it mightily.
"In terms of how Rumsfeld has influenced everything, certainly he has
demanded that war planners think outside the box a little bit, and come up
with some new ways to conduct this mission," Spencer said.
"He's a powerful personality. And powerful personalities, you either
love them or hate them. Not many people are indifferent to Rumsfeld,"
Spencer said.
Military analyst Daniel Goure of the Lexington Institute said one must
look at the development of the war plan in the context of Rumsfeld's
"transformation" quest.
"What we have now is a division between the military guys who want to
say that once you've made the decision to go to war, you turn it all over
to us: timing, numbers, whatever. The reality is that's not the way it
works. It has never been the way it works," Goure said.
Critics have pointed to a series of faulty assumptions they believe
were made by the civilian leaders of Pentagon. Among these are: that the
Iraqi military would collapse quickly once hostilities began; that there
would be mass surrenders of Iraqi troops; that the "shock and awe" aerial
bombardment would convince the Iraqis that resistance was futile; and that
the Iraqi people would embrace invading Americans as liberators.
Rumsfeld said on Sunday he had never held out much hope of a mass
surrender by Iraqi forces. "I never did. Tom Franks fashioned a plan that
... assumed a long, difficult task, but was prepared to take advantage of
quicker victory. |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Email
this article - View most sent
articles -  Print this page More From > World
Yahoo! Full
Coverage > Iraq Conflict:
Military Campaign Yahoo! Full
Coverage > Defence
News
Yahoo! Full
Coverage > Iraq
News
|
|
|
|
of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of Reuters Limited.
We also welcome your comments & suggestions. News Survey - Have your say! |
Copyright © 2003 Yahoo! UK Limited. All rights reserved. |
Full
Coverage
