Bremer says U.S. did not expect insurgency in Iraq

[Spider]

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N06261100.htm

Bremer says U.S. did not expect insurgency in Iraq
06 Jan 2006 21:41:49 GMT
Source: Reuters
WASHINGTON, Jan 6 (Reuters) - Paul Bremer, who led the U.S. civilian occupation authority in Iraq after the 2003 invasion, has admitted the United States did not anticipate the insurgency in the country, NBC Television said on Friday.

Bremer, interviewed by the network in connection with release of his book on Iraq, recounted the decision to disband the Iraqi army quickly after arriving in Baghdad, a move many experts consider a major miscalculation.

When asked who was to blame for the subsequent Iraqi rebellion, in which thousands of Iraqis and Americans have died, Bremer said "we really didn't see the insurgency coming," the network said in a news release.

The network, which did not publish a transcript of the interview, added that Bremer's comments suggested "the focus of the war effort was in the wrong place."

The book, "My Year in Iraq: The Struggle to Build a Future of Hope," is due for release on Monday. The interview will air on "Dateline NBC" on Sunday night.

Bremer also said he was deeply concerned about fighting insurgents and "became increasingly worried about the Pentagon's push to downsize the number of U.S. forces in Iraq by spring 2004," the network said.

Bremer said he raised his concerns about the numbers and quality of forces with President George W. Bush, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and senior military officials.

But he told NBC "there was a tendency by people in the Pentagon to exaggerate the capability of the Iraqi forces and I felt it was not likely we would have professionally trained forces to allow us to withdraw American forces in the spring of 2004."

Asked if he believes he did everything he could do in Iraq, Bremer replied, "I believe I did everything I could do. ... The president, in the end, is responsible for making decisions," the network reported.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bremer says U.S. did not expect insurgency in Iraq

What a f_cking moron.

It's not like this guy and the other civilian chickenhawks who planned the invasion/occupation were open to feedback or constructive criticism from the military and intelligence communities in the first place.

Anyone who didn't see things their way got canned.

[Haroldthebarrel]

I have a question for you guys, albeit very hypothetical.

There are three countries that I think all western countries foreign departments strongly advice against travelling to. The reason is that they are in such turmoil that it is very critically unsafe. Those three countries are; Columbia, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Let's say that the US government was fed up with drugs, traficking, cartells and the misplaced Leninists there and wanted to enforce a stable government . Sort of like what was done in Iraq.
The question is: Do you think there would be a lot of insurgency in that country? And do you think many fractions, groups and otherwise other political groups both in Columbia and in S. America (most likely with hatred towards the US or based upon a revolutionary socialist political views, or both) would join in that insurgency?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Haroldthebarrel

I have a question for you guys, albeit very hypothetical.

There are three countries that I think all western countries foreign departments strongly advice against travelling to. The reason is that they are in such turmoil that it is very critically unsafe. Those three countries are; Columbia, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Let's say that the US government was fed up with drugs, traficking, cartells and the misplaced Leninists there and wanted to enforce a stable government . Sort of like what was done in Iraq.
The question is: Do you think there would be a lot of insurgency in that country? And do you think many fractions, groups and otherwise other political groups both in Columbia and in S. America (most likely with hatred towards the US or based upon a revolutionary socialist political views, or both) would join in that insurgency?

If history is any indication, then yes, there would be an insurgency as people generally don't like it when the U.S. plays policeman and meddles in their internal affairs. Whether or not other countries and/or political groups would support such an insurgency (and in what way) would remain to be seen.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Haroldthebarrel

I have a question for you guys, albeit very hypothetical.

There are three countries that I think all western countries foreign departments strongly advice against travelling to. The reason is that they are in such turmoil that it is very critically unsafe. Those three countries are; Columbia, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Let's say that the US government was fed up with drugs, traficking, cartells and the misplaced Leninists there and wanted to enforce a stable government . Sort of like what was done in Iraq.
The question is: Do you think there would be a lot of insurgency in that country? And do you think many fractions, groups and otherwise other political groups both in Columbia and in S. America (most likely with hatred towards the US or based upon a revolutionary socialist political views, or both) would join in that insurgency?

got a point ,the enemy of my enemy is my friend ......but i think it goes deeper then this , I think we underestimated , the influence , thier religion has on them ,PersonalyI dont think they liked Saddam ,but they hate us .....
In America Change is a constant staple in our society , and we struggle with Change , meanwhile , the people in the middle east grasp tradition , and living the same way ....no matter how bad the quality of life , or the rules of their goverment ......

[elsid13]

Originally Posted by Haroldthebarrel

I have a question for you guys, albeit very hypothetical.

There are three countries that I think all western countries foreign departments strongly advice against travelling to. The reason is that they are in such turmoil that it is very critically unsafe. Those three countries are; Columbia, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Let's say that the US government was fed up with drugs, traficking, cartells and the misplaced Leninists there and wanted to enforce a stable government . Sort of like what was done in Iraq.
The question is: Do you think there would be a lot of insurgency in that country? And do you think many fractions, groups and otherwise other political groups both in Columbia and in S. America (most likely with hatred towards the US or based upon a revolutionary socialist political views, or both) would join in that insurgency?

Columbia really is not an issue because the US is supporting the government and already involved and the conflict is narco in nature. And current government has in past asked for US help.

So instead I going to change your country to Venezuela with everyone favorite friend, President Hugo Chavez. Somewhat stable political situation, with a current regime that is not ally to US. To be removed and new government put in place somehow Venezuela would need to seen as threat. It that happens the other powers in South American- Brazil- and other regional countries would need to be brought on board for action to happen. Most likely there would some in-country insurgency but would be contain by Spanish speaking international force would in place. Yes I know Brazil has different culture and language. Since most revolutionary movements in South America are no longer political in nature but more concerned with the drug trade I think doubt there would be influx of foreign fighters to help the cause. The key to fighting any insurgency is have well organized well staffed police force.

[Haroldthebarrel]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

got a point ,the enemy of my enemy is my friend ......but i think it goes deeper then this , I think we underestimated , the influence , thier religion has on them ,PersonalyI dont think they liked Saddam ,but they hate us .....
In America Change is a constant staple in our society , and we struggle with Change , meanwhile , the people in the middle east grasp tradition , and living the same way ....no matter how bad the quality of life , or the rules of their goverment ......

well personally I think one dimension is forgotten. The love for ones motherland. I mean, many countries have pretty much beared with tyrants as long as they were from that country. And then later revolted.
However when other nations has invaded the revolts and guerilla groups have fought instantly. Been subdued, and then revolted.

But then again you are right. A neighbouring hairdresser told me at the outbreak of the war that the war would be won easily but winning the peace would be hard. Well, everybody who used an encyclopedia would know that really.
Because while many would say it would be the Christians vs Islam. Or the Antiamericanisms. There would also be the clashes between cultures in Iraq. Groups of peoples. The clashes with the different religions, or religious fractions. The clashes within Iraq with seculars vs Sharia governed state. etc etc etc.
Not to say the history, as Iraq has a history of Cculture and heritage that should surprise nobody as something they'd be very proud of. Sumeria, Babylonia, Assyria. Mentioned in the bible. I can only say wow.

Rhetorically speaking it shouldnt really surprise nobody that Iraq will and will always have a lot of turmoil even if you exclude religion like it never existed!

[Haroldthebarrel]

Originally Posted by elsid13

Columbia really is not an issue because the US is supporting the government and already involved and the conflict is narco in nature. And current government has in past asked for US help.

So instead I going to change your country to Venezuela with everyone favorite friend, President Hugo Chavez. Somewhat stable political situation, with a current regime that is not ally to US. To be removed and new government put in place somehow Venezuela would need to seen as threat. It that happens the other powers in South American- Brazil- and other regional countries would need to be brought on board for action to happen. Most likely there would some in-country insurgency but would be contain by Spanish speaking international force would in place. Yes I know Brazil has different culture and language. Since most revolutionary movements in South America are no longer political in nature but more concerned with the drug trade I think doubt there would be influx of foreign fighters to help the cause. The key to fighting any insurgency is have well organized well staffed police force.

Doesnt matter if the govt is on board with the US as reality states that that country is in a lot of deep **** to say the least.
But no I kinda disagree with you as I believe that groups with clashing ideas tend to fight together against a common enemy.
That is what happened in Europe during and after WW1 and WW2 and that is the reason we have all these different countries now.
But man, good points nonetheless. Made me think.

And it made me question again why on earth would policians and experts on warfare dissolve the Iraqi police force. Heck, they made the effort to attack and invade the country, why make such a foolish mistake?? And especially in light of that is something that even most non experts would think of first!

[elsid13]

Originally Posted by Haroldthebarrel

Doesnt matter if the govt is on board with the US as reality states that that country is in a lot of deep **** to say the least.
But no I kinda disagree with you as I believe that groups with clashing ideas tend to fight together against a common enemy.
That is what happened in Europe during and after WW1 and WW2 and that is the reason we have all these different countries now.
But man, good points nonetheless. Made me think.

And it made me question again why on earth would politicians and experts on warfare dissolve the Iraqi police force. Heck, they made the effort to attack and invade the country, why make such a foolish mistake?? And especially in light of that is something that even most non experts would think of first!

If the government is on board, it changes the tactics and option you will use to force change. A recognized government, hopefully legal, will provide US the opportunity to use it force and intelligence thru it proxy and will eliminate outsider tag that causes problems. The United States was very success in early 20th century in using internal forces to stop rebellions. Recommend that you read Max Boot's book "The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power" it very good and easy read.

The political decision to dissolve the Iraq police and military unit was done because the politician felt they couldn't trust the command structure and the wanted a clean break form Saddam power base. When it happened I thought it was one of stupidest decision that could have made, I would have kept those folks in place were I knew where they were and dismiss folks on case by case basis.

Temporary alliance might occur between insurgency groups but if they don't have outside supplier they tend to bicker and go after each other. Look at Mexico and Afghanistan.

[Haroldthebarrel]

Originally Posted by elsid13

If the government is on board, it changes the tactics and option you will use to force change. A recognized government, hopefully legal, will provide US the opportunity to use it force and intelligence thru it proxy and will eliminate outsider tag that causes problems. The United States was very success in early 20th century in using internal forces to stop rebellions. Recommend that you read Max Boot's book "The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power" it very good and easy read.

Thanks for the book tip. Will check out sometime.
Although I think the example of Columbias govt being onboard is a poor example as that country is in turmoil, and really appears to be a marionette govt.

Originally Posted by elsid13

The political decision to dissolve the Iraq police and military unit was done because the politician felt they couldn't trust the command structure and the wanted a clean break form Saddam power base. When it happened I thought it was one of stupidest decision that could have made, I would have kept those folks in place were I knew where they were and dismiss folks on case by case basis.

Temporary alliance might occur between insurgency groups but if they don't have outside supplier they tend to bicker and go after each other. Look at Mexico and Afghanistan.

I agree with you. I couldnt believe it when I heard Bush proclaim the war won and later the disolvement of the police forces. Everybody knew the US would win the war but that winning the peace would be much stronger, and frankly with recent history in mind it is simply unforgivable to do repeat such a mistake.
The funny thing about the Iraqi war is that I was totally against that war and to an extent still am- but on a ideological basis. Now that it did happen I find myself hoping that the forces will remain there long enough to establish a great extent of stability because I am certain that if the invasion allies were to leave prematurely, then I am as certain that Iraq would be such an unstable country for years to come. Much more unstable than during the Saddam regime actually, and that is something that I dont thing that hotbed Middle East should have. Especially with more and more of them getting ABC weapons.

[elsid13]

Originally Posted by Haroldthebarrel

Thanks for the book tip. Will check out sometime.
Although I think the example of Columbias govt being onboard is a poor example as that country is in turmoil, and really appears to be a marionette govt.

.

Know why Hamas is supported by the Palestinians? Not because of the political movement to destroy Israel, but rather because they ensure that the trash is picked up, there are schools for the kids, and folks are protected from crime. You would surprised what folks will live with if the basic needs are meet. I agree the Industrial Core as done a very good of force the Gap countries to live up to the human right issue. But as the forces of globalization force the country to change progress will occur there too.

[Haroldthebarrel]

Originally Posted by elsid13

Know why Hamas is supported by the Palestinians? Not because of the political movement to destroy Israel, but rather because they ensure that the trash is picked up, there are schools for the kids, and folks are protected from crime. You would surprised what folks will live with if the basic needs are meet. I agree the Industrial Core as done a very good of force the Gap countries to live up to the human right issue. But as the forces of globalization force the country to change progress will occur there too.

I just saw City of God(Ciddade de Deus) and you are so right on money. Same thing only with favella gangs protecting the community where police and govt dont give a damn. Great film by the way.
Give people primary needs like food and shelter and you'd be surprised how much better things get in the whole society!

I am not sure i quite understand what you mean in the last two sentences.

[elsid13]

Originally Posted by Haroldthebarrel

I just saw City of God(Ciddade de Deus) and you are so right on money. Same thing only with favella gangs protecting the community where police and govt dont give a damn. Great film by the way.
Give people primary needs like food and shelter and you'd be surprised how much better things get in the whole society!

I am not sure i quite understand what you mean in the last two sentences.

Sorry current favorite theory that I am supporting/playing with is by Thomas Barnett (The Pentagon's new map and Blueprint for Action) is DoD expert that breaks the world into core (US Europe, Russia, Israel, China Brazil) and gap (Middle East, part of Asia, Africa). excellent books. Basically the core is connected to each other, allow personnel freedoms and has set of agreed upon rules on people and countries work upon. The gap lacks those things and is problem for the entire planet because the lawlessness cause folks like Saddam and Al-Qaeda. Planet will be better place when core is expanded. 5 cent tour.

[Haroldthebarrel]

Originally Posted by elsid13

Sorry current favorite theory that I am supporting/playing with is by Thomas Barnett (The Pentagon's new map and Blueprint for Action) is DoD expert that breaks the world into core (US Europe, Russia, Israel, China Brazil) and gap (Middle East, part of Asia, Africa). excellent books. Basically the core is connected to each other, allow personnel freedoms and has set of agreed upon rules on people and countries work upon. The gap lacks those things and is problem for the entire planet because the lawlessness cause folks like Saddam and Al-Qaeda. Planet will be better place when core is expanded. 5 cent tour.

Oh thanks. Interesting theory.

One thing I must say though. Europe isnt europe. Only EU, and that is mostly in name or rather economy. If they manage to establish a millitary union its a different story. Sorta same thing as saying Africa and African nations are all alike.
It bugs me when noteuropeans look upon europe as a whole and not the different nations. To tell the truth Scandinavians are more like US (or actually Canada) than we are southern europeans. And the gap is even bigger with old eastern europeans except that Czecs and Hungarians have become pretty much like old western europe lately. Different language branch tho.
With that in mind you should understand how much Rumsfeld really offended not only Europe but single european countries with his arrogant comment that the center of Europe has been moved eastwards. It has no base in reality and more importantly it shows a complete lack of understanding how europe is.
(Like we (europeans) would fight profesionally to help or intervene in another country, but we sure as hell would fight passionately to fight off somebody in our own).

But that is much like a gripe than anything. Still I dont think we(europeans) cannot really understand or are able to identify for instance the term eurotrash as scandinavian trash is way different than german, Italian or english trash if you get my point. Bah just saw that this became a bit of a digression, but i thought it important to mention as many people dont see this.

[elsid13]

Originally Posted by Haroldthebarrel

Oh thanks. Interesting theory.

One thing I must say though. Europe isnt europe. Only EU, and that is mostly in name or rather economy. If they manage to establish a millitary union its a different story. Sorta same thing as saying Africa and African nations are all alike.
It bugs me when noteuropeans look upon europe as a whole and not the different nations. To tell the truth Scandinavians are more like US (or actually Canada) than we are southern europeans. And the gap is even bigger with old eastern europeans except that Czecs and Hungarians have become pretty much like old western europe lately. Different language branch tho.
With that in mind you should understand how much Rumsfeld really offended not only Europe but single european countries with his arrogant comment that the center of Europe has been moved eastwards. It has no base in reality and more importantly it shows a complete lack of understanding how europe is.
(Like we (europeans) would fight profesionally to help or intervene in another country, but we sure as hell would fight passionately to fight off somebody in our own).

But that is much like a gripe than anything. Still I dont think we(europeans) cannot really understand or are able to identify for instance the term eurotrash as scandinavian trash is way different than german, Italian or english trash if you get my point. Bah just saw that this became a bit of a digression, but i thought it important to mention as many people dont see this.

I understand I lived on the continent for over 6 years when I was kid. Europe is going thru interest change experiment and we see how it works out. I think in the end it will become similar to the old British Commonwealth, similar laws and freedoms to work and travel but indentpendent nations.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Haroldthebarrel

well personally I think one dimension is forgotten. The love for ones motherland. I mean, many countries have pretty much beared with tyrants as long as they were from that country. And then later revolted.
However when other nations has invaded the revolts and guerilla groups have fought instantly. Been subdued, and then revolted.

But then again you are right. A neighbouring hairdresser told me at the outbreak of the war that the war would be won easily but winning the peace would be hard. Well, everybody who used an encyclopedia would know that really.
Because while many would say it would be the Christians vs Islam. Or the Antiamericanisms. There would also be the clashes between cultures in Iraq. Groups of peoples. The clashes with the different religions, or religious fractions. The clashes within Iraq with seculars vs Sharia governed state. etc etc etc.
Not to say the history, as Iraq has a history of Cculture and heritage that should surprise nobody as something they'd be very proud of. Sumeria, Babylonia, Assyria. Mentioned in the bible. I can only say wow.

Rhetorically speaking it shouldnt really surprise nobody that Iraq will and will always have a lot of turmoil even if you exclude religion like it never existed!

That the thing , their religion is tied to the land , so I question is it pride in the homeland or is it pride in the religous aspects of the middle east ?

[Haroldthebarrel]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

That the thing , their religion is tied to the land , so I question is it pride in the homeland or is it pride in the religous aspects of the middle east ?

I dont know. Sometimes i dont think any Iraqis could tell me how things works at least not so I could understand it. I think you must have lived there to understand.
I think it is a mixture of everything and that nationalisms combines with Islamisms.
It is a mess for us westerners to understand. Of that I am certain. And I also get the feeling like we simplify it by trying to adopt how things work and should work in the middle east by using how we think and have learned to think and act culturally, economically and spiritually. Kinda like fitting a peg into a square if you forgive a terrible anology. And obviously the middle easterners are also guilty of doing the same mistake I think. (he he like when an Imam here preached that norwegian women are spiritless whores who are not worth more than a dog. Because women should be like women where he was born.
Now thats a nice way to help promote antiracism!)

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Haroldthebarrel

I dont know. Sometimes i dont think any Iraqis could tell me how things works at least not so I could understand it. I think you must have lived there to understand.
I think it is a mixture of everything and that nationalisms combines with Islamisms.
It is a mess for us westerners to understand. Of that I am certain. And I also get the feeling like we simplify it by trying to adopt how things work and should work in the middle east by using how we think and have learned to think and act culturally, economically and spiritually. Kinda like fitting a peg into a square if you forgive a terrible anology. And obviously the middle easterners are also guilty of doing the same mistake I think. ( like when an Imam here preached that norwegian women are spiritless whores who are not worth more than a dog. Because women should be like women where he was born.
Now thats a nice way to help promote antiracism!)

Thats for sure

[Atlas]

The fact is there wasn't an insurgency in Iraq. I got to Baghdad in May about a month after the invasion and it was great. The simple fact is the U.S. Gov. tried to do everything on the cheap. They had basically no programs to put the Iraqi's back to work. I mean we're talking August and there still is great brig broken blocks of concrete 18 billion to spend on Iraqi recontstruction and 6 months into the occupation they had spent $0. They had spent none of that money. Unemployement was at 70% and inflation was skyrocketing, In the middle of Summer and Iraqi's were only getting 6 hours of power a day.

The Bush administartion also would not let Iraqi companies do work on projects even if they could do it cheaper and better. Instead they would give these contracts to Halliburton or other contract companies from Kuwait or Saudia Arabia. Even though the Iraqis would be able to do it much cheaper.

There was a phone company in Iraq that had towers and were ready to provide service for cell phone users in Iraq but the Bush administration put all cell phone companies out of business and Iraqis had to wait 7 more months for AT&T to get their towers up before they could get a signal.

I really believe if we had gone over there to really help these people and we were swift and decisive and friendly and open and had a plan to put these people back to work. we wouldn't have had near the trouble.

There have been so many mistakes made. I mean obvious mistakes that anyone could see. Anyone except for Rumsfeld and company. Don't even get me started on why the U.S, disolved the Iraqi Army or why they came in with such a small force they couldn't protect the Iraqis or their museums or hospitals once they got there. The whole thing is just a travesty

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Atlas

The fact is there wasn't an insurgency in Iraq. I got to Baghdad in May about a month after the invasion and it was great. The simple fact is the U.S. Gov. tried to do everything on the cheap. They had basically no programs to put the Iraqi's back to work. I mean we're talking August and there still is great brig broken blocks of concrete 18 billion to spend on Iraqi recontstruction and 6 months into the occupation they had spent $0. They had spent none of that money. Unemployement was at 70% and inflation was skyrocketing, In the middle of Summer and Iraqi's were only getting 6 hours of power a day.

The Bush administartion also would not let Iraqi companies do work on projects even if they could do it cheaper and better. Instead they would give these contracts to Halliburton or other contract companies from Kuwait or Saudia Arabia. Even though the Iraqis would be able to do it much cheaper.

There was a phone company in Iraq that had towers and were ready to provide service for cell phone users in Iraq but the Bush administration put all cell phone companies out of business and Iraqis had to wait 7 more months for AT&T to get their towers up before they could get a signal.

I really believe if we had gone over there to really help these people and we were swift and decisive and friendly and open and had a plan to put these people back to work. we wouldn't have had near the trouble.

There have been so many mistakes made. I mean obvious mistakes that anyone could see. Anyone except for Rumsfeld and company. Don't even get me started on why the U.S, disolved the Iraqi Army or why they came in with such a small force they couldn't protect the Iraqis or their museums or hospitals once they got there. The whole thing is just a travesty

How anyone can look at the facts you just presented and not conclude that Team Thug's invasion/occupation of Iraq is ultimately about profits for the court-appointed pinhead's corporate masters and Dickless Cheney's old company is beyond me.

[W*GS]

Bremer is a moron. Period. I detest the guy.

[elsid13]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Bremer is a moron. Period. I detest the guy.

The problem with Bremer is not that was he a moron, but rather he didn't have clue how to handle the job he was handed. Add to the fact that he hired a bunch of brand new MBAs just out of school, you get the problems that Atlas referred too. Economy could have been jump started right away, instead they describe to review everything and took 6 months to make a decision.

[Atlas]

Originally Posted by elsid13

The problem with Bremer is not that was he a moron, but rather he didn't have clue how to handle the job he was handed. Add to the fact that he hired a bunch of brand new MBAs just out of school, you get the problems that Atlas referred too. Economy could have been jump started right away, instead they describe to review everything and took 6 months to make a decision.

I agree. I saw Bremer at the Baghdad airport during the funeral service for the 22 U.N. workers that were killed in the suiced attack. They were being loaded onto the planes out of Iraq. I think he is a smart well intentioned guy that was way over his head. Plus he wasn't given what he needed to do a good job. Same with General Sanchez. They looked incompetent but I don't think that was the case.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Atlas

I agree. I saw Bremer at the Baghdad airport during the funeral service for the 22 U.N. workers that were killed in the suiced attack. They were being loaded onto the planes out of Iraq. I think he is a smart well intentioned guy that was way over his head. Plus he wasn't given what he needed to do a good job. Same with General Sanchez. They looked incompetent but I don't think that was the case.

what you say here carries alot of weight , you are over there.......Something I would like to clear up ........
I know some good is going on over there , but is the Iraqi infrastructure onpre war levels ?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by elsid13

The problem with Bremer is not that was he a moron, but rather he didn't have clue how to handle the job he was handed.

Well, no kidding.

Not having a clue about how to do the job you're handed is the #1 prerequisite for a BushCo appointment.

(Right behind giving Bush lots of money, that is.)