transformation/what rumsfeld wanted
Reader comment on item: Does Rumsfeld Favor Getting U.S. Troops out of Iraqi Inhabited Areas?

Submitted by Allison Coates (United States), Dec 18, 2006 at 16:46

I think this has always been Rumsfeld's plan. His notions of transformation of the armed forces to lighter, quicker units built around Special Forces or BCTs were always pointing toward a counterinsurgency--that we would be the insurgency countering theirs; lightning quick in attacking and then disappearing, making our enemy vulnerable from anywhere and at any time. Rumsfeld continues to say that a bigger footprint in Iraq is a problem. He doesn't believe that politically, anyone would have allowed or will allow US occupation of Baghdad as a long term strategy--because unless it's really an occupation, it just means more US targets for IEDs.

The military hates this idea. The Army still wants to fight a war with overwhelming support staff. Just getting them to think inventively enough to attack Hussein required Rumsfeld to reject dozens of plans over and over again. getting them to act as guerillas is not something they understand.

So: why, if Rumsfeld believed this didn't it happen? Because the army didn't agree, for one. they wanted to fight the way their doctrine tells them to fight. but for another, neither did Bush. He wanted to let his generals do what they wanted. But also, it became difficult politically as the iraqis wanted more and more help domestically in the non baghdad/sunni triangle provinces. they wanted the army cirp of engineers, they wanted fire fighters and school builders, etc. no one outside of the DoD stepped up for those jobs as they should have, and so the military did them more and more.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.