Bremer Says U.S. Had Insufficient Troops in Iraq

Joeychgo

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
6,044
Reaction score
193
Location
Chicago, IL
Bremer Says U.S. Had Insufficient Troops in Iraq

WASHINGTON (Oct. 5) -- The United States did not have enough troops in Iraq after ousting Saddam Hussein and ''paid a big price'' for it, says the former head of the U.S. occupation there.

L. Paul Bremer said Monday that he arrived in Iraq on May 6, 2003, to find ''horrid'' looting and a very unstable situation.

''We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness,'' Bremer said during an address to an insurance group in White Sulphur Springs, W.Va.

The group released a summary of his remarks in Washington.

''We never had enough troops on the ground,'' Bremer said, while insisting that he was ''more convinced than ever that regime change was the right thing to do.''

Despite the daily reports of violence, ''I am optimistic about the future in Iraq,'' he added.

In a statement Monday night to The Washington Post, Bremer said fully supported the Bush administration's strategy in Iraq.

''I believe that we currently have sufficient troop levels in Iraq,'' he said in the e-mailed statement, according to Tuesday's edition of the Post. He said references to troops levels related to the situation when he first arrived in Baghdad ''when I believed we needed either more coalition troops or Iraqi security forces to address the looting.''

Bremer addressed the Insurance Leadership Forum, at The Greenbrier resort in West Virginia. Portions of the speech were made available Monday night through a press release from the Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers.

Bremer returned to the United States after Iraqi leaders retook political control in June.

His comments are similar in tone to criticism in March 2003 from then-Army chief of staff Gen. Eric Shinseki that the United States needed several hundred thousand troops to keep the peace in postwar Iraq. Shinseki's comments were rebuked by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other Pentagon superiors.

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has fired similar criticism at the White House on the campaign trail.

Since no U.N. weapons inspection team had been allowed in the country for almost four years, there was a ''real possibility'' that Saddam would provide weapons of mass destruction to new terrorist groups, Bremer told the insurance group.

He also disputed criticism that the Bush administration had no plans for postwar Iraq.

''There was planning, but planning for a situation that didn't arise,'' he said, including a large-scale humanitarian or refugee crisis. ''Could it have been done better? Frankly, I didn't spend a lot of time looking back.''



10/05/04 03:06 EDT Associated Press
 
From the article: ''I believe that we currently have sufficient troop levels in Iraq,'' he said .
 
What everyone seems to forget in this war is that Turkey pulled the plug at the last second, forcing 40,000 US and 20,000 British troops to have to go to Kuwait instead of marching down to Baghdad from the north. Had they been allowed to go in from the north, troops would have been in the Sunni Triangle at the same time that troops were entering Baghdad. All the bad guys that we need to kill now would have killed then, and the after-effect would have been much different. Even Saddam had planned enough supplies for a 7 month war. Guess he was wrong too. Catastrophic success. We made the bad of a bad situation, but we had no choice.

I love how everybody ignores these facts.

Or how 'bout this. The fact that even up to invasion day and even as the invasion was happening, Saddam needed to make calls to confirm the invasion was actually under way because the French and the Soviets were telling him that we were not going to invade. And now we are finding out 2 things: 1) most of the weapons being confiscated are French, Soviet and Chinese made. 2) And we are also finding out how corrupt the UN is in the oil-for-food program with Saddam. These same countries are knee deep in this scandal also.

So what you basically have is the countries most against our actions had the most to lose in terms of bribery and payoff monies and protecting their oil contracts. With allies like this, who needs them. I say kick the damn UN out of New York and let them go set up shop elsewhere.

The left and half of America is so ignorant to the actual facts of what is going on. The MSM is leading us down the path of failure and destruction. Like my avatar shows, get your head out of your ...
 
MonsterMark said:
Like my avatar shows, get your head out of your ...
I thought Kerry was symbolically demonstrating the relationship between the U.S. and the UN if he were president. He'd shake their hand, then let them have their way with us. My bad.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top