Brewer's Tavern |
|
No one seems to be writing opinion pieces quite the way I would, so I decided to do it myself. The name? Taverns are places where one goes to discuss the interesting events and things in the world, so this is my tavern. I will offer my views on politics, economics, and whatever else strikes my fancy.
Archives
Links
Email Me Send e-mail to editor Sister Site Whiskey Tango Foxtrot - over Bright Creature Best Blogs Talking Points Memo CalPundit Talkleft The Daily Howler ![]() |
Saturday, April 10, 2004
What Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz predicted for Iraq last yearThanks to Kevin Drum for pointing this article out from February 2003.From the New York Times by Eric Schmitt: Mr. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, opened a two-front war of words on Capitol Hill, calling the recent estimate by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki of the Army that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq, "wildly off the mark." Pentagon officials have put the figure closer to 100,000 troops. Mr. Wolfowitz then dismissed articles in several newspapers this week asserting that Pentagon budget specialists put the cost of war and reconstruction at $60 billion to $95 billion in this fiscal year. He said it was impossible to predict accurately a war's duration, its destruction and the extent of rebuilding afterward. "The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far off the mark," Mr. Rumsfeld said. General Shinseki gave his estimate in response to a question at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday: "I would say that what's been mobilized to this point — something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers — are probably, you know, a figure that would be required." Enlisting countries to help to pay for this war and its aftermath would take more time, he said. "I expect we will get a lot of mitigation, but it will be easier after the fact than before the fact," Mr. Wolfowitz said. Mr. Wolfowitz spent much of the hearing knocking down published estimates of the costs of war and rebuilding, saying the upper range of $95 billion was too high, and that the estimates were almost meaningless because of the variables. Moreover, he said such estimates, and speculation that postwar reconstruction costs could climb even higher, ignored the fact that Iraq is a wealthy country, with annual oil exports worth $15 billion to $20 billion. "To assume we're going to pay for it all is just wrong," he said. At the Pentagon, Mr. Rumsfeld said the factors influencing cost estimates made even ranges imperfect. Asked whether he would release such ranges to permit a useful public debate on the subject, Mr. Rumsfeld said, "I've already decided that. It's not useful." Now that General Shinseki's best estimates appear conservative and those of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were clearly Blue Sky Dreams, it is Iraq and America who are paying the price they committed us to. Were Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz lying to us, or did they simply fail to understand what they were really getting us into? Either is a scary scenario, but the ignorance option is the more dangerous one. Yet as the theme of the recent article in this forum indicate it is the more likely scenario. They really believed their own rhetoric and refused to accept that others disagreed for good reasons. |
Comments:
Post a Comment
![]() |