Comments on: Army: Iraq Occupation Was Understaffed
700-Page Study Finds There Weren't Enough Soldiers To Handle War From The Beginning
- Everyone knew to keep their mouth shut. Dubya flew to a carrier and said "its over, we won". Any one of the military commanders who disagreed would have been out on the street within days!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Reply to this comment
- Are there any other oil companies out there that can challenge in court, the no-bid contracts just awarded? Can any international oil companies challenge the no-bid contracts in World Court? Let''s get some light on this most recent Bush administration action? Please!
- Reply to this comment
- Bush, Cheney, Wolfawitz ... names that will forever be a scourge on U.S. history ... arrogant, foolhardy, and stupid. Stupid is as stupid does!
- Reply to this comment
- Why won''t Bush and the Fascist just come out and say it! We got WHOOPED! They allowed the insurgency to become entrenched because they didn''t know what they were doing. They LIED to the American People believing the people of Iraq would just roll over and accept their new masters. Not only did they FAIL then made Iran a major power in the area in doing so. It''s time to accept the reality that the Republican Party is TODAY being lead by IDIOTS who think our strength comes from the Military... that is a mistake we can NOT live with. Sieg Heil Bush
- Reply to this comment
- No kidding. In May 2003, I was there as part of a rule of law project traveling from Sunni Triangle to Baquaba to Samarra and meeting with JAG officers. Our contact with them was the FIRST time anyone, including their military superiors, had been to meet them. In fact, I had to bring their papers back to the Green Zone. It was totally incredible the lack of planning that went into this. I have other stories, but nuf said.
Bottom line, what genius decided that the DOD was into nation building - it should have been State. Freaking morons. - Reply to this comment
- Being that the war with Iraq was unnecessary in the first place, US forces are/were understaffed by right about 4,113 troops.
- Reply to this comment
- "Understaffed"... is a Best Buy during a Saturday afternoon.
****-POOR PLANNING AND EXECUTION is what best describes the war (for profit) in Iraq. - Reply to this comment
- Gen. Eric Shinseki counseled the US congress in the weeks before Iraq was invaded that "several hundred thousand" troops would be required for the operation.
Shinseki added, "Iraq is "a piece of geography that''s fairly significant." Any occupier would need to have enough troops to manage a country with a history of "ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems."
Rumsfeld did his best to sweep the matter under the rug, and hounded Shinseki into early retirement. Although Gen. Shinseki gave his honest, professional assessment to our congress, this was another inconvenient truth Bush appointee Donald Rumsfeld could not forgive or race squarely.
Only years later did Rumsfeld run out of excuses for his failure to grasp a situation into which he sent an unprepared occupying force, with casualties that need not have been nearly as great as they were.
Matters reached such an extreme, families of GIs bought body armor to send to their loved ones, and troops openly asked Rumsfeld why they had to scrounge armor for their vehicles from Iraq dumps.
Rumsfeld''s infamous and most evasive answer, "You go with the army you''ve got." - Reply to this comment
Funny, everyone who tried to tell that to the Bushies back then got fired or accused of being un-patriotic.- Reply to this comment
- No wonder these boys are in the Army. What blinding insight. Understaffed?? Who would have thought that. Looks like the moronic leadership extends beyond the Whitehouse to the Pentagon where these refugees from the golden arches hide out.
- Reply to this comment




