|
 |
August 28, 2003 BOOTS ON THE GROUND....The headline in today's New York Times is "General in Iraq Says More G.I.'s Are Not Needed," but if you read closely that's not exactly what General John Abizaid really said:
So it's not that we don't need more troops — as Donald Rumsfeld keeps insisting — it's that we don't need more American troops. An All-American occupying force, you see, lacks the legitimacy that it needs in the Arab world. That sounds familiar, doesn't it? Of course, Iraqi security services aren't the only way to internationalize the force, and General Abizaid, not being a stupid man, knows it. Let's pick up that paragraph where we left off:
This is rather plainly stated, isn't it? We do need more troops, we ought to have a multinational force, and the military has no problem with this. All it takes is for George Bush to get over those "political" sticking points and do his job. Now would be a good time to start. POSTSCRIPT: The more I think about Rumsfeld's recent comments, the more they piss me off. Here's what he said three days ago:
Technically that's true: Abizaid doesn't want more U.S. forces. But he does want more forces. Crikey. Can you trust a thing these guys say without parsing every single phoneme to within an inch of its life? Posted by Kevin Drum at August 28, 2003 08:59 PM | TrackBackComments
Can you trust a thing these guys say without parsing every single phoneme to within an inch of its life? No. That is probably the single biggest reason I did not support this war: I was mistrustful of the doublespeak and astounded at the lack of a sober explanation of what the war might cost in lives, time, and money. Posted by: Thersites at August 28, 2003 09:25 PM | PERMALINKNo, and you can't trust anything that they say, even after parsing. They are dishonest people, who've been successful with dishonesty. There is no reason for them to change now. Seconding Thersites' thoughts - when tricky operations are undertanken by such people, the results are only good if there is great good luck. Posted by: Barry at August 28, 2003 09:51 PM | PERMALINKUm, Rumsfeld was addressing the question US forces, so that's what he talked about: US forces. what's the problem? You have to "parse" a straightforward statement?
I think we should be spending our time parsing the Schwarzenegger Oui interview. Posted by: hackaus at August 28, 2003 10:58 PM | PERMALINK"They will offer more lectures, and legalisms, and carefully worded denials. "We offer another way...a better way... and a stiff dose of truth." Posted by: JP at August 28, 2003 11:02 PM | PERMALINKmust we parse every phoneme... No. That's what they WANT you to do. You'll get tired, not parse anything, and they've won. Questions? D Posted by: Dano at August 28, 2003 11:17 PM | PERMALINKThe problem is, Name, that argument doesn't gel with the quotes. Let me pull a larger cite: Speaking at a Veterans of Foreign Wars meeting in San Antonio, Rumsfeld said that analysis by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff indicated the United States had enough troops in Iraq to execute its mission. Rumsfeld told reporters after a visit to nearby Lackland Air Force Base that U.S. Central Command chief Gen. John Abizaid, who is responsible for U.S. military operations in Iraq, has told him the number of troops in Iraq is "appropriate at the present time for the tasks that he has." "There are some recommending that more U.S. forces go in. I can tell you that if Gen. Abizaid recommended it, it would happen in a minute. But he has not recommended it," Rumsfeld said, adding, "And the facts change continuously, on the ground, and we have to watch it continuously." Would you, upon reading these paragraphs, conclude that there were enough troops in Iraq to "execute [our] mission"? It would seem a reasonable conclusion, especially given the omission of the crucial qualifier "the number of -US- troops" in the second paragraph. But that would actually be wrong, as General Abizaid said today (see quotes in main post); the correct interpretation is that although we may have enough *American* troops in Iraq, we do need more *non-American troops* as well. Now, there are a number of possible explanations for this: * The reporter did a bad job, either misquoting or writing ambiguously Since I don't think the reporter's at fault here -- I can't believe someone could completely mischaracterize Rumsfeld's remarks, although I'd appreciate a cite to the full text if anyone's got it handy -- we're left with some awkward conclusions. Something ain't right here. Posted by: Anarch at August 28, 2003 11:25 PM | PERMALINKThersites complains that " I was mistrustful of the doublespeak and astounded at the lack of a sober explanation of what the war might cost in lives, time, and money." Perhaps I'm getting my news from completely different sources, but I do recall Mr. Bush and others in the Administration making it quite clear, well before the war and up to it, that the cost in lives could be high, the cost in time for any reconstruction would be in "years", and the cost in money would be substantial, though it was felt that Iraqi oil could pay for the majority of the reconstruction. I see nothing so far that contradicts that. We've lost several hundred American soldiers -- that is a significant cost, and we should grieve for each one. Perhaps the liberal end of the political spectrum missed the timeline, but it was quite clear on the conservative end -- years. Iraqi oil is not paying for reconstruction to date and getting that oil to flow has been much more difficult than predicted. The timeline is still early, however. One could peruse the whitehouse.gov site and find any number of speeches by Mr. Bush that would, in any fair reading, make clear that there was no attempt to downplay the cost in lives, time or money. Posted by: Steve White at August 28, 2003 11:40 PM | PERMALINKTo be a little more rigorous in this analysis, consider the following pair of sentences: A) The United States has enough troops in Iraq to execute the mission. At a purely logical level, A clearly implies B. Thus Rumsfeld contradicted Abizaid at this purely logical level: if the US has enough troops in Iraq to execute the mission, then there are necessarily enough troops in Iraq to execute the mission and therefore there is no need for any more troops, foreign or otherwise. Now, these two statements need not be consequences of one another if we play fast and loose with the definition of "execute its mission". For example, when Rumsfeld said "execute its mission" he might have been using the possessive to signal that he was only referring to a specific slice of those things which need to be done in Iraq, e.g. guarding a pipeline. Abizaid, when he said B -- the exact quote is the first paragraph of Kevin's second cite -- might be referring to a broader notion of "mission" than Rumsfeld. The context of Rumsfeld's remarks, however, clearly implies that the two notions of "mission" are the same: in both cases, the implied meaning of mission is to restore order to Iraq. All told, this means that the best defense Rumsfeld has is that yes, his remarks were "technically true"... but deeply deceptive, exactly as Kevin remarked. Addendum: There are actually plenty of other ways to weasel out of this, e.g. noting that Abizaid never actually said "need", he said "priority", and so forth, but IMO they all boil down to a sophistry that conceals something fundamentally wrong with the way in which this is being portrayed. PS: Kevin, you should probably note that the emphasis in that key graf is yours, not the Times'. Posted by: Anarch at August 28, 2003 11:40 PM | PERMALINKHow could we have possibly known? "fas-cism (fâsh'iz'em) n. A system of government that Steve White, I recall that the administration was asked several times what projected costs and casualties would be and that over and over we were told, by Rumsfeld in particular, that there was no way to know until we got there. In fact, Kevin posted several blog entries about exactly this point, the gist being, yes, there's no way to know exactly how it's going to work out, but that we pay a lot of smart people to draw up projections that should be in the ball park of eventual reality. From what is being reported now, those projections were made but apparently ignored. They certainly were not espoused by the administration. Why they were ignored is central to the competency of the current administration, IMO. I think that you are conflating Bush's general statements about the "war on terrorism" versus the Bush war in Iraq. Remember also, we're not talking here about statements made after the fighting started, we're talking about statements, or lack thereof, during the build up to invasion. Posted by: Jeff Boatright at August 29, 2003 04:36 AM | PERMALINKOT, but... BBC is now reporting -- confirmed by Reuters --that SCIRI member Ayatollah al-Hakim was killed in the blast in Najaf. Here's the CNN story. Bizarre the difference in number reported dead. Posted by: Anarch at August 29, 2003 05:18 AM | PERMALINKAnd here's the Reuters story confirming the death of Ayatollah al-Hakim. Sorry for the bipartite post, but the web pages weren't getting updated :/ Posted by: Anarch at August 29, 2003 05:25 AM | PERMALINKSteve White, You conveniently utilize BushCo's CYA terminology now that the grand plan of quick victory, instant democracy, and overnight oil profits hasn't panned out. Enough CYA was laid out that words could be found that would cover any possible outcomes. But the message that BushCo was clearly marketing and most Americans bought was that the effort would be nearly painless. Now, the word scam comes to mind. Posted by: danuube at August 29, 2003 06:24 AM | PERMALINKOne might think that in light of the US "mission" in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere, an increase in the number of US troops -- possibly via a renewed military draft (although this is still unacceptable talk in polite company) -- would be the answer, as many senators such as Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Dick Lugar and Joe Biden have indicated. And yet the colonial logic is unerring -- "boots on the ground" wearing the American flag are far more costly than boots wearing the flag of somebody else. American G.I.'s cost around $60,000 a year. Compare this to the rough cost of $40,000 to maintain a Polish peacekeeper in Iraq for a year (and that includes deployment costs), or roughly $10,000 for a Ukrainian one. I've got to believe the cost of a Pakistani peacekeeper would be much less still. One way or another the US will be paying for the boots on the ground in Iraq. But like any responsible businessman, Rumsfeld wants value for his money. When the European powers ran out of cheap home-grown troops to fight in Europe during the world wars, they imported the necessary forces from the colonies. The US is keeping up the same fine tradition. Posted by: General Glut at August 29, 2003 06:29 AM | PERMALINKSteve White, as a matter of fact, i went through many bush speeches during the run-up to war, and other than the most generic and meaningless pablum, he said nothing about the difficulties and risks until the night the war began. For you to think otherwise is merest projection. Name, not only did Rumsfeld play it cute, but yes, as a matter of fact, considering that Rumsfeld is a key voice in the administration's policy-making, he does have a great deal to do with whether other nations provide troops, whereas bush does indeed have nothing to do with other country's taxes. Posted by: howard at August 29, 2003 07:02 AM | PERMALINKhey, I thought the coalition was made up of close to 50 countries, if each of them sends only 1000 troops the problem is solved for the time being ;) Posted by: novakant at August 29, 2003 07:14 AM | PERMALINKRumsfeld is not in charge of whether OTHER countries send troops to Iraq. Yes, he is, indirectly. Other nations (e.g. France and India) have already signalled a willingness to send troops if there was a UN mandate. If the administration were willing to make any concessions on the mission and command of such a force, the foreign troops would already be there. Next time Bush says "I don't think US taxes ought to be raised" are you gonna jump over him for not addressing the question of whether "taxes", in general, including those of Russians, ought to be raised? Since you've done a good job recently pointing out oversimplifications in argument, it's surprising to see you make such a gross oversimplification here. Posted by: Biff at August 29, 2003 07:42 AM | PERMALINKGood post, Kevin, but as you note in closing, the headline is in fact
precisely true, once you parse it. Same goes for Rumsfeld (though
Anarch makes a good argument). Same goes for "it depends what the
meaning of is is." It does depend. Yesterday I was going through my leadup-to-the-Iraq-invasion clip file (which I started keeping in September 2001), and came across an article reporting on the administration's first testimony to Congress with an actual figure on their estimate of the cost of the war. Would anyone care to take a guess on the date (without Googling)? Posted by: Nell Lancaster at August 29, 2003 08:14 AM | PERMALINKAnarch:
Sorry but the thought that other nations are eager to send troops to Iraq once there is some kind of UN mandate is a pipe dream. Most if not all countries would only send troops, if the mandate were such that it would be a deal between a democratically elected, independent Iraqi government and the UN, and even then it would be a hard sell - if there was any hint that the UN was just being used to bolster US troop strength most non-coalition countries would never send troops. The simple reason being that the governments of these countries wouldn't survive such a move politically. One should remember that the majority of the people of almost every country apart from the US, Israel and Kuwait were vehemently opposed to the war. Opposition even in some "coalition" countries was very high too: 55% in Britain and around 90 % in Spain - this changed somewhat during the war but only because people didn't want to stab their soldiers in the back. Around 2/3 of the Indians are strongly opposed to American policies in general and 90 % were against the war in Iraq. Now if the pro-war American population is already having a hard time swallowing the human and financial losses in post-war Iraq why on earth does everybody think sending troops over there would be such an easy sell for the governments of countries whose population has been opposed to the war in the first place? What would their justification be when the first body-bags arrive. So until there is a legitimate Iraqi government the US and the British will basically be on their own - that's my guess at least. Posted by: novakant at August 29, 2003 08:33 AM | PERMALINKWhich Middle Eastern countries could we convince to send troops that we could be sure were on our side? Other than Turkey there is no one, and are they even really a Middle Eastern country? Please don't talk about a UN mandate as if it is just available for the asking. If you want to have a discussion about it you have to address A) what we will have to give up and B) whether there are enough troops available through UN channels to make it worthwhile. At the moment the answers seem to be A) Almost complete control by the end of the year and B) almost no useful number of troops. Why would negotiate for anything substantial for no significant amount of troops? Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at August 29, 2003 09:33 AM | PERMALINKName, Enough US troops, sure. There's one (1) part where only the word "troops" without the "US" modifier is used, but I notice that that's not a quote from Rumsfeld - it's the reporter. Should I get mad at Rumsfeld because his quotes get paraphrased by reporters in ways I have to "parse"? First, I'm capable of identifying the word "one" with the numeral "1". No need to clarify there. Second, I did in fact note that the reporter could have been mistaken in the paraphrase. [That was why I included the first option in the triad of possibilities above.] However, I dismissed it for the following reason: whether the omission of the crucial qualifier was an accurate quote or a poor paraphrase, I don't believe that a reporter for Reuters -- a very respectable news agency -- would have inaccurately summarized Rumsfeld's position as cited in the first two paragraphs above. As such, Rumsfeld's remarks are subject to the "more rigorous analysis" I provided in my second post. The crucial point there -- which I notice you did not address -- is that if the United States has sufficient troops in Iraq to execute its mission, then necessarily there are enough troops in Iraq to execute the mission, in contradiction to General Abizaid's remarks. So I repeat: Rumsfeld's remarks can be parsed as technically correct, but they are highly misleading. [See my second post for a more complete exposition of this point.] Based on.. what? Of course you don't think the reporter's at fault if you start from the premise that Rummy must be at fault, I s'pose True, but that's not the premise from which I started. See above. Just for the sake of it can someone explain why it matters what Rumsfeld says about where he thinks non-US troops should and shouldn't go? I still can't figure that part out. Donald Rumsfeld is the US Secretary of Defense, not of The World. He can't send non-US troops somewhere even if he thought this was a good idea and wanted to. For two reasons. First, because, as numerous people have noted, he's a player of major influence in Iraqi policy. In fact, he's arguably the second most powerful person re Iraq after President Bush (although Bremer might squeak him out). Rumsfeld's opinion will have a major impact on both diplomatic activities and troop deployments, and thus, for example, on troop casualties and the economic cost of the war. It's therefore vitally important for an understanding of Iraq to know where he sits on this issue, even if his word is not actually law. [And if an American is put in charge of a UN Peacekeeping Force -- the scenario that's currently being floated -- he might very well be able to decide where to send non-US troops.] Second, because he's an senior Administration official and as such he has a duty to report honestly to the American people. Not just truthfully -- honestly. This includes choosing one's language carefully so that the impression of the words corresponds to the literal meaning of the words. More poetically, the spirit of one's words should be fundamentally the same as the letter of one's words. If we have to parse every utterance from an SAO as if we were contract lawyers, we don't have a government of the people; we've got Politics And The American Government. Further, if you're all so convinced (as you seem to be) that convincing France, etc. to send their young men into Iraq to die... Whether I'm so convinced is immaterial; what's relevant is that General Abizaid is so convinced. See Kevin's quotes. Ain't exactly mastered the fine art of negotiation, have you? {snip} We've had a civil discussion thus far so I'm going to pretend that that last paragraph doesn't exist. May I ask that in future you refrain from ad hominems? Posted by: Anarch at August 29, 2003 09:55 AM | PERMALINKRumsfeld is absolutely right about one thing: the best troops are Iraqis. Ultimatley, Iraqis will police Iraqi cities, and the Iraqi army will secure Iraq's borders. We are training the Iraqi police and army. Eventually, probably in a year or two, there will be enough of them to provide security. Americans won't have to direct traffic or guard banks any more; Iraqis will do it. The question is whether it is worth making major concessions in order to get more troops today, knowing that the Iraqis will be available tomorrow. Posted by: Joe Schmoe at August 29, 2003 09:59 AM | PERMALINKTime's up. The administration's first real estimate of the cost of the war to Congress was made on March 24, 2003. That's right, after the full-scale invasion had been underway for most of a week. The war, of course, had actually been underway for some time, despite Bush's repeated insistence that he hadn't made a decision. By one measure, Gulf War I never ended. But even setting aside the sanctions and Desert Fox and the regular "no-fly" bombings, this war really got underway June 2002, when the U.S. and British planes "enforcing the no-fly zones" began a systematic campaign of destroying Iraqi targets. This campaign, and its importance in making the ground invasion possible without preliminary bombing, has been acknowledged by the officer in charge of the air campaign during the official war. (I'll dig up links if anyone's interested.) Posted by: Nell Lancaster at August 29, 2003 10:04 AM | PERMALINKAnarch:
I haven't seen anyone discuss the fact that we keep identifying Turkey, Pakistan and India as our preferred sources of multinational troops. Doesn't it seem like a terrible idea to bring a division of Turkish troops into Iraq for peacekeeping? No doubt they are intended for the duties in the South but it seems likely they would drive through the North to get there. I can't imagine the kurds being very happy about the Turks driving through their zone and once sniping starts it seems likely the Turks would start peacekeeping their route through the north and suddenly the relative tranquility in that region would disappear. Also, why would any Iraqis feel that a Turkish military presence in their country was a good thing? Finally, we always mention Pakistan and India as though they would serve together. It seems like armed Pakistani and Indian forces would be at each others throats raaher quickly once the bombs start going off. The multinational plans seem pretty short sighted to me. We just want to get any Muslim faces in the occupation force and think that alone will quell the anger behind the occupation. I'd like to hear anyone else's thoughts on this. Posted by: parsons at August 29, 2003 10:38 AM | PERMALINKYou haven't exactly connected those dots (and how does Rumsfeld, acting as SecDef, bring about a "UN mandate") I'm sorry I haven't written a 100-page research report and posted it directly to this comment board. We're here to discuss these issues, and you're free to ask for a clarification if you want. but of course I'll give you "indirectly". What the hell, Charles Krauthammer is "indirectly" responsible for whether French troops go in there, I s'pose (*rolls eyes*). I have no idea what inane point you're trying to make here. Anyway, as per my previous comment the most significant "indirect" way Rumsfeld could affect the French-troops-into-Iraq thing would be to go on TV begging for them to come. That seems to be what everyone wants, which is an odd sort of negotiating strategy to me. No one on this comment board has even suggested such a thing. You're making that up. The most significant and positive thing Rumsfeld (or the administration he's a part of) could do is to agree to a UN force that was not under direct US command. (Or a NATO force, if we don't trust the UN.) We could still determine its purpose, but not have minute-to-minute tactical control. In this case, the most obvious explanation is: "Bush" (meaning, the U.S. administration) would be willing to make some concessions, just not whatever ones France etc are asking for, because those (in "Bush"'s view) would threaten the mission. The major concession is one which we've already made in Afghanistan - foreign soldiers there are under NATO command. It has not threatened our mission, such as it is. There has been no public indication that France or India have any other conditions for sending troops. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that France wanted oil contracts or the like (supposedly one of their hangups about the war in the first place). What harm would there be in giving them some? And given this administration's open disdain for international institutions, why should we simply assume that whatever reasons they have for going it alone in Iraq must be rational? But then again, I actually care about the mission and our bargaining position to begin with. Some people here are trying to have a discussion with you in good faith. Are you as well, or are you just in the mood for trolling today? Posted by: Biff at August 29, 2003 10:50 AM | PERMALINK"This is rather plainly stated, isn't it? We do need more troops, we ought to have a multinational force, and the military has no problem with this." -- Kevin Uh, no. Where exactly does Abazaid say that the other nations' troops would be IN ADDITION TO our troops? More likely they would REPLACE our troops, keeping the overall level of troops in country about the same, but with a different mix of nationalities. Kevin apparently flunked logic 101. Posted by: Al at August 29, 2003 11:00 AM | PERMALINKI echo Sebastian Holsclaw's comment. The way some people talk in
this melodrama cartoon they've invented starring Bush the Stubborn
Cowboy, the "UN mandate" is just a piece of paper with the words "UN
mandate" written on the top, and Bush is just too stubborn and proud to
ask for it, which would be freely and openly given if he did. All he
has to do is ASK! It's like something out of a preschooler's lesson on
Asking Your Parents For Help. If people really believe this is an accurate picture of reality, they are the ones who need help. Fortunately, I don't believe most of you do; I believe you are smarter than that.
Name, It can be true that "more US troops" won't help but "more non-US troops" will. I completely agree -- as, it seems, does General Abizaid -- but that's not what the article says. To wit: "Rumsfeld said that... the United States had enough troops in Iraq to execute its mission." You claim my logic is erroneous here; I claim otherwise. I'm applying the "Rule for E-Introduction in the Succedent" [Ebbinghaus & Flum, p66], also known as existential generalization: if the US has enough troops in Iraq to execute its mission, then there are enough troops in Iraq to execute the mission. End of story. Now, there are certainly ways to parse that sentence in such a way that it means what you've claimed it means above, but they involve some fairly ugly sophistry, e.g. letting the possessive alter the scope of the word "mission" from its usual contextual meaning, a variant of "shifting the goalposts". After all you started from a premise that since Reuters is such a "respectable" news agency, "they" (or at least whatever reporter wrote this) couldn't possibly be misrepresenting Rumsfeld's statements in a misleading/inaccurate way. So... voila... what other conclusion is there than RUMSFELD THE DIRTY LIAR You do know the difference between "premise" and "conclusion", right? My premise was that Reuters is a reputable news agency and that its reporters are generally competent, a premise I've never had reason to question. My conclusion, by the logic I explained above, was that Rumsfeld was being dishonest; which, incidentally, is different from being a liar, dirty or otherwise. You're free to dispute that, of course -- that's why I asked for the actual text of the remarks, if anyone has a copy -- but please characterize my argument correctly. On the other hand, it's not vital for Rumsfeld to telegraph our Desperation For French Troops to the world. You seem to confuse the two things. First, allow me to torch the strawman that is "Desperation For French Troops". Ah. That's better. "Strawman, strawman, burning bright..." Second, I believe that Rumsfeld has an obligation to be honest in his utterances to the American people. If he can't manage to be honest without compromising our diplomatic position, he should shut up. It's not like he was obligated to say anything to the Veterans of Foreign Wars. I'd say more but, frankly, this exchange has ceased being productive. If you feel like addressing the points I made (as opposed to those you've "speculated" into existence), I'm all ears; until that happens, however, the floor is yours. Enjoy. Posted by: Anarch at August 29, 2003 11:12 AM | PERMALINK[how does Rumsfeld, acting as SecDef, bring about a "UN mandate"] I'm sorry I haven't written a 100-page research report and posted it
directly to this comment board. We're here to discuss these issues, and
you're free to ask for a clarification if you want.
Anarch:
"Rumsfeld said that... the United States had enough troops in Iraq to execute its mission."
name, it would take you all of 3 minutes to google up the department of defense web site, go to the transcripts section, and read the actual transcript, but to save you the effort: http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030825-secdef0622.html Here's what he actually said: Rumsfeld: "My position is that we ought to have as many forces in the Middle East as is appropriate. And if we're going to make an error, we ought to have too many, rather than too few. And that is the position of the president. It's the position of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the vice chairman and the Joint Chiefs of Staff completely, all of them, and the combatant commander. John Abizaid's the combatant commander. He has indicated that he has the level of forces there, U.S. forces, that he believes is appropriate at the present time -- Q: (Off mike.) Rumsfeld: -- for the tasks that he has. He has also said that we need to increase the coalition forces. And we've been working to do that, and they're flowing in now, in larger numbers. But most important, he and the Coalition Provisional Authority have been working very hard to increase the number of Iraqi forces. So the Iraqi forces in the police, the army, the militia, the border patrol have all been growing at very rapid clip. And I don't know the number at the moment -- it changes from time to time -- but the last time I looked, it was something in the neighborhood of 40 or 50 thousand Iraqis are now either trained or in training and on the job, armed, to contribute, to provide security in the country. If you think about it, if you had a choice between foreign presence for security and Iraqi presence for security, with an Iraqi face on it, clearly the latter is preferable. It is, in the last analysis, the responsibility of the Iraqi people to take control of their country and to provide the kind of security and stabilities and an environment that's hospitable to economic recovery and political recovery. The -- there are some recommending that more U.S. forces go in. I can tell you that if General Abizaid recommended it, it would happen in a minute. But he has not recommended it, and we are putting a full court press on trying to increase the number of Iraqis. So I suppose it'll be a discussion that will take place. I should also say it certainly is something that needs to be reviewed fairly continuously, and we will do that. And if it becomes -- if we get the recommendation from the combatant commander that he thinks he needs more forces, he'll have them. (snip) Q: If you're not going to add troops to Iraq, will the troops that are there stay longer? Rumsfeld: I didn't say we weren't going to add troops to Iraq. You said that, not me. And so I would strike your question and simply say what I said. We will put whatever number of U.S. forces in that country as the combatant commander and the Joint Chiefs of Staff decide is appropriate at any given time. And the facts change continuously on the ground, and we have to watch it continuously and we have to see that we have the right numbers. Is it likely that we would end up extending people past what was announced, namely, a target of not more than a year? No, I don't think that is likely. If we were to do that -- and I don't anticipate it, so -- but we'd have to recognize that the effects of it could be adverse, and we don't want that effect. So we have to manage that force in a way that's respectful of them." So first, name, aren't you sorry that you wasted all this time speculating on whether Rumsfeld actually said "US forces...for the tasks that he has." And second, Rumsfeld is playing games here. Notice his sentence construction - first he says forces, then he corrects himself and says "US" forces. Notice that he is being technically accurate - general abizaid doesn't want more US troops - and conceptually dishonest - general abizaid wants many more troops than the "coalition" is capable of providing. Notice, in short, that Kevin was correct in the first place and i don't know what all your comments were supposed to be about. Next time, use google first, then post - you'll save yourself time and embarassment. Posted by: howard at August 29, 2003 11:43 AM | PERMALINKI'd say more but, frankly, this exchange has ceased being productive. Agreed. Posted by: Biff at August 29, 2003 11:57 AM | PERMALINKThank you for posting the transcript, howard.
p.s.
Name, let's try one more time - you're shaping your reading to fit your predetermined notion, the very claim that you project onto others. Abizaid said, very clearly, that we need forces from Muslim countries. None of those forces is currently in the "coalition." So he is saying, very clearly, that we need forces from a new source. Rumsfeld, very clearly, says that if Abizaid wants more US troops, all he has to do is ask, and he hasn't, which, at risk of repetition, is technically accurate. He then says that we are working to increase the coalition forces, which is completely non-responsive to abizaid's requests, which is why i say that he's playing games. As for your P.S., pray enlighten us on the major disjunct you see between the phrase "for the tasks that he (abizaid) has" and the phrase "mission?" Posted by: howard at August 29, 2003 05:09 PM | PERMALINK
Name, you obviously can't be living in a vacuum, yet you seem to be posting as though you are. No Muslim country is going to contribute forces to the "coalition." they are only going to contribute forces if there is a UN mandate. Rumsfeld is one of the leading opponents in the backbone administration of going to the UN. By saying that we are trying to increase "coalition" forces instead of addressing the reality of the need for a UN cover if we're going to get Muslim countries involved, he is playing games. You did lose me, so to stick with simplification: if we have enough forces to do the tasks, then we don't need more forces. It is not a lie to note that. that's the same logical issue that you've already gone round on earlier. There is no ire to be directed at Reuters in any case because it's an irrelevance - in the internet age, it takes no time at all to see exactly what rumsfeld said, and that's where attention should be paid: on whether what rumsfeld is saying makes any sense. Posted by: howard at August 29, 2003 05:50 PM | PERMALINK
Do we actually want to flood Iraq with Turkish and Pakistani troops? Well -- like reenabling Saddam's own secret police force -- SURELY it's better than letting that awful old UN in there. Yessir. Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at August 29, 2003 07:45 PM | PERMALINK...in the internet age, it takes no time at all to see exactly what rumsfeld said, and that's where attention should be paid: on whether what rumsfeld is saying makes any sense. Posted by: howard at August 29, 2003 05:50 PM Good point! Of course, this is what we see in the original post: POSTSCRIPT: The more I think about Rumsfeld's recent comments, the more they piss me off. Here's what he said three days ago: There are some recommending that more U.S. forces go in. I can tell you that if Gen. Abizaid recommended it, it would happen in a minute. But he has not recommended it. Technically that's true: Abizaid doesn't want more U.S. forces. But he does want more forces. Crikey. Can you trust a thing these guys say without parsing every single phoneme to within an inch of its life? The link was to the Reuters story, not the DoD transcript, but never mind. No need to trust, just verify. As the transcript makes clear, Rumsfeld volunteered the info that more coalition troops were needed, thus scrapping the original complaint about Rumsfeld's dishonesty. And now we are on to headscratching notions about whther countries that send troops are part of "the coalition", a prospective expanded future coalition, or "the U.N.". And Rumsfeld is a shameless liar, because he failed to precisely specify which countries are being asked to provide troops, and under what circumstances. Thanks for the guidance. Posted by: Tom Maguire at August 29, 2003 07:52 PM | PERMALINKSheesh, I go away for a day and someone actually digs up a trancsript. What's the world coming to? [And howard, if anyone's to be snarked at for not finding it, it should be me -- since I was the one who couldn't find it in the first place.] On reading it... well I'll be damned. Looks like the Reuters article did, in fact, mischaracterize what Rumsfeld said. I therefore withdraw my remarks about Rumsfeld's dishonesty on this issue. And now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go write a nasty letter to Reuters. Posted by: Anarch at August 30, 2003 11:15 AM | PERMALINKGive what you have. To someone, it may be better than you dare to think. Posted by: Adler Anna at December 10, 2003 11:13 PM | PERMALINKInsanity is forgetting to believe a few lies. Posted by: Rosenbaum Dennis at December 21, 2003 12:24 AM | PERMALINKIn this grand B movie we call life, there is always a girl. Posted by: Takahashi Retsu at January 10, 2004 04:30 AM | PERMALINKOnly the hand that erases can write the true thing. Posted by: Rosenthal Marc at March 17, 2004 11:35 AM | PERMALINKHe who has a thousand friends has not a friend to spare,And he who has one enemy will meet him everywhere. Posted by: Rosenbloom Phil at May 2, 2004 12:17 AM | PERMALINKGive what you have. To someone, it may be better than you dare to think. online casinos | casino bonus | casino directory | high roller casinos | casinos Posted by: doi at May 23, 2004 11:32 AM | PERMALINKvideo seekers free friendfinder friendfinder friend finder friend finder free friend finder gallery friend finder movies friend finder personals friendfinder pics friendfinder pictures friend finder pictures friendfinder samples friend finder search friend finder sex Posted by: Free xxx galleries at June 22, 2004 01:00 AM | PERMALINKLatinas Cherry - Lesbo Express - Mr 13 Inch - Nasty Blondies - Natural Bush Girls - Nude Celebs Revue - Office Girl Sex - Old Babes Home - Petite Lust - Slutty Wrestlers - Tiny Tit Babes - Twink Fantasy - Strapon Teens - Wet Black Panties - Xrated Pornos - Foot Cravings - Gay Super Cocks - Interracial Sex Fest Posted by: Free xxx galleries at June 22, 2004 01:00 AM | PERMALINKThe greatest administrators do not achieve production through constraints and limitations. They provide opportunities. Posted by: Horwitz Russell at June 30, 2004 05:13 AM | PERMALINKLittle April - TEEN PORN LINKS - HARDCORE SEX - Exposed Party Girls - SEX STORIES - pornstar union - project hardcore - amateur university - PUSSY Posted by: please bang my wife at June 30, 2004 08:57 AM | PERMALINKfree web cam free live web cam free chat with web cam free sex web cam adult free web cam free nude web cam free girl web cam free web cam site free porn web cam free gay web cam free xxx web cam free teen web cam free web cam chat room free amateur web cam free web cam pic free adult live web cam free adult web cam chat live sex web cam free free personal web cam free live nude web cam free live girl web cam free live web cam chat web cam live free personal cam free view web free web cam picture free sex chat web cam free online web cam cam free viewing web free web cam software free lesbian web cam free web cam community cam free watch web free web cam video free live web cam site free web cam host free sexy web cam free web cam hosting free live web cam porn free naked web cam free web cam of woman free home web cam free live xxx web cam free adult web cam site free nude web cam chat cam free totally web cam free movie web cam chat free teen web free web cam chat site free asian web cam free black web cam voyeur web cam free free streaming web cam free web cam pussy free live teen web cam free web cam show free gay live web cam free private web cam cam free web yahoo web cam free ware cam chatting free web cam free gallery web free teen web cam pic free nude teen web cam free live web cam show free male web cam cam free live web woman cam free now web cam free membership no web cam college free web free live web cam amateur access cam free web cam dating free web free shemale web cam free sex web cam site cam free sample web cam download free web cam free room web cam free no registration web free adult web cam community free gay web cam chat cam chat free girl web cam free girl girl live web free hidden web cam free naked woman web cam free erotic web cam free hardcore web cam cam code display free web cam free mature web free web cam broadcast cam free preview web cam chat free online web free college girl web cam free live lesbian web cam cam free skin web free gay male web cam cam free man web free porn web cam chat cam free service web free nude woman web cam free web cam sex show free sex web cam video free adult sex web cam free online sex web cam free teen sex web cam free gay sex web cam free web cam sex amateur free private web cam sex home web cam sex free free web cam cyber sex free couple sex web cam free lesbian sex web cam free hardcore sex web cam cam free sex watch web free sex web cam pic cam free movie sex web cam free free sex web cam free sex view web free sex web cam sample free black sex web cam free nude web cam pic free amateur nude web cam cam free nude sexy web cam free non nude web free nude web cam site free adult nude web cam free nude man web cam free nude web cam show cam free live nude web woman free nude beach web cam free nude gay web cam free nude web cam at home free nude web cam picture cam free nude preview web cam free nude video web cam free girl hot web free web cam teen girl cam free girl pic web cam free girl online web black cam free girl web cam free girl watch web free adult girl web cam asian cam free girl web cam free girl video web cam free girl picture web cam free girl web young cam cam free free girl web web cam free girl totally web cam free girl show web cam free gallery girl web cam free girl real web cam free free girl web cam free live online web free live streaming web cam cam free live web free home live web cam cam free live secretfriends-com web cam free live totally web free live sexy web cam free live naked web cam cam free live watch web cam free live view web cam cam free free live web web cam feed free live web cam free live private web cam free live naked web woman cam community free live web amsterdam cam free live web cam free host live web free live pussy web cam asian cam free live web hot live free web cam cam free live now web cam female free live web cam free free live web amateur cam free live web xxx animal cam free live web cam free hidden live web cam free live preview web free live voyeur web cam cam ebony free live web cam free live password web cam free live shemale web free xxx web cam chat free web cam video chat cam chat free lesbian web cam chat free private web cam chat free program web cam chat free web cam chat free naked web cam chat free naughty web cam chat free web yahoo cam chat free totally web cam chat free software web cam chat free kid web cam chat free line web free amateur web cam and chat cam chat free free web cam chat college free web cam chat community free web cam chat free msn web best cam chat free web free porn web cam site free teen porn web cam cam com free porn web cam free online porn web free adult porn web cam cam free porn video web cam free porn web xxx free amateur porn web cam free gay porn web cam cam free porn watch web free xxx web cam site cam free teen web xxx free adult xxx web cam free amateur xxx web cam free teen web cam gallery cam free teen video web free gay teen web cam cam free site teen web cam free teen web young free amateur teen web cam free teen web cam picture free amateur web cam site free amateur adult web cam free gay amateur web cam free amateur web cam pic free sex cam free live sex cam free sex cam chat free live sex cam chat free sex video cam free sex spy cam free online sex cam free amateur sex cam free hidden sex cam free teen sex cam free adult sex cam free live sex chat web cam free gay sex cam cam com free live sex web free home sex cam free live teen sex cam free sex voyeur cam free lesbian sex cam free asian sex cam com cam free sex free private sex cam free sex cam site free nude sex cam free live sex video cam free sex cam sample free live web cam sex show adult cam chat free sex web free sex cam show anal cam free live sex sex cam chat free room sex web free live sex cam feed cam free home private sex web cam free movie sex cam free lesbian live sex amsterdam cam free sex cam free sex watch cam free livefeeds sex cam free latina sex free live sex cam show adult cam free live sex free hardcore sex cam amsterdam cam free live sex free couple sex cam free hot sex cam cam free membership no sex free porn sex cam free sex spy cam pic cam free gratis sex cam free live sex site web free streaming sex cam live sex voyeur cam for free girl web cam live web cam girl college girl web cam teen girl web cam hot web cam girl web cam girl pic young web cam girl cam chat girl web web cam girl picture black cam girl web asian girl web cam girl home web cam cam girl web yahoo girl personal web cam real web cam girl cam girl online web school girl web cam cam chat girl live web cam girl high school web web cam girl gallery cam girl video web cam girl hot live web cam girl little web cam college girl live web cam girl in web cam cam girl web cam girl horny web teenage girl web cam cam caught girl web web cam girl archive cam girl naughty web japanese girl web cam girl private web cam cam girl msn web cam girl photo web arab cam girl web cam cute girl web cam fat girl web cam girl indian web cam flashing girl web girl web cam site cam girl stripping web cam girl goth web cam girl watch web cam free girl streamate web cam dorm girl web cam girl girl web cam girl gratis web girl web cam adult cam flexing girl web cam free girl girl web cam girl gone web wild collage girl web cam cam girl korean web cam free girl view web alone cam girl home web cam canadian girl web cam girl russian web cam girl single web top 100 girl web cam teen girl web cam pic cam girl voyeur web cam girl home live web cam girl latina web cam french girl web cam girl secret web action cam girl web australian cam girl web cam girl strip web cam free girl preview web cam free girl horny web cam girl stripping teen web cam girl pic web young cam girl preteen web cam girl talk web cam girl index web cam girl kissing web cam girl local web cam girl teen web young web cam sex live sex web cam web cam sex chat teen sex web cam sex gratis web cam amateur web cam sex gay sex web cam live web cam sex chat adult sex web cam adult cam direct sex web web cam sex chat room video sex web cam sex web cam site home sex web cam web cam sex show cam online sex web live sex show web cam web cam cyber sex asian sex web cam web cam sex pic lesbian web cam sex hot sex web cam couple sex web cam cam college sex web cam sex web yahoo cam hidden sex web amsterdam cam sex web black sex web cam web cam sex com cam membership no sex web live adult sex web cam web cam sex gratuit cam pal pay sex web cam friend secret sex web adult cam chat sex web free sex porn web cam oral sex web cam cam having people sex web cam dating sex web cam live secretefriends sex web xxx sex web cam cam msn sex web nude sex web cam cam sex watch web cam cam free sex web group sex web cam cam sample sex web sex voyeur web cam cam couple live sex web com cam sex web free nude sex web cam bad breath
Best XXX Sites - 698 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~ Posted by: blackjack at August 24, 2004 05:34 AM | PERMALINK5762 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-) Posted by: blackjack at August 25, 2004 07:09 AM | PERMALINK5905 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow Posted by: texas hold em at August 25, 2004 09:14 PM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
