Kevin Drum momentarily visits an alternative branch of the universe's quantum wave function in which things that Paul Wolfowitz says are true, in which "100,000 troops... [are] enough [to keep order in Iraq]. Occupation costs ... [are] low. Oil exports... amount to $15 billion or more. There's no ethnic strife in Iraq. Iraqis... welcome an American liberation force. Other countries — even France! — ... see the light and help out after the war is over."
Calpundit: Wishful Thinking: WISHFUL THINKING....As I was Googling links for the post below, I came across this Eric Schmitt article for the New York Times from last February. In retrospect, it is nothing less than mind boggling, and a salutary reminder of what the administration was really telling us nine months ago. Here are some excerpts:
Mr. Wolfowitz...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.
....."The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far off the mark," Mr. Rumsfeld said....A spokesman for General Shinseki, Col. Joe Curtin, said today that the general stood by his estimate.
....In his testimony, Mr. Wolfowitz ticked off several reasons why he believed a much smaller coalition peacekeeping force than General Shinseki envisioned would be sufficient to police and rebuild postwar Iraq. He said there was no history of ethnic strife in Iraq, as there was in Bosnia or Kosovo. He said Iraqi civilians would welcome an American-led liberation force that "stayed as long as necessary but left as soon as possible," but would oppose a long-term occupation force. And he said that nations that oppose war with Iraq would likely sign up to help rebuild it. "I would expect that even countries like France will have a strong interest in assisting Iraq in reconstruction," Mr. Wolfowitz said. He added that many Iraqi expatriates would likely return home to help.
....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....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.
100,000 troops should be enough. Occupation costs will be low. Oil exports will amount to $15 billion or more. There's no ethnic strife in Iraq. Iraqis will welcome an American liberation force. Other countries — even France! — will see the light and help out after the war is over.
Schmitt's entire story is less than a thousand words long. It hardly seems possible to pack so much wishful thinking into such a small space.
And these guys are still in charge.
Once again, where are the grownups in the Republican Party? What do the Republican senators think that they are doing, exactly?
Posted by DeLong at November 4, 2003 06:38 PM | TrackBack
If that gets you mad, read this David Corn column about the administration's lack of a coherent post-war plan:
http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=402
Despite months of planning for the conflict, the State Department set up a post-war planning only three weeks before this Senate Hearing, which was in late February.
And notice this quote:
"There are enormous uncertainties," Feith said. "The most you can do in planning is develop concepts."
Translation: Don't worry, we'll just make this up as we go along, and it will be fine.
If there was, as Bush alleges, a moral imperitive to this war, then the manner in which he has conducted it makes his actions all the more immoral.
Posted by: Alex Parker on November 4, 2003 08:04 PM>> What do the Republican senators think that they are doing, exactly?
Ummm ... pitching woo at Zell Miller?
Posted by: Greg Greene on November 4, 2003 08:27 PMwhat are the Republicans doing? a couple little things, I'm afraid: sucking in donations, and spending it to win elections.
pure public financing of campaigns would be nice, but having an electorate that could see through the spin would be even nicer.
no wonder the GOP doesn't like funding education.
According to an article in the current NY Times Magazine, here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/02/magazine/02IRAQ.html?pagewanted=3
the State Department set up a planning group in spring 2002. It seems to have done valuable work, although it lacked the resources to do detailed plans and, of course, couldn't assign troops to missions.
However, the Pentagon ignored it because it came from State, which was the enemy as far as they were concerned.
As our host keeps asking, is this how adults act?
>>What do the Republican senators think that they are doing, exactly>>
Playing out power fantasies and rewarding contributors and cronies.
In 1968, after the Tet Offensive, Johnson turned to the "Wise Men" (Acheson, McCloy, et. al.) to tell him that we had to disengage. Are there "Wise Men" in the Republican Party today? I doubt it.
Posted by: BobNJ on November 5, 2003 05:15 AMRepublicans are offering constructive criticism and suggesting alternatives the administration might follow. Senator Lugar is not going to openly criticize Mr. Bush in public, but he is going to speak his mind on policy that should be happening that is not happening. A careful reading of his statements could get blistering headlines in from a partisan democratic press. For example, see the following Lugar press release:
"“There is general consensus in the international community and within the U.S. Government that the critical task at hand is to establish a sovereign Iraqi government as quickly as possible and to prevent Iraq from becoming a "failed state" that would fuel terrorism. To achieve this goal, we need to reach agreement on the roles and responsibilities of the international community in Iraq and on how we can more effectively organize our own efforts. The stakes for U.S. national security in Iraq remain extraordinarily high. Beyond the obvious implications for U.S. credibility, the outcome in Iraq may determine how we are perceived in the Islamic world for a generation or more. It will affect the degree of international cooperation in the war on terror. It will affect the status of our own military and the prospects for economic growth in the United States. We must succeed in Iraq, while conserving U.S. resources through efficient decision-making and international involvement.
“In previous hearings, I have expressed my view that securing greater support from the international community for the operation in Iraq is essential. International assistance is needed not only to get more personnel on the ground in Iraq, but to make available more military professionals with the right skills. American military forces have performed brilliantly, but we do not have enough personnel with "nation-building" skills -- including police and civil affairs experts - to meet the need in Iraq.
“Further, with the U.S. economy facing a rising deficit, other nations’ resources are needed to reduce the burden of Iraq reconstruction. Ambassador Bremer said on July 31, 2003, that it could take $50 to $100 billion to reconstruct Iraq. The Administration's supplemental asks for $21 billion for that purpose. Clearly, help from other donors is needed to fill the gap.
“Finally, we need other nations to be involved in Iraq to help assure the Iraqis that the results of our nation-building efforts are legitimate and that the international community is committed to a successful reconstruction of the country. The pledging conference scheduled in October will be an opportunity for all nations to exhibit leadership.”
The President today also addressed the securing weapons of mass destruction and the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program work in the former Soviet Union. Lugar participated in a conference yesterday in New York on global terrorism. At that conference Lugar said:
“The bottom line is this: for the foreseeable future, the international community will face an existential threat from the intersection of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Addressing this situation will require an unwavering commitment to organizing the world to prevent this intersection. Hopes for a peaceful world that will accommodate human progress and development rest squarely on the will of the United States and other nations to undertake this commitment. . .
“As part of the global war against terrorism, the United States and its allies must establish a worldwide system of accountability for nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. In such a system, every nation that has weapons and materials of mass destruction must account for what it has, safely secure what it has, and demonstrate that no other nation or cell will be allowed access. If a nation lacks the means to do this, the international community must provide financial and technical assistance. This process will be expensive and painstaking, but international security and prosperity hang in the balance. We must commit the resources and political will required to preserve modern society and the futures of our children and grandchildren. . .” "
Lugar is trying to be a statesman. He has had to fight his own party to get his Nunn-Lugar nuclear weapons security initiative any funding at all. He knows if he openly criticizes Mr. Bush, that they will retaliate against funding his programs however noble. When the GOP moved against Jeffords and unfunded his programs, he bolted the party. Lugar will not do that in a state that trends Republican.
There are a lot of carrots and sticks being used to silence all criticism. This is a vast change from the open dialog and criticism tolerated under Clinton, much of it from his own Democratic Party. Mr. Bush tolerates no criticism from members of his own party and that is backed with threats. Fail to support the GOP right wing agenda and find senators like Arlen Spector in a primary dogfight against a well funded conservative opponent. The GOP sourthern rednecks are willing to sacrifice some seats and rid themselves of moderates (RINOs) to advance their agenda. This is how an agenda without widespread popular support can be enacted.
Posted by: bakho on November 5, 2003 05:49 AM<sarcasm weight="heavy">
This is easy to understand. Back in February, Wolfowitz wasn't counting on America being stabbed in the back by the traitorous liberals. Iraq would be a thriving parliamentary democracy by now if it weren't for the remnants of the hard Left encouraging and emboldening their soulmates, the Ba'athist remnants, by publicly proclaiming their hatred for America. The *real* war is against the traitors here at home.
</sarcasm>
Check out these cartoons from Steve Benson at The Arizona Republic:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/benson/
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/benson/110403benson.html
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/benson/103103benson.html
Posted by: Kosh on November 5, 2003 07:05 AM
Now it's easy to see why Gen. Tommy Franks "retired" rather than serve the current court- appointed Commander-in-Chief.
True, true, true Brad. However, I'd feel a lot better if the Democratic candidates (Sen. Lieberman excluded) weren't out there demagoguing on the issue (this means you, Messrs. Edwards, Kerry and Clark). Let's count the number of adult Senators of both parties on one hand...Lieberman, Biden, Hagel, McCain, Lugar.... Anyone else?
Posted by: Dave on November 5, 2003 07:26 AMWhat are the Republicans doing? Winning elections.
That they can do this while making mistakes really ought to direct your attention to the scale of the idiocies being spouted by Democrats.
But I see it does not. Like the rest of the Democratic party these days it seems that you would rather rant than think.
Posted by: JK on November 5, 2003 09:11 AMYes, JK. Why can't the Democrats rise to the level of the Republicans? When I see the in-charge Adults of the Honor and Responsibility Party courageously leading our country with their Free Market-hone CEOness, I am overcome with shame for my fellow Democrats.
Posted by: Barry on November 5, 2003 09:27 AMThe recent 87 billion followed on the heels of an earlier 60+ billion supplemental (for the Republicans out there, that means 150+ billion has already been budgeted).
The 87 billion had to happen this year, to avoid an election year contest.
The standard plutocrat will spend half their money to protect the other half.
On an issue only distantly related...well, maybe not so distantly...who'd like a return to the draft?
http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/sss092203.html
The early guess among journalists and pundits who have taken notice is that the draft would not even be brought up till after the 2005 election.
Posted by: K Harris on November 5, 2003 12:39 PMDid I say 2005...? Sheesh.
Posted by: K Harris on November 5, 2003 01:28 PMPerhaps you were thinking of the 2005 recall election.
Posted by: joe on November 5, 2003 02:58 PMFred Kaplan over at slate has a fantastic body of articles on the war in Iraq. Real insightful stuff.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2090585/
I hate to be in the unfamiliar position of defending either Mr. Rumsfeld or Mr. Wolfowitz, but here goes. The statements they made were that the number of troops required would be closer to 100,000 than to several hundred thousand. The number of troops in Iraq IS closer to 100,000 than to even 200,000, let alone several. And despite all the anti-Bush rhetoric we occasionally grow drunk on, it's not clear that the security problems that do exist are due to a shortage of troops. It seems the administration has made mistakes in Iraq that are far bigger than a deficit of American soldiers.
Posted by: Dan Ryan on November 5, 2003 06:06 PM