The Occasional Observer

Interesting article here. Apparently U.S. war games exercise in 1999 predicted that even with 400,000 troops, current situation in Iraq was to be expected.

Paul Bremer made a similar observation recently, suggesting that more troops wouldn't help. The most important thing he thought would be to have locked down Baghdad and implemented security and stability immediately after invasion. He felt that first month would've been key to demonstrate that we really had control, and establish order.

As much as I admire the job Rumsfeld et al. did during the actual invasion, I think this is yet another piece of evidence that flies in the face of his constant assertions that "no one" could've predicted what's happening on the ground in Iraq. I am hard pressed to think he is the best suited person for the job of rebuilding Iraq. Actually, in general, I'd be surprised if the same person could simultaneously have the skills to be a brilliant war/invasion strategist and tactician and also have the broad skills required to rebuild and establish the peace. For example, invasions do not (necessarily) require consideration of details such as local customs, history, etc., all of which can play a role in a prolonged rebuilding effort.

Unlike others, however, I disagree with the calls for his resignation. I think he is perfectly suited to be Secretary of Defense. I just think that once the invasion portion ended, ownership of rebuilding should have been transfered to the State Department. In fact, this effort seems to fall exactly in line with the State Department's one-line mission statement: "Create a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community."