I am getting a little tired of these mid-occupation internecine blame games about Iraq:
Rumsfeld’s War, Powell’s Occupation: Rumsfeld wanted Iraqis in on the action – right from the beginning.
he latest post-hoc conventional wisdom on Iraq is that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld won the war but lost the occupation. There are two problems with this analysis (which comes, most forcefully, from The Weekly Standard). First, it’s not Rumsfeld’s occupation; it’s Colin Powell’s and George Tenet’s. Second, although it’s painfully obvious that much is wrong with this occupation, it’s simple-minded to assume that more troops will fix it. More troops may be needed now, but more of the same will not do the job. Something different is needed – and was, right from the start.
A Rumsfeld occupation would have been different, and still might be. Rumsfeld wanted to put an Iraqi face on everything at the outset – not just on the occupation of Iraq, but on its liberation too. That would have made a world of difference.
It is not the State Department’s occupation. It is our occupation, and the blame, if things are going poorly, does not fall on Rumsfeld or Powell. It falls on Bush/Cheney, and not to get all high and mighty, but this is more important than a blue dress.
Cripes- I am as big a Bush supporter on this issue as you can be, but these idiotic turf wars that keep getting ginned up are stupid and pointless, and as irritating as the Monday morning quarterbacking being done by the Democrats regarding 9/11. Bush is the President, Bush made the ultimate decisions. If you think there is blame to be spread around, it starts and ends with Bush.
It is called accountability. You know, after all, Bush did choose Powell and Rumsfeld.