David M. McKenzie – 1/13/05

This page was last updated on January 13, 2005.

White House ignored warnings; David M. McKenzie; Beaver County Times; January 13, 2005.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“I had to research the Humvee before I sent this in.

“As of Dec. 10, 2004, there were 19,400 Humvees in Iraq. These are the ‘up-armored’ type shipped from the manufacturer fully armored.

“An additional 9,000-plus Humvees have been upgraded onsite with the armor kits. These do not have floor or roof armor.”

[RWC] According to a story in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Mr. McKenzie’s research is a little off. Mr. McKenzie indicates there are 28,400 armored Humvees in Iraq. The PI article indicates there were a total of 19,400 Humvees in Iraq as of early December 2004, 15,000 of which were armored.

“In the fall of 2003, only 15 ‘up-armored’ a month were being built. New ‘up-armored’ production reached 220 units a month by February 2004. The production of 450 units a month is a relatively new development.”

[RWC] According the manufacturers, armored production exceeded 400/month in August 2004 and reached 450/month in September. On average for 2004, production was over 330/month.

According to the Army, Humvees were never intended to be armored vehicles. Prior to Iraq, the relatively small number of armored Humvees was targeted for the military police.

“This administration believed the Iraq war would be a three-month cakewalk. When the Iraqi Protocol called for a minimum of 250,000 troops to complete the Iraq task, this administration sent approximately 130,000 troops.”

[RWC] Where is proof that “This administration believed the Iraq war would be a three-month cakewalk?” I heard no one make this claim.

What is the “Iraqi Protocol?” I performed a Google search on this term and received no relevant hits.

Regarding 250,000 troops, where were they supposed to come from? Maintaining 130,000 to 150,000 troops in Iraq is straining our active duty and Guard/Reserve manpower.

“The Army War College submitted a synopsis to the administration 12 months before the invasion.

“It outlined the probabilities of insurgent and Iraqi hostilities and the citizenship backing thereof. It even pinpointed the time line for the escalation of hostilities.”

[RWC] Again Mr. McKenzie’s research appears to be off. I searched the Army War College web site and found only two papers similar to what Mr. McKenzie described. One was published in January 2003 (Reconstructing Iraq: Challenges and Missions for Military Forces in a Post-Conflict Scenario) and the other in February 2003 (Reconstructing Iraq: Insights, Challenges, and Missions for Military Forces in a Post-Conflict Scenario). Unless the paper to which Mr. McKenzie was not published on the AWC web site, his claim that the AWC “submitted a synopsis to the administration 12 months before the invasion” would appear to be grossly inaccurate.

Mr. McKenzie would have us believe the AWC provided the equivalent of a “crystal ball” regarding the Iraq occupation. That’s not correct. In the papers I mentioned above, I saw no “time line for the escalation of hostilities.” It’s interesting to note the papers contradicted the “250,000 troops” claim made above, indicating an occupation force of bout 100,000 would be required based on studies of past U.S. military occupations.

“Make no mistake, the problems encountered in Iraq were expected, understood and planned for. This administration simply refused to listen or read about what was to be expected. It just pretended that it would go easily, and then feigned ignorance when it came to happen just as those who plan this stuff for a living expected.”

[RWC] This is partisan and mean-spirited BS.

“It’s sad that more than 100,000 people have died because this president is in a position to make purposely uninformed decisions. It’s almost as sad that he isn’t held to the level of expectations which would be heaped on an intellectual president. It can never be OK to do the wrong thing for the right reason.”

[RWC] From where did Mr. McKenzie get his “100,000 people died” claim? Other than partisanship, what leads Mr. McKenzie to believe President Bush made “purposely uninformed decisions?” Remember, Congress had access to the same information as President Bush and it passed the Iraq War Resolution.

When he writes, “It’s almost as sad that he isn’t held to the level of expectations which would be heaped on an intellectual president, ” once again we have a Bush basher claiming President Bush is stupid.