Glenn Steimer – 10/29/04

This page was last updated on October 29, 2004.

Bush’s folly; Commentary; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; October 29, 2004.

According to the P-G, “Glenn Steimer, a lawyer, lives in Franklin Park. He served in Iraq with the 10th Special Forces Group, Airborne. This was also signed by Sidney Baker, Timothy P. O’Brien, Kenneth Benson, Thomas Berret, Charles Boyle, Dan Haller, Seyour Sikov, John Stephens and George Schmidt.”

Below is a detailed critique of the subject column.

“I am a veteran of the current Iraq war. I and the other signers of this piece are military veterans of various political persuasions who have decided to support John Kerry for president because of the disastrous policies of the Bush administration regarding Iraq.

“Because the war in Iraq and the war against terrorism are crucial to this nation’s survival, it is proper for the handling of the war in Iraq to be a deciding issue in this election. We recognize that many of our fellow citizens are still undecided about the presidential race; others have decided to support the incumbent. We ask both groups to ponder how we find ourselves in the present state of affairs in Iraq after President Bush many months ago triumphantly declared, ‘Mission Accomplished.’ To answer that question, we should consider whether the administration has satisfactorily answered just a few of the questions that have been raised about how we decided to go to war in Iraq and how we planned to win it.”

[RWC] President Bush didn’t say “mission accomplished.” This was on a banner on the USS Abraham Lincoln. Gen. Tommy Franks – the military leader of the actions in Afghanistan and Iraq – suggested the banner to signify the end of the invasion phase of the Iraq War and to pay tribute to those who participated.

Here is an excerpt from President Bush’s speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln.

“We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We’re bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We’re pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We’ve begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We’re helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people.

“The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq.”

· “Why did the administration ignore the advice of seasoned veterans like Brent Scowcroft, the former Air Force general who served as the first President Bush’s national security adviser, that we concentrate on crushing al-Qaida in Afghanistan and avoid the distraction of Iraq?

[RWC] What evidence is there that President Bush ignored this advice? Listening to and rejecting advice is not the same as ignoring it. Face it, you can’t accept everyone’s advice on a topic unless everyone takes the same position.

It’s also important to remember the war on terror is not simply a war on al-Qaida; it’s a war on all terrorists. For the record, Gen. Tommy Franks (ret) – former commander of forces in Afghanistan and Iraq – says President Bush gave him everything he wanted in Afghanistan. I believe the fact that Afghanistan successfully executed its first election in history – less than three years after we brought down the Taliban –supports that position.

· “Why did the administration ignore the warnings of the senior President Bush and Colin Powell about the serious dangers of attempting to occupy Iraq?

[RWC] Same response as above. FYI, the comments to which Mr. Steimer refers were made about post-war Iraq in 1991 when the situation was completely different. Regardless, every military operation is dangerous.

· “Why, despite the warnings of Gen. Eric Shinseki, did we find ourselves with insufficient numbers of troops to secure arms dumps, protect public buildings and seal Iraq’s borders? (Only recently has it been acknowledged that there were not sufficient troops made available to the commanders in Iraq.)”

[RWC] Same response as above.

Regarding the “Only recently has it been acknowledged …” comment, I assume Mr. Steimer is referring to recent comments made by Paul Bremer, administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq from May 2003 until Iraq’s sovereignty in June 2004. Here are Bremer’s detailed comments on the subject.

“In recent days, attention has been focused on some remarks I’ve made about Iraq. The coverage of these remarks has elicited far more heat than light, so I believe it’s important to put my remarks in the correct context.

In my speeches, I have said that the United States paid a price for not stopping the looting in Iraq in the immediate aftermath of major combat operations and that we did not have enough troops on the ground to accomplish that task. The press and critics of the war have seized on these remarks in an effort to undermine President George W. Bush’s Iraq policy.

This effort won’t succeed. Let me explain why.

It’s no secret that during my time in Iraq I had tactical disagreements with others, including military commanders on the ground. Such disagreements among individuals of good will happen all the time, particularly in war and postwar situations.

I believe it would have been helpful to have had more troops early on to stop the looting that did so much damage to Iraq’s already decrepit infrastructure. The military commanders believed we had enough American troops in Iraq and that having a larger American military presence would have been counterproductive because it would have alienated Iraqis. That was a reasonable point of view, and it may have been right. The truth is that we’ll never know.”

· “Why was there virtually no planning for the pacification of Iraq after the invasion?”

[RWC] Where is the proof for this allegation? The fact is, the progress made in Iraq in such a short period of time is evidence there was a plan.

· “Why did President Bush and Pentagon war planners fail to consult experienced Republicans like Sens. Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel of the Foreign Relations Committee?”

[RWC] Why should the Pentagon consult these senators? There is nothing in their biographies to suggest they have experience or expertise in war planning. The only reason Mr. Steimer mentioned their names is because Sens. Hagel and Lugar recently criticized President Bush’s handling of Iraq.

· “Finally, why was it assumed that the Iraqi citizens would welcome American and coalition forces, and why was it assumed that our troops in Iraq would not become targets for terrorists and extremists throughout the region?”

[RWC] A nice myth is that we expected every single Iraqi to greet us with “flowers and kisses.” In fact, most Iraqis are glad we got rid of Hussein. That said, everyone knew there would be Saddam loyalists. To be honest, I don’t know how many people expected Iraq to attract foreign terrorists in addition to the terrorists that called Iraq home. Personally, I believe the influx of foreign terrorists is a positive development. Don’t get me wrong, I recognize this development puts our soldiers at more risk. Even so, I believe it’s better for the United States to have terrorists focused on and dying in Iraq instead of executing attacks on U.S. soil.

“The list of questions could go on but the point is clear: The administration cannot satisfactorily answer these questions because, in its determination to pursue its own objectives, it proceeded on its own without seeking advice from others with greater military and foreign policy experience. In the process, the administration abandoned our time-tested, pragmatic multilateral foreign policy. Instead, the Bush administration has opted for a go-it-alone policy based on the flawed thinking of radical ideologues like Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz who have consistently disparaged those who sought to question their decisions or challenge their assumptions.”

[RWC] The anti-Bush crowd likes to accuse the Bush administration of arrogance, yet that is a trait displayed by this piece. Is it not arrogant to claim that only people who agree with your position have “greater military and foreign policy experience?” On nearly every major issue, I’m sure President Bush receives diametrically opposed advice.

“Go-it-alone policy?” What about Australia, England, Italy, Poland, and the other 40+ countries participating in the coalition? Does anyone want to bet that if France and Germany were in the coalition Mr. Steimer would still claim we’re going it alone? Remember, even with a similar-sized coalition plus the support of the United Nations, John Kerry opposed Operation Desert Storm in 1991 to remove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait after his 1990 invasion.

“As present and former members of the military, my colleagues and I have been affected by policy decisions made by political leaders who are unwilling or unable to consider the sound advice of seasoned experts. We find that now this country has, once again, been placed in a divisive military engagement that was not justified by the situation or the evidence, not properly planned, and which will create economic hardship for years to come the people we seek to help as well as the American people themselves.”

[RWC] This paragraph merely repeats the “Bush didn’t listen” mantra plus throws in a Vietnam comparison without mentioning Vietnam.

“President Bush and his administration have pursued the short-sighted policies that have led to these disastrous results. He shows no signs of recognizing his mistakes or changing course. We believe that the danger to our country has significantly increased as a result of President Bush’s failed polices. Four more years of his administration will only bring more of the same. Simply put, the present administration has forfeited its right to govern.”

[RWC] You have to admire the anti-Bush crowd’s dogged effort to get an “I was wrong” sound bite from President Bush. It’s a no win situation for President Bush. If President Bush admitted mistakes, folks like Mr. Steimer would bash him. When he refuses to provide the sound bite, liberals bash President Bush for not recognizing he made mistakes. It’s a variation of the classic question, “When did you stop beating your wife?”