-Caveat Lector-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,925253,00.html
Scorned general's tactics proved right
Profile of the army chief sidelined by Rumsfeld
Matthew Engel in Washington
Saturday March 29, 2003
The Guardian
This has been a terrible week at the Pentagon: the worst since the
building itself was attacked more than 18 months ago. But as his limo drew
up to fetch him last night, one of the most senior figures in the building
might just have permitted himself the thin smile of a vindicated man.
His name in General Eric Shinseki. And at a time when generals - whether
on active or pundit duty - are the hottest showbiz properties in the world,
hardly anyone knows who he is.
Officially, he is Tommy Franks's superior, head of the United States army, a
member of the mighty joint chiefs, and two months away from what ought
to be honoured retirement at the end of a military career stretching back
to the Vietnam war.
But for the past two years Gen Shinseki has been in total eclipse after
what appears to have been the most spectacular bust-up with his civilian
bosses, in particular Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary.
Hardly any of this the reached public domain until last month when Gen
Shinseki told a congressional committee that he thought an occupying
force in the hundreds of thousands would be required to police postwar
Iraq. Mr Rumsfeld publicly repudiated him, saying he was "far off the mark".
In semi-private, the Pentagon's civilian leadership was far more scathing. A
"senior administration official" told the Village Voice newspaper that Gen
Shinseki's remark was "bullshit from a Clintonite enamoured of using the
army for peacekeeping and not winning wars".
Then the general said it again. "It could be as high as several hundred
thousand," he told another committee. "We all hope it is something less."
Most of the media were too distracted by the build-up to war to notice.
Serious analysts, however, were staggered by the insubordination.
This appears to have been round two of another, more immediately
relevant, dispute about how many troops are needed to win this war. In
this case, the military prevailed over the original civilian notion that fewer
than 100,000 could do it. As even more soldiers rush to the Gulf to bring
the number closer to 300,000, the original Rumsfeld plan looks in hindsight
to be what the army said at the time: a recipe for possible catastrophe.
The full reality on the ground may not become known until Saddam
Hussein has fallen, but no one can now seriously believe - as many top
Pentagon civilians appear to have done a week ago - that the main problem
for an occupying force will be what to do with all the floral gifts.
The origins of the Shinseki-Rumsfeld war long predate any mention of Iraq.
There are many ironies to it, but the most bitter seems to be that the
general has found himself characterised as an obstacle to progress. This is
improbable on the most personal level. He is a Japanese-American (as is his
wife), born in Hawaii in 1942 when his parents were officially enemy aliens.
He was inspired to join the army by the example of uncles who fought for
the US then and eradicated the perception that they might be traitors. In
Vietnam, "Ric" Shinseki was terribly injured twice - losing a foot the second
time - yet he persisted in the army.
He came into office in June 1999 with a clear vision for "transformation"
and talked passionately about the army's need to adjust from thinking
about traditional enemies to what he called "complicators", including both
terrorists and the then little-known phrase "weapons of mass destruction".
Gen Shinseki might thus have relished the arrival of a Republican team
equally committed to change.
Unfortunately, the two sides had very different ideas about what the
words meant. The general wanted a new kind of army, one that could
combine the adaptability of light infantry and the power of heavily
mechanised forces. His new bosses had other ideas. "They had pre-
decided what transformation meant," said one Pentagon source. "It meant
more from space, more from air and it didn't involve the army much. That
was the essence of the conflict."
This erupted over the Crusader mobile artillery system, which Mr Rumsfeld
has scrapped. Gen Shinseki told Congress a year ago it would have saved
lives during Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan. By then he had already
been turned into a lame duck ("castrated", according to the same
Pentagon source) by the apparently unprecedented Rumsfeld decision to
announce his successor 18 months in advance.
He seems to have been caught in a classic bind: distrusted by his
subordinates for being too radical and by his bosses for being too
conservative.
On Japanese-American chatlines, he is characterised as a victim of racism.
Certainly in that community he is an authentic hero: "One of the most
gracious, soft-spoken, low-key individuals you could meet with four stars
on his shoulder," according to Kristine Manami of the Japanese-American
Citizens' League.
Put it all together: a nice man, a wounded veteran - and maybe right when
it mattered. Despite the allegations, his politics are unknown. But if he is a
Democrat and chooses to go after one of Hawaii's Senate seats, he might
have a platform for some very tasty revenge indeed.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
Forwarded for your information. The text and intent of the article
have to stand on their own merits.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do
not believe simply because it has been handed down for many genera-
tions. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and
rumoured by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is
written in Holy Scriptures. Do not believe in anything merely on
the authority of teachers, elders or wise men. Believe only after
careful observation and analysis, when you find that it agrees with
reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all.
Then accept it and live up to it." The Buddha on Belief,
from the Kalama Sutra
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
