The Missing Men, Part 2

Just a quick response to Andrew Sullivan's remarks in the

Daily Dish.

BELMONT'S SPIN UNRAVELS: The biggest news of the week was not the
vice-presidential debate, of course. It was the revelation that the major
criticism that many of us have made about the management of the Iraq war -
that we never had enough troops and still don't - was shared all along by none
other than L. Paul Bremer! That's a staggering concession - and one that
Cheney had no real response to last night. Wretchard of the Belmont Club blog
immediately countered by saying that what Bremer meant was that there were too
few troops merely at the very beginning of the occupation, and that Bremer's
criticism was directly related to the absence of the Fourth Infantry Division,
caused by the Turks' refusal to allow the U.S. to use their country as an
invasion point. Nice try. Bremer's full quote is as follows: "The single most
important change - the one thing that would have improved the situation -
would have been having more troops in Iraq at the beginning and throughout"
the occupation. (My italics.) Wretchard either removed the words "and
throughout," or missed them. Either way, his case collapses. Traveling
yesterday, I missed those two crucial words myself and was far too
conciliatory in myposting. Not only that but even the administration now
concedes that Bremer kept pressing for more troops. According to the NYT,
"'The reality is that Paul kept pressing the issue, because it was immediately
clear that a lot of facilities - even arms stockpiles - were unguarded,' said
one senior official who was part of that debate but insisted on anonymity."
Case closed. Wretchard claims that his only goal is the articulation of
military strategy and that I don't know what I'm talking about. The
alternative explanation is that he is a partisan Republican, spinning the
facts for political purposes. I link. You decide.

BELMONT'S SPIN UNRAVELS:  The biggest news of the week was not the vice-presidential debate, of course. It was the revelation that the major criticism that many of us have made about the management of the Iraq war - that we never had enough troops and still don't - was shared all along by none other than L. Paul Bremer! That's a staggering concession - and one that Cheney had no real response to last night.	"I believe that we currently have sufficient troop levels in Iraq," he said in an e-mailed statement." -- Paul Bremer from The Washington Post as quoted by the Belmont Club.
Wretchard of the Belmont Club blog immediately countered by saying that what Bremer meant was that there were too few troops merely at the very beginning of the occupation, and that Bremer's criticism was directly related to the absence of the Fourth Infantry Division, caused by the Turks' refusal to allow the U.S. to use their country as an invasion point.	He said all references in recent speeches to troop levels related to the situation when he arrived in Baghdad in May 2003 -- "and when I believed we needed either more coalition troops or Iraqi security forces to address the looting." -- Paul Bremer from The Washington Post as quoted by the Belmont Club.
Nice try. Bremer's full quote is as follows: "The single most important change - the one thing that would have improved the situation - would have been having more troops in Iraq at the beginning and throughout" the occupation. (My italics.) Wretchard either removed the words "and throughout," or missed them. Either way, his case collapses. Traveling yesterday, I missed those two crucial words myself and was far too conciliatory in myposting. Not only that but even the administration now concedes that Bremer kept pressing for more troops.	Actually, the quote from the source is: "The single most important change -- the one thing that would have improved the situation -- would have been having more troops in Iraq at the beginning and throughout... Although I raised this issue a number of times with our government, I should have been even more insistent." -- DePauw University account of the Ubben Lecture which Bremer delivered Note that the words "the occupation" are inferred, but not actually part of the Bremer quotation. I have tried to get a transcript of Bremer's remarks but cannot find what was eclipsed by the ellipsis. Even in the Washington Post article "the occupation" is outside the quotation marks. Read in conjunction with the Bremer's email that "all references in recent speeches to troop levels related to the situation when he arrived in Baghdad in May 2003", one must either accept Bremer's interpretation of his own remarks or Sullivan's. Bremer further clarified what he meant at Michigan State University on October 6, 2004. Tracy Burton of the Lansing State Journal reports: During a speech Tuesday at the Wharton Center, Bremer said his earlier comments had been somewhat distorted.  "As I look back now ... I believe it would have been better to stop the looting. ... One way to do that would have been to have more troops on the ground." Bremer's refers pointedly to the looting which took place at the start of the occupation. Now it might be argued that Bremer was really referring not soley to this incident but to the whole of his tenure; that Bremer is now attempting to cover up for the Administration; that he spoke the truth once in a moment of absentminded candor and has reverted to dissimulation ever since. That he said this, but meant thus. But that is another issue.
According to the NYT, "'The reality is that Paul kept pressing the issue, because it was immediately clear that a lot of facilities - even arms stockpiles - were unguarded,' said one senior official who was part of that debate but insisted on anonymity." Case closed.	According to MSNBC "a senior Pentagon official tells NBC News that to his knowledge Bremer didn't raise the troop issue until shortly before he left Iraq last June. And at the White House Tuesday, National Security Adviser Condeleezza Rice told NBC News she can't recall whether Bremer ever raised his concerns with President Bush, but added the president gave his commanders all the troops they said they needed."
Wretchard claims that his only goal is the articulation of military strategy and that I don't know what I'm talking about. The alternative explanation is that he is a partisan Republican, spinning the facts for political purposes. I link. You decide.	There is a name for this funny kind of argument, but it is too well known to repeat here.

What is not seriously at issue is that 4ID was absent from Baghdad during the
"looting" due to the refusal of Turkey to permit passage; awaiting, among other
things, a second UN Security Council resolution. That is the one unassailable
fact, though it may be inconvenient to point it out.