Friday, October 08, 2004

Eating crow

The political pressure on Bremer to "explain" his statements must have been tremendous. How else do explain such a weird OpEd in today's NY Times? Reading it was eerie. Here is the most relevant graf:

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.
Those words are quite different from

Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, administrator for the U.S.-led occupation government until the handover of political power on June 28, said he still supports the decision to intervene in Iraq but said a lack of adequate forces hampered the occupation and efforts to end the looting early on.

We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness," he said yesterday in a speech at an insurance conference in White Sulphur Springs, W.Va. "We never had enough troops on the ground."

Thank you Washington Post! This looks more like damage control from Bush-Cheney before tonight's debate than Bremer's real feelings on the subject.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home