Batiste misstates the facts on who made the war plan
In an op-ed at the Washington Post former general John Batiste continues to make his own facts about who was responsible for the war plan for liberating Iraq:
It should also be pointed out that neither Batiste or the other complaining generals have suggested we did not have enough boots on the ground in Afghanistan where we won with an even smaller force and retained a smaller force after the war despite a roughly equal population and a terrain much more hospitable to the enemy.
Since it is clear that Batiste is wrong on the facts when it comes to who was responsible for the size of the force, his arguments are based on a false premise.
...The facts are that the war plan used was that of Tommy Franks and his component commanders at Centcom that was accepted by civilian leadership. There is zero evidence that Franks or his other commanders asked for more troops and were denied. Zero. In fact there is abundant evidence to the contrary starting with General Franks, his deputy, General DeLong and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Myers who all make clear that Batiste is factully challenged.
We went to war with the wrong war plan. Senior civilian leadership chose to radically alter the results of 12 years of deliberate and continuous war planning, which was improved and approved, year after year, by previous secretaries of defense, all supported by their associated chairmen and Joint Chiefs of Staffs. Previous planning identified the need for up to three times the troop strength we committed to remove the regime in Iraq and set the conditions for peace there. Building the peace is a tough business; for a host of reasons, it requires boots on the ground.
...
It should also be pointed out that neither Batiste or the other complaining generals have suggested we did not have enough boots on the ground in Afghanistan where we won with an even smaller force and retained a smaller force after the war despite a roughly equal population and a terrain much more hospitable to the enemy.
Since it is clear that Batiste is wrong on the facts when it comes to who was responsible for the size of the force, his arguments are based on a false premise.
There is no account of any general in the command structure who requested troops and did not get them. You do not say who the senior military leaders were who wanted to send the additional troops, but whoever it was needed to convence the Centcom chain of command, and there is no evidence that they did. My comments about Afghanistan are in the context that none of these generals to my knowledge has suggested that we went in with too few troops when we liberated that country. Your suggestion about OBL's escape is speculation, not fact. I think Rifle DeLong has a better understanding of Rumsfeld's "fiddling with details, since he was the one with the most contact and he refutes Batiste on that point. I remain unconvinced by Batiste's argument.
ReplyDelete