Rumsfeld sets record straight on Iraqi troop request

NY Post:

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld yesterday staunchly defended his preparations for the Iraq war, saying his commanders were "unanimous" in agreeing enough troops were being sent to topple Saddam Hussein.

He said the Pentagon was ready to use a force of 400,000 troops, but Gen. Tommy Franks, the U.S. Central Command chief who led the 2003 invasion, said that was unnecessary.

"We were prepared to go up to over 400,000," Rumsfeld told The Post's editorial board. "General Franks . . . decided we didn't need to."

Rumsfeld has come under sharp criticism for allegedly misjudging the size of the potential Iraqi insurgency on the eve of the war.

But he said the U.S. deployment was based on "the unanimous view of the military" - except for "a few retired generals who are free to say what they want."

That appeared to be a slap at Franks' predecessor, Anthony Zinni, and his fellow retired general, Paul Eaton, who said recently that Rumsfeld should resign because of his handling of the war.

...

All you have to do is read the introduction to Tommy Frank's book American Soldier for confirmation on this point as the President asks each one of the component commanders if they have what they need to win the war. The charges stem from the neo quagmirest vision of many reporters who want to keep refighting Vietnam rather than the war on terror. They also overlook the obvious, we won the war in three weeks. What is going on now is a fight with a different enemy that adapted to the new situation in Iraq and as we adapt to his plans he keeps having to adapt to ours. If you look at the current battles in Iraq in the context of the objectives of both sides, the enemy is clearly failing to meet his and we are achieving ours.