Lawlessness in Iraq--A Catastrophic Success for Secretary Rumsfeld?

[gottaB]

Is the anarchic condition of Iraq the result of careful planning by Secretary Rumsfeld, or does it rather reflect incompetence?

Why would the Secretary of Defense want to maintain a prevailing lawlessness? To provide the optimal operational environment for paramilitary and special ops forces to engage bad guys on Rumsfeld's terms, namely rape, torture, extortion and murder.

This question isn't about any wider conspiracies, such as plans to steal oil, line pockets, or usurp legitimate democratic governments. It's just about the matter of the chaos in Iraq, whether the kind of lawlessness that has prevailed there was intended by the neocons in the Pentagon, in particular Secretary Rumsfeld.

[gottaB]

1. kick

:kick:

[KoKo]

2. If they raided his home...who knows what they might find. He may have

some dark secrets in his reading and viewing material.

[HFishbine]

3. Ooops

I voted "No. It's mere incompetence, not rising to the level of criminal conduct," but I didn't notice the "not." I'd say it's "incompetence, RISING to the level of criminal conduct."

[gottaB]

4. prolixity once again exacts its toll

So you meant like "sort of"? Negligence. Non-feasance. Deriliction of duty. That sort of thing.

[HFishbine]

5. Exactly (I think)

I don't know "prolixity." But yes, criminal negligence.

[gottaB]

6. Prolixity--The quality or state of being prolix

Prolix means "tediously prolonged," "tending to speak or write at excessive length," or just "wordy," according to American Heritage, which is kind of modern and for true votaries of the lexicographic arts hardly worth mentioning, definitely lightweight, you know, but that's the gist of it--although, take a look at this definition from Websters, (just the first of several, but ample and fitting): "Extending to a great length; unnecessarily long; minute in narration or argument; excessively particular in detail," because that's really nailing it I think, and illustratitive too, so....

Yes, no, kind of--that's all I needed to ask.

[HFishbine]

7. Ahhh

Kind of like your explaination. ;)

[gottaB]

8. Okay, who voted Gosh, No?

Wolfowitz? Is that you?

;-)

[progdonkey]

9. anarchy is freedom

Remember when Rumsfeld excused the widespread looting and vandalism after Saddam's removal with, "Well, that's the sort of thing you get in a free society"? It's the same bullshit as, "The high level of American casualties proves we're being successful, because it shows the enemy is getting desperate." God, ship these people to the Hague now!

[gottaB]

11. oh, the Henny Penny Outburst--I know it well

Whence the phrase "catastrophic success"

Q: Given how predictable the lack of law and order was, as you said, from past conflicts, was there part of General Franks' plan to deal with it? And --

Rumsfeld: Of course.

Q: Well, what is it?

Rumsfeld: This is fascinating. This is just fascinating. From the very beginning, we were convinced that we would succeed, and that means that that regime would end. And we were convinced that as we went from the end of that regime to something other than that regime, there would be a period of transition. And, you cannot do everything instantaneously; it's never been done, everything instantaneously. We did, however, recognize that there was at least a chance of catastrophic success, if you will, to reverse the phrase, that you could in a given place or places have a victory that occurred well before reasonable people might have expected it, and that we needed to be ready for that; we needed to be ready with medicine, with food, with water. And, we have been.

And, you say, "Well, what was it in the plan?" The plan is a complex set of conclusions or ideas that then have a whole series of alternative excursions that one can do, depending on what happens. And, they have been doing that as they've been going along. And, they've been doing a darn good job.

Q: Yes, but Mr. Secretary, I'm asking about what plan was there to restore law and order?

Rumsfeld: Well, let's just take a city. Take the port city, Umm Qasr -- what the plan was. Well, the British went in, they built a pipeline bringing water in from Kuwait; they cleared the mine of ports (sic); they brought ships in with food; they've been providing security. In fact, they've done such a lousy job, that the city has gone from 15,000 to 40,000. Now think of that. Why would people vote with their feet and go into this place that's so bad? The reason they're going in is because they're food, there's water, there's medicine and there's jobs. That's why. The British have done a fantastic job. They've done an excellent job.

And, does that mean you couldn't go in there and take a television camera or get a still photographer and take a picture of something that was imperfect, untidy? I could do that in any city in America. Think what's happened in our cities when we've had riots, and problems, and looting. Stuff happens! But in terms of what's going on in that country, it is a fundamental misunderstanding to see those images over, and over, and over again of some boy walking out with a vase and say, "Oh, my goodness, you didn't have a plan." That's nonsense. They know what they're doing, and they're doing a terrific job. Andm it's untidy, and freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things. They're also free to live their lives and do wonderful things, and that's what's going to happen here.

psycho secretary qu'est que c'est

That whole episode is just insane to me. It made no sense to me for the longest time. Then I realized that Rumsfeld had planned to deploy death squads in Iraq to commit rape, torture, extortion and murder. I put the pieces together, and it seems like

[gottaB]

13. it seems like.....

like I lost my train of thought. Probably I was pushing for choice #1. I don't know. Past uncertainties are so....uncertain.

[Canuckistanian]

10. Sheer oblibviousness

Coupled with a superiority complex that makes Napoleon seem shy and retiring.

[gottaB]

12. Blind into Baghdad

Just discovered the Fallows essay, Blind Into Baghdad. That seems to be his conclusion, but I'm more cynical. It's much more economical at this point to say that Rumsfeld, being an intelligent man, and one who planned the invasion of Iraq for years, he must have intended to create a sort of labratory or experimental theatre for SAP/PMC death squads.

And then there's Afghanistan.