Boston Globe March 31, 2003
Top aides deny word of Pentagon rift
By Bryan Bender
Amid apparent strains at the Pentagon between senior uniformed officers and civilian leaders, the Bush administration and the president's top military adviser yesterday deflected charges that the recommendations of field commanders and top brass for a larger fighting force in Iraq had been overruled by their political bosses before the war.
Military officials and retired generals have criticized Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld for ''micromanaging'' war planning for Iraq, blaming undue Pentagon influence for an initial US ground force that was too small and posed greater risks for a prolonged and bloody conflict.
Rumsfeld and General Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, insisted yesterday that the war plan was crafted by US Central Command and was supported by all levels of the administration and the military, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff, National Security Council, and President Bush. They stressed that battle commanders ultimately received all the fighting forces and support personnel -- 250,000 and growing by the day -- that they asked for.
''If there's more force flowing, it had always been planned to flow,'' Myers said, referring to the more than 100,000 additional troops the Pentagon is sending to the region. ''We think we have adequate forces to do the job.''
Potential friction in the current civilian-military relationship, reminiscent of the passionate debates over the conduct of the Vietnam War, are not new in the Bush administration.
They date back to 2001, when grumbling among military officers fueled speculation that Rumsfeld's heavy-handed leadership style, which they claimed limited their participation in key decisions, might prematurely end his tenure.
Asked on Fox News Sunday if he had denied military officials an opportunity to air their views and was too involved in the military planning, Rumsfeld said, ''I think you'll find that if you ask anyone who has been involved in the process from the Central Command that every single thing they've requested has in fact happened.''
''The people who are talking about it really are people who haven't seen it,'' he added.
Myers, the top military adviser to Bush, also disputed recent criticism from former Gulf War commanders such as General Buster Glosson and General Barry McAffrey that insufficient force had been dedicated to the task. Such critics have derided what they consider Rumsfeld's preference for a relatively small, but flexible and highly precise, air-ground campaign, saying a more traditional military buildup would be more appropriate.
Denying that Rumsfeld was responsible for the war plan, Myers said on NBC's ''Meet the Press'': ''This is a war plan that was devised by General [Tommy R.] Franks and his component commanders.''
The second-guessing of some of the generals -- fueled by candid comments last week from Army ground commander General William Wallace that guerrilla resistance in Iraq has been stronger than anticipated -- should be expected, according to John Pike of GlobalSecurity.org, a defense think tank in Arlington, Va.
''There is unavoidably an element of professional military planners thinking that war is too important to be left to politicians,'' Pike said. ''This is the beginning of it. People are still fighting Gettysburg.''
Complaints about Rumsfeld in the military ranks emerged early in the administration during his big push to change the status quo on purchasing weapons. Such dissent was largely muted as the global war on terrorism began, and the former CEO and two-time Pentagon chief enjoyed extraordinary public support.
But military officials were wary of Rumsfeld's vision for the war with Iraq before it began. Earlier this year, Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki told a congressional panel that postwar Iraq would require hundreds of thousands of US troops for an extended period -- an analysis Rumsfeld quickly called ''far off the mark.''
The questioning of early Pentagon war planning by some critics and independent observers might not be far off the mark.
Rumsfeld spoke in more conventional battle terms yesterday, a marked difference from previous predictions of a relatively short conflict brought by a''shock and awe'' campaign.
''Forces are closing in from three directions,'' Rumsfeld said.''Their command and control is degraded. They've lost control of the air. Their navy doesn't exist.''
Copyright © 2003, Globe Newspaper Company
