Rumsfeld calls Iraqi resistance "a surprise"

[Stephanie]

Rumsfeld says Iraq hostility has been a surprise
But defense chief defends decision to go to war
MSNBC
Updated: 12:42 p.m. ET April 30, 2004WASHINGTON - The United States was not prepared for the extent of hostility against U.S.-led coalition forces in Iraq, in part because prewar intelligence was "all over the lot" on what to expect after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said in an hour-long interview on MSNBC's "Hardball" Thursday night.

advertisement

Yet, despite the bloodiest month in terms of U.S. casualties since the war began, Rumsfeld said he had no regrets about ousting Saddam.

"If you are a historian, you know that throughout the history of our country, there have always been things that need to be done where lives are put at risk," Rumsfeld said. "And this country wouldn’t be here if people hadn’t been willing to put their lives at risk."

American military deaths on Friday raised to 128 the number of U.S. troops killed in combat in April. At least 738 U.S. troops have died in Iraq since the war began in March 2003. Up to 1,200 Iraqis also have been killed this month.

A year ago Saturday, under a banner that read "Mission Accomplished," President Bush had declared an end to "major combat" in Iraq. And Rumsfeld admitted his surprise about the extent of the subsequent Iraqi resistance.

"I guess if you asked me a year ago, I would have expected that the word 'occupation' and the negative aspects of that would not have been assigned to us to the extent it has been," Rumsfeld said.

Intelligence woes
Asked by MSNBC's Chris Matthews whether the Pentagon thought it would be able to quickly install a new government after Saddam's fall, Rumsfeld said that he, for one, did not believe that and that the intelligence was unclear.

"Intelligence was all over the lot on that, and our intelligence people had a great many contacts, both with Sunni and Shia. And the information was mixed," Rumsfeld said. "And it turns out, after the fact, that it was not perfect. As you know, most intelligence is not perfect."

Rumsfeld also denied reports that members of the Defense Department had fed the White House different intelligence — highlighting Saddam's weapons program and claiming links between Baghdad and al-Qaida — than what the Central Intelligence Agency had produced.

"They were not developing intelligence. They were not creating intelligence. They were reviewing intelligence that had been established by other people."

Sunni-Shiite rivalry
Rumsfeld told "Hardball" that there has been a higher "level of resistance than I thought (before the war). Absolutely."

However, he also said that before the U.S. invasion he knew of "35 different things that could go wrong" with the occupation.

"And no question, [Bush] worried through all of those issues in a very thoughtful and probing way," Rumsfeld said.

The defense secretary blamed much of the anti-U.S. resistance on the Sunni-Shiite split in Iraq, saying that concerns they were being excluded in the plans for the interim Iraq government led to fierce resistance to U.S. forces in some Sunni areas, especially in the "Sunni triangle," north and west of Baghdad.

Sunnis had dominated Saddam's government even though Shiites make up a majority of Iraq's population.



Fallujah standoff
The Sunni hostility to the United States has coalesced around the city of Fallujah, where U.S. forces are engaged in a bloody standoff with insurgents.

Rumsfeld declined to offer his formula to resolve the three-week crisis, saying it was a decision for commanders on the ground.

"Well, there’s no question that, for success in Iraq, you can’t have a city taken over by a bunch of terrorists and the former regime elements and have that persist over a sustained period of time," Rumsfeld said. FREE VIDEO


• Did Rumsfeld advise the president to go to war?
April 29: 'He did not ask me,' says Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
MSNBC





"The Marines on the ground are the ones that are making those judgments," Rumsfeld said. "And that’s why they calculated that it’s in our interests to do it the way they’re doing it and to have these discussions with the Sunni tribal leaders."

Marines went into Fallujah to find those responsible for the March 31 killing and mutilation of four American contract workers, whose bodies were burned and dragged through the streets.

However, the United States has been under intense pressure from the United Nations, its international partners and its Iraqi allies to end the bloodshed, in which hundreds of Iraqi civilians are believed to have died.

FULL TRANSCRIPT
Rumsfeld's interview on 'Hardball'





Backing Bremer
Rumsfeld defended the oft-criticized decision by U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer to disband the Iraqi army last year, saying the bulk of the army had already "disappeared. It was gone."

"So I think there’s kind of a myth — the facts — certain things, myths arise and people then repeat them over and over and over again, even though they’re inaccurate," Rumsfeld said.

Asked whether Bush had directly asked Rumsfeld whether the United States should go to war with Iraq, the defense chief said the president didn't need to ask because he knew Rumsfeld's position that ousting Saddam was in the interests of U.S. national security.

"He clearly asked us, 'Could we win?' I said, obviously, that the military are sure that they can prevail in that conflict, in terms of the changing of regime," Rumsfeld told Matthews. "... But his point was, [Bush] said, 'I knew where Rumsfeld was.' So he didn’t need it."


The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Um, this man REALLY scares me - he needs to get his head out of his @@@ and/or he's delusional. To me, he has/had no clue as to what this war would entail. There were alot of people in the beginning saying that they would need more soldiers, etc.

[sunnyday]

A surprise? Is this a joke? This is plain scary!!!!!

[Aslkahuna]

there were certainly enough of us "non-experts" floating around the Weather Boards who forsaw this last year. If Rumsfeld was that stupid as to be surprised by all this maybe he needs to resign so that we can get someone into DOD who knows what the (bleep) they are doing.

Steve

[sunnyday]

Stephanie,
I hope you are doing well. I have a question. Why isn't anyone on the board from the Republican point of view commenting on this?

[Rainband]

I can't believe he said that I saw this coming and hoped I was wrong. He is right about fighting for what we belive in but the cost so far is very high and it seems like unless we get our heads out of our @@@es and start doing something different it's only going to get higher. They need to do something and do it fast!!!!!!! Oh one more thing. Yes we have lost alot more troops in other wars but last time I checked we declared major combat operations over... whats wrong with this picture.

[rainstorm]

i will comment. war never goes as you anticipate. a few examples.
the german ardennes offensive in 1944. should eisenhower have been fired for not seeing it coming?
dieppe 1942, should churchill have resigned?
i could name 10000 examples. the fact is, a war plan is never perfect

[Rainband]

i will comment. war never goes as you anticipate. a few examples.
the german ardennes offensive in 1944. should eisenhower have been fired for not seeing it coming?
dieppe 1942, should churchill have resigned?
i could name 10000 examples. the fact is, a war plan is never perfect

That would be fine and dandy IF we had a declaration of war BTW I never said Bush should resign Something needs to be done. No more Mr nice guy. The US needs to start getting these SOBS anyway we can.

[Stephanie]

I agree Helen - but IMHO, and I know I've said it before that the plan was way to simplistic and ideological from the beginning.

I think that our Commander in Chief needs to seriously question Rumsfeld's competence and perhaps get someone in there that is alittle more realistic about the war.

[Guest]

Stephanie,
I hope you are doing well. I have a question. Why isn't anyone on the board from the Republican point of view commenting on this?

I've seen no comment to this as well:

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040503/D82B06C00.html

[Rainband]

"Now the 30-year-old is in the al-Mahdi Army, a militia fighting on behalf of an anti-American Shiite Muslim cleric."

And I suppose when they stripped and burned and beat those Innocent american civilians in the SUV and dragged their bodies through the street..that was ok. Give me a break. These soldiers are under a great amount of mental stress and the treatment of these muderous terrorists cowards is better than it should be in my opinion At least we don't burn their bodies and hang them from a bridge You try seeing your friends killed everday and see how you react. Give me a break

[Guest]

That's not the question. the question is: we are supposed to give them the democracy. to show them how better we are, how we put human rights on top, how different we are. But are we different? Is this the way we react to the barbarians? Just adding more barbarians?

"I hated Saddam so much that when the Americans came, I viewed them as liberators. I was happy and supported them. But soon it became clear that they are no liberators but occupiers," he said. "I had seen how oppressed people were under Saddam and I refused to give in to oppression and injustice. We must fight oppression."

[j]

his only mistake was not using "this level of resistance" in making his remarks, but any sensible person knows this extremely experienced man is not that blind.

Is this the best the Liberals can come up with??

[Rainband]

That's not the question. the question is: we are supposed to give them the democracy. to show them how better we are, how we put human rights on top, how different we are. But are we different? Is this the way we react to the barbarians? Just adding more barbarians?

"I hated Saddam so much that when the Americans came, I viewed them as liberators. I was happy and supported them. But soon it became clear that they are no liberators but occupiers," he said. "I had seen how oppressed people were under Saddam and I refused to give in to oppression and injustice. We must fight oppression."

This man was no victim. As soon as he was caught he claimed to be. From the beginning he was a terrorist and still is. Like I said the majority of our troops don't treat them this way. They are only human and there is always two sides to a story. Yes we are there to liberate Iraq and we did take out Saddam. Unfortunately there are those that hate the United States and will do anything to keep the terrorists in power. To call us Barbarians in hilarious. We have always come to the rescue of countries in need and hopefully most are grateful. I think you'd be singing a different tune if you weren't sitting on the sidelines and pointing fingers. Before you pass judgement on those troops put yourself in their place.

[vbhoutex]

Before you pass judgement on those troops put yourself in their place.

AMEN!!! ENOUGH SAID!!!

I hate war and what it represents no matter where it is or what it is about, but what Rainband said above says VOLUMES!!!!

[Guest]

Before you pass judgement on those troops put yourself in their place.

I put myself in both places, that's why I'm so critic. That's not the way to manage a postwar period, that's not the way to have the population on our side. What are we doing then? Giving power back to Saddam's generals. Well done!

[Rainband]

I put myself in both places, that's why I'm so critic. That's not the way to manage a postwar period, that's not the way to have the population on our side. What are we doing then? Giving power back to Saddam's generals. Well done!

Make up your mind . Are we occupying or giving back power. BTW the people taking over power aren't fomer saddam loyalists. Your posts are so hypocritical. It's seems to me, you hate America and all we stand for. If it wasn't for us you would still be under Benito Mussolinis rule. My view is we should stop helping ungrateful foreigners and let you all fend for yourself.

[j]

Bravo Jonathan!.....

[Rainband]

Bravo Jonathan!.....

Thanks "j". I am just sick and tired of "people" insulting our country and our right to maintain our liberty and safety. Yes..maybe some soldiers did act wrong by "embarrassing" these prisoners. I say again...we didn't burn them, drag them through the streets and hang their dead bodies from a bridge. They are lucky they are treated as humanely as they are. So to compare these two actions is hideously out of proportion and unjustified. Like I said the United States is always their for everyone else. I for one think that needs to change. "Your either with us or with the terrorists" That quote rings volumes of truth in my ears!!!!!! Our troops are fighting for the freedom of all free people and I just wish "people" would show a little gratitude and support..no matter what flag you fly!!

[sunnyday]

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The Bible tells us that, doesn't it? War is beyond terrible, but there is no excuse for either our soldiers or the Iraqi soldiers to commit atrocities.

[Rainband]

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The Bible tells us that, doesn't it? War is beyond terrible, but there is no excuse for either our soldiers or the Iraqi soldiers to commit atrocities.

I would hardly call what our troops did atrocities Compared to killing, burning and mutilating civilian contractors and soldiers. BTW these men aren't Iraqi soldiers they are terrorists.