More Evidence That Bush & His Gang Won't Listen To Any Dissent

Dash to Baghdad Left Top U.S. Generals Divided

The war was barely a week old when Gen. Tommy R. Franks threatened to fire the Army's field commander.

From the first days of the invasion in March 2003, American forces had tangled with fanatical Saddam Fedayeen paramilitary fighters. Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace, who was leading the Army's V Corps toward Baghdad, had told two reporters that his soldiers needed to delay their advance on the Iraqi capital to suppress the Fedayeen threat in the rear.

Soon after, General Franks phoned Lt. Gen. David D. McKiernan, the commander of allied land forces, to warn that he might relieve General Wallace.

The firing was averted after General McKiernan flew to meet General Franks. But the episode revealed the deep disagreements within the United States high command about the Iraqi military threat and what would be required to defeat it.

The dispute, related by military officers in interviews, had lasting consequences. The unexpected tenacity of the Fedayeen in the battles for Nasiriya, Samawa, Najaf and other towns on the road to Baghdad was an early indication that the adversary was not merely Saddam Hussein's vaunted Republican Guard.

The paramilitary Fedayeen were numerous, well-armed, dispersed throughout the country, and seemingly determined to fight to the death. But while many officers in the field assessed the Fedayeen as a dogged foe, General Franks and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld saw them as little more than speed bumps on the way to Baghdad. Three years later, Iraq has yet to be subdued. Many of the issues that have haunted the Bush administration about the war — the failure to foresee a potential insurgency and to send sufficient troops to stabilize the country after Saddam Hussein's government was toppled — were foreshadowed early in the conflict. How some of the crucial decisions were made, the behind-the-scenes debate about them and early cautions about a sustained threat have not been previously known.

This is a clear message that any message, report or concern expressed in direct contrast to the views held by the folks running the show will result in threats of discipline, retaliation or damage to a career. But the message sent by General Wallace and other field commanders would have saved time, money and LIVES! It would appear that the Bush Gang doesn't care about how much the invasion of Iraq costs, how long it takes us to stabilize that nation, or how many lives are lost or put at risk.

Secretary Rumsfeld, VP Cheney and President Bush are incompetent leaders and decision-makers. It's one thing to dismiss dissent once it is heard, but Wallace's concerns never made it to the top rung of the ladder. General Franks and Secretary Rumsfeld never let it reach the eyes and ears of the president. The president does the same type of information filtering by not informing congress and the American people about the real facts. President Bush's propensity for keeping information from the public, congress and the important decision makers has been demonstrated in the NSA issues, the way he runs the government.