Things you knew going into war are now the reason things went wrong later
If a leader fights with the troops and logistics he's given, why is he allowed to allocate blame because of his fantasy?
Oh, wait; there is some blame to be allocated:
"General Franks made a call, and he made a judgment that not only would they not be needed and it would not be appropriate, but that it would be ill advised to put that many more, quote, 'occupation forces' in," Mr. Rumsfeld said on the ABC News program "This Week."
But is that the whole story?
Mr. Rumsfeld - one of the most hands-on defense secretaries in a generation, whose concepts for modern warfare significantly shaped the military's plan for Iraq - did acknowledge in the interview that he officially endorsed General Franks's recommendations for troop levels.
And the liberators will need to provide more
to ensure democracy, or, what's wrong with these two sentences?
"They had a successful election. The Iraqi security forces are increasingly taking responsibility."
The American military force in Iraq is down from a spike in January to 150,000 before the elections, the highest level since Baghdad fell, although Mr. Rumsfeld said the number would probably increase again for the next elections this fall.
But don't worry; we don't want it to be a truly free election
He cautioned the new Iraqi government against favoritism, which he said could weaken the counterinsurgency mission.